A Man Going His Own Way offers a plan for gender equality. It involves killing hundreds of thousands of women

A woman at work. But shouldn't she be DEAD?

A woman at work. But shouldn’t she be DEAD?

This blog gets a lot of drive-by commenters, usually hostile, who drop one comment and then vanish, never to return. A lot of these comments are insults and one-liners, but a good number of these one-shot numbers, apparently seeking to maximize the impact of their one bit of input on this blog, deposit mini-manifestos setting forth their grand visions of what Men’s Rights stands for, why feminism is evil, or whatever it is that has them most riled up that day.

The most recent of these manifesto-droppers was a self-described Man Going His Own Way called Disgruntled, who set forth at some length his own rather punitive version of gender equality. It’s a rather revealing document, so I thought I would share it with you all.

Disgruntled started off by declaring that

I … demand increased equality among the 2 main genders and whatever additional gender-types have entered the fray

But his vision of equality is a rather blinkered one, to say the least. He singles out three areas in which men fare worse than women, and demands not that the suffering of men be alleviated — but that the suffering of women be ratcheted up to meet that of men’s.

He starts off with a reasonable enough request, one that is in fact supported by most feminists:

One demand I have is that females in the USA be required by law, as males are, to sign up for the military draft and to be subject to a draft if enacted.

Indeed, when Selective Service registration was reinstated in 1981, the National Organization for Women sued to include women. And given that women can now officially serve in combat in the armed forces, it seems likely that women will be included in registration as a matter of course.

Not that this is really much of a live issue, since the draft itself is dead and isn’t going to be resurrected in the forseeable future.

But Disgruntled’s next demand shows what his real agenda is:

To achieve parity I want the vast majority of draftees to be females until a general equality is attained with the numbers of dead and maimed males from past wars. To ease the determination I would start with World War 1.

That’s right: Disgruntled is calling for a government-sponsored lady-killing operation, one which would mean the death of hundreds of thousands of women, because women weren’t dying in combat during a period when they weren’t allowed to serve in combat.

Indeed, during World War I, when Disgruntled begins his program, they weren’t  allowed to vote.

He’s not the only MRA to feel this way; A Voice for Men has advanced a similarly punitive, if less drastic, “solution” to gender inequality in the armed forces.

I should note that the period that Disgruntled is trying to make up for, the twentieth century and early twenty-first, was a century of mass carnage. The United States managed to escape the worst of that carnage; while we were involved in numerous wars and other military operations, no wars were fought on US soil.

This may have given Americans — and American MRAs in particular — a rather skewed vision of what war is. The vast majority of American casualties in twentieth (and twenty-first) century wars have been military personnel — that is, they’ve been overwhelmingly male.

But in fact, in most wars, civilians (male and female, adults and children) make up roughly half of all casualties, some dying as a direct result of military actions and some as the result of disease and famine. In World War II, last century’s bloodiest war, possibly as many as 2/3 of the total casualties were civilian. Men don’t have a monopoly on suffering in wartime.

After a brief mention of criminal sentencing disparities, Disgruntled moves on to another topic that is a favorite of MRAs:

Another life aspect is the woeful number of males maimed or dying performing the tasks that keep the USA operating on a daily basis. As a society we must do all we can to get females employed in those high-risk jobs that traditionally have high injury/death rates.

Again: the solution is for more women to die!

Interestingly enough, though MRAs talk about “getting” women into these professions all the time, the women who have tried to enter professions like coal mining have faced massive resistance, not from feminists trying to protect them from dangerous “male” jobs but from management — and the men in these jobs themselves. Women coal miners not only face the dangers of the job, but open hostility and sexual harassment from their male co-workers as well.

Now, a real men’s movement — one interested in actually helping men and not just in attacking women or gleefully imagining them getting their comeuppance by dying in war or in a mine collapse — would look at the reports of (mostly) men dying in accidents on the job and would, you know, ACTUALLY TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS.

It seems weird to have to point out that generally speaking real activists try to do something about the issues they care about, but in all my reading of the manosphere over the last few years I have not once seen any MRA actually attempt to examine why there are so many workplace deaths, much less ask what can be done about it.

Sure, MRAs complain about workplace deaths all the time, but simply as “proof” that men are the “disposible sex” and that women are a bunch of spoiled brats. Or, like Disgruntled, they use it as an excuse for elaborate fantasies of what Michael Kimmel calls “restorative, retaliatory” violence.

Do you want to know why there are so many workplace deaths?

