High on a hill was a lonely fem-herd
Over on A Voice for Men, the paramount meeting place for the brave warriors of the Leading Human Rights Movement of the 21st Century, a commenter calling himself Laddition has some uncharacteristically kind words to say about feminists (in this thread). Well, “kind” may not be the right word for it. But Laddition tells us that as awful as the awful feminists are, they’re not quite as bad as are … the rest of the world’s women. Sorry, the “rest of the fem-herd.” He explains:
Naturally, the readers of A Voice for Men greeted these pearls of wisdom with upvotes.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic, can someone explain GirlWritesWhat and TyphonBlue and the rest of AVFM’s little FemMRA, er, herd to me again? What exactly draws women to hang out with, and make 45 minute-long videos on the behalf of, dudes who not only hate women but who offer new proof of this hatred on a daily basis?
Posted on November 15, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, armageddon, ghosts, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, your time will come and tagged a voice for men, anti-feminism, men's rights, mgtow, misogyny, MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 263 Comments.
Solvang in CA? Weird that they’re selling Celtic stuff there. (though the hand towel you’re making sounds very cool).
Typhonblue’s masculism and antifeminism can be explained as the result of a remarkable thing called
heterosexualitypatriarchyFixed that for you.
@ Rahu
I know you’re probably gone by now, but I have read a few of your posts, and I have to say I’m shocked. Shocked that people actually grew up in those kinds of families. I mean, I know that people like the ones we discuss (and worse) have children, but maybe there’s a part of me that’s still too naive to really ‘get it’. I grew up pretty sheltered, and always told myself that if someone taught their children bad things, the child could eventually grow up and get over it. Obviously you did, but I only now realise how hard it must be for some people, especially if they have the kind of personality that wants to please people all the time. Did your father actually call himself an MRA, and was he affiliated with any of the sites discussed here? Was this a while ago? I understand you likely won’t want to answer, that’s OK.
@cloudiah
Yeah, that’s the place. I try to get up that way every few months or so. The town sells itself on the “more Danish than Denmark” thing (and wine tasting), but there are quite a few shops that really have nothing to do with either, including two or three needlework supply shops. I found the book at one of thos.
*those
Damn sticky E key…
Heterosexuality is patriarchy, no? But this site is full of boring old liberal feminists who think that heterosexuality is a valid lifestyle and is just the way some people are, rather than fun radical feminists who entertain me by saying that heterosexuality can and should be abolished.
P.S. I realize that it might seem like bisexual erasure that I’m discussing the heterosexuality of Typhonblue, a bisexual woman, but I’m not going to pretend that the heterosexual desires of bisexuals are somehow “queer” (ugh) just because the subject of desire isn’t exclusively heterosexual. Bisexuals are both heterosexual and homosexual, rather than, as some bisexuals fancy themselves, neither heterosexual nor homosexual: That would be asexuality. Pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual, multisexual, sapiosexual, “queer”, et al., are made-up bullshit.
@Karalora, I haven’t been up there in years- I should go check it out!
Man, I succumb to the siren song of Skyrim for a few hours last night and I miss the whole “feminism is TEH EBUL because DEBBIE FUCKING PEARL” meltdown.
This just isn’t a good day for me.
The funny thing is that she already did. She came here to chastise us for saying that MRAs hate women just because they hate feminism and a bunch of them hate women. But it’s totally cool to say that feminism is evil because her mom sucked.
@cloudiah
Try the lunch buffet at the Red Viking. It’s all you can eat, just $14, and they have a great variety of pickles and meat pastes and things.
Scrapemind: Kindly go fuck yourself. Masturbation is good clean fun and, unlike your scattershot approach to attention seeking, won’t waste anyone else’s time.
You say ‘bisexual erasure’, I say, ‘being a douche who severely needs to fall onto a gorse bush’.
Neither heterosexual nor homosexual is so not an apt description of what it means to be asexual that my brain hurts. Scrapemind: Fall in a well and starve there, and don’t talk about my sexuality any more, ‘kay thanks bye.
Out of curiosity, JB, since your mother was an EVIL feminist and your dad was the best ever, did your dad ever give you Hustlers and booze for a hard day’s work?
Wait: heterosexuality is patriarchy?
No.
Wow, this one has really imprinted on the idea that all feminists are lesbians, hasn’t he?
