>Pee-ple Power


Future revolutionaries?

On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks!  — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.

To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble”  is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was

a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife …  As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.

I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.

But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:

We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.  However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly.  Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.

So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”

This solution?

Urinal flyers. 

Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss  … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”

I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)

Here’s his explanation:

Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals.  When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level.  Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time.  …

If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come.  Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal.  The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted.  Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day. 

Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.

All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:

And another one, perhaps my favorite:

Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:

The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?

Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It

Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.

Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere

All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,

plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.

Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.

Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.

Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:

Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation.  Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .

Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for

that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted.  They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women.  But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.

So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on January 5, 2011, in antifeminism, beta males, crackpottery, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, sex, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 110 Comments.

  1. >@M,I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief. You don't understand that I do not hate women. I love women! I am a humanist and I think everyone should have equal rights. EQUAL RIGHTS under the God, The Constitution, The Law and everything!My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen. If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it, but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear.Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!

  2. >"My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen." Women have loaded gun and "the system" is telling them that all men are boogeymen."If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it,"So this loaded gun is not a metaphor? "but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear."It is dehumanizing to men to be painted as being all rapists. But where is all this killing?"Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"So, to recap: women have guns (not clear if they're metaphorical or literal), "the system" (presumably feminism, not the patriarchal culture that feminism was a response to) teaches women that all men are rapists, so women kill men, and soon there will be a genocide against men because of this. Witman, it sounds like you think women are terribly dangerous to men. That's really scary. Women are attacking men, or they are about to. They are dehumanizing men so much that it seems like a genocide against men is possible. Is there any non-violent way to head off this looming threat? Concentration camps for ladies, maybe. Other than that, though, things look pretty dire. According to your own reasoning, you'd be insane not to mount some sort of preemptive strike. You heard it here first, folks: the cold war between the sexes is about to go hot.

  3. >@SallyStrange:The gun is both literal and figurative. And you darling have nothing to offer but satire and sarcasm which does not help the situation in any way. It just further dehumanizes legitimate people with legitimate grievances.Please be quiet while the adults are talking.

  4. >How would you feel if you found an unjust law/belief and some man just patted you on the head and said "There, there, just go to sleep, it's all part of your imagination"?Just show me any man anywhere that got away with murder (or even assault) by claiming that his IP was abusive. Just one! I can show you several cases where women get away with MURDER on that claim. They can even shoot a man in the back of the head while he is walking away "How dare he walk away from her Highness?" How about shooting him in the groin and then killing him. Were all the jokes about John Wayne Bobbit some sort of nervous laughter? You sure put the laughter back in slaughter!

  5. >"I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief."You are doing the same thing to others but only see it being done to you. Sounds like…a pattern? And in response to it being done to you, you mischaracterize everyone who disagrees with you. Yet when a feminist does that it's something wholly different, something *more* unfair?I have engaged you honestly. You don't get to say that a mere mention of equality means all the feminists here will jump down your throat.I don't believe you hate women. I do, however, maintain that if you genuinely believe that you are a "second-class citizen" and that women have all the rights at your expense, you are not honestly engaging the world beyond your own personal biases and personal interests. The world is not that simple. "Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"Men are *not* being dehumanized by feminism or by feminist-informed structures. First of all, feminism is not the dominant ideology of the world any of us live in. But more importantly, we live under a system that attempts to dehumanize *everyone* in some ways, and accomplishes different feats of alienation with different classes of people due to how they are situated within a complex and often-oppressive system of socioeconomic relationships. To focus only on those aspects that impact the classes *you personally fall in* is not humanism. It is not even anti-oppressionist. It is simply misguided, because it cannot begin to dismantle the causes of our various oppressions and disadvantages.

  6. >Amused said:“but tell them that at a time when women could not vote, work or participate in government, male politicians, judges and college professors got ahead thanks to their gender — and they will vociferously deny any bias.”This doesn’t make sense. In your logic you are saying that any man can be judges, college professors. Sorry to break this to you but only the men with the skills who had what it takes could be in these positions. Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry.On the other hand, there are cases these days that women will get chosen over men in positions due to the guilt of keeping women back in the past. And/or employers want to avoid getting accused of being biased against women which may lead to a law suit. Reverse discrimination is very alive and well against men at this day and age simply because of what happened in the past. Men get constantly punished and put down because of what other men did generations ago. This type of extreme sexism gets given a pass when it comes to political correctness.Elizabeth said:“Going to a prostitute removes the ick factor of a woman using a male to obtain things she desires through subterfuge and instead makes the interaction straight forward-she provides sex, you provide the money. No messy involvement beyond the physical act. “ In other words, you are telling me that I owe women some financial burden because of my gender. You are pretty much on the same band wagon as the women who expect men to buy them drinks, except that you are telling me that I have to pay in another way (prostitution)Yep, female chauvinism is very alive and well.

