>Trogdor005 goes ghost
>
My new favorite commenter on the Happy Bachelors Forum is a fellow calling himself trogdor005, who pretty much lives up to his name, offering blunt misogynist rants with all the subtlety of a caveman. A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts. So here is the first in a new series, “The Wit and Wisdom of Trogdor005.”
Today’s topic: “Going ghost.” For those not conversant with the latest in angry-man slang, this is a term adopted by the manosphere that’s basically a variant on Men Going Their Own Way — that is, disengaging from women and as much as possible from society itself. A man who goes ghost is, of course, a ghost. Here’s how you use it in a sentence:
That creepy douchebag who lives alone in the basement apartment and scowls every time a women walks by is a ghost.
Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a woman who mocked the whole “ghost” notion:
I admit it, every time I read about some guy in the manosphere declaring that he or other men are going to go ghost, I laugh. I laugh real hard. When I have nothing else to laugh about because it feels as if nothing is going my way I think of those men, I laugh, and I am instantaneously cheered up.
The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor.
This post MAKE TROGDOR MAD! So he banged out a response. He began by showing off his hard-won font-size-modification and smiley skills:
Then he moved into the meat of his argument:
The bottom line is men can avoid women entirely and there is NO FORCE on Earth that can force us into “marriage” or even a “relationship” with a woman minus a gun to the head. Even if the Guv’ment succeeds in somehow “forcing” men to get married, we as ghosts know what makes you bitches tick and can simply become unemployed intentionally, become fat stinky slobs, treat you very nicely/well, or more devastatingly effective, say the words “I love you” and cause you to instantly lose ALL attraction for us and be miserable in your Guv’ment arranged “marriages” ;D … The icing on the cake is that, when you inevitably file for “divorce” after years of unhappiness/New Cock Urge it is YOU who will pay US men “alimony” and “child support” since we were unemployed during the “marriage” hahahahhahaha ;D
Yes, you heard it right ladies, even if the government gives in to your dastardly desires and actually forces men to marry you, they can defeat you without lifting a finger, literally, except when their fingers are needed to shove food into their mouths.
Trogdoor005 then rallied the troops with some stirring rhetoric:
Men are winning the “gender war” and there is NOTHING the wimminz can do about it … The matriarchy needs a steady supply of manginas/husbands to feed the system and keep it running, a ghost is the anti-thesis of the mangina/husband and therefore MUST be discredited, silenced, and destroyed.
Many of us men will go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives, meanwhile many of these same Femini-nazi bitches will end up with cats and vibrators in their old age.
Here’s where Trogdor005 went wrong: plenty of non-elderly women have cats and vibrators already.
Posted on January 6, 2011, in crackpottery, ghosts, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, sex, trogdor005. Bookmark the permalink. 113 Comments.
>Cold, if I recall correctly the general psychology-world take on suicide and gender is that men have more social pressure to "suck it up" and not reach out for help. Men generally are more likely to suffer silently and then end it all. This is not to say that all men experience depression in this way, of course, but the reading I did about this subject, from psychology sources, talked quite a bit about how gender roles play into suicide rates. Suicide is absolutely *not* a good indicator of who has it best and worst in this society. Depression can be genetic as much as it can be experiential. Depression and suicidal ideation are tremendously complex subjects and you are doing a disservice to pretty much *everybody* to co-opt the matter so simplistically and for your own ideological purposes. There are no answers to be found by boiling things down to simple talking points in order to prove that your prejudices are justified. Also aggressively oversimplified: your arguments about word meanings. Invoking an argument about modern law with regard to what you were saying before about bitterness is so fantastically silly I have no idea what to say. There is a reason no one takes your "movement" seriously.Witman, I maintain that focusing selfishly on one small corner of a complex issue because it's something you personally experience while ignoring the whole of social interactions and the complexity of the issues at hand are the opposite of seriousness and are why this grievance-driven fringe fantasy you guys have going is not working. Serious people are already working on the issues you keep bringing up in simplistic and narrow fashion; when they are resolved, and I certainly hope that the legitimate issues I agree with you on to some extent *are* resolved, it will not be thanks to a reactionary fringe with a microscopic focus and a refusal to examine the world in full.
