I think we have a new [NSFW] catchphrase!
A You-know-whatted Circus in action.
MGTOWers have such a way with words. Here’s MrLahey on MGTOWforums explaining his movement in a nutshell:
[W]e’re voting with our feet, and the best way to say no to the cunted circus is to stop feeding it with your participation.
They’ll only notice you when they’re short your money.
“Cunted circus.” Lovely. I will be working it into as many conversations as I dare. Assuming I can figure out how to use it in a sentence. Can you?
(I’m taking off the “cunt” filter for the occasion.)
Posted on August 11, 2011, in evil women, funny, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 272 Comments.
Thomas wrote “Of course, most feminist are aware that they shouldn’t explicitly call a man a wimp, but that doesn’t stop them from enforcing traditional masculine behavior and values if it’s convenient for them.
I’ve been called a insecure twit with a small dick from a feminist commenter here, because I slightly made fun of the feminist outrage over Elevatorgate.”
Thomas, Thank you thank you than you for that brilliant statement. As much as feminists are conscious that they should not call a man it does not stop them from enforcing traditional masculine behaviors and values.” These feminists say they want a man to cry and be sensitive.” Once a guy does be sensitive they fear he may not be able to protect them. What a double standard.
Kristinmh asked me
have a question for you. When you look at/talk to/interact with a woman, do you ask sometimes think “I wonder what it’s like to be her”? Do you understand that women have inner lives and feelings that may have absolutely nothing to do with tempting or controlling you? Do you make any effort to think of things from her perspective, and if you do, do you feel you can successfully do this?
kristinmh, I understand women have inner lives and feelings.I just am trying to be a celibate responsible MGTOW masculine male instead of a perpetually horny, Stereotypical promiscuous “Don Juan” male. I am a man still. I am wired with a potent sex drive. I am heterosexual so for me attractive women tempt me. I think women are beautiful and feminine and soft. So for me I just feel like I am tempted daily by the media with lustful images of females and also by how some women dress. In today’s time sleeping around can be dangerous anyway, it is safer to be monogamous or celibate for a man. I hope this answers your question. If I start t let my guard down, if I interact with a woman in a public place, I could fall into temptation and then become an irresponsible, unconscious, promiscuous male. thinking only with his dick as opposed to a responsible MGTOW male.
As far as commas Kristin, I heard from an old collegiate Proffesor “When in doubt, leave out”
@Samuel:
“As far as commas Kristin, I heard from an old collegiate Proffesor “When in doubt, leave out””
Then for all that is holy please educate yourself so there will be no doubt. Seriously.
Still waiting Samuel. Fifth time I’ve asked, please link me to the feminists who call men wimps and gay.
Samuel wrote, “Since for years unconscious men thought with their Penis constantly…”
Is that when you sleepwalk with an erection?
“Once a guy does be sensitive they fear he may not be able to protect them.”
I don’t want to be protected, by a boyfriend or anyone else. I want to be respected and have my company enjoyed. Simple as that. If men did more respecting, we wouldn’t need to be “protected” from disrespectful men.
Now stop thinking you’re a Mel Gibson character who can read womens’ minds, like in that shitty movie. If that’s what you’re trying to do, ur doing it wrong. Since just about every woman I’ve ever encountered on the planet begs and pleads for men to stop posturing that they’re tough and protective and instead to start acting like a human being with a full range of human emotions. You’re enslaved to your own set of ridiculous and contradictory demands, which you continuously project onto women. See? Just stop doing that. There, now you feel better, right?
“And regarding Elevatorgate. In her followup clip Watson used the stereotype of the misogynistic virgin who marries a sex-doll to shame everyone who disagrees with her on the issue. Of course these guys, if they even exist, are easy targets. Who’s going to defend them? They are already despised and feminist like Watson only have to tap into the overall cultural contempt to create a boogeyman for her purpose. ”
She didn’t say anything about marrying a sex doll. She said, quite simply, that if you can’t see any possible issue with cornering a woman at 4am in an elevator and propositioning her despite her professing both tiredness and a desire not to be propositioned, that you’re not going to go far with ladies. This isn’t to do with stereotypes, but the fact that if you repeatedly fail to listen to women, you’re not going to be liked by many women. Quite simple really. And yes, she uses snark, but nowhere does she say anything about marrying a sex bot. Shes just saying that, if you want to have sex, but cannot comprehend the idea of listening to the objects of your desire, that you may need to look into other solutions.