  7. >"Those of us who live in the real world tend to keep a sense of proportion about things."—SamAnd what might that be?

  8. >You are the one complaining about having to buy drinks in order for a possible result of sex from a woman. If you want a sex act without having to buy a drink, there is a straight forward alternative with the added bonus of reasonable expectation of lack of STDs.Or you could just not be an arrogant, sexist dickhead and then you could get sex for free from a girlfriend. The choice, little one, is yours.

  9. >" . . .but like Ms. Solanis you haven't moved beyond being angry and hating the way things are to joining together to deal with the systemic causes of your complaints."—Hide And SeekYour tone sounds pretty angry, eh?BTW, I'm not a MRA, so your point is moot. And, course, even worse is that the anger in the MRM isn't validated by you, so you obviously don't take their positions seriously. Feminism as a grasp on hatred than the MRM, that's for certain."But instead of focusing on the legislators and people who have the power to change it, you focus on women and mothers."Anyone that continues that debacle is somehow complicit, legislator or woman, regardless. If they are directly involved in any sense.

  10. >That being said, most MRMs are nothing like Solanis. What a poor comparison.

  11. >Satire is pretty much the only sane response to someone who seems to genuinely think that women are plotting a violent gender genocide against men.

  12. >And if you're going to complain "that's not what I said," well then perhaps you should try using language that's a tad less hyperbolic next time. Not to mention the logic error–All genocides begin with dehumanization of a groupMen as a group are being dehumanizedTherefore men should watch out for a genocide against them.This logical fallacy has a name, I just can't remember it right now…It's the same logical fallacy Nixon was using when he decided to portray marijuana as a "gateway drug" to heroin. Most heroin users start out using MJ, therefore anyone who smokes weed will become a heroin user. It doesn't follow. Why did you use the word "genocide," anyway? What were you thinking of? What would a genocide against men look like? Would women keep men around as slaves, or would they just freeze their sperm and kill them all? Inquiring minds want to know! Your brain sounds like a very exciting place.

  13. >@SallySrange:You deflect the statement: Name any point in history where the dehumanization of a select group of people did not end in, at least, the attempted genocide of those people.You ridicule in your response, because you cannot justify the dehumanization of the male in society.

  14. >http://amysrobot.com/files/dv_ad.JPGhttp://www.politicalcowardice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/respect-girls-1.gifWhere are the "Don't hit boys" or "Respect Boys" camaigns? Tell me we are not dehumanizing our sons at a very young age! These posters are put at the height of a young boy. Treating boys like they are born without conscience and "Awaiting Instructions" is unconscionable!Shame on you! Shame shame shame!!! You support his one-sided BS, shame on you! <- there is your shaming language!

  15. >You cannot feel the shame because that boy who will learn to be beaten by women is justice in you minds.

  16. >Shame on you! Fuck! I am annoyed!

  17. >Hey, let's just make them wear "Don't Rape!" signs on their chests! You irk me professor … I am irked! (from the movie Bolt)

  18. >witman, you realize that guys in the manosphere, especially mgtow types, constantly reduce women to their genitalia, either by suggesting that all they have to offer men is their vaginas, or by simply calling them "cunts." Women are sexually objectified all the time in this way. How is this not dehumanizing?

  19. >Also, witman, you just posted 5 comments in a row. 2 in a row, fine, it happens; 3 in a row, pushing it; more than that and I will just start deleting them. (This applies to everyone.)

  20. >Elizabeth said:"You are the one complaining about having to buy drinks in order for a possible result of sex from a woman. If you want a sex act without having to buy a drink, there is a straight forward alternative with the added bonus of reasonable expectation of lack of STDs."I am not sure if this is directed at me or not. But please tell me where I mentioned that this is about sex? The feminists in here seem to like putting words in men's mouth as a tactic to justify the shitty behaviours from women.My whole point as I have mentioned in here is that many women simply believe men are not to the same standard/worth as women if they don't open their wallets.Just to date a woman or make a woman interested, we are expected to buy them shit."Or you could just not be an arrogant, sexist dickhead and then you could get sex for free from a girlfriend."Isn't it funny how feminists like David allow the word "dickhead" to be used, yet I can remember a while ago, he put a ban on the C word. Is that surprising from feminists? Not at all.Anyway, how about you stop being an arrogant sexist idiot and stop justifying sexist behaviour from women Calling a man an arrogant sexist dickhead for complaining on a stance against sexist behaviour from women is complete idiocy. But again, that's no surprise coming from feminists. You are nothing but an arrogant sexist bigot.