>Wytch, no, I actually have the same SIWOTI Syndrome several other commenters have said they have. I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke.
>Witman-I did not say it does not happen, I said there is no history of it being a right. So you are asserting a right that does not in fact exist.Or if you do want to insist it exists-the right to call you a sexist pig for doing so equally exists.
>Cold, I think you're being much too literal minded about the definition of misogyny. I also think that guys who are constantly making derogatory remarks about women (or "western women"), and who basically organize their lives to avoid women, and spend a lot of time online discussing this, do in fact hate women. This hatred may be tinged with ambivalence, as hatred often is, but it is still hatred. You, for example, found out about this blog on a forum linked to a site premised on putting American women down — Nice Guy's American Women Suck site — and you've posted thousands of comments on the forum. Many of those posting there are in fact rabid misogynists. I hate to break it to you, but you may just sort of kind of be a little bit of a misogynist yourself.
>"I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke."-MMRAs take many of their issues seriously. Perhaps if you had read more forums and blogs you would realize that instead of making a superficial judgment value.I could state that feminists are responsible for their movement for being a joke, but I know better. They have more power and impact than the MRM at this time, and even deny this power and clout despite of all of this. Many feminists make absurdist commments and strawmen, but I would not say the that feminism is a joke considering the damage that it has caused.
>@Elizabeth,I will not call myself a sexist pig (you can do that for me). I will say that I enjoy a pleasant female and I don not mind being pleasant to a female. That is not sexist! Isn't that how the whole thing works? You ignore history and your own gender by labeling men sexist for finding the female form enticing. That, my dear is sexist!You are a chauvinist PIG!
>That is, of course, unless you get to define ogling when you do it.
>"MRAs take many of their issues seriously. Perhaps if you had read more forums and blogs you would realize that instead of making a superficial judgment value."I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke and that all the meaningful issues that a venn diagram might show MRAs sharing with serious activists will be much better addressed in those other hands.
>"I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke . . ."—MSo why should they take feminist issues seriously if you don't take MRAs seriously? You just being dismissive because they have grievances? That's an opinion which offers no solutions, just a hypocritical condemnation that fuels their agendas even moreso.
>Ogling goes beyond a glance at an attractive person. This is not a "oh look at that lovely woman" it is "oh stare at that lovely woman." So to claim you have a right to stare at a woman just because she is pretty is presuming a right you do not have. You can certainly look at her briefly in admiration but ogling is a different story.If you said "I have the right to look at a pretty woman" you certainly would be correct but you did not. You went beyond that.
>M, you are absolutely right. There are a few MRAs who, however wrong they may be, actually do care deeply about some of the issues in the MRM. There are some Father's Rights activists who (again, however wrong I think they are) do actually engage in activism. But the more I read of MRA sites and forums the more it becomes clear that the majority of MRAs, at least online, don't really give a shit about the issues, and use them as an excuse to air their generalized hatred of and "grievances" towards women, mixing real issues with really petty complaints and generalized woman-bashing. Hence, for example, the number of posts highlighting "women behaving badly" on mra/mgtow message boards. And take the issue of rape. What affects more men — prison rape or being falsely convicted of rape? Prison rape, by a long shot. Even if this weren't the case, though women are as likely to be raped in prison as men, this is an issue that mostly affects men. While "false rape accusations" are talked about endlessly on MRM message boards, and while MRAs may talk a bit about the evils of prison rape, it's usually as a way to score point at all the feminists who supposedly make jokes about prison rape. What do they do about it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I searched the internet to find MRAs actually talking substantively about the issue, and actually found that far more feminists than MRAs were talking about it. (See the "further reading" thing in the sidebar for the link). The closest thing to activism I've seen from MRAs in a long time is the urinal poster idea. And even that seems more focused on the airing of grievances than anything else. Notice that the main issue MRAs wanted to talk about here in relation to the urinal poster idea was the evils of women getting their drinks paid for at bars even though they don't want to have sex with the guys paying for the drinks.