Please point out the double standard here. Does she elsewhere say that women who don’t listen to men deserve to get laid by them? Or that women who go and leave misandrist comments all over are upstanding human beings?
N4ever wrote “don’t want to be protected, by a boyfriend or anyone else. I want to be respected and have my company enjoyed. Simple as that. If men did more respecting, we wouldn’t need to be “protected” from disrespectful men.”
I ask you this Lets say a man is respectful as you say. He was a great man caring respectful but did not want sex. Maybe holding hands hugging but the man was celibate would you date him? I doubt so most women wouldn’t what a double standard.
Snowy, I think Holly made the comment ( I cannot find it but it was this morning ) go look she said Feminists are not trying to quell (she used that term) men from objectifying women. Ask her about that. Her comment is up there in the threads
Uh, no, sorry Samuel, you were the one that made the comment that I am asking you about.
“But when a man says he is celibate or if he sees a sexy girl he turns his head away like a monk because he does not want to have lustful objectification of women thoughts he is mocked as a wimp or gay as feminists do.”
That right there? That was all you Samuel. Maybe you should look “up there in the threads” at your own comment.
“I ask you this Lets say a man is respectful as you say. He was a great man caring respectful but did not want sex. Maybe holding hands hugging but the man was celibate would you date him? I doubt so most women wouldn’t what a double standard.”
How is this a double standard, precisely? If the man doesn’t want any sex ever, he should not be in a relationship with a woman who does. This works exactly the same in the reverse. Couples with largely mismatched libidos are hard enough to keep together unless extra-relationship sex is okay with the couple.
samuel: Do you think any of the insults Thomas has gotten here were simply because he disagreed, or is it possible that he engaged in provocative behavior and got a response?
I mean that. Take a look at Nobby’s response, wherein the lack of fair representation of Skepchicks actual position is made clear.
The problem isn’t that Thomas is being unfairly called an ignorant twit, it’s that he is an ignorant twit who misrepresents other people’s points of view.
As to, “senstive/manly”… more bullshit. One, it’s not my job to protect my female friends (any more than it’s my job to protect my male friends). Have I ever engaged in protective behavior? Yes. I have training/experience which causes me to take some specific actions in response to things like gunfire, and when those have happened I’ve told people to do things.
None of that has anything to do with any levels of sensistivity I have.
…
Putting spaces inside parentheses is wrong.
Sometimes putting spaces inside parentheses is well-nigh unforgivable.
Anyone else notice how Samuel slipped the “feminine” right in there with “beautiful” and “soft”… anyone else starting to notice how binary thinking is the default mode for these guys?
Yeah, me too.
FTFY
Cynickal, thankyou for the Count video. That made my day! I’ll never look at him the same way again
Anyone else notice how Samuel slipped the “feminine” right in there with “beautiful” and “soft”… anyone else starting to notice how binary thinking is the default mode for these guys”
Binary thinking? what does that mean? MGTOW guys have Binary thinking?
Samuel, who are the feminists that mock celibate or gay men as wimps?
“Binary thinking? what does that mean? MGTOW guys have Binary thinking?”
Tell you what Samuel, you answer my question and I’ll answer yours, okay?
Kristin:
I have a question for you. When you look at/talk to/interact with a woman, do you ask sometimes think “I wonder what it’s like to be her”? Do you understand that women have inner lives and feelings that may have absolutely nothing to do with tempting or controlling you? Do you make any effort to think of things from her perspective, and if you do, do you feel you can successfully do this?
Samuel:
kristinmh, I understand women have inner lives and feelings.I just am trying to be a celibate responsible MGTOW masculine male instead of a perpetually horny, Stereotypical promiscuous “Don Juan” male…
…followed by a long, long paragraph all about women temping and controlling him, and also how hot we are, and ways he thinks we ought to act. Sigh.
