“Women from around the world look better than anything back in the states, cost less unless you’re totally stupid, and are much more easily disposed of.”
Irony alert! The level of irony in this post is so extreme it might actually harm your computer.
So a couple of days ago, MGTOWer extraordinaire MarkyMark, continuing on with his post-retirement posting binge, shared with us an email he got from a fella who had skipped the country in order to avoid paying child support for his three kids.
I’m a deadbeat dad!!! (light your torches - gasoline in 89, 91, and 95 octane is available in your choice of containers). Yep, I’ve got three kids and I’m behind on my child kidnapping payments by probably 10 grand at present and considerably more behind on alimony and her lawyer fees. I skipped the country rather than be jailed for all of the above compounding my crimes. A runaway slave is the worst kind of slave - one that absolutely refuses to serve his massa.
Yep, that’s right. He compared the legal requirement that he provide financial assistance to his own children to … slavery.
In the rest of his letter, he encouraged other “slaves” to follow in his path.
My favorite bit is the quote I used as the headline:
Women from around the world look better than anything back in the states, cost less unless you’re totally stupid, and are much more easily disposed of.
Ooh. That last bit is rather unfortunately worded – unless he really is suggesting that outside the US it is easier to get rid of the bodies of murdered girlfriends and wives.
So anyway, MarkyMark’s post got linked to on the Men’s Rights subreddit. And this little discussion ensued. You may wish to activate your irony shields now.
Take note of the upvotes and downvotes for these three comments.
Like this:
Posted on February 6, 2012, in creepy, douchebaggery, evil women, hypocrisy, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, MGTOW paradox, misogyny, MRA, victimhood. Bookmark the permalink. 316 Comments.
Entirely probable.
But remember, women were never oppressed as bad as White Cis Dudes, whom are being kept from a (probably poor) fuck.
I thought they did it to keep from being KNOWN as a poor fuck.
Protip: that 14 year old will definitely tell all her friends on line just how pathetic you really are.
I’m trying so hard not to snark on the “never heard of Schopenhauer” thing, because to a certain extent it is a class issue. We can still mock the mindset of the MRM without mocking Nephy’s lack of education, though. I, individual MRA, have never heard of him? Oh well, obviously he’s not important then. Things outside my personal experience? Those don’t exist. Historical oppression of women? I never saw it, therefore it didn’t happen.
And so on.
yay replacing one ableist slur for another!
/sarcasm
@ jumbofish- Just want to start this comment off by saying that I totally respect your feelings around “batshit,” especially as it’s usually accompanied by the word “insane,” which is an ableist slur. And what follows is not meant to negate a totally legitimate criticism.
Your comment brings up an interesting point, which is that it’s really easy for inoffensive terms to turn offensive if there is underlying prejudice. For example, “negro” being the PC term for Black people during the Civil Rights movement, but that now being an offensive term. Or the use of the term “Special Education” in my school district leading children to call one another “Special,” in a tone that was clearly prejudiced against kids with cognitive disabilities. While I am totally down and understanding of replacing terms that have become slurs with more positive language, I am not sure that it will solve the problem until prejudice against people of color and people with disabilities is eradicated. If people are prejudiced against a group, whatever term is used for that group may eventually become a slur.
That being said, respectful language and criticizing casually offensive terms is hella important.
I think the question is, what exactly are we trying to replace?
Are we trying to replace the usage of “insane” that means crazy, mentally ill, and has been used as a “catch all” for all sorts of disorders and illnesses? Or are we trying to find a word that means the other definition which is “irrational” “not making sense” “illogical”? Because if it’s the latter, then why not just use those words? If it’s the former, then maybe it’s a word that doesn’t need replacing, because we shouldn’t be trying to use that insult in the first place, or use words with that same spirit.
“crazy” should also be in quotes too
because I wasn’t meaning to imply that was a legitimate definition…
@M Dubz as I said above, it’s about which word are we replacing?
“PC” language isn’t about replacing a slur with another slur, it’s about replacing a word that’s a slur that was also used as a broad term that meant non-insulting things as well (the n-word (either one) referring to black people, “shemale” referring to trans women, etc). The words have a history of abuse and discrimination and hate tied to them, but they were also used to just refer to the groups of people as well. New language is meant to separate out the slur. For example, maybe people do say “trans woman” and think in their head “shemale” or “tranny”, who knows, but it’s not tranny, or shemale, and it gives us a word that we can use to refer to trans women that’s not steeped in that history, and in that bigotry.