>@David,You completely ignore Fathers and Families which do something (squash unfair bills), and Fathers 4 Justice that do the same in Canada (in a different way).@M,"I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke . . ."—MWouldn't Feminism be a grievance-driven joke?HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly women!
>witman, please reread the first paragraph of my comment, and take note of the word "fathers."
>Yes, I see that. Thank you for acknowledging Fathers' grievances David. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall so I assume (ass-u-me). My bad!
>Now let's talk about men accused (note ACCUSED) of sexual assault and see the damage that can be done on a mere accusation.How about the campaign to dehumanize our sons "Awaiting Instructions".Can we actually address some legitimate concerns of men without somebody exclaiming [Get over the fact that she "took your baby in court!"] <-paraphraseMy baby is the most important thing in the world to me and the family court system and all its biases are the worst thing to happen to humanity.
>"So why should they take feminist issues seriously if you don't take MRAs seriously? You just being dismissive because they have grievances? That's an opinion which offers no solutions, just a hypocritical condemnation that fuels their agendas even moreso."Actually, no, I am not being dismissive *because* of grievances. I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger. It's one thing to be angry; it's another thing entirely to focus exclusively on only the parts of life that make you angry and declare that to be the system under which we all live. Witman, modern feminism is about socioeconomic frameworks and not about all the ways one has been wronged. It's part of an intersecting complex of anti-oppression and human rights movements. And because it's about the whole and not a handful of parts, feminism incorporates concern for the rights of men and the way men are diminished by the forces and frameworks feminism criticizes and opposes-often the same things that hurt women hurt men in different, and sometimes parallel, ways.
>"My baby is the most important thing in the world to me and the family court system and all its biases are the worst thing to happen to humanity."The worst thing to happen to humanity? All of humanity? In history? Okay then, prove my point for me!
>Also I don't know how many times people can say "It is not feminism taking your kids away from you; feminism opposes this" before you'll hear us, but FEMINISM DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS. You are getting bad info if you really think feminism is about stacking the courts against fathers.
>"I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger."— MWell, that anger is often propelled because socioeconomic change often doesn't pan out despite effort. Look at visitation rights and custody with children for example. Are you saying that MRMs are based on anger as a base? I realize you aren't dismissing grievances but even as a reaction there is often a reason, and when social change doesn't occur for men's rights that resentment can continue. What is "selfish anger?" Is it caused by the fact that rational self-interest is being diminished or even punished by misandry and compounding that anger? Just saying.BTW, I don't think that all of MRM are reactionary, although it often starts off that way, it can be force for greater things.
>David: What do they do about it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.I would not call it 'NOTHING' because it seems, feminists worldwide feel deeply disturbed by the Men's Rights Movement and try everything to slander and to silence it.It takes a while, many years, to feel the presence of the Men's Rights Movement.There is now among men a stong tendency for foreign wives, a strong tendency to remain single and to reject family and children. There is a strong movement among men to relocate to other countries, especially for retirement.The best argument, coming up more and more, is about financial aspects of feminism. As a fact, feminism is expensive, is non-productive and we do not have money anymore in Western countries to pay for it.
>"David Futrelle said… Saying "women are children" = misogyny."David hates children. HA! HA! HA!
>"Elizabeth said… Ogling goes beyond a glance at an attractive person. This is not a "oh look at that lovely woman" it is "oh stare at that lovely woman." So to claim you have a right to stare at a woman just because she is pretty is presuming a right you do not have. You can certainly look at her briefly in admiration but ogling is a different story."Don't presume to tell me my rights.
>Amused wrote"It goes without saying, of course, that most people are consumers of civilization. But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence, and if you, embittered sexless dunces, remove yourselves from it, this won't make a dent. You won't be missed, I guarantee you. You WILL be forgotten, and the world will go on just fine."So then how long until you feminist types finally go extinct?
>@M"I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger."— MSo a grievance is only a grievance if you deem it so; otherwise it is just a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger? I see. What about the black people M, do they have your blessing (Bring it to me Sista)? Hispanics (vamos Senorita)? Jews (Oy Veh)? Muslims (Allah Akbar)? Whites (fuck no!), Christians (fuck no!), Men (fuck no!), Children (please don't kill me!)What (pray tell) is the difference in your eyes. It seems all you can do is recite rhetoric but you've failed to even answer the question of my privilege.
>@Amused:"But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence,"A few less "Useless Eaters"? Are you a Eugenicist or are you just talking about the money sucking, self propagating feminist movement?@David, please excuse the double post.
>whitman, As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.Thanks,A concerned male
>Evilwhitemaleempire,Ironically my job entails telling people their rights.And that is not one of them.
>"Please remove yourself from the gender." —Jpeg.ArjoonWhich could be construted as a call for suicide to whitman. Explain yourself.
>David Futrelle said… Saying "women are children" = misogyny. I do not say that. But I say, some certain laws in some certain feminist countries are treating women like children.A good example is the UK domestic violence lawhttp://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/4827/Treating women like children The proposed changes to the law on domestic violence are degradingArticle was written by a woman, a barrister btw…Another good example is the Swedish prostitution law, which says to sell sex is fine, but to pay for sex is a crime. And - interesting - see this situation, only the man will be charged with a crime…These women - adults - were not charged with theft, robbery and false allegations…because they are 'victims' and the law is treating them as 'women like children'.Link below… http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/
>@ Elizabeth:So can Elizabeth or any feminut here tell me exaclty (in seconds, minutes or hours) how long is a glance and how long is an ogle?Random Brother
>. . .should be spelled "exactly."Random Brother
>jpeg.arjoon said:"whitman, As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.Thanks,A concerned male"They should take your post and save it so that whenever someone asks what a mangina or a pussy is they have a reference. Random Brother
>David Futrelle said… Cold, ….. I also think that guys who are constantly making derogatory remarks about women (or "western women"), and who basically organize their lives to avoid women, and spend a lot of time online discussing this, do in fact hate women. ….. You, for example, found out about this blog on a forum linked to a site premised on putting American women down — Nice Guy's American Women Suck site — and you've posted thousands of comments on the forum… David, and who are you? You are simply said, a misandrist, spending many hours online, you hate everything male and obviously you even hate yourself. You are totally psycho, if you ask me.About the Niceguy Forum, you should ask yourself, why it does exist.Stories over there by members are not written out of their fantasy, but out of personal experience.NiceGuy's Members rarely hate all women - many of them had bad experiences in the past, were badly cheated and ripped off by Western women and now they are disappointed and are mistrusting.They cannot expect any help under the present legal situation and they cannot even expect any understanding for their bad situation when telling their stories to man-haters like you and other radical supporters of feminism.But why should all these many men remain silent?Why should they not be allowed to say openly what they feel?
>jpeg.arjoon said:"whitman, As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.Thanks,A concerned male" This is the only posting I noticed so far from you. I would not call it to be an intelligent contribution to this thread however.Btw, next time please sign with your name.Thanks,A concerned male (FYI, a concerned male is a male, who is concerned about males..)
>I hate to break it to you, but you may just sort of kind of be a little bit of a misogynist yourself.I have unfettered access to my own mind, so I know better than anyone else, including you, whether or not I hate women. There are numerous individual men and women who I have good reason to hate, but I harbor no collective hatred towards women.For your information, I discovered this site through your "advertisement" on The Spearhead before the thread on Mancoat dedicated to you was started.