I have a friend who thought this way when he was younger (although he didn’t complain about women; he just thought being totally sexless was the way to be a nice guy). It was such a relief when he grew out of it.
Dude, if you don’t want sex, but you do want a relationship, seek out asexual women who want the same thing you do. Don’t go after sexual women and expect them to give up sex for you. Not gonna work.
Samuel seems unable to answer me xD
Once a guy does be sensitive they fear he may not be able to protect them. What a double standard.
How was Thomas being sensitive? o_O What did Thomas say about Skepchick and the Elevator incident that was “sensitive”?
There are lots of “sensitive” guys here and yet somehow they seem to get along fine. xD There’s even non-”sensitive” guys here and yet somehow we get along fine w/ them too xD
That’s a weird question about the men here btw, what do you believe their ulterior motive is? :3
Your idea of building bridges seems to be w/ kerosene xD Good luck. xD
Samuel seems unable to answer anyone.
Some feminists organize a “slut walk” where one of the objectives is that a woman can dress any way she wants and be free and “Yes means yes, no means no”. I just think the “slut walk” can be degrading to women.
Being free to welcome or decline sex is not degrading. It is the opposite of degrading. You may think you’re not a misogynist, but you’re sure acting like one right now.
Anyway, where are the feminists who insult gay men or celibate men? Source that claim.
Some feminists organize a “slut walk” where one of the objectives is that a woman can dress any way she wants and be free and “Yes means yes, no means no”.
Is that a problem? o_O
Voip wrote
Being free to welcome or decline sex is not degrading. It is the opposite of degrading. You may think you’re not a misogynist, but you’re sure acting like one right now.
Anyway, where are the feminists who insult gay men or celibate men? Source that claim.
My response to Kristin
Interestingly I can answer your question as Kristin said look what Kristin wrote …
I have a friend who thought this way when he was younger (although he didn’t complain about women; he just thought being totally sexless was the way to be a nice guy). It was such a relief when he grew out of it.
Dude, if you don’t want sex, but you do want a relationship, seek out asexual women who want the same thing you do. Don’t go after sexual women and expect them to give up sex for you. Not gonna work.
Kristin I felt you mocked me . I do not understand women. They scream and complain that men are pigs and rapists and need sex all the time. This is why a lot of men today( celibacy is a growing movement amongst single men), These men always thought that women want men to grow up, not look at porn or go to escorts, not date rape not think with their dicks.
But many men have heard this for years and changed and thought to accommodate women and even respect the anti porn feminists they should become celibate. That as men we should never lust after a women. never ever! That it is degrading to women and objectifies them as sexual objects not persons. So some of us mra mgtow guys ironically were influenced by the anti porn anti women as sexual objects feminists. This is why so many men have become celibate these days. We think we have to in order to please women and feminists who protest porn. We’ve been told we have to respect women and treat them as human beings not sexual objects to be lusted after and objectified. But when men do become celibate and respectful to women the men get mocked.
But if it’s the woman saying yes to sex, and she is in your own words “free” to do this or not…how is that degrading?
In the SlutWalk “yes means yes” model, the woman is lusting after you. That’s what “yes means yes” means. She wants sex with her partner. is anyone being degraded here?
First, you are quoting shaenon, not Kristin
Secondly, how is that mocking, Samuel? If you don’t want sex in a relationship, how is saying you should seek out people who want the same thing mockery? You are the one repeatedly saying that women are trying to manipulate and control men via sex. Such as “Some woman can control and tempt man by a males need for sex, but if a male becomes celibate and refuses to lust after a women as an object, she may not be able to control him. ”
Yet, the advice from shaenon that if you don’t want sex you should seek out like minded people is mockery?
They scream and complain that men are pigs and rapists and need sex all the time.
