Categories
antifeminism dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about misogyny MRA reddit whaaaaa?

Man laughing alone with word salad

Ok, it’s a regular salad, but you get the idea

Are you a writer or an academic feeling stuck? See how I can help you as an editor or as a writing coach.

Every once in a while, I encounter someone posting away in the Men’s Rights subreddit who stands out in some way. It’s usually not a good way. Sometimes, the misogyny is over the top, even by Men’s Rights standards. Sometimes the commenter’s writing is overflowing with buzzwords that will only make sense to the initiated insofar as they make any sense at all.

Well, I’ve run across someone that fits that latter category; indeed, they almost transcend it, spewing out paragraph after paragraph of word salad that I’m not sure even they understand. So I thought I would share some recent quotes from this would-be Men’s Rights philosopher and see if any of you can make any sense of them, insofar as there is any sense there to begin with.

Feel free to give up at any point because this stts the brain if y,ou try to process too much of it at once.

Here’s Pilotlet tryiexplain that patriarchy is actually a tool of female supremacy. At least I think that’s what he’s saying.

Patriarchy is ultimately a further extension of monogamy as an economic entity, but one that can ultimately only be understood by understanding women as the ultimate benefactors of the manipulation and taming of man.

The reality is stubborn and with very varied nuances, however, under an analysis of contemporary and Western societies, we can only speak of gynocentrism, misandry as an entity based on the natural hypergamy of considering the majority of men as disposable and therefore an object of hatred if men at the top of the Pareto distribution cannot be reached and the enslavement of man, ultimately, as maintainer of the world and giver of everything masculine: that is, what is useful to a woman.

If you’re not feeling too dizzy yet, here’s another quote, this one on the subject of “feminine infantilism.”

The trend in feminine infantilism has always obeyed the redundant: the potentiality of the feminine. The woman, through her search for permanent youth, seeks to appeal to the most naive masculine paternity and seeks eternal tutelage as if she were a defenseless little girl. Not only does the woman seek to create an image that she is stupid, but in her behavior of seeking constant childishness, she becomes a person who is a victim of her own subjection. The woman always finds protection from her stupidity because she will always rely on moral and physical protectors in favor of her interests. It is a perpetual and constant manipulation.

Here’s one suggesting that men do all the real work in a relationship. At least I think that’s what he’s going on about.

It is absurd to think that a woman can take the active role in a relationship when indeed, every relationship revolves around passively receiving everything that builds a relationship: the understanding of the masculine as useful and the feminine as useless by definition. Both can have an economic equilibrium character, but it is not possible to expect the enslaving submission of a man to the feminine behavior. The woman, ultimately, is useful as a conscious being, not femininity: the antithesis of the masculine, that is, the useful, the active and the objectively valuable.

If I were gay, then I would be with men, but the concept of marriage lacks foundation in these modern times and it is clear that it always benefits the party that appears weakest.

I’ve read this last sentence at least ten times, and I still don’t understand how the gay bit fits with the part about marriage benefiting those who pretend to be weak.

Here’s what looks like a swipe against online dating. And marriage, I guess.

Most men won’t reproduce, most men actually have a hard time even having a partner, either because he is ugly, or short, or because he does not have money to be exploited or because absolutely no woman is interested in him while a woman writes a message and already has a penis waiting his turn.

The majority of women is shared by a statistical minority of men while the majority of men will hopefully pay for a prostitute to lose their virginity and may, if they are stupid enough, to lose their dignity and their lives for a woman who neither loves them nor is interested in creating a family, but living as a parasite at the expense of another.

This next one suggests that Pilotlet may be dating a dead woman.

The man in his masculinity (that is, understanding himself masculine for what is useful for a woman as an object of exploitation) it is replaceable and this is understood as natural, while the woman is treated as an object of idolatry to which to enslave: an entity that passively receives orgasms and resources. On the subject of the heterosexual couple, one cannot speak of other dynamics except the eternal passivity of the woman, because that is what is expected of her and she is what she expects of herself. There can be no equal treatment at the couple level because biological interests and strategies are radically opposed.

I thought I understood the first half of this one, but then it got weird.

Marriage has a connotation that is never considered enough and it is the entire superstructure that surrounds the entire marriage is based on a tacit covenant in the inherent slavery of a man in this institution that today lacks foundation because everything that structures it is based on a deception that does not sustain itself.

I guess it sucks for Chads, too, huh?

Inceldom cannot be solved because apart from the fact that there will always be more women than men in the fertile age ranges, the willfulness of a woman in her nature will cause many rank and file men to be shunned and rejected. The same with men who do have access to the sexual market and are used as replaceable material: as objects of sexual and economic exploitation.

