Skanks, Sharia, and Manginas in Shining Armor: Yet another rant from The Spearhead
ARGLEBARGLEBLLLAGGH
[TW for violence, rape apologism.]
On this lazy Sunday (why can’t every day be lazy?), I present to you without comment this lovely little rant I found over on The Spearhead, where it received more than two dozen upvotes for its lively mixture of misogyny, Islamophobia, and rape-as-comedy-fodder. (It got a decent number of downvotes too, I’m guessing less for its views on “femiskanks” or Islam than for its straightforward endorsement of White Nationalism; I’ve edited out some of the Islamophobia for space reasons.) Take it away, Bryan the cracker-loving woman-hater:
Ah, american femiskanks, where would we be without them?
In a nasty way I almost look forward to the rise of Islam in the West/USA because it will be amusing to see feminism crushed under the boot of Sharia. There is no room for feminism, gay rights, etc, in a Sharia land. …
I think that being a man who is disgusted with western women, I’m going to spend a bit of time laughing at the thought of femiskanks being raped by Muslims for taking part in “slut walks” and having acid thrown in their faces for making their typical femiskank claims about how men are worthless. …
I look forward to the day when police stop responding to requests for protection orders, emergency protection orders, etc… If a woman is truly in danger from a man then she should be able to seek protection via her brothers, her male cousins, and stay in her father’s house. If her brothers don’t want anything to do with her that speaks to the sort of woman she is.
Along similar lines, I look forward to the day when police stop responding to domestic “violence” calls unless it has crossed into the realm of disturbing the peace or creating a disturbance for the neighborhood. When some femiskank calls 911 and tells them, “I see a man raising his voice with his wife and telling her it is time to leave the store they’re in, this isn’t right” said femiskank should be told, “why don’t you just drop dead, this line is for serious calls, get off the line or we’ll arrest you.”
There are too many mangina police out there who are all too ready to physically assault and even kill other men, at the behest of crazy power-tripping women, simply because they care more about making $50,000 dollars per year and gaining the approval of random femiskanks in the community, than about doing what is right and what is healthy for the nation.
Women realize the incredible power they have, be it political, social, economic, judicial, or extra-judicial. If a woman makes a false rape claim she can ruin a man financially, socially, politically, legally, and often she can have him attacked, perhaps killed, by an outraged mob of manginas in shining armor. …
A Roman father had the legal authority/power to have any of his daughters PUT TO DEATH, yet … I cannot cite a single example of the law being applied in practice.
Can you imagine how terrible things would be if women had the codified and unquestioned legal power to put a male relative to death merely by word/command? The male population in the USA would easily be less than half of what it presently is. The only reason women might refrain from engaging in mass purges against men is because on some level they realize they need men for economic reasons. Even still, that realization might not stop them as they are incredibly short-sighted to the point of being so hateful and bitter that they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Yes, we have seen it time and time again, they have restraining orders taken out to keep their ex-husband away from his children, thinking, “ha, that will show him who is boss, let him cry about it!” and they give no thought to the fact that their children are almost certain to grow up with tremendous problems. Either they do not realize it or they just do not care. I tend to lean towards the latter being the case, they just don’t care whether or not their own children suffer, as long as they can “make that jerk (ex-husband) suffer” and make him realize “I am woman, hear me roar!” that’s all that matters.
Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason. I’m pretty sure that if I lived in the same town as you, I’d try to get a restraining order against you just for this comment alone.
Like this:
Posted on March 25, 2012, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed white men, paranoia, racism, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, sluts, the spearhead, violence, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 126 Comments.
THATS IT!!!!
What a creepy, dystopian little race of people!
Especially when you find out how they developed their technology to start with…..
I didn’t finish the trilogy so I dont remember the backstory, I just recall trying to pronounce that word in my head. It takes longer to read than to say. I mentally cut out the “L” and the book began moving a little quicker.