Um, most feminists (and none of the ones here) say this. In fact they say the opposite. That men are not pigs, or “dogs” or any other animal xD They can control themselves, and they do not need sex all of the time, and rape is not caused b/c men “need sex all the time” :3
But many men have heard this for years and changed and thought to accommodate women and even respect the anti porn feminists they should become celibate. That as men we should never lust after a women. never ever! That it is degrading to women and objectifies them as sexual objects not persons. So some of us mra mgtow guys ironically were influenced by the anti porn anti women as sexual objects feminists. This is why so many men have become celibate these days. We think we have to in order to please women and feminists who protest porn. We’ve been told we have to respect women and treat them as human beings not sexual objects to be lusted after and objectified. But when men do become celibate and respectful to women the men get mocked.
Who here has mocked you? o_O
If you don’t want sex, don’t have sex. And if you want to be in a relationship where you don’t want sex, date women who don’t want sex xD Occam’s Razor and alll. xD
Your true colours seem to be showing through… also you suddenly are saying that MGTOW aren’t going their own way at all! You want to be w/ women, but you just think we don’t want you to have sex (?!?) and so therefore you are celibate? o_O
Well good news everybody!
Many (most?) feminists do not think you shouldn’t have sex! (and why are you trying to please the anti-porn feminists? o_O besides that they are just anti-porn, not anti-any-sex-evar, do you want to be w/ anti-porn feminists or something? xD if you want to be everything to everybody, you’ll never be happy… you’d have to be both anti-trans and pro-trans at the same time for one… you’d have to believe that sexism is at the base of racism, and it is not, at the same time… xD )
Congratulations!
(of course this doesn’t mean any person must sleep w/ you, just that you dun have to be celibate b/c of this misguided notion that women want you to be xD )
voip stated” In the SlutWalk stated “yes means yes” model, the woman is lusting after you. That’s what “yes means yes” means. She wants sex with her partner. is anyone being degraded ,
I do not believe you . Slutwalk was enacted in Canada because a Male Canadian Police made an offensive comment to females how they dress. “Yes means Yes It does not mean women gaining consent from men, Exolain?
Ami wrote “Your true colours seem to be showing through… also you suddenly are saying that MGTOW aren’t going their own way at all! You want to be w/ women, but you just think we don’t want you to have sex (?!?) and so therefore you are celibate? o_O
No Ami, I am just trying to convey that for years many men have gotten a message from feminists to not objectify women as sexual objects and that men have been sexual pigs. I think a woman by the name of Andrea Dworkin was part of this
And therefore you decided to become celibate? -_o
I do not believe you .
What do you not believe? o_O
What do you believe “yes means yes” means? o_O
Oh, yeah, I remember that one Slutwalk where they were chanting “All men are pigs and rapists out to score, we don’t want no men no more!”
Except that never happened. I’ve never seen anything like that happen, which you’d think I would, if it were really happening all the time.
The only people who question my masculinity, Samuel, are MRAs. Feminists, not so much. Do you know any actual feminists personally?
Also, there’s a significant difference between being attracted to women and “objectifiying” them. Can you guess what it is?
Amnesia stated”Oh, yeah, I remember that one Slutwalk where they were chanting “All men are pigs and rapists out to score, we don’t want no men no more!”
Except that never happened. I’ve never seen anything like that happen, which you’d think I would, if it were really happening all the time.
Amnesia I just keep hearing from women that men think with their penises all the time and and men can be potential date rapists. For that reason many women won’t walk alone at night. Most rapes are allegedly committed by men as some feminists state. Amnesia, because of this message many men are now choosing to become celibate or monks orrabstinent and are turning their eyes away when they see sexy woman, because that is what men think they need to do to please the feminists that we are all not sexual pigs.
Captainbathrobe wrote “Also, there’s a significant difference between being attracted to women and “objectifiying” them. Can you guess what it is?
What is it-you tell me CaptainBathrobe?
Do you also have a difficult time understanding men, because they, too, will scream and complain that men are pigs and rapists and need sex all the time.
@Nobby
Watson used a stereotype of romantically unsuccessful men to make a cheap point against people who disagree with her. This is analogous to the tired old claim that feminists are ugly spinsters or frustrated lesbians. It becomes a double standard if one thing is ok and the other one not.