Maybe it’s because companies that put workers at risk with serious violations of safety regulations get only a slap on the wrist from OSHA? The typical OSHA fine for a serious violation is $1700. Even if someone dies as a result of this violation, the maximum fine is only $7000.

Maybe it’s because so many employers put temporary workers in dangerous situations with inadequate training?

Maybe it’s because so many employers don’t give a shit about immigrant workers? As one recent report on preventable death in the workplace (from which I cribbed the above points)  notes:

While the overall U.S. fatality rates for workers have gradually decreased over time (though they are still too high), the fatality rate for immigrant workers has increased at an alarming rate.

When you start looking into the details, you discover that workplace deaths happen for some pretty predictable reasons: companies try to cut costs by cutting corners, and regulators (deeply intwined with the industries they regulate) look the other way. And so workers — particularly more vulnerable workers like immigrants, temp workers, and young workers — pay the price, sometimes literally with their lives.

It’s a labor issue. A class issue. A race issue. And insofar as it’s a gender issue, it’s not feminists or “cultural misandry” that is to blame, but rather a patriarchal narrative that suggests that macho men don’t need to worry about following the rules (even if those rules are designed to protect your life), that stoic men shouldn’t complain about rough conditions at work.

How do you organize to fight this? You don’t yell about the “death professions” on the internet. You don’t fantasize about how great it would be if more women died in coal mines. You actually research the issue rather than reciting MRA slogans. You contact the people who are already working on the issue — mostly labor activists — and ask how to help.

And that’s the problem here. MRAs don’t want to help. They want to rage against women.

And so comfortable middle-class MRAs, whose jobs are as about as dangerous as the lives of my (indoor) cats, appropriate the real suffering of vulnerable poor and working-class men as an excuse to yell at women online and fantasize about their deaths — all while doing precisely zilch to help the men they claim to care so much about.

Hell of a civil rights movement you’ve got there.

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on January 17, 2014, in advocacy of violence, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, empathy deficit, grandiosity, irony alert, mantrum, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misandry, misogyny, MRA, not-quite-explicit threats, oppressed white men, slacktivism, taking pleasure in women's pain, your time will come and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 342 Comments.

  1. If anything I’d have thougth the next numbers would be one and six.

  2. Yep, 1 then 6. I second Argenti, where does the 9 come in?

  3. Pi.


    Not as tasty as pie, but it has its uses.

  4. D’Oh!

  5. Does this mean the sequence is as much about how much maths one learned, and whether one remembers it, as about actual intelligence?

  6. Bingo.

    I couldn’t really explain pi to anyone in any kind of depth; it’s just a little factoid that stuck in my head.

  7. I struggled with arithmetic and maths all through primary and high school (I dumped it as soon as I could, after fourth form) and don’t remember anything much about it.

    Call me biased, but I don’t consider that a sign that I’m unintelligent.

  8. Hey, somebody should perhaps let you know that you can’t win a game of chess by picking up the pieces and throwing them at your opponent.

    Hey, y’know, that’s real sweet advice, bro. Maybe we should just make like you, instead…walk all over the chessboard like a strutting pigeon, and take a massive fucking dump in the middle of it. WIN!

  9. Okay, totally off topic I know, but everyone seemed to be here and the open thread seemed dead, sorry. OCD whine.

    I’ve been holding a fucking empty glass for the last fucking hour and my hand is going numb, I CANT FUCKING PUT IT DOWN! OCD says terrible, terrible awfulness will ensue if I put the fucking thing down! I’m so fucking tired of this!

    Sorry to burden you all, but it’s 1:30 am, Mr M is asleep and I’m really fucking tired. I thought some kind Boobzer might be able to unstick me. Could somebody please tell me I’m being an idiot or something, I don’t know. I’m just such a fucking freak!

  10. Ophelia: You are not being an idiot or a freak. There is no need to apologize. It’s jerk-brain that’s doing this, not you.

    I’m sorry your OCD is acting up😦. It sounds like you’re having a really rough time. And the hugs, contact or no-contact, whatever’s best; and all the good Internet vibes too.

  11. Okay, here goes: Hey, OCD? Could you kindly let go of Ophelia so she can put that glass down? The only awfulness that’s happening is that her hand is going to sleep, while the rest of her can’t. Be a dear and let her get some rest, ‘kay? Thanks.

