Mysterious lady, the Men’s Rights subreddit wants to buy you a drink.
The Men’s Rights subreddit has a new favorite lady! The one in the pictures above, if you haven’t guessed. Her name is Sonia Verstappen, and until recently she was a sex worker in Brussels; she’s also an activist for the legalization of sex work. The stills above are apparently from a documentary called Sex Workers and Proud.
The Men’s Rights Redditors who love her don’t actually know any of this. They just love her because she’s a women who apparently thinks hysterical, man-destroying American lesbians have taken over feminism.
A Voice for Men’s plans for world domination seem to have hit a little snag. Earlier today, the so-called “Men’s Human Rights” site — which posts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “Activism” section — posted a most unusual article titled “A Very British Coup,” which detailed — in a highly one-sided manner — some rather nasty infighting in AFVM’s apparently quite tiny British satellite organization MRA London.
According to newly self-installed MRA London Maximum Leader Andy Thomas, earlier this month,
a bizarre coup was attempted within the MRA London. While I was travelling and out of regular contact, a certain member of the group announced to the world that he had been ejected from MRA London by me personally, and put out a widespread appeal to have me “deposed”, “overthrown”, or whatever. He also made a series of even more bizarre allegations against me and several others.
But for various unspecified reasons this “reverse coup” failed, according to Thomas, “ending in farce and bitter recrimination.” Now the alleged coup-plotters are no longer with the group, and Thomas has declared himself the Chief Executive Officer of the group, such as it is.
This news seemed to come as a shock to most of the AVFM faithful, some of whom were faintly horrified to find Thomas airing this sort of dirty laundry in public where people like you and me can see it. One reader was so baffled by it all they concluded it might be “feminist gaslighting.” (When in doubt, blame the feminists.)
Others more familiar with the situation blasted Thomas’ account of the affair as self-serving nonsense. Richard Ford, one of the expelled/resigned/whatever members, wrote sarcastically, in a comment on AVFM that has miraculously not yet been deleted:
Andy has not chosen to speak to me directly about whatever is bothering him and I am unable to discover the reasons from any other member as it seems that every one of us (with the exception of Erin [Pizzey] and possibly one other) has been expelled at the same time! I honestly know no more about this than what I read here.
I wish Andy well with his new bonzai version of MRA London. The membership will simply have to start again with a new name. Much time will be wasted but we will get there in the end.
For the record. Andy has no power to expel anyone from a group that he so recently joined. Despite this I believe it best to go our separate ways.
AVFM’s own Maximum Leader, Paul Elam, has promised a further explanation tomorrow. Stay tuned, as this has the potential to get very messy indeed.
So I spent a little time reading through The Red Pill subreddit yesterday and if there’s one thing that Red Pill Redditors aren’t, it’s fucking betas. No fucking way. They’re like the total fucking opposite of betas. And by that I mean they are ALPHA DOGS 4 LIFE.
How manosphere doofuses think the world actually works.
Another in an ongoing series of posts on seminal works in the manosphere canon, as it were. At some point, I’ll make a page for these.
Like Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, F. Roger Devlin’s 2006 essay Sexual Utopia in Power (downloadable here) is a kind of Manospherianurtext, an original source of many of the terrible ideas that are now accepted as gospel wherever misogynists gather in large numbers online. Though the name of Devlin is hardly as well known as that of Farrell, many of his ideas, most notably his reworked notion of “hypergamy” — which we will get to in a minute — are omnipresent in the manosphere.
Wonder Woman: Forever alienating decent men with her blatant careerism.
NOTE: I’ve closed comments on this post because it keeps attracting crankish comments from misogynists who agree with the misogynists I quote in the post.
Hey ladies! Have you ever wondered why so many men hate you? Well, you’re in luck, because on Reddit, another lady just like you has an answer. It’s because you suck. No, really. Men hate women because women are terrible. And not very ladylike, to boot.
Let’s join FleetingWish as she explains “Why Do Men “Hate” Us?” in Part 2 of her Who-knows-how-many-parts opus “Attracting Alphas,” which she has helpfully posted in the fPUAs subreddit, a forum apparently devoted to teaching “females” how to more effectively get picked up by alleged Alpha males.
When I posted about WF Price’s viciously transphobic Mothers’ Day post on The Spearhead yesterday, the Spearhead commentariat had not yet weighed in on his post. Well, now they have, and so appallingly that I felt a second post was in order. Here are some of the, er, highlights of the discussion.
Again, a TRIGGER WARNING applies; if anything, these comments are worse than Price’s original post. This hasn’t made them unpopular at The Spearhead; quite the contrary: all the comments quoted below were well received by Spearhead readers, receiving multiple upvotes. A couple of them were even rated “Well-loved.”
It’s Question Time again. I’ve been reading through Susan Faludi’s Backlash and her more recent book on men, Stiffed, as well as some of the discussion surrounding Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men and Kay Hymowitz’ Manning Up. Faludi, writing in 1991, obviously saw the 80s as a time of antifeminist backlash.