That third book was like pushing a boulder uphill….while reading a very slow-moving novel that everyone else thinks is amazing.
Sorry to hear that Guest. I love the Dune books, especially the ones featuring the beginings of the Houses. Dune dId manage to pack in a great deal of political intrigue, which can make it rather slow and or confusing.
Reading a series of books on Rome was worse in some respects, as the children often all carried the same names. Made it hard to differentiate between the generations in figuring out which man did what. And Roman law seemed unnecessarily convoluted.
If any of the stuff that these guys believe was true, they’d all be in jail already. It’s odd how that never seems to occur to them, the fact that if a woman could get a man thrown in jail just by asking they wouldn’t be able to post misogynist rants every day without getting into serious trouble. The fact that they can freely do so with no consequences other than a few feminists making fun of them demonstrates that none of the things they’re so paranoid about are actually happening.
I brought this up with NWO once. He responded that the only reason he could escape IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE ON A WOMAN’S WORD was that he was so totally brilliant at concealing his identity online, and if I knew his name I could totally get him thrown into jail forever.
I can never figure out how much these dudes believe this shit.
“Geez, if women treated me as badly as I treat women, or, worse, as badly as I fantasize about treating women, my life would be nonstop hell! The only solution is to keep fighting for my right to mistreat women, so they can never crawl out from under my boot and hit back.”
I’ve seen any number of variations of this logic quoted on Manboobz, but somehow it never fails to amaze.
An MRAs worst nightmare.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/miss-trunchbull.jpg
A typical day for an MRA in feminazi land.
I know it’s goofy, but I just had to make this joke.
(If I posted it many times I’m sorry but the post just didn’t show up on my PC.)
I’d love to ask these manboobs, “what is your perfect world like?”
Joey, their perfect world is pretty much identical to the way a two-year-old thinks the world is, with the exception that as adults they *ought* to know better.
A two-year-old doesn’t understand that if other people have to be nice to them, then they have to be nice to other people; that it’s not OK to just take things because you like or want them; and that other people have feelings, too, and yours are not more important just because they’re yours.
That’s why they have all these strange and contradictory arguments - women should have sex with them on demand, but a woman who sleeps around instead of being virginal and faithful is a whore; women should not depend on a man for money, but women shouldn’t be out there taking jobs away from men; women shouldn’t get white-knight men to beat up other men for them, but women should rely on their fathers and brothers (i.e., men) to beat up misbehaving men. And so on.
In a fugue state the other day, I was wondering how dudes like Paul Elam manage to justify their movement to themselves- you know, with a straight face. I mean, I suppose I have the same qualms with a lot of extremist and/or hate groups- RadFem Hub, the WBC, anarchists, etc… and Elam certainly isn’t the most overtly hateful in that category. But the MRM… it’s just so *funny*. Fidelbogen, MarkyMark, [johntheother]… I couldn’t make up better material if I tried. God damn. How do they not see this?
I mean…. “THE FEMALE-SUPREMACIST HATE MOVEMENT CALLED ‘FEMINISM’ MUST BE OPENED TO THE DISINFECTING SUNLIGHT OF THE WORLD’S GAZE AND HELD TO A STERN ACCOUNTING FOR ITS GRIEVOUS TRANSGRESSIONS”? What is this shit? Comedy gold, is what it is. I’m fucking serial.
@mythago
Oh a woman can be sexy and get down a lot, just as long as she gets down with only one man, the man who owns her.
MRA logic. DURR DURR HURR HURR HURR!!
A Roman father had the legal authority/power to have any of his daughters PUT TO DEATH, yet … I cannot cite a single example of the law being applied in practice.
It’s called patria potestas, and that’s a pretty…selective representation of it. The Roman pater familias had the legal right of life and death over ALL of his children, regardless of gender, as well as over any slaves he owned. Bryan has it right that this particular aspect of patria potestas was rarely exercised - mostly it was about property rights and marriage, and again, it applied regardless of the gender of the child or slave. Its exercise was heavily influenced and restricted by the social norms and expectations of any given Roman generation, and by the time of the emperor Hadrian much of it had become unofficially (through social sanctions and general public disapproval) or officially (through further legislation, and penalties imposed on aspects of its exercise) obsolete. What’s more, similar rights of the ‘mater familias’ were culturally, although not legally, enforced at least during the early empire. On my honour as a Classics student, I promise you that there was a lot more to Roman family law than ‘the father can kill his daughters on a whim’.
You don’t even have to study classics to get this shit right - Wikipedia has a surprisingly accurate article on the position of the pater familias in Roman law and culture.
Sorry about that, everyone else. I just HATE it when these clowns try to use fabricated historical ‘facts’ to back up their bullshit opinions. It’s like it’s not good enough for them to be wrong about culture and politics and ethics and the plausibility of their bigoted screeds - they have to make sure that they’re wrong about ALL THE THINGS ever.
@Maya, but they don’t want to own all those women. They sure want to own one, the virgin-wife who raises their children and cleans their houses without costing a dime in the process, somehow, but they certainly don’t want to be responsible for the bevy of hot babes they think they’re entitled to fuck. They want them gone the next day, replaced by fresh fembots. Yet this world can’t exist if women are all virginal, modest and handed off from father to husband.
I often think this two-year-old’s mindset is why there is so much abuse of foreign brides. MRAs forget that the reason women in other cultures may be “submissive” or “know their place” is that the quid pro quo is simply different where they come from; sure, your husband is the king of the castle, but he’s also expected to pay YOUR way, show off by spending material wealth on you, deferring to you completely in certain areas, etc.
The paterfamilias had the direct power of life and death. No need to go to a court. Slaves had, nominally, more rights (one had to show cause, for family one just had to be able to show they were kin).
The later empire curtailed this.
It’s shocking to me, honestly, the level of fear these guys show, and the blatant hatred they evince. He’s looking forward to the day when all the women he doesn’t agree with get raped. He thinks women without brothers (or without brothers nearby) should be public property. No one who isn’t related to them has any duty to help them when they are in trouble.
In fact he espouses quite the opposite. If one is not related to a woman, one is to assume any trouble she has is justified, and leave her to suffer at the hands of whomever.
But they aren’t misogynists, oh no. Can’t call them creeps; that’s too cruel and demeaning.
And, heaven forfend one should tell them what one thinks, even in a non-violent way; then the Mellers of the world will have to retire to their fainting couches and make “satirical” comments to show the women (finally) the reverse of the coin for all the hatred those “venemous” harpies spew. Things like, “The Spearhead has men who hate women on it.”
The horror of accusing those moderates (with a few extremists) of being mean to women, why Andrea Dworkin said some bad things ones. She’s dead, and it was thirty-five years ago, but that means those men are just reacting to “provocation”.
Right…. and I’m Marie of Roumania.
The “good” girls will move from one purdah to another. The “bad” girls will just have to put out to anyone who wants them. The one’s who are really good at being bad can become kept women.
Those who are, “bad” will (just ask Meller) be, gladly, put out to a life of prostitution by their fathers/brothers (see again, DKM… interesting how this WN dude’s fantasy world seems to mirror, David K “I’m not a racist” Meller). Our Hero has already explained that a woman who isn’t being actively protected by her family is free game, because it means she’s a skanky whore.
So it all hangs together, right?
@Scooby Doo
This calls for a Conspiracy Keanu Meme.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/535206_3638776813351_1392204012_3434704_1662129420_n.jpg
How have I never seen that meme?
@Scooby Doo
You’re seriously comparing anarchism to WBC, MRAs and RadFemHub?
Go play with Google for a while. Please.
You see, this is why feminism will cause the end of the world. Because it has the power to rip holes in the fabric of space-time to some sort of dystopian dimension where women control everything and kill men on a whim. Eventually there’s gonna be a quantum collapse of some sort, and then what, huh?