It doesn’t matter with which side of the debate you agree. Even if Watson is right there is no need to make such a cheap point.
@Samuel
Most feminists (and slutwalks in particular) aren’t about condemning men, we’re about condemning rapists. Some men could be date rapists. Some women could also be date rapists. The only problem is if you think man=rapist, which, personally, I don’t believe at all. I don’t think having sexual thoughts about someone=rapist either. Only rapist=rapist.
Also, do you assume all women are feminists or something? Because while there are some women that say those kinds of hateful things about the male gender, most of the ones that do probably wouldn’t identify as feminist. Just saying.
Samuel, binary thinking is similar to what psychologists call “splitting”. Google it, I don’t have time to educate you right now.
White/black. Yes/no. 1/0. Good/bad. Male/female.
Samuel, two points:
1) “All men are potential date rapists” is true to the exact degree that “all women are potential date rapists” and, for that matter, “all blondes are potential date rapists” is. All people are potential date rapists, an extra X chromosome doesn’t protect you.
2) The solution to being a potential date rapist is to not rape people, not to not have sex with women. Not raping people is generally a fairly simple task:
Unless you have previously established a safeword (which is Consent: Advanced Class), your partner should be actively participating in the sex, such as by initiating sex acts and taking clothes off, and expressing their enjoyment, such as by moaning or dirty-talking. If not, it’s okay to check in and ask if your partner is having a good time. If your partner ever says “no” or “stop” or similar, or makes nonverbal signs of displeasure such as freezing up or moving your hands away, stop IMMEDIATELY and ask what’s wrong. Especially the first time you have sex, it’s a good idea to negotiate what sex acts each of you enjoy and don’t enjoy in advance. Don’t have sex with someone who is stupiddrunk, sleeping or unconscious, unless they have previously given you full, free and sober permission; generally it’s a good idea to avoid being more than mildly tipsy until you are familiar with your partner’s reactions, because that can make it hard to read more subtle signals. Do not coerce, threaten or pressure someone into sex, have sex with someone underage or use a position of power to get sex.
Crap. this was posted in the wrong thread.
Samuel: While there is some aspect of self-interpretation to mockery… what is it that Kristn saying that one has to work to get sex and that there are asexual women who want a romantic relationship is mocking?
And dude… you don’t think telling the women here that you don’t understand women because, They scream and complain that men are pigs and rapists and need sex all the time. and then you blame this for “a lot of men” choosing abstinence.
I don’t think this shows that you are doing it out of respect for women. You are throwing in the towel because you can’t figure out how to play the game.
Honestly, I don’t think you are trying to, “reach out to feminists” to build bridges, but rather to learn how to get laid.
Because I don’t know these feminists you say you keep encountering. I read about them (a lot) at MRA/PUA/anti-feminists websites, and in “traditiona-minded social reactionaries (e.g the Family Research Council).
I just keep hearing the same from (some) men, especially when they’re playing the “She should’ve known better” blame-the-victim game.
Samuel: Captainbathrobe wrote “Also, there’s a significant difference between being attracted to women and “objectifiying” them. Can you guess what it is?
What is it-you tell me CaptainBathrobe?
Samuel… he asked you a question because he wants to know what you think objectification means.
I already gave an answer to your question.
@Thomas Sooo… talking about romantically unsuccessful men is off limits when talking about romantic situations? Fascinating!
First, she never mentioned that these trolls were ugly, so that ‘double standard’ falls down flat. She also never called them gay (that would have been bad, but she didn’t do it). If she had said that EG was a ugly wimp that would never get sex, that would have been bad. If she said all the trolls were ugly or gay, that would have been bad. But if we’re talking about personality, and how you react to advice from a woman about how to approach women, how is it a double standard to say someone who reacts violently to such a thing is not going to be good on the dating scene?
Lets say some man said “I don’t like being approached by women in bars in the early morning, it makes me uncomfortable”, do you think he would be yelled at by feminists for being a wimp, and told that he would never find a woman? Because that would analogous situation, and a sign of a double standard. I have also never seen it happen.