  21. >Ya, ya, I get it (multiple posts). I was irked, sorry for the breach of protocol.I do not use the C word … ever! I don't even quote it. It's not a pissing match, we are comparing what men in the manosphere say and what is actual policy (law). We are justifying what goes on by indicating what some misogynist wants to go on. Apples to Oranges David, apples to oranges. How is that a policy shaper? How do you justify vilifying men/boys in the media and law (VAWA) because some "man" "thinks" women are C***s?

  22. >BTW, thanks for leaving my very irksome posts intact.

  23. >nick, your comment got spam-filtered and is up now.

  24. >Feminists whine, whine, and whine about the objectifying crap on women. Yet in this very thread, they attempt to justify women objectifying men's wallets

  25. >Elizabeth, thanks for the link. the comment got spam filtered but is up now.Interesting that the defense attorney in that case was someone named T. Pain. Presumably he was not allowed to use autotune in court.

  26. >"Feminists whine, whine, and whine about the objectifying crap on women. Yet in this very thread, they attempt to justify women objectifying men's wallets"Objectifying…objects? Okay, Nicko.

  27. >@Dr. Deezee: I think that would be unfortunate, but why do you think that is? @wytchfinde555:My apologies, I did not mean "you" personally, I have no idea what you personally believe (beyond what you have written). I can see how that would be confusing.

  28. >I'd also like to note that I refrained from punching my wife in the face when she burned supper. This blog has been so cathartic for me. :0Just peckin a fought!

  29. >@Hide and Seek.Apology accepted, and thank you for being civil as well.

  30. >Nick, I have no idea what you are babbling about now.

  31. >Nick, I have no idea what you are babbling about now. Of course you don't, you're a feminist

  32. >In year 2011 in western society, do intelligent feminists even exist?

  33. >They do, and they laugh their asses off at morons like you.😀 Thanks for the amusement.

  34. >@doctresjulia,And such an insightful post from a prominent doctress as yourself. Is doctress a feminized version of doctor or some new profession?

  35. >Nick, if you could try to make sense then I would be able to respond. But you refuse to do so to anyone.My original point stands-there is zero reason or obligation for a male to buy a female a drink. Just as there is zero reason or obligation for a female to give a guy sex if he buys her a drink. It is not a case of "if you buy her a drink you will get no where." It is a case of "neither side is obliged to do either action."If you assume someone is thinking you are cheap for not buying a girl a drink, that is your problem. And for the few women out there you assume (as well) to feel they are entitled to being given free things because of their possession of a vagina, no one is forcing you to buy them anything. You can just ignore their existence. The whining you exhibit over this issue is probably why you are unable to be happy with a woman much less the gender.

  36. >It's quite safe to say that women should never accept drinks from a man at all. Specifically ones they are not already on an "official date" with. That has always been the rule my parents taught me to protect myself against men who think it "buys them something", men who react violently/badly to rejection, men who might drug your drink, etc.It's just not worth it to accept a drink from a man regardless of how honorable he appears in his offer.It's very, very common for men to become belligerent, accusatory, and demanding if you dare to accept the drink they've pushed on you just to be polite.The "politeness" (of accepting it to be nice) just really isn't worth a woman's safety or sense of well-being. As for the men…it's better to just ask a woman on a proper date (in the future) if you are genuinely interested in her and see/meet her out somewhere. It makes the man seem more genuine in wanting to get to know her and also makes the woman feel more inclined to NOT think he's a random bootyhound out trying to pick up chicks.That's a rule the women in my family have always followed (never "meet up with" a man who doesn't take you on a proper date) and there are plenty of men who understand and feel the same way in return. And they tend to respect you (as a woman) more for that.The ones who aren't willing to do that….well…count your blessings you didn't waste any time on him.

  37. >I have a simple one-step plan for any guy who wants to protect himself from evil women in bars who expect him to pay for drinks:Don't buy women drinks.That way, any women who simply wants to exploit you for drinks will go away. Note: If it's clear there's an expectation of drink-buying reciprocity — that if you buy one round, she'll buy the next, that sort of thing — then buying drinks is fine. Alternately, you could start start hanging out with the sort of women who expect each person to pay their own way on a date. Of course, there's a good chance these women will be feminists.

  38. Haha, it is quite funny that MRAs & feminists sometimes have simliar objectives.

    Anyway- I wish these guys would post flyers & get public attention. That way their insanity will be exposed to the light of day

  39. So the brilliant plan of this MRA is to use the same strategy as the same folks who place Jack Chick tracts? They’ve not had too much success, but I’d love to see MRA comics in the same style as the Chick ones–they might be as hilarious.

    I love this guy is a NLP believer as well. Yay quackery!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: