W.F. Price: A Daisy Picking Mangina?
I'm onto you, all women!
MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.
Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:
We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?
Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,
a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …
If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.
And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:
[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …
Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.
So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.
On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.” Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:
The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..
[I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)
Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.
Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.
Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!
Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.
Like this:
Posted on May 13, 2011, in antifeminism, evil women, idiocy, internal debate, manginas, marriage strike, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, the spearhead, western women suck. Bookmark the permalink. 315 Comments.
I’m sorry, Pecunium, I was reading too fact and thought it was T4T using that example in earnest.
I appreciate you satire, and I totes don’t hate you I romise!
Beth (forgive me, but 1: I’m doing a lot of typing, and 2: I am afraid I will screw up. I try to avoid clipping screennames, unless I have some sense of either, accepted common practice, or some sort of friendly relationship): I was being over the top.
I know there are women who have led nations to war (your first example is quite apt, and very much in keeping with the time period), and that the core argument, that men’s actions/leadership roles, make it unavoidable for the honest person to conclude they haven’t started more wars.
When someone tries to make the counterargument that, “if they had been in charge they’d have done the same sorts of things”, well it may be true (and one can point to Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher), but it’s not relevant.
One can then, after answering the question, ask if the person thinks women are also just as capable in other areas (say mathematics/invention) and go back to popping corn.
Simone: Ah…if it makes you feel better, I didn’t think you did.
Honestly, I wasn’t sure what you thought; as I didn’t think anyone would be thinking it was anything but parody. I didn’t realise you’d mistaken who wrote it.
And I, for one, would be interested in the response to that question!
Mmmmmmmmmmmm………..popcorn with bacon salt!!! Me please!!
Oh if you want to use the argument that women can be just as irrational in warmongering as men, you picked a great example of the female Ronald Reagan.
I think it would be an interesting study to determine if women were the instigators of war when in charge as an equal percentage of men (not in total numbers because that simply is not possible.) However since the default status for men for much of history has been to kill things, not sure if it would actually match up.
Oh and about my ridiculously long name, it is just is to make sure people know who I am from the old forum. Beth is fine for shortening.
I also wanted to clarify my point about men’s default status-for whatever reason, killing things seems to be one of the top ways men show they are manly men so it seems logical that male rulers would be raised to go kill other countries. Women, on the other hand, are not raised to be womanly women by killing things so they would not be raised with the tendency to go kill other countries if they became rulers. This also was one of the reasons why being a ruler in their own right was so hard to do, no one thought a woman could be as much of a killer.
(aside) titfortat: It’s as if you’ve not been rude to me, see above your response to my self-deprecating comment about writing a long comment.
I didn’t call you names. I described your behavior. You made a sexist remark, and tried to pretend it was, “just a joke.”
That’s cowardly. I told you that you should just own up to it. If you happen to believe the underlying sexism in that joke, fine. I won’t insult you for that (if you don’t believe me, look at my responses to MRAL, or anit).
It’s not that I disagree with you. I’ve disagreed with Plymouth, and Lyn, in this very thread. No name calling.
What you did is cowardly. It’s not standing behind your words.
But, since you asked, I’ll tell you why it’s sexist.
The first statement describes the facts as they are. Men have, historically, started/caused more wars than women have. This is structural. Women haven’t, by and large, been in positions where they could start wars. When they have been in that position they have been known to start them.
You could have tried to make the argument that, per capita, women have a higher likelihood of starting wars. I don’t thin it will hold up, but you can make it.
You didn’t do that.
You said, rather, that women were incapable of starting wars because they menstruate. That’s sexist. It’s continuation of the Greek idea of hysteria i.e. that women are incapable of serious thought because they have a uterus.
That’s why it’s a sexist comment. Which is why it’s not a “joke”.
Beth: I see we had the same thought about demographics.
It gets hard. One has to account for culture too. Mary Queen of Scots was certainly of a bloodthirsty nature, but she didn’t have the support of her subjects. Could she have waged war? We don’t know.
Do Elizabeth I’s allowances (with some Crown support) count as “waging war”? How shall we deal with defensive wars against states ruled by women?
Do the adventures of William and Mary count against Mary?
How do we deal with semi-ruling monarchs in parliamentary democracies? Shall we saddle Victoria with all the wars of Empire?
Controlling for variables makes it almost impossible.
Darksidecat - I don’t see any universal acceptance of HuffPo as a non-credible source so, sorry, that doesn’t fly. If YOU don’t like them as a source it’s up to you to provide a better one. And saying “A statement with a non-credible source is not better than an uncredited statement” is a cop-out - you’re basically defending your right to suck as much as you claim I do. Congratulations? But you’re still missing the point of referring back to my HuffPo link in the first place.
You said:
“It is also worth noting that life expectancy discrepancies occur across classes and cultures, whereas if they were truly only about dangerous jobs, one would expect them to occur primarily amoung poorer individuals”
I replied:
“No, on the job danger is definitely not the only reason for men’s shorter lifespans and if you look at the HuffPo article I linked to you’ll see several others listed.”
I was not trying to get “higher standing” - I was trying to counter the assertion that the life expectancy issue was “only about dangerous jobs”. You were implying that I was trying to make it “only about dangerous jobs” and I was not and I was pointing out that the article I previously referenced in fact DID NOT SAY THAT. So based on having not read my link you were arguing against something I did not actually claim. So I was not saying “read my link and be convinced” - I was saying “read my link and see what I’m actually talking about”.
However, I have now gone and provided 5 other sources that say a similar thing. Are you still contesting my point?
Well I know that I would bomb whatever country that attacked the US to beyond the stone age, salt their earth and whoever was left alive would be crawling the earth in despair if I was in charge of the US.
I tend to be of the Powell School of Warfare with a bit of Roman v Carthage added in when it comes to defensive warfare.
But I would not start wars-they cost too much money.
I think that is mostly because Anit’s contribution to the conversation was an attempt to shame David and commenters on this blog into speaking the way he(she?) thinks they should about MRA’s or not to talk about them at all(shaming into silence?) Although generally the blog is about misogyny. It’s just that when it comes to misogyny, a lot of mra’s engage in it.
Darksidecat
I didn’t know that IGM was that bad. I knew that they would decide a gender and then remove what didn’t fit but I didn’t know that they were actively turning a micro penis into a repressed clitoris.
I am thoroughly horrified once again
Xtra: The other thing in that comment is a sort of ‘gotcha’.
anit accuses me, and everyone else who isn’t playing by anit’s rules of not wanting to interact honestly. It’s clever. The only way to be, “honest” is to agree with some aspect of what anit said.
I, for example, am “dishonest” because I don’t think he is correct when he says I have misquoted him/taken him out of context. Apparently my use of outside sources to support my allegations of fallacy was unfair. Katz’ disdain is taken as shaming language (which is a form of shaming language in itself, but I digress).
MRAs define shaming language as a style of ad hominem debate, where a “feminist” accuses a man of something (e.g. misogyny) which the subject of the language knows to not be true, but which derails the conversation into a defense of the charge, instead of the original post.
“cry me a river” doesn’t do that. It’s not even telling anit to “shut up”. It’s just showing that katz doesn’t think the being complained of is meritless.
Is it rude? Generally yes, depends on context. Is it out of line? Generally not, again, depends on context.
Was anit handled roughly? All on all, not really. No one really made personal attacks, even the things complained of, “anit’s full of shit, which he thinks smells glorious” isn’t really a personal attack. It’s a colorful way of saying anit is wrong, and has no clue as to just how wrong.
Etc.
Given the assertion that MRA boards aren’t all as Dave paints them (though I’m still waiting for that single example of one which isn’t), and the experience I’ve had on them (where the abuse is swift, widespread, and predictable) I don’t see that anit really has any real justification for the complaint of being treated badly.
Heck, I’ve even agreed with titfortat on something (the way men are treated in professions thought of as female), so it’s hard to say it’s because I am biased against people’s arguments because I disagree with the people. It’s probably that I just disagree with the arguments.
Controlling for variables makes it almost impossible.(Pecunium)
I agree.
Now, I think both statements are sexist in that they imply something. The first implies that men are more violent than women. The problem with this is that as Pecunium states there are too many variables to truly know who causes what. I will agree that men typically fight more of the wars but that says nothing as to who causes them. The truth is most men who are in the wars dont want to fight them and they are just following the orders of their state. When it comes to democracies the state is in theory supposed to follow the will of its people and being that our populations are slightly more female than male then isnt it reasonable to conclude that women could be slightly more of the cause of war than men are? In fairness, if we are talking about the patriarchy as a system of belief then this is a definite possibility.
The second statement is sexist because it implies that women are less violent than men and more likely to work things out with some firm talk due to their hormonal time of the month. This discounts the fact that women are potentially just as violent as men and could be quite as likely to be the cause of wars.
Tit4Tat, false equivalent.
One statement is an assertion about what has *actually happened* in history, and is supported by a good bit of evidence. The other is purely speculative and doesn’t even much sense.
The statement that men have started more wars than women doesn’t, in and of itself, imply anything except for that more wars have been started by men. Any other implication one might infer depends on the tone and context in which the statement was made, and on the assumptions of the hearer/reader.
Since it’s been made abundantly clear that everyone on the “feminist” side understand that men starting more wars is probably a function of men having the power to start more wars, it’s reaching to suggest that anyone was trying to imply anything about the inherent nature of men.
Also, you have admitted that your little joke was a “sexist statement.” Why would you deliberately make sexist statements if not to annoy and antagonize people? And doesn’t that make you kind of a douche?
It’s honestly taken me a while to see why so many people dislike you, but boy howdy am I starting to see it now.
Also popcorn!!
Simone
Youve never laughed at a sexist joke, really? I dont mind you disagreeing with how I/you see certain sexist statements. I cant remember who said this but it went something like this.
“TFT dont get too offended, afterall its just pixels on a screen”
Funny thing being offended, dont you think?
Since it’s been made abundantly clear that everyone on the “feminist” side understand that men starting more wars is probably a function of men having the power to start more wars,(Simone)
Oh by the way then, you might want to clarify “which” men that may be, afterall some “Feminists” are men, I think?
I’m not offended. You did not hurt my feelings. You made an unoriginal, unfunny statement demeaning my gender. I found this to be douchebag behavior, and was unimpressed. Geez.
Of course some feminist are men. There seems to be a consensus among the commenters here (male and female) who were discussing the statement that “men start more wars” from a feminist/anti-sexist point of view. That consensus, as I understand it, was that more men start was because of structural factors, not because of the inherent nature of men. So it is absurd to suggest that “men start more wars” was meant as an assertion that men are inherently violent.
Sexism = prejudice + power. Just sayin’.
Also, since T4T admitted hir comment was sexist, and hir audience has pretty much agreed it wasn’t funny, what more is there to debate about? It wasn’t a sexist joke, because it wasn’t funny. It wasn’t a non-sexist comment, because it was sexist.
But please pass the popcorn.
So it is absurd to suggest that “men start more wars” was meant as an assertion that men are inherently violent.(Simone)
Then what does it mean? I really want to know what the implication is? Is it just that men start more wars and if so why does it matter?
So, titfortat recycled an old Robin Williams joke (“If women were the world leaders there would never be any war, just intense negotiations every 28 days”) and followed it up by saying “To ward off any nasty comebacks I apologize for the sexist humour.” Now he says that the reason he believes the Robin Williams joke is sexist is mainly that it shows women to be less violent than men.
That brings us up to date, to the point in time where I say bullshit.
The “joke” is sexist because it relies on age-old concepts about how women are at different times during their menstrual cycles. Conventional wisdom says: We turn into raving bitches! We’re irrational! We pick fights! We invent grievances! We cannot possibly ever be angry, discontented, irritated, or put out for any valid reason because someone (I hate to point fingers, but some man, really) will accuse us of being on the rag. We are ruled by hormones, unreliable, not to be trusted, and … many other things that the MRA and other misogynists like to accuse us of.
So yeah. You’ve totally mischaracterized why the “joke” you’ve admitted is sexist is sexist. Remember how I called you disingenuous before? You’re doing it again.
titfortat: The point isn’t that the joke was sexist, qua sexist, but how you used it. Context matters.
Lydia: It’s not a question of, “inherent” violence. It’s a question of relative violence.
I think titfortat’s misunderstanding is that he is confusing the factual aspects of one statement (i.e. men have started more wars) with an idea that it’s also a statement of tendency (i.e. all things being equal men will start more wars).
I can say that Beth seems more willing to start wars than I am. It’s a single datum, but there you go.