I am pretty sure people who don’t get what’s wrong with approaching people in elevators at 4 am don’t get laid very much, regardless of the gender of the approacher or the approachee.
@Nobby
Sooo… talking about romantically unsuccessful men is off limits when talking about romantic situations? Fascinating!
Hypothetical situation. I disagree with feminists in a discussion on something slightly related to romance. In reaction to that I tell the female feminists: “If you ever want to get laid, shave your armpits, lose 30 pounds and put some make-up on. Or you could just buy a horde of cats.”
Am I giving dating advice in good faith? After all, my tips are generally good and I’m a man and know what men want. Or am I creating a huge straw-man to silence the feminists? There is a lot of cultural pressure on women to look pretty and many are insecure about their looks. All I have to do is using this cultural pressure to shame them and hopefully they will stop disagreeing with me or at least shut up.
Do you understand the analogy? It can’t be transferred one to one, but the idea is the same. There is cultural pressure on men to be romantically successful and guys who use sex dolls are widely disdained. She says everyone who disagrees with her is abnormal and has no other option than masturbation with sex toys.
But if we’re talking about personality, and how you react to advice from a woman about how to approach women, how is it a double standard to say someone who reacts violently to such a thing is not going to be good on the dating scene?
No. She did not only address misogynistic trolls with her statement. She did address everyone who disagrees with her. It’s a classic shaming tactic and also a straw man, because a lot of the discussion was actually not about approaching women in spite of what she said in the video.
Thomas, given that shit that people were saying about her, Watson’s response was remarkably civil.
And her remarks were not analogous to your “shave your armpits” hypothetical. She wasn’t demanding that men change their appearance to please her; she was asking them to change a specific behavior, and not to approach women in places where women tend to feel vulnerable.
She was also saying that if some men are completely unwilling to listen to feedback from women about what makes them uncomfortable, and respond to such feedback with anger, they would probably do better with inanimate objects than with women with minds and feelings of their own. I think she’s probably right on that point. People who don’t respect the boundaries of others are generally speaking terrible people to be romantically involved with. (That applies regardless of gender or sexual orientation.)
David, we have to agree to disagree on that matter. I think your reading of her statement is too generous and I’m not willing to giver her that much leeway.
“David, we have to agree to disagree on that matter.”
So you’re throwing in the towel?
And no one is giving her leeway. People here are quoting exactly what she says, you’re the one who’s misrepresenting her argument and attacking a strawperson.
“Is that when you sleepwalk with an erection?”
More like you dream about YouPorn and half of your bookshelf are old Penthouse magizines…and the other half are bloody action movies with angsty male leads.
Also, your carpet is made of Polar Bear fur.
Yes, speaking of exact statements, lets see what Watson herself says! Transcribed by me from http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plus-dating-advice/, starting at 2:11:
“I thought I would just address the one big question, the one I keep seeing over and over and over and over again, which is something along these lines: ‘I’m a man and I don’t see the problem in cornering a woman in an elevator and inviting her back to my room despite the fact that she said she’s tired and going to bed, and despite the fact that she said she didn’t want to be hit on, and despite the fact that I’ve never talked to her before. I don’t see a problem with this situation. So if you say I can’t do that then how can I possibly get laid?’
And the answer to that is that you probably can’t. You probably can’t get laid. Because I think most normal people see that situation and they realize ‘oh, yeah, that’s not an appropriate time to ask a woman to come back to my hotel room.’ And those of you that didn’t see that right away, there’s another subset of normal people who said ‘Oh, well it didn’t occur to me that that would be seen as creepy or weird or undesirable, so thank you for pointing it out. I will not do that in the future.
So, you know, most normal people get that, and they can then go forward and flirt with members of the opposite sex in a normal manner that may or may not result in sex for them. But those of you that are asking that question obviously can’t do that. So I would recommend that you look at other ways to maybe get your rocks off. Like, maybe one of those dolls? They sell those, those… they’re kind of expensive, I think? I’ve never priced one myself but I’ve seen a documentary on it. And they’re really… they’re lifelike, but uh, they’re mouths are only used for sucking, you know. So no worries about them very calmly giving you advice on how to approach a woman or how not to approach a woman. You don’t have to worry about that. They would pretty much just lay there and you can have sex with them.”