>Witman, if the civil rights movement or movements led by any of those groups you mentioned focused on a small handful of cherrypicked areas while ignoring other realities, they would not have succeeded. Anger at injustice is not the same thing as selective complaints used to further a largely selfish agenda. Also, I am not speaking from some feminist rhetoric. I am speaking for myself and as someone who has not read a bunch of theory or any of that stuff.There is no point in engaging in a discussion of privilege with you because when I have attempted before you and others have refused to listen, have employed circular arguments, and have basically refused a good faith engagement. Which is actually…privilege, you know, in that the privileged classes have the option to opt out of noticing or caring about things that don't impact them directly.If you are seriously interested in what people mean by privilege, I have previously provided links and you are welcome to read about it and educate yourself. I am not going to waste time trying to get through to someone who is clearly not interested in listening, however. And you know, just because you personally do not observe male privilege in your day to day life it does not mean it doesn't exist. Stop defining the world only as it looks to you-you certainly don't like it when others do that. Yet you seem to reserve the right to do it yourself. The world does not look the same to everyone. And the world as *women* experience it is not something you have any kind of experiential authority to define. If you want me to accept that there are areas you experience as injustice you have to grant me the same courtesy and accept that as a woman I *have* experienced oppression *because of my gender*. Do you not see how you're refusing to see the world except as through your eyes? And refusing to allow anyone else's perspectives as legitimate? Funnily enough, that's privilege too, but that's not why I mentioned it. Anyway I'm done with these comments sections now because talking to you guys is a net waste of time for me. Adios.
>@M,That is because your definition of male privilege is that because I am a male I am born with privilege. This kind of circular argument may work in your circles, but I'm not buying that.Perhaps if you could point out one specific thing in my life that was granted to me by my "privilege", I might listen to your circular logic, but until that time, let's just say I didn't have any privilege. If anything, my gender (and race) was a disadvantage in my childhood and my career.And you know, just because you personally do not observe (fe)male privilege in your day to day life it does not mean it doesn't exist. Stop defining the world only as it looks to you-you certainly don't like it when others do that. Yet you seem to reserve the right to do it yourself. The world does not look the same to everyone. And the world as *men* experience it is not something you have any kind of experiential authority to define. If you want me to accept that there are areas you experience as injustice you have to grant me the same courtesy and accept that as a man I *have* experienced oppression *because of my gender*. There, right back at you.
>witman said… @M,……….Perhaps if you could point out one specific thing in my life that was granted to me by my "privilege"….. If anything, my gender (..snip..) was a disadvantage in my childhood and my career. Very very true.I was cutting out 'race', as I am a simple white man born in Central Europe in poverty after WWII..Otherwise the sentence above by 'witman' could be written by myself.I never had any privilege because of my male gender in my life, that's for sure. More the opposite I would say.I never met a feminist who could explain me my privileges - because there are none.All this talk about male privileges is nothing else but feminist BS, shaming language, scorn…
>Whitman, Yohan, and ignorant lurkers as well, you know there is a feminism 101 blog out there. It has brief responses, suggested beginner reading (with links), and clarifications of commonly used terms. Here's the one for male privilege http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/ You say you want to learn the basics? There you go, get cracking.Damn people too lazy to do even a basic google search about a topic beforehand should avoid talking about it.
>It's alarming to see some of the men in the comments here who speak of hate speech and violence toward women as something to be excused by those males so long as they had been "cheated on" or "divorced" by a woman. As if that's a good reason.So then, I assume any and all violence and hate against men that a woman perpetuates is completely acceptable as long as some guy, somewhere, cheated on her once or twice? Or she had some bad experiences with men?Why can't some of these posters make a logical argument? In one breath they discount every female victim, every feminist, everything that could possibly make "men" look bad/guilty of anything (such as historical fact and proven criminal statistics)….while excusing each and every action, word, and crime committed by men as long as he had a "good reason" to be pissed.It's strange that they see these arguments as anything but emotional, illogical, astoundingly hypocritical, and hysterical.It's sad to see that some modern men still haven't learned where these sorts of attitudes will get them. They are only making more trouble for their own gender and more discord amongst the genders themselves.
Thesre is a fundimental problem with troll-blogs such as this one. You may legitimately claim that men do not deserve respect (authought this suggests psycological problems) but you cannot say that no one has the right to say that we do.
These are two seperate issues.
Uh, no one has said that men don’t deserve respect. Both men and women deserve respect, not so much as men and women, but as human beings. I have never ever ever suggested otherwise. You may want to loosen your ideological blinders a little bit; they’re cramping your ability to read.
I like cats, I like vibrators. I don’t see a problem here
+ thank god these dudes don’t want to marry us women