This next one may hurt your head a little:

[T]he masculine attitude and the models of masculinity turn, inevitably, to idolatry, to a hierarchy with respect to the value that other men achieve, which, although adjusting to a biological definition, It would imply that no matter how much some men do, their masculinity will do less than that of others from points of reference that they themselves do not control.

Oof. One more.

It is the same wheel that turns and turns and turns and does not stop turning: traditionalism is not going to return unless there is a population collapse that will hardly take effect because the big company has immigrants to import en masse, and masculinity, like femininity, if they fit, will be sold like who sells stock in an abstract and silent investment market.

All that turning and turning and turning has made me too dizzy to continue.

Thank you, Pilotlet, for your service.

Follow me on Mastodon.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trying
Trying
2 months ago

Your intro needs a little editing, David 🙂

This MRA screed is an example of what happens when an idiot tries to sound smart. He has seen a textbook (or the Unabomber’s manifesto) and knows how to copy the format, but it’s all incomprehensible nonsense because he doesn’t know how to present ideas in a coherent manner. It’s like when a dumb person thinks using a thesaurus to find long words makes his paper seem intelligent. You have to understand the meaning and why it’s written the way it is in order to properly use the word or the format.

Last edited 2 months ago by Trying
GAZZA
GAZZA
2 months ago

I assumed the mistakes in the intro were due to our host going slightly mad from having to read all that. 🙂

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
2 months ago

My husband knows someone who writes like that. Miles and miles of multisyllabic verbiage resembling sentences that often have grammatical errors (surprise). He presents himself as extremely intelligent and people who think using big words indicates intelligence really admire him.

Full Metal Ox
2 months ago

As is frequently the case, there’s a TV Trope for that:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DelusionsOfEloquence

(One far more innocent example I can think of was the letter Miss Manners once received from some middle-school kids, who let her know that if she chose to answer, “our gratitude would be abysmal.” I suspect that word choice of being a near-miss for “profound”, which shares the literal meaning of “deep” and would have suited the context.

Their intention was clear, and being Miss Manners rather than Miss Vocabulary, she let the malapropism pass without comment.)

@Katherine the Adequate:

My husband knows someone who writes like that. Miles and miles of multisyllabic verbiage resembling sentences that often have grammatical errors (surprise). He presents himself as extremely intelligent and people who think using big words indicates intelligence really admire him.

That, after all, is one of the major shortcuts in lazy writing for tagging a character as a Smart Person™: Big Words, Inventing Stuff, and Computer Hacking.

(Surrounding Them With Idiots is another dismayingly popular tactic:

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=210)

Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
2 months ago

Marriage has a connotation that is never considered enough and it is the entire superstructure that surrounds the entire marriage is based on a tacit covenant in the inherent slavery of a man in this institution that today lacks foundation because everything that structures it is based on a deception that does not sustain itself.

So I guess that Pilotlet doesn’t want to get married. Not now, not ever.. At some point in history. he might have been willing to be enslaved by the institution of marriage. But nowadays this kind of slavery isn’t worth it because it is based on deception.

It’s okay, Pilotlet, it’s really okay. No woman is mad at you for not marrying her.

Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
Kat, ambassador, feminist revolution (in exile)
2 months ago

[T]he masculine attitude and the models of masculinity turn, inevitably, to idolatry . . .

Hey, that’s (kinda, sorta) something that I’ve long believed: that the treatment of men in a patriarchy amounts to idolatry. Okay, that’s not exactly what this guy is saying. I think.

.45
.45
1 month ago

In my ripe old age approaching 40 I still struggle with brevity. Nice to see I am doing better than some though.

Seriously, it comes across like he fired up with ChatGPT and said something about rewriting incel philosophy as though written by Jordan Peterson or something. It is almost clever in its way of trying to include as many talking points as possible as complicated as possible

Nequam
Nequam
1 month ago

Just a reminder that humans can fail the Turing test too.

Steph
Steph
1 month ago

Thanks.

I now have a migraine.

And still don’t understand a word of that.

Maeris
Maeris
1 month ago

Okay so I couldn’t get through this. However, the whole minority of men who have children thing is such a gross misrepresentation of the statistics. The average number of children that American men ages 15-44 who have a child is 0.8. Which means, yes, less than half of them in that age range have a child. But that is not lifetime number of children that men have. Those 15-25 year olds likely just aren’t in a place where they are having kids! The mean age for first child for men is 27! If you look at the data, 75% of men have one biological child by the time they are in their 40s. People choosing not to have children or delaying childbearing is an important trend, but it is not because men are soooo oppressed.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
1 month ago

I’d rather think about a tossed green salad, and my favorite new dressing recipe:

https://www.aspicyperspective.com/best-balsamic-vinaigrette/

I omit the honey because a) diabetic and b) generally prefer savory to sweet. The Dijon mustard really works best, but I’ve used coarse grain mustard if that’s all we have on hand.