My question is how you would characterize the years since she wrote her book. A continuation of that backlash? A time of feminist resurgence, from the Riot Grrls up to Rosin’s predicted End of Men? A mixed period of progress and regression?
I’m wondering both what your general assessment of the situation is, and also what specific evidence you have — either hard data or personal experience — that underlies your overall view. This could be anything from data on employment segregation or the prevalence of rape to your sense of how media representations of women and men have or haven’t changed, or even how people you know have changed the ways they talk about gender. What do you think are the significant data points to look at?
The question isn’t just what has changed for women but what has changed for men as well — with my underlying question being: what if anything in the real world has changed that might be making the angry men we talk about here so angry? I think we can agree that most of their own explanations are bullshit, but could there be a grain of truth to any of them? Or something that they don’t see that’s far more compelling?
In the interest of spurring discussion and providing some data to work with, here are a bunch of articles responding to (or at least vaguely related to the issues raised in) Rosin’s End of Men, including a link to her original Atlantic article. In addition, here are some posts by sociologist Philip Cohen challenging many of Rosin’s claims, as well as more general posts of his on gender inequality. (Feel free to completely ignore any or all of these; I just found them useful resources.)
So WF Price of The Spearhead, who responded to my previous post criticizing his and his commenters’ appalling reactions to the Cleveland abductions with thoughtfulness and maturity (by which I mean a bizarre and weirdly racist personal attack on a commenter here), has now taken offense to a darkly satirical piece the Onion ran in the wake of the revelations of what allegedly went on Ariel Castro’s house for the past 11 years.
The Onion piece wasn’t funny, exactly, nor was it meant to be; it was pretty clearly the raw reaction of someone reacting with appropriate horror to the details of Castro’s alleged crimes, which seem to surpass even the worst “man-hater’s” vision of male depravity. Price, rather missing the point, sees the Onion piece as simple “feminist man-hatred” and suggests that it proves his point all along: that patriarchy is a lie.
The Castro brothers were neither patriarchal nor privileged; they were low-life predators from the bottom of society. Not to say that low-class men are all bad people, either, but men without privilege are the most likely to commit crimes, for obvious reasons. …
The myth of male power and privilege is just that, and the Cleveland case is one more pebble on the mountain of evidence that exposes it for a lie.
Empowering men in their families will not lead to more crimes against women and girls, but fewer.
Huh. So I guess if we make all men rich, and order the police to stop responding to all “domestic disturbance” calls, all our problems will be solved!
Never mind that Ariel Castro seems to have lorded it over his now-dead ex when he was involved with her, reportedly brutalizing and terrorizing her and getting away with it in part because he threatened to further brutalize her if she testified against him. He may not have had much power in the wider world, but he certainly seems to have felt quite “empowered” in his dealings with women and girls, and the “justice” system didn’t provide any justice to his apparent victims, even before the kidnappings.
And never mind that Price continues to refer to the “Castro brothers” although the police are saying that Ariel Castro acted alone.
Despite not knowing the basic facts of the case, Price seems to like the idea of using cases like this one to push his antifeminist agenda. According to him, his attempts to use the case to “refute” the feminist idea that
male privilege [is] tied to abuse of women … really enraged them, because how dare I use one of “their” cases to point out that they are wrong. From their perspective, it should be a sacred feminist right to use these incidents against men as a political bludgeon so as to coerce more concessions, more power, etc. Some went so far as to accuse me of blaming women and feminists for the kidnappings themselves (rubbish), while a few others sent me some hate mail.
But you know, I’m going to keep it up, because they do not have the sole right to the narrative when convenient tragedies occur. …
Feminists will doubtless use examples of outrageous crimes in an effort to remove more men from their families, thereby creating both more victims and more criminals. They will use examples like the Castro brothers’ kidnapping whenever and wherever they can. We must stop them from doing so, and we must not be intimidated by their feigned moral outrage when we speak the truth about their agenda.
Dude. if you think the reactions people are having to the Cleveland abductions — or to the terrible things you and your commenters have said about them — are in any way “feigned,” then I can only suggest that you may have completely lost touch with your humanity.
Once again, the Spearhead’s commenters lived up to their past standards of moral monsterhood, continuing to put the blame for Ariel Castro’s crimes (and pretty much every other ill) on feminism and women in general. Here are some selections. You’ll notice the one wishing death on feminists is officially “well-liked” by the commentariat there.
The only vaguely encouraging thing in the entire discussion? That Dana’s call for urban genocide got a couple of downvotes. To the two Spearhead readers who don’t think wiping out an entire community of decent people because of the behavior of one man is a good idea, I would like to say “thanks.” And also suggest that maybe you should stop reading The Spearhead.
EDITED: Added paragraphs about Ariel Castro’s alleged brutality towards his ex, and clarification that only he has been charged, not his brothers.
