Category: creepy

Tattooed hate girls: Are tattoos on women an attempt to repel men? One misogynist says yes.

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 20, 2014
390 Comments on Tattooed hate girls: Are tattoos on women an attempt to repel men? One misogynist says yes.

I don’t think the Militant Baker cares if her tattoos are offputting to assholes.

Misogynists hate, hate, hate it when women get tattoos. They just can’t all agree on why. The standard misogynist line on tattoos for women is that they are all, essentially, “tramp stamps” – a way of broadcasting that the woman displaying them is a slut, a skank, a whore. You know the drill.

But the “alternative right” racist/sexist/homophobe who goes by the handle agnostic has a rather different take. In a post on his blog Face to Face, he argues that women with tattoos are actually trying to broadcast their Puritan prudery.

Tattoos, you see, are just plain ugly, and help to accessorize a dreary look designed to repel men.

Notice how those girls dress in drab, dark monochrome colors, wear no girly jewelry, and sport flat hair rather than Big Hair. Their sassy, sarcastic, even nasty attitude echos their off-putting look.

Fundamentally, they are part of the larger trend toward drab dressing, and its signal of reluctance to get loose. Their personalities are more anti-social, so they express the neo-Pilgrim style in a more antagonistic fashion than the less abrasive girls in their generation, but they’re both variations on the same theme.

The tattoo-bearers are likely to be man-haters as well.

They are also part of the larger trend among women toward fear of or hatred toward men. …

In such a climate, women will alter their appearance and demeanor in order to deflate rather than excite the male libido. They act like prey trying to give warning signals to potential predators. The tattoo chicks are only the extreme version of this widespread trend. Girls sure don’t look or act as cute and flirty as they used to in the boy-crazy Eighties, when they thought of guys not as predators but as conspecifics who they wanted to court with engaging mating displays.

“Conspecifics” simply means “members of the same species.” Agnostic loves to drop that sciency lingo in order to make his prejudices seem smart.

Anyway, he continues by arguing that tattoos are especially offensive to pickup artistes and other “assertive” dudes.

Off-putting style also serves to filter out the more assertive and independent males, who would rather spend time on a girl who looks cute, rather than settle for one who’s all marked up or not willing to show anything at all. … By inking themselves up, girls ensure that only the guys who are willing to get walked over and slapped in the face will approach them. Why go through the long hassle of having your new boyfriend fixed when you can advertise that only the neutered need apply in the first place?

Ah, but this last bit is perhaps more revealing than agnostic means it to be. Tattoos are an affront to misogynists because they’re seen as too assertive, too masculine – a challenge to traditional femininity, and to men who prefer traditionally feminine women.

Tattoos on women make misogynistic men angry because on some fundamental level these men don’t think women have the right to decorate their bodies in a way that displeases men –or at least their kind of men. It’s the same kind of creepy, possessive anger that many misogynistic men show towards women who cut their hair short. It’s as if these men on some level believe women’s bodies belong to them, and not to the women themselves.

And that’s pretty unattractive.

a woman is always to blame all about the menz boner rage creepy entitled babies evil sexy ladies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny playing the victim PUA

BREAKING: Women using earbuds to commit grave misandries upon innocent men

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 17, 2014
263 Comments on BREAKING: Women using earbuds to commit grave misandries upon innocent men

Oh noes!

So this little screenshot is making the rounds on the internet. It’s from 4chan, so who knows if the guy posting it is sincere. But I’ve seen similar, albeit less histrionic, complaints from other would-be pickup artistes in the past.

Guess what, dude. Some of those women wearing earbuds aren’t even listening to music. They just wear them to avoid creepy dudes like you.

advocacy of violence antifeminism creepy harassment men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA not-quite-explicit threats not-quite-plausible deniability rape culture threats

When anonymous threats are not-so anonymous

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 17, 2014
83 Comments on When anonymous threats are not-so anonymous

kindofadick

When feminists are besieged with threatening messages after being targeted by Men’s Rights Activists, MRAs sometimes ask how we know for sure that the messages (or at least a good portion of them) are being sent by MRAs. And the answer is that, in most cases, we don’t, at least not beyond a reasonable doubt, because most people sending threatening messages have the good sense to do so anonymously.