My comment’s in moderation
@M Dubz as I said above, it’s about which word are we replacing?
“PC” language isn’t about replacing a slur with another slur, it’s about replacing a word that’s a slur that was also used as a broad term that meant non-insulting things as well (the n-word (either one) referring to black people, “shemale” referring to trans women, etc). The words have a history of abuse and discrimination and hate tied to them, but they were also used to just refer to the groups of people as well. New language is meant to separate out the slur. For example, maybe people do say “trans woman” and think in their head “shemale” or “tr*nny”, who knows, but it’s not tr*nny, or shemale, and it gives us a word that we can use to refer to trans women that’s not steeped in that history, and in that bigotry.
M Dubz, I guess I don’t really understand the comparison you’re making between words that started out as polite and have since taken on a negative connotation because of prejudice and words that were always slurs. I mean, I don’t think “faggot” or the n-word were ever considered anything but slurs, and “batshit insane” seems to be more in that category then say “negro” or “special” which were originally well meaning terms if not anymore. I agree that turning polite words into slurs is something that will continue until prejudice is eradicated but that doesn’t seem to be the case here where the word has never been anything but a slur as far as I know.
oops my comment is in moderation too.
there we go
Also, another thing is about putting the power of group terms in the hands of the marginalized group. All of the slurs I mentioned above (and more) weren’t invented by the group, they were terms by the dominant/privileged group that they used to label the oppressed group with. The n-word, tr*nny, chink, moron, retard, etc… :\ They were invented by cis people, by white people, by neurotypical people, and they were used to marginalize the labelled group.
This isn’t about replacing one slur with another. It’s not about (and shouldn’t be about) abled people saying “okay insane is ablist, let’s go with “batshit”! (which comes from batshit crazy, batshit insane) It’s about respecting marginalized groups and not labeling them as we have done for so much of our history.
The OTHER thing is that think about how we’re using the word “insane” here. Are we meaning that they’re literally mentally ill? No.
We mean irrational, but why don’t we say that? Why do we use “insane”? Basically we’re using the group (even if we don’t mean to) AS AN INSULT. That’s WHY these words are insults, because being called a mentally ill person IS SUPPOSED TO BE INSULTING.
So we’re using the identity of a group as an INSULT.
Just like when people call Ann Coulter a “tr*nny” or say she looks like a trans woman… they don’t mean she’s literally one, they mean she LOOKS like us, and we’re supposed to be ugly… it’s meaning that we, me, as a trans person, looking like me, is insulting…
this is the same thing.
So yeah… if you mean MRAs are irrational, just say they are. We don’t need a replacement for “insane”.
@ Ami- you are absolutely right. Blanket “yes” to everything you just said, especially the bits about privileged people creating slurs for non-privileged people. I think that definitely helps answer my question about how to prevent “slur drift” (for lack of a better term). If terminology and language are actively managed by marginalized groups, it will hopefully be more difficult for the broader population to co-opt those terms and turn them against those groups. So thanks!
Stopping the use of problematic language isn’t going to eradicate bigotry alone obviously. I didn’t say what I did to start up a debate topic about using prejudicial words (if they matter in the end or not). I know you say you didn’t mean to dismiss me but it totally sounds like you are right now. I honestly can’t imagine you would have brought up the debate of ignoring problematic language if it were a slur like “n*****” or “f*****”. I don’t see many people questioning their right to use those words in the social justice comms.
I don’t think saying “oh we shouldn’t try to stop x because in the end people will still have prejudiced” is really a good thing to say as a person involved in social justice. “People will never change” makes social justice kinda pointless don’t you think?
@jumbofish- I tried to ask the question without erasing your totally legitimate concerns and I appear to have failed. Thanks to you and Ami for schooling me! Sitting down and shutting up now.
I’m not personally sensitive to a lot of the slurs related to mental illness as such, but I am definitely sensitive to the implication that anyone who spends time endorsing reprehensible beliefs must be mentally ill (which is something using those words usually implies). Calling something or somebody “crazy” (or insert your favorite slur here) is an easy way to dismiss the person or their beliefs as not worth engaging with because they’re beyond the pale of reason. This is bad for two reasons: one, it says that people who are mentally ill don’t have agency or rationality and aren’t worth having genuine interactions with, and two, it pretends that certain lines of reasoning which may be dangerous and/or common (like misogyny or right-wing fundamentalism) can be brushed off as if they didn’t actually have effects in real people’s lives.