  12. Ophelia, I don’t know if this will help you, but I recently came across a mantra, I guess, to help me with procrastination (I tend to build things up in my head so that I can’t do a until b is done, and of course I can’t do b until c is done, etc). “What would that look like if it was easy?”

    So, OCD, what are the GOOD things that will happen if Ophelia sets the glass down? What if Ophelia dumps the contents of the glass and carries it to bed? What if something or someone else could be trusted to hold the glass so Ophelia can go to bed?

  13. Nthing what everyone else said, Ophelia!

    Chocolate cake for you.

    Deadly Kitten Cuteness (that’s not my hand, it’s a friend who didn’t move fast enough)

    Fan photo of Terry Pratchett, with signature!

  14. I’m not sure how to help you Ophelia. I have the same issues. Usually I just take a deep breath and picture myself stopping the weird thing. Like picture and plan how you’re going to go and put the glass down somewhere(perhaps away from where you can pick it up again).

  15. You are all so lovely. Lovely brain bleach everyone, thank you so much and sorry for the attention seeking.

    Glass holding no more! Gods my hand hurts!

    Now if I could just stop:

    Checking that the front door’s locked.
    Making sure the taps are off.
    Opening and shutting my bedside drawer 15 times whenever I think about it.
    Pacing from bed to door 15 times every time I enter the bedroom.
    Checking all the plugs are out of the sockets.
    Singing that bloody song I hate.
    Reading comments I write obsessively.
    Tapping the finger tips of my right hand in a specific order.

    I might be able to get some sleep.

    More vodka.🙂

    @auggziliary, I did respond to you about your comment about OCD on the open thread, but I was a bit late I think, sorry.

  16. Ophelia, that wasn’t attention-seeking. You just ask people for help when you needed it. That’s a good thing, and let people help you, that’s another good thing.

  17. Seconding what Robert R. said, Ophelia.

  18. Thirding.

  19. Ophelia: Nthing everyone. Asking for help is most definitely not attention-seeking.

    Cute photo-bombing husky:


  20. I love that photo. It gets some great “we all have a friend like this” captions, too.🙂

  21. I’m putting kitt33 on moderation for being deliberately disruptive and not actually reading anyone else’s comments before posting. So, kitt, if you want to keep posting here, you need to post the word “blorfle” in your next comment in this topic in order for me to let it through. That’ll show me you’re actually reading comments.

    If you do post that. er, word, you’re still going to be on moderation, and I’ll only let through comments that actually show you’ve read people’s comments here. If you don’t include the word “blorfle,” you’re banned.

  22. Thanks David! I was getting really sick of him.

  23. Thanks, David!

  24. And that is how you pick a safe word — no way is he going to manage to accidentally say that!

    Thank you David, the tedium was getting tedious.

  25. I used to bang on endlessly in long form with some old trolls, because I have no better use for my time and have one of those mental blocks where I think excessive verbiage is the same as wit.
    I haven’t done that in a while though, so here’s another round.
    And so begins the saga of “Kitt, the Kitten Who Didn’t Know What Implied Logical Limitations Meant”

    Hi kitt. Blorfle.

    Well if he wants to kill people to promote equality, that would make him a feminist.
    Because, you know, if you’re for equality then you’re a feminist. And so is somebody who would just kill everyone to ensure total equality.
    Ah, but you’ll hate this but that doesn’t make it false. So long as you define feminism alone by the striving for equality without any other requirements, you have to own all the crazys who have their own special way of accomplishing it. A female death quota is logically consistent with the definition of feminism and no amount of denial can change that.
    Oh, sorry, did I spoil another wanking session? Oops. Please, do continue.

    If someone wants to eat, that means that person is willing to kill someone to eat. So long as you define “wants to eat” alone by the striving for eating without any other requirements, you have to own all the oddity that comes with that special way of accomplishing it.

    In case that’s too obtuse, Kitt, you’ve made your own point redundant here. If you logically define something as one thing with no other requirements, not even ethical ones, obviously a female death quota is logically consistent with the definition you’re using. So is equality by not wearing pants. The problem is that not one soul on this planet defines feminism solely by “Equality”, there’s always a bit in there where ethical implications are assumed a priori to the argument being made for the logical framework.

    Also, this is the first of a long strand of things where you are… automata-like in a slavish dedication to the letter, not the spirit, of communication. “Equality” in social justice doesn’t mean “Mathematically equal”, it means – if nothing else – “Equal under the law and opportunities”. The intangibles set precedent for the way we form arguments, since the intangible concepts of our lives form our preconceptions. Want a direct example? Google Priviledge.

    Lol. The pathetic struggle to dismiss the equality dilemma. Not a single attempt to point out any of the supposed flaws in the reasoning. Just “you stupid” type of responses.
    Don’t you miserable losers see that you’re just confirming everything I say about you? Ah, guess that doesn’t matter as long as the feeeelings are accommodated. Doesn’t feel good? Must be wrong, stupid, misogynist etc.
    Truth? Logic? Just cry “stupid” and all is well in femitown.

    Other people pointed out plenty of flaws in the reasoning, and I know I just did up above too. One of the flaws in your reasoning is that only a robot asked to maximize the potential equality would arrive at the conclusion that killing would do it, because a robot hasn’t been coded in with the attendant ethical filters a human operator would have.

    Oh, and I’m afraid I’ve got more bad news for you bunch of fascists: The equality dilemma isn’t the only thing that’s gonna spoil your little delusion that you want justice. Here’s another:
    Men and women aren’t equal. Neither physically nor behaviorally. If you’re insane enough to deny the physiological differences, then there’s no hope for you and if you want to say “sure there are physical differences but no psychological ones”, then here’s your bad news: You can’t separate physiology from psychology. Your mind, your “personality” and your emotions are all part of your physical self. I know some of you must LOATHE that to no end.

    The problem with this kind of robotic reading of any given issue is that you start using words like “fascist” without knowing what they actually mean, and stating that you have presented a dilemma when you actually haven’t (What you stated earlier was a logical conclusion – if so and so, then this and that. A dilemma is this: You can only pick between posting a youtube link or a link to an old newpapper article about a controversy from 1978, which do you choose to make your brilliant anti-feminist point?).

    Equal, again, doesn’t mean numerically the same. Equal is not identical. Saying that women and men are different is like saying that the moon orbits the Earth. Sure, you’re right, but you’re missing the fundamental issue of gravitonic influence on tidal locks around the world and the issue of werewolves that haunt towns in Transylvannia. The good stuff.

    A person’s mind, emotion and personality is all part of the physical self – but since neurologists are throwing around terms like “quantum” these days, I’ve got way many research papers that’d blow your insipidity-circuits. Men and women being different physiologically has no influence on whether or whether not they’re equal as people, unless you mean to argue that a 10 % difference in average muscle means it’s okay to enslave one half of the human race.

    What? I’m only using logic here. If physiological differences mean people are not equal, that means one is better than the other, and you’ve implicitly argued that the lower life form is less deserving of justice and compassion and ressources. Who’s the fascist, kid? I mean kitt. I mean kid. Wanna get some jackboots with your lack of logical consistency? Not that there’s anything wrong with jackboots, I just figured we were all past the point of going on about the inherent base nature of the flesh and how it drags us down.

    I’m sure, your utter dread of that possibility being true is still keeping you from believing it so here comes the harsh reality you must try to paint over:
    1) Men and women have very different hormone levels.
    2) Hormones strongly influence psychology, behavior and the choices people make.
    Conclusion: Men and women, alone for physiological reasons will also make different choices in life and behave differently. Therefore, unequal outcomes on a societal scale, are inevitable even when everything else is the same and all sexism and discrimination is removed.
    Don’t blame me. I didn’t make it that way. I’m just the one informing you of it. But since you fascist assholes don’t mind hindering women’s empowerment to further your fanatic ideology, I don’t really mind spoiling your day with the truth.
    Try not to break your keyboards when bringing on the rage now. Better disguise your anger behind smug sounding insults.

    No, I’m a pragmatic asshole. You’re the fascist here, since you want to enforce unequal outcomes for the unworthy. Anyway, hey, I didn’t know hormone levels meant you couldn’t have justice or be held accountable in court! I’m so glad. I’ll just have someone test my testoerone levels, and get out of that “Fraudulent Impersation Of a Viccar” charge.

    The thing about you, Kitt, is that your smug belief in your own masturbatory superiority lies coiled behind every word you write. It’s a fascist thing. Tell me, does the phrase “Das Volk” mean anything to you? Ah, thought so.

    See, in your world, once we remove all sexism and discrimination, women are still doing unequal things and men are still better off</i. So, women are inferior. They’re lesser people who make lesser choices.
    Of course just admitting that out loud is kind of haphazardly hard on your own psyche because I bet you want to imagine yourself as a great person, so you cloak it up in words about reality, hormones and “Behave differently”, when what you really want to say is “Behave wrong, and make bad choices, and they don’t sleep with me either! Women are silly!”.