So it is possible, at least theoretically, that when, say, a feminist blogger gets threatening messages shortly after MRAs start posting nasty things about her on their blogs and in their various forums, it is not MRAs sending the messages but angry ornithologists who, for no reason whatsoever, collectively decided to pick on a feminist blogger that day. Seems unlikely, but it’s possible.

Other times, though, we do know who is sending the threats, because, conveniently enough, they do so under their own name or using their MRA identity online.

That was the case, you might recall, when Australian MRA and fanatical A Voice for Men supporter Frank James Spencer, also known as KARMA MRA MGTOW, left me a creepy, vaguely threatening voicemail message one night at 1:38 AM. That was the case with many of those posting threatening YouTube comments about a certain inadvertently famous Canadian feminist.

And that was the case last night when a longtime MRA known as Masculist Man tried to post a threatening message in the comments to a post of mine about a threatening comment directed at me on The Spearhead. The Spearhead comment, you may remember, involved a weird and elaborate anal rape fantasy. I noted in my post that the comment had gotten 10 upvotes, no downvotes.

Masculist Man added his two cents (click for larger version):

Submitted on 2014/05/16 at 9:07 pm Actually 17 upvotes,including mine. I could ask the entire manosphere to vote on this. We should have that up to 500 upvotes by morning. Eat shit asshole

He’s probably right about the 500 upvotes. Apparently rape threats are a form of Human Rights activism.

I wrote about a ranty blog post of Mr. Man’s some time ago, and he’s written several posts about me, or at least about someone he calls Dave Fooltrelle. I let him comment here for a time as well. He was always obnoxious, though never quite this obnoxious.

Mr. Man’s blog is called, creatively, Men’s Rights Blog. In addition to the aforementioned ranty post, it features a cartoony avatar of himself wearing a fedora and brandishing a sword, with the caption “I’ll cut ya.” As part of his “activism,” he’s put up a page of anti-feminist “memes,” many based on photos of real feminists, including me. The blog has been around since 2007.

In his profile on Blogger, he declares

I’ve been a masculist for over 20 years and have been very activist,both on and offline. I’ve debated phonies and feminists and have prevailed over both.

He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books, and Neil LaBute’s misogynistic fantasy In The Company of Men as one of his favorite films.

And if you follow the link to Mr. Man’s Facebook page, you can take a look at his small collection of Facebook friends, including AVFM’s Paul Elam and MRA lawyer Roy Den Hollander, as well as the groups he supports, including the National Coalition for Men, the Men’s Human Rights Movement Facebook group, and assorted anti-VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) groups.

So, yeah, I think it’s safe to say that this threatening comment came from an MRA.

awesome creepy funny men who should not ever be with ponies ever nice guys TROOOLLLL!!

"Would You Kill a Pony for Me?" and other real dating questions asked by an imaginary Swedish Girl

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 14, 2014
96 Comments on "Would You Kill a Pony for Me?" and other real dating questions asked by an imaginary Swedish Girl

This pic has nothing to do with the post today, but it does feature a giant chicken, from a film called “The Hoboken Chicken Emergency.”

Today, something a bit lighter than usual. Someone recently posted the a link in the comments here to a hilarious blog called Swedish Girl Seeking, which displays the results of a simple but wicked dating site experiment being carried out by a couple of funny Swedes.

The two – a female comic book artist and a male comedian – set up a phony dating profile featuring a “blonde, happy-go-lucky, kind of over-sexual cliché of a Swedish woman.” (The female half of the couple posed in a cheap blond wig for the pics.)

When a legion of hopeful, horny men besieged the imaginary girl’s inbox with come-ons ranging from awkward to crude, the Swedes responded with surreal silliness. And then posted the most ridiculous conversations online.