He probably has a few other stereotypes up his sleeves too: ugly, battleaxe, hairy, castration-happy, sluts, prudes, irrationally angry…
I never got the ‘feminists are lesbians’ thing. I mean, even if it was true that feminists wanted to oppress men, then it could mean that that women were pissed and vengeful about the centuries of male oppression of women. Or do these people believe that men in patriachal societies are all gay?
There actually can be a homoerotic aspect to extreme patriarch (no connection to normal gay people, of course). If a culture really, really devalues women, then being desirable to women, being respected by women, sexual conquest (ugh) of women, etc no longer has any value and men start getting substituted into those roles. Slacktivist fans know what I mean.
*patriarchy
@Katz
Is this the whole “it’s manly if you top, and weak if you’re bottoming” thing that Greco-Roman cultures had?
I’m just going to juxtapose different statements by Judgybitch right here and imply absolutely nothing about JB being inconsistent.
>Is this the whole “it’s manly if you top, and weak if you’re bottoming” thing that Greco-Roman cultures had?
Manly friendship between men wasn’t all that… friendly according to that late antique text I’ve read. It was certainly not about two men meeting as equals, which I guess is in line with the rest of the culture.
BAHAHAHAHA. *Gigglesnort*
@ kakanian
Cleavers kind of scare me, actually. Always feel like I’m about to lose a finger. I’ll happily acknowledge that they’re excellent multi-purpose cooking tools, but the fear of injury when one starts whacking things with them remains. I’ve settled for a nakiri instead, which serves the veggie-slicing purposes nicely without making me feel like a trip to the ER is imminent.
Meanwhile, Scrapemind is still trying to be clever and failing miserably.
@Carleyblue – Hi! I hope I’m not replying too late. Yes, my father did consider himself an MRA, although he didn’t use that term very often. He was not a computer person, so he was not on the sites we talk about here, although there’s a good chance that he knew many of the people who are on them. He died a few years ago, and I had left the family a couple of years before that, so this was a while ago. And I’m happy to answer most any questions.
@Scrapemind – thanks for introducing me to “sapiosexual” which I promptly looked up. Cool word. And I’m pretty sure it’s not “made-up bullshit” (nor are the others). Evolutionarily (is THAT a made-up word? I’m sure you get the meaning), the most distinctive change in humans is the exponentially large increase in brain size, leading me to think that not only is sapiosexual not made-up, it’s actually one of the most common types of person.
The main objection to “sapiosexual” I’ve heard is that it comes off a bit “I like people for their BRAINS and PERSONALITY, not just look for hot people like you other dirty promiscuous people!”
That second half is added by others. I mean, I’m sure some people call themselves “sapiosexuals” just to be all hoity-toity n’ shit, like “ooh… look how deep I am…”, but I don’t think it’s the rule.
There’s definitely at least a small element of projection to that, yeah. Still doesn’t seem a particularly useful sexual category, but if people like it and identify with it people like it and identify with it.
I mean… it makes it a lot easier than to answer the question “what kind of [insert gender here] are you attracted to” with a long spiel about how while looks are important to a point, intelligence is sexy.
Or maybe I’m just a fan of labels. Seriously… if I were to list out all the labels I identify with, it’d be one hell of a long, disorganized blog post…
I need to work on that (not the blog post; being more independent and “free from labels” or whatever label they give it these days
)…
Seconding lowquacks here. That particular label seems to imply that those other people, over there, just don’t care about anything other than looks, the unthinking brutes. It’s inherently judgy.
Well, either inherently judgy or so broadly applicable as to be almost meaningless.
Like, I guess there are people who would be OK with their sexual partner being literally mindless, but it’s not exactly a common thing.
I mean, “sapient” isn’t exactly setting the bar high in terms of intelligence.
And furry.
So I actually really don’t like the term sapiosexual.
Here’s why.
See, I just don’t think it’s judgy at all. I’m not sure how it has any inherent comment on anyone else without someone intentionally putting it there.
I’ll grant the broadly applicable thing… I could see how it could apply to most people.
Actually inurashii, sapiophile does work better. I hadn’t thought about all that stuff about civil rights when first stumbling on the term. That post is a good one.
Thanks. I stewed on it for a while before finally writing the damn response to the image, which was crazy popular by the time it floated my way.
You really don’t see how a term that states that you’re only attracted to intelligent people implies that the people you’re not attracted to are kind of stupid (which they may or may not be - how do you know?), and that people who are attracted to them must be OK with stupidity?