It’s a shame I don’t have a camera, or I’d show these guys a picture of my chin to show that I don’t have a goatee and therefore they are in the wrong world.
“..we have a nation of weaklings and pansies who are unfit for life outside of this Babylonian welfare state.”
I think he meant to type “Byzantine” for Babylonian. Not that Byzantium had much of a welfare state outside of charities administered by the monasteries and the clergy. He meant to use “Byzantine” in the sense of “very complicated, lots of paperwork, lots of laws, sometimes contradictory” . That’s my take on his very odd phrase( not that the whole screed isn’t odd.)
“I look forward to the day when police stop responding to requests for protection orders, emergency protection orders, etc…”
First of all, how full of hate do you have to be to look forward to this, and secondly a major problem with restraining orders is the failure of police to enforce them. For example when my mum got a non-molestation order against my dad it took two days with him still in the house with us before the police came to serve it and that was only because my aunt, who works for the BBC, phoned them up and threatened to put it on the news. So there its happening, shouldn’t he be happy already?
They fear a Lady Land.
The Lady Land trope
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LadyLand
still no MRAs here? Not even one to say, “now THAT pile of crap, I cannot defend”
The silence is screaming. Here’s your chance, boys. We’re waiting…
The mere fact it exists is what drives them batty John-Henry. The mere fact your mother was able to schlep on down to the court, be put under oath, have to explain humiliating and horrifying details to a perfect stranger-not once, not twice, but multiple times and then some how manage to get a police officer (who I am sure has so much better uses of zie’s time despite the fact they are the ones usually telling the victim to go get an order) to serve the paperwork so it can become a legal and enforceable order drives these men up the wall.
As for my male family members suddenly taking over-my dad has no sons, was the only boy and he was put up for adoption by his parents (and adopted by his grandparents who are now dead.) I have a stepbrother but he is very sickly and unable to do more than care for his own kids.
What do *I* do in this incredibly asinine theory of Bryan’s when my dad goes? Have my thirteen year old nephew decide what us ladies should do since he is quite literally the oldest able bodied male?
Um SkY…how long did you plan on living for? Because that’s how long you’ll be waiting. Hope you have some other hobbies.
Mythago:
That’s just it — in cultures where the wife is an accessory, she herself expects to be handsomely accessorized, especially if the husband is someone that she left her country and her family for. Why the hell would any woman leave the familiar confines of Bumfuck, Siberia, if the deal she gets in the States is the same or worse than she would have gotten back home? I know MRA’s believe that these women are dying to marry the first schlob 20 years their senior and then cook, clean, scrub and submit sexual “because it’s their values”, but it’s got to occur to these losers sometime that that’s a bit too good of an explanation.
I grew up in a country that supplies a lot of mail-order brides, and from what I remember of the culture, there are two more things that men who marry mail-order brides ignore at their peril.
First, some women want to drop everything and move to another hemisphere precisely because they don’t want to be submissive. They’ve heard that American husbands are better, that women in America are allowed to drive and even have their own cars (seriously, my dad stopped speaking to me for a month when I got my license), and that American husbands are less prone to violence, more likely to treat their wives as partners rather than subordinates. So if such women make all these sacrifices — marry someone significantly older and generally undesirable, and move to the other side of the world — the last thing they would expect is to be ordered about.
Second, in a culture where women can’t confront their husbands or discuss problems in a straight-forward, face-to-face manner, there is a lot of passive-aggressive and secretive crap going on in families as a matter of course, and thought to be perfectly acceptable by society. You don’t bruise your husband’s ego by arguing with him or burdening him with problems; you just smile to his face, agree with everything he says, and then do what you need to do, even if he doesn’t like it. It’s a fundamentally adversarial relationship, not a cooperative one — and I really don’t know how well-prepared your average American guy, much less an MRA, would be for something like that.
This is why I love manboobz, I get to mock misogynists AND I learn cool stuff from the comments. I just spent about an hour reading about Roman law thanks to this thread.
Yeah, about the whole women-should-rely-on-relatives-to-protect-them… My dad grew up with seven sisters and a mom, most of them older. There was a dad in the house, too, but he had work obligations, and couldn’t always be around. So, supposing one of his older sisters was being harassed by some guy and his dad wasn’t available, would it really be fair to expect their much younger brother to fight for them?
Another case: A great-uncle of mine was the only son in his family, he ended up in an accident and remained in a wheel-chair for the rest of his life. He couldn’t protect his sisters and/or mother even if he wanted to.
Even if it were the case that male relatives could always be depended on to fight for the rights/honor/comfort of women, distribution varies too much to make it reliable. Some families only have daughters, sometimes the male breadwinner dies young, sometimes the boys are too young, sometimes the sons are disabled, and that’s without even taking minority issues into account.
Basically, if the only thing that can keep a woman from being attacked is having a male relative bodyguard that is both willing and able to defend her, a lot of us are just plain screwed. No wonder so many MRAs support the idea.
[tw abuse, incest, rape] I love the implication in this rant that fathers/brothers/male cousins are never the abusers. Or that if they are, that just speaks to “what kind of woman” the person abused is. Because no nice girl ever gets abused by daddy. No nice girl ever gets raped by her brother. Nope.
And of course, every lady has a father, at least three brothers and fifty burly male cousins in her own personal little dude army, willing to do her bidding at the drop of a hat.
SURE.
Tangentally, I’m sure it’s never occurred to this jackass that perhaps those of us who are lucky enough to have fathers, brothers, or male cousins who are willing to do anything for us, including jack someone up, probably don’t want our male relatives to do so because we care about them and don’t want them to go to jail. I don’t have any brothers or any male cousins near, but I do have a father who I know due to past history and due to the fact that we share the same temper, that he would, without hesitation, put somebody in intensive care if they hurt me or threatened my well-being. So I didn’t tell him about the boy who used to follow me around the library, the boy I was terrified would get me in a corner and wouldn’t let me out, the boy who wouldn’t take no for an answer, even when I lied repeatedly telling him to his countless progressively scarier demands that I go out with him, that my parents weren’t going to let me date until I was eighteen. I didn’t tell my father about him, or the boys who tormented me every day in biology, threw spitballs, mocked me, tripped me in the hall, made it so I didn’t want to even try to answer any questions, and finally one day on a class nature hike, threw a brick sized rock at me. I didn’t tell him about those boys because I knew he’d want to defend me, given half the chance, just might, physically, and then where would we be? My father would face charges of assault against a minor. Probably go to jail.
I know it probably throws a wrench in the whole “women hate men. ALL men” theory, but a lot of us who do have male relatives who would jack someone up for our sake don’t want them to because we care about them and don’t want them to go to jail.
And some of us have the radical idea that solving problems of violence and intimidation with MORE violence and intimidation isn’t exactly solving anything at all.
And on the other hand, if we make this the standard means for addressing domestic violence, MRA’s would also be screwed. They assume that women’s fathers and brothers will always take the abuser’s side and chuckle at their daughters and sisters spitting up blood and sporting black eyes — but there is no reason that assumption would turn out to be true. What IS true is that for all the accusations of dysfunctionality against the legal system, vigilante justice is far more vicious and inequitable. Think the scene from Godfather. If you “lightly” slapped your wife for being a “bitch-whore”, and her Sonny-like brother comes at you with a mountain of muscle and a baseball bat, try to argue a defense then, motherfucker. So MRAs’ ideas on this aren’t just vicious, they are also plenty stupid.
Yet another MRA who cares more about hurting women than helping men. Holly already pointed out that forcing private male citizens to assume of the onus of protecting their female relatives would lead to a precipitous rise in intermale violence. And what about the men who are victims of domestic violence? What happens to them in Bryan’s little absolutist patriarchy? Do they also have no legal recourse against their abusers, and no choice but to seek shelter with their families? If so, it seems like they’d be better served by the existing system, as imperfect as it is. (Although perhaps Bryan doesn’t actually believe that men can be victims of domestic violence; after all, he seems to think that any given man would be perfectly capable of acting as a bodyguard for his suitably deserving female relatives.)
This is so true. Myself and my brother HAVE confronted my sister’s boyfriends for treating her like shit, and, looking back now, I can say that at least two of those incidents were complete overreactions on our part. Relying on vigilante justice means relying on others to not succumb to their emotions, and that’s a fool’s bet. I still believe that there are times when vigilante justice is what’s appropriate, but I think that’s also coloured by the fact that I’m a POC who doesn’t trust that cops aren’t going to dish out even more disproportionate violence than the vigilantes would.
What I found funny on the Spearhead is when someone had the nerve to say there are older women out there also looking for younger men.
GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Those men look down on you as whores!!!!!!!!!!!
I live as much as possible in Nicaragua. Being how depressed we’ve been since coming back this time I think shortly this is going to be full-time.
The Nica men do not look down on foreign women anymore then Nica woman do. Hustlers see them as a provider for their families male or female, a business deal and nothing more. My opinion on the whole situation is if gringo’s don’t understand that then they deserve what they get.
There is however a sex trade of Nica boys to gringos. I’m considering setting up a non-profit of hitman for these guys (semi serious ha ha) . Girls are not often targeted for pre-adolescent sex from gringos (it happens but not as often as in Asian countries).
I’ve mentioned this before, but my grandpa had to drop out of school at age 14 and be the “man of the house” after his dad abandoned the family. (His mom worked as a janitor, but all the blue-collar jobs in town that paid a living wage were for men only.) It was not fun for anyone. I don’t even know what to say to the idea that his duties, as a 14-year-old factory worker, should have also included beating up anyone who threatened his mother and sisters so the police wouldn’t have to lower themselves to defend mere women.
Again, I can never tell how much these guys actually believe any of the crap they write.
I honestly think they just do not care about the ramifications of their ideas. They have a fuzzy idea of The Way Things Used To Be and they are mad at the women currently in (or not in) their lives. So they want to have it The Way Things Used To Be to get back at the women in their lives.
Or maybe it is the best example of doublethink since 1984.
Amen. There’s another disadvantage of the “traditional” patriarchy that the MRAs don’t consider.
1) A woman may be completely dependent on a man, any man in such a society, but that doesn’t mean all the average Joes are going to end up with supermodels. The average Joe will be married to the average Jane, and the supermodel is going to marry the richest, most powerful man she can. After all, if you’re expected to live in a cage, you might as well get the best, most luxurious cage you can get.
2) But say that our supermodel does fall in love with Handsome-Yet-Poor Joe. Joe’s still out of luck, since her family will probably disown her unless she marries Rich-Yet-Hideous Mr. Joesph, since they don’t want to support her for the rest of their lives either. That’s why William Pratt (the future Spike) got shown the door by his Victorian goddess; a handsome, yet poor poet (in both definitions of the word) doesn’t stand much of a chance where women can’t support themselves, and have to look to their men to do it for them.
3) Even if Handsome/Poor Joe and the supermodel end up together in spite of everything, there’s always going to be a richer, more powerful man who might covert Poor Joe’s “property” as his own. If the supermodel’s wishes don’t count for anything, then Poor Joe’s opinion doesn’t count for anything either. This happens at least twice in the Bible with King David’s wives Michal* and Bathsheba, and it was a common event in US Mormonism before they disowned polygamy.
Ann Chamberlin’s novel Snakesleeper tells the story from Michal’s point of view. Michal marries David when they’re both teenagers, but David abandons her after their wedding night. Michael is forced to marry the average, middle aged Phalti, whom she eventually comes to love. When David comes to power, he tracks down Michal and forces her to become his queen, in spite of her wish to stay married to Phalti. Michal eventually agrees to stay with David after Phalti is found dead, because she wants to protect Phalti’s family. Phalti’s sons (except the youngest) take the MRA route and call her a whore who stays with David for his riches.*
* Because it’s always easier to blame the lone, powerless woman instead of an army full of powerful men. See “Malinche” for example.
@She Wolf
I wouldn’t be surprised if “Babylonian” is a reference to our Jewish overlords
Thank you so much Amused! I wonder how many of these guys drop the ‘perfect foreign lady’ fantasy once they actually meet or marry one or even, you know, travel. Because the illusions they have about Russian and Thai women are about as accurate as their false memory syndrome surrounding a 1950s American utopia.
The advantage for an MRA in choosing a foreign bride is that by bring her here she is already isolated. They don’t have to go to the trouble of isolating her before the abuse can begin.
Grim, I know, but as much as the desperate subservient beauty myth attracts them the ability to isolate attracts them even more.
@TheNatFantastic, I’m sorry, but in my experience vast majority of self-professed anarchists are dumb as rocks. I’m aware that there’s a more sophisticated breed out there, but they seem to be a minority.
Woah, Scooby Doo you must have met a lot of anarchists in your life to know the statistical breakdown of “dumb as rocks” vs “sophisticated” as well as you do.
@Scooby Doo
Let’s break this down:
Group A: ‘Dumb as rocks’ (no citation or explanation, or even a demonstration that you actually know what they believe)
Group B: Go to innocent people’s funerals asserting they deserved to die because they weren’t viruently homophobic. Recognised as a hate group.
Group C: Blame women for any and all problems. Want to ‘fuck their shit up’. David manages to collect new evidence of how hateful and illogical they are on a daily basis. Recognised as a hate group.
Group D: Cissexist, transphobic.
One of these things is not like the others.
But then again, according to you I’m as ‘dumb as a rock’. And by the way, having lived in three cities with burgeoning anarchist communities and social centres, I’ve probably met ten times the anarchists you have. I also have the added knowledge of knowing what I actually believe, unlike you who is probably just thinking ‘No government = chaos!” and possibly “But black bloc!”.
Now citations please, or shut up about my political beliefs*. (And I know I’m not the only anarchist here)
(*Not ‘some 12 year old on X-box live said he was an anarchist and he was a total douche!’)
Hi, Nat… my questions about anarchism would be a big thread derail. I’ve never met a smart feminist one before. I’m intrigued. Not sure this can be solved in a comments thread, tho. Kudos to you for defending yourself well, tho.
Shadow: What IS true is that for all the accusations of dysfunctionality against the legal system, vigilante justice is far more vicious and inequitable.
This is so true. Myself and my brother HAVE confronted my sister’s boyfriends for treating her like shit, and, looking back now, I can say that at least two of those incidents were complete overreactions on our part. Relying on vigilante justice means relying on others to not succumb to their emotions, and that’s a fool’s bet.
This is why we pay cops. A huge part of the training they get is on how to defuse tense situations, and a large part of why they get paid so much is to deal with a lot of crap. That we have such poor oversight, and that the courts are more and more (not that the time when this wasn’t the case was all that long, or all that intense), siding with the cops, citing, “personal safety”, every time they tase someone to death, or jjust beat them silly, or engage in a search that ought ought to be ruled inadmissable.
But that’s the ideal. People trained in the law, and trained in not over-reacting, which is easier when they have no dog in the fight.
They do have one dog, “respect”, which is why we have to treat them like an armed gang of thugs so much of the time, but so long as they don’t feel they aren’t being given their due they tend to be tolerably fair.