While there are a few genuinely creepy messages amongst the dozens posted on the site – it looks like the Swedish duo kept the worst messages to themselves – the most amazing ones reflect a certain willful obliviousness on the part of the hopeful male admirers. Nothing she says is too bizarre to faze them.

alpha males creepy entitled babies evil old ladies evo psych fairy tales hypocrisy irony alert mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles PUA racism sexual exploitation western women suck

Expat PUA blogger: "24 is super crazy, crazy old. for a girl. 17. 19. past that, if we’re going to get all about babies, is pretty sketchy."

I couldn’t come up with a good graphic for this post, so here’s a giant chicken kidnapping a young boy.

Jakeface — not his real name — is a “Game” blogger, pushing 40, and living in Vietnam. Or visiting there? I haven’t read enough of his blog to be able to figure that out. Given that the name of his blog is “cedonulli,” which seems to be a pretentious reference to the Latin phrase “cedo nulli” ( “I yield to none”), I probably won’t be reading all that much more.

But I do know he likes Vietnam, because he’s the sort of guy who enjoys joking about having sex with “girls … so barely legal … it’s not even funny,” and in Vietnam, he says, he’s not the only one who thinks that 24-year old women are “old as fuck.”

Did I mention he’s pushing 40 himself?

Anyway, not long ago, Jakeface offered readers of his blog his deep thoughts on the subject of age, and why women over the age of 19 are already starting to look elderly to him. [Link is mildly NSFW]

a woman is always to blame advocacy of violence antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? creepy divorce domestic violence doubling down douchebaggery empathy deficit entitled babies evil single moms excusing abuse father's rights homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy playing the victim racism rape culture rape jokes straw futrelle taking pleasure in women's pain the c-word the spearhead threats thug-lovers transphobia

W.F. Price of The Spearhead accuses me of supporting violence against women … by opposing violence against women

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 9, 2014
103 Comments on W.F. Price of The Spearhead accuses me of supporting violence against women … by opposing violence against women

W.F. Price (not pictured) believes the best way to prevent domestic violence is to put men in charge of households, and to keep police out

W. F. Price of The Spearhead isn’t very happy about my recent suggestion that the Men’s Rights movement encourages abusive ways of thinking towards women. It’s a strange claim for him to make, coming as it is from a guy who presides over one of the most notorious outposts of vicious, virulent misogyny in the Men’s Rights universe. Even stranger is his claim that by opposing violence against women and children I am therefore … supporting policies that lead to more violence against women and children.

It’s going to take a little while to work our way through his convoluted argument. So let’s start at the beginning. Here’s the quote of mine he objects to, from my post the other day about Lundy Bancroft:

a woman is always to blame antifeminism armageddon boner rage butts creepy disgusting women entitled babies evil fat fatties evil ugly women grandiosity homophobia imaginary oppression irony alert mansplaining marital rape men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism rape rape culture

UK Political Donor Demetri Marchessini: Women In Trousers Are Destroying Western Civilization

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date May 3, 2014
183 Comments on UK Political Donor Demetri Marchessini: Women In Trousers Are Destroying Western Civilization

Marlene Dietrich oppressing man with her trousers.

Demetri Marchessini is a retired Greek business tycoon, living in London, and has been a major donor to the right-wing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP). He also has some, let’s say, eccentric views about gay people, black people, women, and trousers, views so, er, eccentric that the folks in UKIP are a little embarrassed to be associated with him. Given that UKIP is filled with bigots in all varieties, that’s quite something.

In an interview last week with Britain’s Channel 4, Marchessini expounded at length on some of his more colorful views. He told interviewer Michael Crick that marital rape was impossible, because “you can’t have rape if you make love on Friday and make love on Sunday, you can’t say Saturday is rape. Once the woman accepts, she accepts.”

He argued that there is no such thing as homosexual love, only lust, because “they go out at nights and they pick up 5, 10, 15 different partners in one night.” Even gays in committed relationships are basically just roommates who still cruise for anonymous sex partners.

And he suggested that black slaves were better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in Africa, because if they survived the passage they lived longer.

But let’s just talk about the trouser thing. Marchessini thinks women should be banned from wearing trousers, because otherwise they just might bring about the end of western civilization.

a woman is always to blame all about the menz are these guys 12 years old? boner rage butts crackpottery creepy evil sexy ladies facepalm men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA narcissism playing the victim reddit unsolicited penis updates warren farrell

Warren Farrell: Men Are Oppressed by Women's Butts

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date April 30, 2014
148 Comments on Warren Farrell: Men Are Oppressed by Women's Butts

Man being oppressed by female ass power

Yesterday Warren Farrell – the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, the man who single-handedly came up with probably half of the terrible arguments that are endlessly rehashed daily in the manosphere – went to Reddit and proclaimed “ask me anything!”

And so we, and a lot of other people, did. And he even answered a couple of the questions I posted here yesterday – though as I sort of suspected he pointedly ignored the questions about his incest research. Still, there were so many astounding things said in that discussion, both by Farrell himself and by his various supporters, that it’s going to take a couple of posts to get to them all.

Let’s just start with the ass question, shall we? Because there was nothing quite so astounding in that whole sprawling thread, or at least the portion of it that I managed to read, as “Dr.” Farrell’s – he has a PhD in political science –answer to the ass question.

That’s right. Warren Farrell literally believes that heterosexual men are powerless in the face of SEXY FEMALE BUTTS. They are BUTT HYPNOTIZED by women’s shapely buttocks, virtual prisoners to the power of DAT ASS.

Not only that, but they are slaves as well, forced to earn more money than women so that they can “pay for women’s drinks, dinners and diamonds.” Who knew that the wage gap was caused by the ass crack?

We like big butts, and we cannot lie. But that way tyranny, I espy.

Only if men can free themselves from the TYRANNY OF THE BUTT they can “have more control over [their] lives, and therefor [sic] more real power.”

But who will write the new Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of Queen Ass?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for horny dudes to get rid of the boners which those ladies have caused with their smokin hot dumpers and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the babies who have got back requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, and that is, ladies we can’t think straight if we’re looking at DAT ASS all the time.

Oh, but “Dr.” Farrell is worried about the ladies, too. I mean, he said so:

it’s in women’s interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men’s inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.

Yes, you’re beautiful on the inside to m….holy crap did you see the ass on HER!?

Now, this isn’t entirely new. As I’ve noted before, Farrell makes a version of this argument in his book, talking about secretaries manipulating their bosses with their “miniskirt power, cleavage power, and flirtation power,” [p. 21] describing “female beauty” as “the world’s most potent drug,” [p. 85], and arguing that “many men feel ‘under the influence’ the moment they see a beautiful woman.” [p. 320]

But these, er, arguments weren’t the central focus of his rambling treatise. Now, at the age of 70, by not only putting a naked ass on the cover of his book, but also by defending it in such ludicrously overblown terms, he’s decided to put this unsolicited update from his penis at the center of his argument about the alleged powerlessness of men.

Yep, the closest thing that the Men’s Rights movement has to an intellectual heavyweight seems to think that the most pressing issue facing men today is how sad and mad and confused they feel because they can’t immediately have sex with every hot piece of ass that walks by (and, presumably, the women attached to these asses).

It’s really hard to find a better symbol of the sexual entitlement – and sexual resentment – that lies at the heart of the Men’s Rights movement than this.

Oh, and by the way, my new book is still available for purchase. So far I have sold no copies. Which might have something to do with the $1000 price tag, and also the fact that I haven’t actually written it. But you’ve got to admit the cover is pretty good.

In case you needed a clearer explanation of the power of women’s bodacious hineys, one Redditor by the name of Doldenberg has scienced things up for us and provided us all this useful graph. First, his brief explanation:

Being a brave Alpha from TRP, I have found the solution to the evident misandrist oppression of men by cute butt owners meaning owners of cute butts, not cute owners of butts, or butt owners of cute, or…, that is, ranking butts on an objective BMV (butt market value) scale. I’ve made the data up in my head, but it seems plausible. According to this data, the butt loses BMV when having sat on to many objects, while it’s cuteness only works as a limiting factor. I have made a handy graph[1] with supporting data and sources to explain my theory.