Also, given that the way intelligence is perceived is often influenced by class, physical appearance, and a whole host of other things, it starts to get really dodgy really fast. I’ve seen far too many people automatically judge conventionally hot people, especially women, as unintelligent without even talking to them not to suspect that this term is going to be applied in less than kind ways. Could get even nastier when applied to people perceived to be working class.
BTW I’m not sniping at a preference for people you consider intelligent in general - people are entitled to have whatever sexual preferences they please. It’s the specific way that “sapiosexual” as an identity is being constructed that I think is sketchy.
Okay, I had a brain fart. I read ‘sapiosexual’ and started thinking of being attracted to sapient pearwood, which would be dangerous to say the least.
The “sapiosexual” discussion is interesting. I like labels, I have given myself a bunch that I mostly hold close to myself because they are important to me, but so irrelevant most of the time. But sapiosexual seemed… wrong… to me too.
But sapiophillic (or something denoting intellectualism/simple passion for critical thinking rather than just sapience) is awesome. I am horribly attracted to such things - when I was in the Naval Reserve I had a guy in the Airforce tell me at a pub, embarrassed, that his thesis had been on mating habits of sea cucumbers. I was sooo turned on. Obviously he communicated well as well but a higher education in obscure topics in biology? *swoon*
@CassandraSays
I can understand that and I am more careful to always cut away from my body when peeling oranges and such. But I think it’s a calculable risk with onions and other vegetables, granted that you’re guiding the knife along the back of your fingers like you’d do with a nakiri or any other wide knife. I just sort of like the additional weight they bring to the chopping board. Makes cutting a bit more effortelessly.
@hrovitnr
You’re not the only one. I get very aroused and swoon-y around my boyfriend when he does complicated mental arithmatic. (Also, god help him if he ever gets a postgraduate degree because for some reason that would be very, very hot.)
I don’t immediately go “brains! *swoon*” but if that person is someone I like and am attracted to already, then “brains? mmm, sexy…”
I have a similar relationship with long hair on men.
OTOH, I’ve never thought of it as an inherant part of my sexuality, just an interest and preference. ‘Sapiosexual’ just sounds pretentious.
I think part of what tweaked me about the ‘sapiosexual’ thing is that, well, I live in the Boston area. There’s a lot of casual racism and classism committed by liberal intellectuals here, and I’ve become hypersensitive to anything that smells of it. ‘Sapiosexual’ is such an example, for reasons that CassandraSaid very well.
This discussion of ‘sapiosexuality’ is really interesting to me, because the only person I’ve known who uses the word regularly is someone who explicitly identifies as not sapiosexual. For her, pants feelings are based on physical hotness, and while she can be impressed by how smart someone is, it doesn’t do anything for how sexy she thinks they are. (Which is not to say that the people she dates are stupid. Just that intelligence in and of itself does not produce the cartoon eyes-popping, jaw-dropping response that physical stuff does.)
I’ve had both reactions - some people are, physically, just amazingly hot. And some people are sexily smart. But my exposure to ‘sapiosexual’ as a term has been basically non-judgmental of other sexual approaches, and you all are bringing up really good points that are making me think about it in different ways.
I have NEVER heard of sapiosexual before. Huh. Not a big fan, but that’s because I find the concept of ‘intelligence’ in general kinda useless. I wish it’d go away.
But this is beside the point. The IMPORTANT thing is David banned Thermos before I could find out whether JB returned the affections! I AM SO SADDENED BY THIS.
C’mon, Judgy, did you like Thermos? This is very important to me.
Precisely! On all points.
Yeah, pretty much. Outside of any context it’s interesting, but based in reality I can’t see any way it’s not going to be classist as all hell.
@LBT
Sorry, I didn’t really notice Thermos. Warm and insulated, I assume? I’m married.
I’m now amusing myself with the idea of calling myself long-haired-sexual. It makes more sense than “sapiosexual” in that at least it’s a clear and specific description that isn’t prone to all kinds of potential biases - someone’s hair is either long or it isn’t. Though we might then need a new category for people attracted only to men whose hair is sort of in between short and shoulder length.
RE: Judgy
Aw man, you know what this means? YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP! I’m so depressed.
Also congrats on your happy union.
RE: CassandraSays
*snrk* Hubby’s hair’s reaching shoulder length… I like it, but I dunno enough to append it to my (already clunky) orientation labels.
Also, can I call myself pretty-sexual? Because I’m pretty attracted to pretty people of all genders. The term “pretty” is kind of on a par with “intelligent” in terms of how subjective and influenced by biases it is.