As Ami said, if you mean that someone’s being irrational, just say that they’re being irrational. If you mean that their beliefs are really bizarre, say that. If you think someone’s detached from reality you should say as much. For a certain kind of person who’s really out there and inventing perpetual motion machines, stockpiling ammo for the upcoming New World Order takeover, or covering their roof with tinfoil, there’s always the terms “crackpot” and “crank”.
Just to finish out that thought, I was engaging in some philosophical speculation about the nature of how certain words become slurs and what to do about the underlying causes. I have the privilege of those speculations because most slurs don’t apply to me. Sorry you guys!
I found this post on why you shouldn’t use “crazy” (or related words) to describe viewpoints in particular, which I thought was pretty good:
http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/05/28/ableist-word-profile-crazy-to-describe-political-viewpoints-or-positions/
Point taken. I tend to use “batshit” to mean “irrational and deliberately ignoring information which doesn’t support their worldview”, and I should find a better way to say that.
I’m not sure that some MRAs aren’t mentally ill, though. It depends a lot on how we define mental illness, but there’s a level of paranoia with a lot of them that does seem to be well outside what most people would define as healthy. Which is where it gets problematic, because you don’t want to armchair diagnose over the internet too much, but then you have people like MRAL with whom it’s pretty clear that there actually is something odd going on with their thought processes from the way that they interpret and filter information.
But then there are also a lot of them who I don’t think they believe even half of what they write, it’s all just a mass of attempts to justify the desire to hurt women. And then there are people like NWO with whom it seems to be a bit of both.
@cassandra
You know they aren’t that much more paranoid than your typical conservatives. Do you want to call all of them mentally ill too? I dunno I feel like people are just trying to find a lazy excuse for people who are just bad in general. I don’t buy it.
I don’t know if the impulse to blame everything on women is any different to the impulse to blame everything on immigrants/gay people/whatever, but the level of paranoia in the MRM does seem unusually high to me even compared to other right-wing movements. Though as I said, it’s hard to separate out what they really believe from the self-justifying bullshit.
Like for example Antz - does he actually believe the stuff he writes about mothers seeing children as nothing but a way to drain money from men? I honestly can’t tell, but if he really does think that there’s something odd going on with the way he thinks.
oops reposting
That is an example of what I’m what I’m talking about. People tend to call patterns of thoughts they don’t understand (or odd as you put it) “crazy” or “insane”.
So you’re saying that you think his thought patterns aren’t unusual?
In this specific case I honestly think you’re reaching a bit.
The association of “crazy” or “insane” with violence has an especially nasty history as well. It is pretty commonly used to discriminate and violate the human rights of people with mental illness on the grounds that they are a danger.
@ Cassandra, I have “something odd going on” with the way I think-to clinical levels. I also have a history of PTSD symptoms and occasional mood issues and paranoia that are due to other health conditions. I know what it is like to walk into a random room and just feel that they are conspiring to get you, not really think it, feel it, while all the time knowing that it was not true and there was no good reason to think it might be.
When you dismiss someone’s politics and beliefs merely because they have mental illness, psychological symptoms, etc., you tacitly do it to all of us. I’ve had my experiences, analysis, opinions, politics, sexuality, gender, etc. dismissed on similar grounds.
AntZ is odd, yeah, but I don’t think we have any particular reason to believe he has any sort of mental illness. Oddness doesn’t mean that he isn’t mentally typical; having crappy critical reasoning skills or believing a conspiracy theory doesn’t make you mentally ill. There might be “something odd going on with they way he thinks” but as far as I can tell, it’s a rather mundane sort of odd. And his beliefs, like pretty much all other MRAs, are totally dismissible on their own merits, i.e. that they don’t make any sense when you examine them critically. Even if he does have a mental illness of some sort, we ought to judge his arguments the same way we would otherwise, by looking at whether they are well reasoned or not.