Doubles Trini Roti
Doubles Trini Roti
1 month ago

Interesting how these are usually the same people who decry the lack of religiousity in today’s society, particularly Christianity. One wonders then why they don’t just become monks and live in monasteries.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
1 month ago

He’s never been a non-Stacy trying to get a date, has he?

@Vicky: I LOVE me a good balsamic vinaigrette. So easy to make and so tasty. I don’t put honey in mine either, I use a tastier vinegar.

@Doubles: The monasteries won’t take them, I’m betting. You have to keep a schedule, do what you’re told, not blather inanely, be able to write clearly, not be Extremely Online, and especially not look at pron.

My mom’s older cousin was a monk, and he was a very jolly guy. Even though he was super-smart and charming and good-looking in his youth. He had all the babes and parties he wanted up till he heard the call, at which point he became “Father Whatawaste” and the lamentations of women were heard upon the land. Still had a fabulous sense of humor, a sharp mind, and worked in the garden into his late 80s, with a little help from the younger brothers. They made fabulous bread, but also loved Mom’s cookies a few times a year, especially the fancy decorated Christmas ones (I had to get to a certain age before I was deemed good enough to help decorate). She was thanked in letters and prayers, and an extra Mass after she died, since she kept sending cookies even after he’d passed. I hope he’s sitting next to God eating chocolate chip cookies right now. A truly good man.

Full Metal Ox
1 month ago

@Victorious Parasol:

I’d rather think about a tossed green salad, and my favorite new dressing recipe:

https://www.aspicyperspective.com/best-balsamic-vinaigrette/

I omit the honey because a) diabetic and b) generally prefer savory to sweet. The Dijon mustard really works best, but I’ve used coarse grain mustard if that’s all we have on hand.

I had one today that I rather liked: a cubed avocado, a sliced beefsteak tomato, sheet nori, and assorted olives—their salt and oil sufficing for seasoning. Since my sugar has been in the double figures for the past few days, I also had a fruit salad yesterday, of black cherries(1), black nectarines, and sliced peeled cucumbers (the huge blunt-instrument American kind full of seeds can be cooling and hydrating in a way that small dainty Japanese cucumbers aren’t.)

(1) Ah Bing deserved far better than to be deported back to China and remembered to history only under a servant’s epithet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Full Metal Ox
Full Metal Ox
1 month ago

@Doubles Trini Roti:

Interesting how these are usually the same people who decry the lack of religiousity in today’s society, particularly Christianity. One wonders then why they don’t just become monks and live in monasteries.

@GSS ex-noob:

The monasteries won’t take them, I’m betting. You have to keep a schedule, do what you’re told, not blather inanely, be able to write clearly, not be Extremely Online, and especially not look at pron.

Anyone remember Jeff Horchoff, the aging widower who became a Bee Rescuer for a Louisiana Benedictine monastery, with plans eventually to become a monk himself? His life has taken a surprise turn at Albuquerque:

https://www.hivelifeconference.com/jeff-horchoff

(There’s an anvil-sized moral for the incels out there about how the capacity to devote yourself to something constructive, without making it all about you, might yield rewards you never anticipated.)

freneticferret
freneticferret
1 month ago

Good God. He’s trying extremely hard to write in the style of a scholarly author penning his greatest work, except the only way he knows how to do so is by throwing so many buzzwords together in varying combinations that they all cease to actually mean anything. It’s like when your high school English teacher would give you a list of vocabulary words and have each of you write a paragraph that included each word in proper context. He used all words on the list, for sure, but I’m not convinced he knows what any of them really mean.

Having a large word bank in your head isn’t worth much if you don’t understand how to tie any of those words together, my dude.

Unfortunately some people find this bullshit ‘scholarly’ writing convincing, because they also don’t really understand what’s being said, but since he used all these words and a sentence structure vaguely similar to psychology textbook, they’re going to upvote him and agree and say ‘well said!’ and god these people are insufferable.

Allandrel
Allandrel
1 month ago

@freneticferrer

Two words: Jordan Peterson.

C.Bing
C.Bing
1 month ago

This is good, actually. Philosophical diatribe. Author of it seems depressed and is not native English speaker, as I guess. I am neither, maybe that’s why I find it quite comprehensible.

18
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: