Hey famous dudes who are betas! Watch the heck out! If some comely lass wearing an I HEART Dworkin t-shirt starts whispering sweet nothings in your ear, she could be a SECRET RADFEM trying to seduce you into SJWism so she and her RadFem comrades can take advantage of your fame in order to spread evil SJW lies.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. You can take the word of a couple of random Redditors instead. In Kotaku in Action, the main Gamergate hangout on Reddit, azriel777 sadly reports that
But it is Earl_of_sandwiches who CONNECTS THE DOTS and somehow manages to work French Trotskyists and polyamory into the mix.
This conspiracy theory strikes me as being roughly as convincing as one of Ralph Wiggum’s tall tales on The Simpsons
Nonetheless, lets take a few moments to unpack some of the most egregious nonsense in Earl’s comment.
“Entryism” is a tactic pioneered by French Trotskyists in the 1930s, acting at the behest of Mr. T himself. The wily Trots joined a larger social democratic group en masse, hoping to sneakily nudge it towards Leninism. While the strategy “successfully raised the group’s membership to 300 activists,” as Wikipedia notes, the social dems figured out what was going on and started throwing the Trots out.
You may wonder what on earth this has to do with Earl’s little conspiracy fantasy. I do too, as I’m pretty sure that the notion of using sex to manipulate people predates Trotskyist “entryism” by many thousands of years.
Ok, but what about all that non-exclusive relationship stuff? Well, you know how obsessed these guys are with “cucking.” In their imaginary world, one of the prime life goals of women today — including the evil RadFems — is to have sex with as many cocky Alpha Males as possible, preferably while married to some hardworking beta schlub unaware that the children he’s raising aren’t really his own, spermwise.
Apparently, “It’s Raining Men” is the secret RadFem anthem.
Ok, but isn’t it true that Jim Sterling — the longtime Gamergate foe mentioned in the comment — actually is a big ol cuck? I mean, didn’t his wife ADMIT this????
Apparently she did in fact once say that she and her husband had an open marriage in which they both were allowed to see other people. I’m not sure why that would be relevant to anything, but the Gamergaters have assembled one of their famous infographics on the subject, complete with little arrows and stuff underlined in red.
I’ve now officially run out of evens for today, so while we’re on the subject of The Simpsons, which we were a little while ago, here’s 5 minutes of Homer getting horribly injured in every possible way and then some.
@ kat
In England “you people” can have a mildly disparaging tone (although it can be quite innocuous “You people have done a great job” etc); but it doesn’t necessarily have the racist overtones. It’s more aimed at particular individuals rather than classes of people.
Alan Partridge uses it a lot as seen here:
https://youtu.be/yUY8wFaG1FE
I’ve definitely seen “you people” in English literature as well. It’s just one of those linguistic oddities that pop up – an in itself innocuous, even meaningless, phrase, that picks up a lot of baggage through use.
Otherwise, thanks for the elucidation and discussion, everyone! I’ve certainly seen a disparity between “radical feminism” as in “feminism that is radical” – as in, addressing all aspects of society, not restricted to respectable middle-class electoral politics, and so on – and “Radical Feminism”, as in a specific movement with specific beliefs. The former, well, we’re pretty much practicing it here, talking about all sorts of social issues in a feminist context. The latter, I’m less familiar with – my knowledge of the literature kind of skipped a wave.
It’s Pride week here. I think this sign means our trams have special seating for lesbians. :p
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo188/dhag85/Mobile%20Uploads/20160607_141805_zps5krjfd99.jpg
@ IP
What is that sign actually for? Is it a Heimlich maneuver thing?
@Alan
I wasn’t joking. It actually is what I said it is.
@ IP
Oh that’s so sweet 🙂
If anyone was confused by this, you were right to be. My intention was to reference Inigo (Princess Bride), “you keep using that word…” but my brain skipped several steps along the way.
Axecalibur,
Whenever someone tries to do the “men and women should have equal abortion rights” gotcha, I trip them up by agreeing with them. Trans men should have just as much right to abortion as cis women. Abortion is not some female privilege we use to nefariously deny men reproductive rights. It’s about the bodily autonomy of a person who is pregnant. It’s about the right to not be pregnant against one’s will. Someone doesn’t have abortion rights because they’re women. They have them because they’re pregnant.
Pitshade,
Inconceivable!
@WWTH
Ooh, I love that! I’m yoinking it
Unfortunately for that particular cretin, he tripped himself up faster than I could. Like, here’s a rundown (not exact quotes, it was a year or so ago). Massive turquoise moose incoming
So this dude shows up on a vid about abortion, ranting about debtors’ prisons and corporate personhood. Complete non sequitur, right? So I’m like A)how is that related , and B)what do words mean? He comes back talking about Baby Moses Laws outta nowhere
For the unaware, Baby Moses Laws are basically the government looking the other way on child abandonment, if you drop the kid off at a hospital or whatevs. Ya know, if you’re poor or young and can’t take care of a child, the state would rather you handle the situation responsibly. “That’s misandry!”, cos of course it is, and “Only moms can take advantage of these statutes”. Barely a few minutes of research. I told him how the laws actually work, so he changes tact
“But if I gave my kid up, she’d just get it back and make me pay child support, but not vice versa.” Nope. The authorities will find you, mom or dad, to double check. Men can reclaim custody. “But child support is bad, cos it adds an added layer of tension to an already broken relationship and may end up hurting the kid in the long run.” A semi reasonable point!? I disagree, but we can have a smart conversation about this. Please, rando, do tell me more
As if! 1st and last time the wellbeing of the actual child passed this guy’s mind. Then some antifeminist bullshit about ‘equalism’. Here’s where it gets good. “Women are skanks (read: meee!). Therefore we should ban abortion to make those sloots responsible for their actions.” I can’t stop grinning. Why is he, as provider of sperm and 50% investor in this natal enterprise, not responsible for his actions? “She can get an abortion, eliminating all her responsibility. If she keeps it, I have no choice but to pay up. Unfair. Misandry!” It gets better
But what if he gets custody? That actually happens sometimes. “If women were honest,” great start, guy, “they’d just admit it’s all about getting men’s money.” Remember debtors’ prison and corporate personhood? “Women have taken over the justice system to treat men like ATMs, and, since ATMs are corporate machines… chemtrails?” It got too bizarre to follow at the end. Too much misogyny and the fun was wearing off, so I dipped. Totally worth it, tho…
He also had a thing, where he’d ‘pwn’ someone with his ‘lojik’, and he’d be all “next!” like he won something. He also signed his comments, as if his nym wasn’t right there. Oh, and 1 time he wrote Live Long And Prosper apropos of nothing… Good times
Point is, it’s way better discussing stuff here than BroTube
> Karl
Hear, hear. I am asking myself the same question. Is influence not an alpha thing only ? If those posters do not even keep homogeneity with meaning of the terms they use and which are supposed to be part of their own lingo, how do they expect people to understand what they are saying ? Not that they are really convincing anyway, but at least, they could pretend be firm on their positions.
> Radfem term. I do not know if it is funny, but it always makes me think of the Radmeds in Fallout, agains radiations. Are feminists radioactives ? Or are they a possible solution, a medecine against toxic (masculinity) radiations ? Wonder, wonder…
@ axecalibur
Wasn’t there some real cases of people dropping off their teenage kids until they put an age limit?
How is a beta influential & popular? Doesn’t that make him an alpha by default?
@ Wwaxwork
Depends on his wrist circumference.
@Alan
No idea, but my mom would always ‘threaten’ us with that kinda thing. That or sell us to the Romani. Are there even any Romani around here? It was a lark at the time, but it’s pretty racist, now I think about it… *shrugs*
Yeah, I’m amazed by their ability to redefine ‘beta’ and ‘alpha’ males anytime needed to score on the day’s goalposts. First, being an alpha male was a ‘natural’ thing: you were or you weren’t, right. Your dominance was obvious to any observer, as clear as daylight. Then some PUAs came along to explain how alpha-maling was a skill set, and you could pick it up and use it like any other, and you could fork over your money and learn.
But for that to happen, it seems they had to divorce the alpha male concept from any…solidity? Whether leadership, charisma, connections, money, etc. It would seem obvious that an alpha male is able to use his natural advantage to accumulate a capital that proves his natural advantage, as circular as that. An alpha male, in theory, brings something to the table. You want to be on board with him.
The problem is, this capital looks different all the time because we value different things all the time. A man who is powerful in his field, through money, or being an incredible musician, or being the country’s leader, so on, does not necessarily have to carry himself in a way PUAs associate with alpha males, and sell as alpha male.
So we end up with this weird disconnect where a man who is a tastemaker and luminary in his field, or ridiculously rich through knowing exactly what people want and selling it to them, or talented beyond wildest imaginings with a following of millions, is a ‘beta male’… Whereas an alpha male is a guy who goes miles out of his way to provide no value to anyone, not even himself, because he is that cool and confident. Value is for suckers who picked the wrong pill. In yo face.
So we end up with these working definitions:
Beta male: a guy who can lead, provide, practice skills, offer deliverables, and doesn’t give a shit how he looks doing it.