IS1KbbZ

a voice for men creepy excusing abuse men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles rape rape culture reddit sexual abuse sexual exploitation the c-word the myth of warren farrell warren farrell whores

Warren Farrell is doing an Ask Me Anything on Reddit today. Some suggested questions for him.

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date April 29, 2014
142 Comments on Warren Farrell is doing an Ask Me Anything on Reddit today. Some suggested questions for him.

Ask him anything!

Warren Farrell, the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, is doing an AMA on Reddit today at 1 PM Eastern time. UPDATE: It’s started, and it’s here.

AMA, in Reddit-speak, stands for Ask Me Anything. So I would encourage you to ask Mr. Farrell questions about anything he has said or written in the past that you find troubling, or even just confusing.

Here are some suggestions. Seriously, ask him any of these, as I’m not sure I’ll be able to be online when the whole thing goes down.

1) Mr Farrell, in your book The Myth of Male Power, you wrote that:

It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and that her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.

Are you suggesting that if a woman clearly says no to sex, but does not stop kissing a man, that he is entitled to have sex with her anyway because she has given him a non-verbal “yes?” If not, what specifically do you mean? What sort of non-verbal “yes” would outweigh a clear verbal “no?” Why doesn’t her verbal no mean no?

Source: Myth of Male Power, page 315.

Screencap here: http://i.imgur.com/cwSoc.png

2) Mr. Farrell, regarding your research on incest in the 1970s, you told Penthouse magazine that:

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

Were you actually suggesting that there are “glowing, positive cases” of parent-child incest – that is, child sexual abuse? How can child sexual abuse be “glowing” or “positive” for the child?

If this is not what you meant, what did you mean?

Penthouse also quotes you as saying that you were doing your research

“because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t.”

As I understand it, you’ve said you were misquoted and that you did not say “genitally,” and that what you actually said was “generally” or “gently.” But even with the word replaced, you are suggesting that parents are repressing their sexuality and their children’s sexuality if they don’t “caress” their children. What did you mean by this?

Sources:
Transcript of Penthouse article: http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.htm

Scanned pages of original article from Penthouse: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

3) Mr. Farrell, why did you choose a photograph of a nude woman’s ass for the cover of the new edition of The Myth of Male Power? Do you really think that male power is somehow negated by female sexuality?

4) Mr. Farrell, why have you chosen to associate yourself with the website A Voice for Men, a site that frequently refers to women as “cunts,” “bitches,” and “whores?” If you are not aware of this, would you disassociate yourself from the site if given clear proof of the site’s frequent misogynistic attacks on women?

If you’re looking for more ideas on questions to ask him, check out my posts on him in the archives.

These might be good to start with:

The Myth of Warren Farrell: Farrell on Rape, Part One

Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it

What Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell actually said about the allegedly positive aspects of incest.

MRA founding father Warren Farrell responds to questions about his incest research with evasive non-answers. And a smiley. (About his last AMA appearance.

Warren Farrell on Unemployment, Salesmanship, and Other Things That Are Like Rape, Supposedly

Also check out the excellent Farrell’s Follies series on Reddit.

And Fibinachi has a series on Farrell as well.

alpha males creepy disgusting women evil sexy ladies evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny PUA vaginas

Comment of the day: "Women have no value beyond their sexual and reproductive role and if it was not for sex they would be killed at birth."

Sinkhole (not to be confused with stink hole)

As I’ve said before, sometimes I search for hours to find the instances of misogyny interesting enough to share with you, the readers of my blog. Other times, the misogyny wanders in my door, delivers a rambling tirade, and passes out on the couch.

Today, an example of the latter, left in the comments to an old post of mine about the bad science behind the concept of the “alpha wolf” by a fellow with the unassuming name of Joeblow.

Joeblow starts off by agreeing that “the alpha – beta shit does not matter.” But in his mind this is because women are such sluts they’ll have sex with pretty much anyone.