    Btw, did you guys know that saying men are more intelligent than women, is not misogyny?
    Well, now you do

    Oh, so you think it’s not true? Then your contention with it is that it’s false and not misogynist. There is literally no indication of like or dislike contained in that statement. None whatsoever. Sorry to disappoint you there.
    People can and often do very much love intellectual inferiors (children,pets etc).
    Saying men are physically stronger than women is not misogyny either, right? Oh, wait, in this nuthouse one can never know for sure if there aren’t some particularly messed up examples who actually believe that. I mean, hey, if Newton wrote rape manuals, then ANYTHING is possible with you lot.
    I’ll let you get back to your wanking party now. Cheerio ^^

    No, my contention is that it’s false and misogynistic. It’s almost as if you’re not very good at English or logic.
    We’re back with “implications” and “assumed logical limits” and “a priori assumptions” here. If all men are smarter than all women, then all women are dumber than all men. You just said half the human race was dumb.

    If I were to say that smug internet MRA’s had no more self control than wolves, that would be both hateful and wrong. Wolves are very well behaved pack creatures. But the implication is still hateful for everyone involved in that sentence. It’s sort of like writing that children and pets are intellectual inferiors and people still love them, like other examples of stupid creatures adorable for their silly behavior and smugly hinting at those unfortunates being women.

    Why? What’s the point? Double helix research was women and most anthropologists hold that they invented general farming too, plus, the strapless bra. All wonderful inventions.
    But anyway, you’re not worse than a wolf, and I do love you, Kitt ^^

    Hey, somebody should perhaps let you know that you can’t win a game of chess by picking up the pieces and throwing them at your opponent. That’s how you idiots argue. So I just thought I’d give you some help with your reasoning skills.
    Oh, btw. I see something about IQ and some poor sod scoring 104-127. Lol. I wouldn’t share that if I’d score that low. Not that I think much of IQ tests. Just a tangential remark.
    But while you’re at it, you should try retaking some of the tests giving the same answers but swapping the gender. Quite a few will add a few points if you’re female. All to stroke the pathetic feminist ego.
    Have a great day ^^

    See, this is one of those direct intangibles of the argument I have been trying to talk about, in my usual caffeine full manner and with great inability.

    Who says I can’t win a game of chess by throwing the pieces at my opponent?. If my opponent yields, then I have, per definition, won the game. The rules of the game we are playing at the time define what is allowed or is not allowed, and very often, the boundary constraints we play under and the tests we make with them have a great impact on our ability to win, lose, or continue playing for fun.

    But, because you’re a stifled robot with no capacity for lateral thinking, appreciation for nuances and a minor fascistical bent and a massive wonder for oppression of the less capable – again, look up Das Volk – you already made assumption as to the game we were playing, the rules of the pieces, and the way the movement plays out. In your mind, you view this argument as a tactical exercise of your superior intelligence trying to outsmart the dull feminist hordes who don’t comprehend chess, but what we’re actually playing here is Calvinball, and you just got zinged on the third base with the whifflebat of spurious goals, which sets your team back to znarflarks in the eight round before the Putpat shot.

    If you’re confused, then welcome to real life.

    Why is the standard for women in chess tournaments separate and lower than men’s?
    Wait, I know: Women are physically weaker and the pieces are too heavy for them to move.
    Try not to get too upset

    Why are you a facist that wants to oppress those you perceive to have less worth, and want to hold on to unequal outcomes despite the removal of sexism and discrimination?
    wait, I know.
    it’s because you’re an autocrat with a hunger for control of the meat puppets in your life, incapable of emphasizing with others or using logical to view the world.

    Hi all. How are you doing today? Still dreaming of female enslavement becoming a reality? You know, I don’t think that would be as nice as you imagine it to be, but never mind.
    Anyway, time for another gender equivalent of showing a creationist a 10 million year old fossil and saying the world is older than 6000 years. Now try to concentrate:
    I just wanted to tell you how much I LOVE being sexually objectified. It gives me power. I can go out and have a great time without spending a single penny except perhaps on getting there and still get drinks and meals. I get to feel wanted and desired which is a wonderful thing. I get to enjoy protection and care from others and all those things require nothing but a smile on my part.
    Here’s a great video that settles a few things about objectification:

    Remember, it’s just the truth. Not liking it, doesn’t affect its validity. You must hate that so much. Lol.
    c ya ^^

    That’s… not the sentence you meant to write. It’s a hell of a Freudian slip. It’s really the wonderful capstone of your own thought process gradually turning towards revealing just how little you care about the world and how much you want to humiliate uppity women and put them in their places. You and the author of the Pleasure Girls of Reef Nine would have a lot to talk about.