There are sometimes ethical issues surrounding whether or not one ought to mock or distribute somebody’s material online given that they are mentally ill- for example, if someone had a mental illness that caused them to have certain kinds of delusions and their writing/videos/etc.reflected that directly. There are definitely better ways of doing it than others, and many people find it ok to mock the material so long as you stick to the content and it doesn’t become a zoo exhibition about how “nuts” the person is. Even in these cases though you ought to end up dismissing the person’s claims based on the claims themselves: that they’re directly incoherent, make reference to imaginary or invented entities, make impossibly grandiose statements, etc. For example, I have no idea what NWOSlave’s psychological status is, but I don’t ignore what he says because he sounds “insane”; I ignore him because he has a history of making statements that are wildly factually inaccurate. I don’t give a crap about what Meller says because his politics as well as his weird fantasies about women’s roles are completely repellant. So on and so forth.
As DSC said, if you write off somebody’s beliefs due to their psychological status, you make it an ok strategy to use on anyone; the point is that it’s not an ok strategy to use at all. There are plenty of reasons to criticize/mock the MRM and associates that have nothing to do with the mental health of its participants. Use those instead.
My current favourite MRA to watch is John the Other.
The man is frickin’ hilarious, he’s started to wear glasses and have a little facial hair - just like another MRA prominenti… His embarrassing, quasi-academic writing style, reminiscent of a sophmore student’s first essay, is also familiar to anyone who’s read Paul Elam’s murder of metaphors.
Not all of you will agree with me on this, but MRAs, I think, are informed by their massive lack of emotional and sexual attention. They are embarrassed at this and view it as rejection. They see the best form of defense as attack and so take to their keyboards to invent a political movement. It’s very amusing.
The heavy focus on bodily functions is also quite telling but I’m sure what this indicates… Anyone got a psychology major?
I really appreciated this discussion and particularly the assertion that using ableist slurs allows people to not engage with the substance of someone’s thought. I’ve seen that a lot in MSM coverage of Ron Paul. Now, I completely disagree with him on almost every issue, but when pundits just dismiss him as ‘crazy’ they never actually have to discuss what is problematic about his views. I’d rather analysts why his positions are often repulsive (to me) than armchair diagnose or dismiss with a slur.
I don’t get why we’re assuming “Sick” absent extremely powerful evidence. MRAL is more or less in the same parallel universe as NWO, and depression is just not that strong.
“How much older? Because we’re talking about everybody involved being a teen right? or do women mature at 12 and men mature at 40? ”
I didn’t grow facial hair until I was 25. Most teenage girls are taller than boys and we know from research that females are sexually repulsed by men shorter than they are. We got along fine for centuries with men having sex with mature females but now feminism says that women aren’t allowed to choose. You’re not pro-choice.
Bostonian: 16 is too old for him. He wants 14 year olds (and fucking a 14 year old usually does lead to getting arrested, at least if one is more than about 15)
I don’t use, “insane” by itself (though I will use it as a modifier, e.g. “insanely fond of turkish delight”).
I will use, on occasion, “crazy”. It’s problematic, and I try not to use it in written works, because tone, and context, are easier to lose. I tend to use it as a way to express mania, frenetic action, etc.
“That was a crazy thing to do”, feels different to me from saying, “that man is crazy”. I happen to have grown up with, “batshit crazy” as a term which was used to mean irrational, but not persistent, behavior, as in the example above, it tended to be attached to specific things, not a blanket state of mind.
I think, insofar as such distinctions of usage are useful, that’s the delicate line that we are walking when we try to make comments about actions which seem irrational: How to make it the action/decision, not the person.
And I try to never use it in connection with a belief system. I don’t use it for actual mental disorders at all, unless I slip from being old, and having acquired some habits of thought in my youth.
oops reposting
There is a lot of other word choices beside the usual ableist ones that can convey the word “irrational”. Picking and choosing which ones to use really doesn’t make you more accepting. The words you seem to think are ok are still problematic, they aren’t really any better than “crazy or “insane”. I guess you could say that it describes irrational behavior but it still has its roots in fear against the mentally ill. Words like “retarded” and “gay” seem to mean stupid and dumb in modern culture but just because it is used in that way doesn’t make it ok.
jumbofish: if you don’t mind my asking, do you have a few examples? (other than the very obvious and descriptive like ‘irrational’) I’d like to expand my limited English vocabulary in an appropriate and tolerant way.