And then she goes on to talk about fleshlights and watermelons, etc, essentially the same thing. So, no talk of marrying that I see, and it seems she lays out quite plainly that it’s a specific subset of people, those insisting that she has nothing to complain about and that she’s being unreasonable, that she’s talking to. And that most people that heard and responded to her were quite reasonable on the issue.
Also, Thomas, that is not at all analogous. It would be analogous had Watson said elevator guy was ugly or unkept, etc. She never said anything of the sort. In fact, it was the opponents that made up that whole thing, claiming she only cared because the guy was ugly. She is making a specific response to people saying that her advice, a throwaway line about being made to feel uncomfortable, is unreasonable, and that she had absolutely no right to say or care about. “I don’t see the problem in cornering a woman in an elevator and inviting her back to my room despite the fact that she said she’s tired and going to bed, and despite the fact that she said she didn’t want to be hit on, and despite the fact that I’ve never talked to her before. I don’t see a problem with this situation.” That is who she is talking about. And if your outlook on life is that women who tell you these things are wrong and unreasonable, then that’s not going to get you far in dating.
She is not saying anything about personal appearance (which she, for the most part, couldn’t know) or sexual inclination (well, besides assuming she’s talking to people who are into women, because otherwise they wouldn’t care), which you are when you say “ugly spinsters or frustrated lesbians”. She is responding to a specific, displayed characteristic which is, quite directly, going to impact you. Again, if you refuse to listen a woman about how she feels, you’re not going to get far with women, are you?
And she even gets more specific later: 4:56: “You know i only throw this out there because a lot of you have been asking me for sex advice. You know, the point of me uploading the video previously wasn’t necessarily to give sex advice, but to give advice on how we as a community might go about making our community a more inviting one to women, you know. But a lot of you just have no interest in that, you just wanted the sex advice. So there it is, my advice to you is to buy one of those really expensive dolls and fuck that. So I hope that helps. Thank you again to everyone whose commented. I haven’t really read any of them in the past few weeks. But hey, keep it up. You really seem to enjoy it. Thanks!”
Samuel
You don’t believe women want sex? Is that what you’re saying, that you do not believe women can want sex and ask men to have sex with them, thus “gaining their consent”?
Rebecca Watson is my new ultimate hero.
@Redlocker
And no one is giving her leeway. People here are quoting exactly what she says, you’re the one who’s misrepresenting her argument and attacking a strawperson.
Nonsense. It’s just beyond ridiculous to claim that anybody except me is *exactly quoting* Watson . Please look the meaning of the two words up.
@Nobby
You are right. She did not talk about the marriage of a man and a sex doll. It was a hyperbole. I assumed that was obvious. Marriage or not it has nothing to do with my overall point
She uses sarcasm in the whole statement. It makes no sense to understand her literally. After you realize that your line of argument falls apart.
Sorry but there is no point in continuing this discussion. We are not going to agree and it gets a little frustrating.
Actually, I did just exactly quote her. And sarcasm makes things not make sense? I linked the video and gave the exact timestamp should anyone choose to watch the video and decide for themselves if she said anything different then what I quoted. It’s not like I’m trying to misrepresent her. She said quite specifically who she was talking to, and what she was talking about. You’re the one trying to compare what she said to calling people ugly and homosexual.
Actually, I did just exactly quote her.
Irrelevant. My remark was clearly directed at Redlocker. He said the nonsense about the exact quotes before you quoted her. But nice try.
And sarcasm makes things not make sense?
Not what I said. But nice try.
It’s not like I’m trying to misrepresent her.
Well, then it must be confirmation bias.
“It’s just beyond ridiculous to claim that anybody except me is *exactly quoting* Watson .”
Yes, it was directed at redlocker, but you said anybody. I responded to that.
“She uses sarcasm in the whole statement. It makes no sense to understand her literally.”
Right there, Thomas. You are saying her statements lose all literal meaning the second she becomes sarcastic.