Amused: If you “lightly” slapped your wife for being a “bitch-whore”, and her Sonny-like brother comes at you with a mountain of muscle and a baseball bat, try to argue a defense then, motherfucker. So MRAs’ ideas on this aren’t just vicious, they are also plenty stupid.
This is when the Mellibertopia says one appeals to the “impartial, independent, arbiters” who will make a ruling; backed by their reputation, and everyone will agree to accept it.
Peace is inevitable under such a system.
And now I’m off to the Louvre Museum… where I think I’ll get a good running start and hurl myself at the wall.
Look, Nat, I’ll retract my statements re. anarchism, and apologize for causing offense. You’re right, it’s not comparable to the other groups I listed. It’s just an ideology I disagree with, and there are plenty of those.
Good for you Nat, sticking up for yourself. I’m a Libertarian, and some people really don’t like that. No political party owns Feminism.
“No political party owns Feminism.” Obviously not, and more feminism everywhere wouldn’t be a loss. But some political ideas are more coherent with feminism than others.
I’m one of at least three ‘dumb as a rock’ regular posters here.
Black Bloc. Don’t you love those “compliments” that are equal parts insult and headpatting? I mean, your sooo intelligent as both a feminist annndd for your political beliefs! /end sarcasm.
My political ideals are very compatible with Feminism, and I’m not a Democrat.
Yeah, the majority of anarchists I have met have been fairly thoughtful individuals. I disagree with them on the issue of statism, but there are a lot of stereotypes about anarchists that are not at all reflective of the reality in the vast majority of cases. Right wing anti-statists are doucheheads, but all rightwingers are doucheheads, so that shouldn’t be held against leftist anarchists.
Heh. I’m an anarchist who readily admits that how I perceive that philosophy is incompatible with my local society as a whole. Works beautifully on my tiny system scale, though!
I’m a feminist too, even! And worked in anarchist public service including the local internet cafe (cheapest in town!) and zine library, where I did a presentation on the history and genres of comics and graphic novels for a local grant!
But what do I know. I’m just dumb as a rock with no actual political agenda, hey-yup.
Cheers for backing me up on this guys.
If anyone’s curious as to what I actually believe, Google anarcho-communism and anarcha-feminism. I fall in those spheres. I also wrote this short and rubbish thing about the relationship between anti-capitalism and feminism a couple of months ago: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/why_im_an_anarc
I don’t want to do a massive derail here, but if anyone wants to ask any more questions, you can get in touch with me via my blog (link if you click my name) - last post was about anti-capitalism and sex work, if you’re interested.
Just for lulz, here’s the last email my howwid anarchist social centre sent me. See if you can spot the hate crime:
“We need a hosts and cooks for next Saturday’s brunch, on 31st March and also
for Sunday’s dinner.
If you can make one of those dates please add your name to the paper rota at
Kebele, or to Crabgrass or email [redacted]
Also, we need more people to get involved in the Cafe Collective and there’s a
Cafe Collective meeting this coming Thursday 29th from 6.30 pm in the Library.
It’s on with the monthly mid week dinner to enjoy as well!
Cheers
Cafe Collective”
Remember: I might have met some Christians who were hateful arseholes. It wasn’t Christianity that made them arseholes, it was just being arseholes. If you can’t point to a central tenet in a movement that makes it hateful, STFU.
@pillowinhell: Well, we all know that a person that believes maintaining anonymity at a demo is paramount, or that an unwarranted police arrest is an act of political repression and violence therefore the act of resisting arrest or unarresting a comrade is a form of *self-defense* not initiatory violence, is incapable of discussing the social ramifications of patriarchy in a reasoned manner. There’s a law against it. /sarcasm
It always perplexes me when guys like this are so convinced women have all this “power” and we “know it.” Like we are these ultra mind-fuckers who can connive and plot against men at superpower levels.
First time on this site. After reading the MRA BS, this is a breath of fresh air.
TL - DR is always my inexplicable reaction to MRA rants.