Alpha male: …the guy ALL THE WOMEN WANT TO BANG CAUSE HE’S CONFIDENT, WE SWEAR.
One of the best ways to distinguish a legitimate thing-to-study from bullshit is the precision of the terms used.
Example:
MRA Terms: Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Gamma, Omega. I’m still waiting to hear meaningful differences between the Alpha and the Sigma, or the Sigma and the Gamma, or the Beta and the Omega, or the … you get it, I think.
Feminist Terms: Heteronormativity, Gender Role, Intersectionality, Patriarchy. All with precise meanings, clearly distinguishable from one another.
Alpha is apparently ‘Assertive man who takes what he wants’. Or ‘Lone wolf who people want to follow’. Or ‘Manly man what don’t need no woman’.
Sigma is apparently ‘Alpha but a little weird’. Or ‘Alpha, no really, it’s different’.
Beta used to be (and is still sometimes) ‘loser who doesn’t assert himself enough so doesn’t get girls’. Or ‘average joe’. Or ‘nice guy who cares about women.’ or ‘Alpha minus assertiveness.’
Omega is (I think?) ‘loser who doesn’t assert himself’
Gamma, I have no idea.
I think the confusion has a lot to do with the fact that many of these guys recognize that they aren’t Alpha Mans, so they blur the lines between. “I’m a beta, but betas have all the attributes of alphas, they just don’t act like them.” “I have the traits of an alpha but no one likes to hang around me, so I must be a sigma.”
It’s all just a bunch of excuses to hide painful truths from themselves. Goalposts on trolleys, easily moved to score goals wherever needed.
Good rationality guys!
Radfems have always been a relatively small group and aren’t the same as second wave. They go beyond rejecting “biology is not destiny” and assert that ALL aspects of gender are completely socially constructed and oppressive. If we were living in a truly just society then the concepts of “men” and “women” wouldn’t exist and we would just be people with either a penis or a vagina.
So in that context, a statement like “all men are abusers” (taken literally) would make sense because (radfems assert) being an abuser is an integral part of socialization into the male gender and part of what it means to be male. When radfems say that all men are trained from birth to be rapists and abusers, they literally mean that. They’re not just saying that men are socialized with privileged attitudes that make them more prone to become abusers.
@ scildfreja
You might have to be English to get this…
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/s3/sunnation-prod/uploads/2015/03/Badgers.jpg
@Scildfreja
Hey, Sahyuns Guise. You need falsifiability, fam. How else are ya gonna show off your 1337, Alpha STEM skillz?
Seriously, the best way to deal with any kind of ridiculous idea is to ask em to define their terms. Not, ‘it’s kinda like when’, a real definition. Like your writing the opening paragraph of the entry in Brittanica. Go.
Half of em can’t. The other half does, but it’s all so self contradictory you can just pick it apart until they get too frustrated to continue. It’s like sealioning but with a sturdier foundation. Walrusing? 🙂
@Alan,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f-VRm17L6g0/UmBYG82g1dI/AAAAAAAAAD4/cO0KHL8KDdE/s1600/badger+goalposts.jpg
@Axecalibur,
http://i.imgur.com/HXlxPHC.gif
Back when I identified as male, I managed to sell my now-ex-girlfriend on Feminism — apparently I got it backwards?
@Chio: The animated Grinch film is very much worth seeing: it isn’t padded out with a lot of weird subplots like the live-action film, it was directed by a classic Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies director (Chuck Jones), and Boris Karloff provides the narration!
Don’t forget the Grinch song!
@scildfreja
Thanks for the help 🙂 I see feminism as a thing that is time consuming to study (100 years of feminism!) but it’s understandable.
Anti-feminism is confusing and sad.
Straw-feminism is much easier and hilarious to study 🙂
That is why I stake my place in the tiny group called “Female Supremacy” and I plan to move that goal post to the end of Absurdia !
It lets me distance myself from feminists based on tenets of toxic masculinity (because a female supremacist cannot be a feminist because feminism doesn’t support supremacy of any specific gender.)
But then I can also take all the feminism and put it in my work.
I thoroughly enjoy being anti-feminist in the way that highlights how important feminism is.
And I totally intend to out-MRA them all the way. Because they wouldn’t know what an actual man issue would be if it hit them in the face. (i.e. this: http://masculinetopics.com/summer-2016-term-paper/)
It’s more fun to do it from a place of actually understanding what feminism is to begin with. These KiA people don’t, they are just terrified of women acting in a way that doesn’t place their interest in the forefront of everything or requires them to be decent human beings before “putting out”. I can harvest their free speech 🙂
Thanks for dragging the bar down all the way down the Mariana Trench guys.