I’m also sure I’ve also participated in more wars than Beth has. It’s a single datum, but there you go.
It doesn’t tell you anything about whether Beth more, or less, violent than I am. It certainly doesn’t address any questions on “male vs female” because even the situations at issue (starting/taking part) are apples to potatoes: they aren’t even in the same category (that is to say, both potatoes and apples are</i edible reproductive bodies of plants, but one is a sugar rich fruit, and the other a starch rich tuber).
As you say, he's made a false equivalence.
I was reminded of a song and realized Im in way over my head. Here are the tale end of the lyrics.
Do you think I bow out cause I think you’re right?
Or cause I don’t wanna fight?
I said, “I give”
Cool tune actually, here you go in case anyone wants to listen. Bonsoir.
titfortat: I can’t say was meant. I can only say what I inferred.
This is the One thing not mentioned about the danger men put themselves into is the fact that men tend to be more of stupid risk takers then women are, fail to read the directions then women do and otherwise make it more likely that they will hurt themselves. Also, it tends to be men who cause war not women. (Note the Tend.)
Beth made it, she can tell you what she meant.
But you didn’t ask what she meant. You immediately charactarised it as an attack on me.
What I see is that, in response to a comment implying men are expected to sacrifice themselves that wars (one of the places such heroics are made, and one of those in which there is an actual social pressure to perform them [I'm retired from the Army, I can say that, as a culture, the pressure to do things at risk of life and limb; for other people, is strong], and so relevant to the comment it’s addressing) is a situation caused not so much by women, but by men, and as such the sacrifice isn’t really in the same category as jumping into the Potomac to pull people out of sinking plane.
This is a debatable claim, but pretty strong. The debatable part is for the more recent wars where public opinion is important in starting them. At that point women, who are now part of the active political world (as franchise holding citizens, as opinion makers [Maureen Dowd, Judith Miller, Laura Ingram, etc.] and office holders) they have some share of the blame in legitimising wars.
Look tit4tat, your joke sucked. Have you noticed that nobody defended you on this board? As far as I can tell, everyone here thought your joke sucked.
You did not amuse anyone with your joke, because it was sucky.
All you accomplished with this joke was to (1) derail this comment thread for a couple of pages and (2) inspire at least one person (myself) to develop an intense dislike for you personally.
So you might want to rethink whether you joke was a good idea. Just saying.
er, an attack on MEN. Not me. I don’t think your questions about that idea have been attacks on me.
@titfortat
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/2/159
Not sure if you can read the article due to publishing access but the abstract is pretty clear. Sexist jokes are pretty much a bad thing. I’m not quite sure how you thought a bunch of feminists would react. Not to say I’ve never laughed at one ever, but this one wasn’t very funny (to me anyway) mostly because it was unoriginal (ie how basically every internet comment thread contains some joke about a woman making a sandwich or getting back to the kitchen).
Not even that-it’s just that, regardless of the merits of his complaints, it’s his job to fix them.
And yes, on an unrelated note, T4T’s joke sucked.
katz: That’s a different thing, and ought to go without saying. I note that anit spent a lot of time saying I quoted, “out of context” and misrepresented what was said.
I further not that specifics weren’t actually forthcoming, nor were clarifications of the positions I, “got wrong” so that people would know what was actually meant.
So, in addition to the fallacies, anit doesn’t seem to know how to actually argue.
Pecunium, exactly correct on the self sacrifice part not being quite what is going on when a man goes off to war since it is mostly men, for various previously stated reasons, who cause war.
So it seems odd to me to claim “men self sacrifice for women because they go off to war that men probably started.”
@Bee,
EXACTLY!! With a wave of the “on the rag” wand, women themselves are the joke and need not be taken seriously.
Don’t actually have another comment to make, seems like everyone else has covered it pretty well.
I’m just here for the popcorn.
So what are these self sacrifices men are making? I’d love to know.
It is pretty awesome with the bacony flavor.
I think the point of the acronym “NAWALT” is that some people use the rebuttal “not all women are like that” to a person who was never arguing that all women were like that in the first place. Of course not all women are like that. Not all women are like anything. Not all women have vaginas, for Chrissake. But SOME women may have a given trait, and sometimes, a trait is more common among women than it is among men. It doesn’t mean all women are like that.