“Well, then it must be confirmation bias.”
K. But one person here is linking to and talking about the exact statements, or talking about what she said. You are trying to spin that into mockery of an entire class of men, despite the fact that she is quite specific in who she’s talking to, and why she says what she says. If that’s confirmation bias, so be it.
Thomas: we aren’t going to agree with you because you are wrong.
Nobby quoted her, exactly. You didn’t.
You interpreted her, and then got upset that those of us who had listened to what she had to say; in her own presentation, didn’t agree with the fictive one you asked us to condemn.
You (no stranger to sarcasm) said that her use of a rhetorical device invalidated the actual content of her words.
It doesn’t work that way. Rhetorical devices are tools. If the underlying arguments are supported, then the device makes for more effective communication.
Can they be misused? Yes, but the problem isn’t the device, it’s dishonest arguments being supported with the devices.
Sort of like you’re doing here.
@Percunium
Thomas: we aren’t going to agree with you because you are wrong.
Who is we? Pluralis Majestatis?
Can they be misused? Yes, but the problem isn’t the device, it’s dishonest arguments being supported with the devices.
Sort of like you’re doing here.
You seem to use honest/dishonest like correct/incorrect. Or maybe more like agrees with me/ disagrees with me. If your axiomatic assumption is that only feminist’s (your) arguments are honest then it makes no sense to have any discussion.
Or maybe you are suggesting that I’m arguing in bad faith. Well, I can assure you I’m not. You are obviously entitled to *your* opinion that I’m wrong, but your constant accusation of dishonesty is getting old.
Thomas: We, as in the non-singular number of people here who are actively disagreeing with you.
As I am not writing an editorial, I am not using the editorial we. As I am not a monarch I am not using the Royal We.
If people were less willing to argue in bad faith, and with dishonest practice, I’d not need to point it out, in much the same way that Spearhafoc wouldn’t need to point out people’s consistent abuse of grammar. That you find it tiresome bothers me not at all. I probably find it more tiresome to read people engaging in falsity than you find it to read; though I suspect your willingness to accept dishonest arguments which agree with you colors your opinions.
The suggestion that I am using it as a sort of argument from authority, (or perhaps obfuscation) when I disagree with someone is weak. There have been any number of people with whom I have expressed plain disagreement (e.g. MRAL, caseymordred, Annit) who didn’t sink to dishonesty, and so were not accused of it.
As to your good faith, care to defend your argumentative style, or just pretend that sarcasm is somehow invalidating of an argument. Because that’s what’s dishonest. esp. as you use it yourself. It’s either a double standard you are keeping (i.e. dishonesty in argument), or hypocrisy (dishonesty in representation).
I am not, though the distinction may be subtle, calling you a liar. I am saying you are not presenting a truthful statement of your position.
There’s somewhat of a chicken and egg thing: do people in misogynist MRA spaces think of feminist sites as so hostile to men because they’re projecting their own hostility, or do they exhibit so much hostility because they perceive/believe/assume feminist sites are hostile toward men and take that as license to be hostile towards women?
@Samuel:
At Holly, and my sister, and Amanda Marcotte, and Jessica Valenti, and Pam Geller, and Phyllis Schlafly, and Sarah Palin, and Gloria Steinem? At the same time? For the same reason?
@Holly:
You can see the sentiment expressed in the name of feminism every time xkcd does something like this or this. “Oh, Randall’s just trying to get a cookie for how special he is, blah blah.”
@Samuel:
So it’s not actual feminists who have mocked you for being celibate, it’s rumors of a feminist somewhere.
Also, if you think it’s feminists who are making you so scared of your own sexual shadow that you turn away whenever someone might arouse your lust, no wonder you have a problem with feminism. I don’t know what to tell you except, that’s all you, Zardoz.
@Thomas, passim:
I suppose if, as demonstrated on a different thread, the fact that an article was published in Penthouse is not adequate proof that the article was published in Penthouse, quoting Watson as evidence of what Watson said can be “argument from authority.”
But we all know that no means yes, and yes means anal, right?
(I feel dirty just typing that.)