    Yeah, female enslavement wouldn’t be so wonderful for us as we all dream about, because people like you would make it worse. Wow. Being a fascist means never admitting your own contextual mistakes, I guess.

    Now, as for your video transcript and case study in objectivism, your friend there might be cynical, but he’s not very clever. Take a deep breath with me now and say it out loud:

    EEeeeeeeeeehhhiiiiit’s not the same as commodification and it’s not the same across every nation and protection is not procreation and objectification is not a sole positive wherein the reduction to an object can be described in economic terms where “commodity” ends up meaning “product” instead of “solely vessel to project sexual desire into and remove all personality and agency”, because it’s about economics and investment, it’s about erasing the entire personality of a meat puppet and rendering it into a mere object for your own advances and fantasies, hence the word “objectification” and not “commodification”.

    Phew, I need a moment to catch my breath.

    Feeling wanted and desired is a wonderful thing. Getting to enjoy protection and care from others with nothing but a smile can be a wonderful thing.

    Having desire, protection and care forced on you because you are nothing but a stringless doll for someone to fill up with their own fantasies of conquest, power and sexual dominance is neither pleasant, pleasurable or enjoyable, and becoming a soulless vessel bereft of agency to be, say, enslaved by someone else and rendered as object that functions to satisfy their desires Is terrible.

    But, then again, I wouldn’t really expect a fascist who secretively dreams of female enslavement to think that. In fact, I’d expect him to think of objectification as a wonderful thing, because he does it all the time, and can’t image women having a problem with being nothing but objects (Since, ultimately, there are unequal and are just objects in his mind).

    … odd how familiar that seems, Kitt, wouldn’t you say?

    Have a nice day, you fucking fascist scum ^^

  26. What has always been interesting to me about the MRAs complaining about men dying on the job, other than not seeing how that is the fault of women, is that it is usually other MEN that are in the positions of making the decisions to skimp on safety to save money.

    Also, it seems to me that they like throwing all the tired “personal responsibility” lines around when it concerns women, but not to themselves. To borrow a few of their favorite phrases, no one is forcing them to take dangerous jobs, and they knew what they were getting into when they hired in.

  27. Ok guys I know this is totally off-topic but in honor of kitt00, I have a non sequitur to ask you guys:

    How come all the Romeo and Juliet films all seem to end the same way? Everytime I give one a chance they all end on the same sad note.

    Please ‘splain.

    It might take pages of post for me to get it, but I am up for a long read.

  28. I’m way behind, but I just think that this interview 2.0 question is sort of funny:

    “How would you determine the weight of a 747?”

    I like the idea that Microsoft expects you to do some sort of clever math trick.

    If you were asked the question during an interview for a job in journalism, the answer would be pretty straightforward: You call up Boeing, and ask them.

    Or you could find some document on boeing’s website listing the weight.

    I suppose if you had some suspicion that Boeing was lying about the weight of their 747s, you’d have to do some more complicated investigative work.

    But the last thing you’d do is some complicated math trick.

  29. “If you were asked the question during an interview for a job in journalism, the answer would be pretty straightforward: You call up Boeing, and ask them. ”

    That would be my second instinct. My first would be Googling for an estimate, because calls take up more time. Not wasting time is very important in journalism.

  30. I’d just plug in the search terms “Boeing 747, weight” and see what Teh Google coughs up.

    Also, on the unlikely chance that I’d ever be interested in kink, “blorfle” will be my safeword.

  31. Well, yeah, I’d google first, but you’d need to find something official from Boeing.

  32. Google: site:www.boeing.com 747 weight

    :3 site: is a useful google “command”. It limits the results down to ones on the site you specify.

  33. @David, my immediate answer was “look up the tech specs for that plane”, any variant of which is obviously the correct answer because it’s the simplest and least time-consuming. No job I’m qualified for would want me building a giant scale or a weight-displacement apparatus when a little research would suffice.

  34. site: is a useful google “command”. It limits the results down to ones on the site you specify.

    I’ve been doing this on their advanced search form this whole time, because I can never remember the command. Thx for the reminder.

  35. Just to say thanks again for last night Boobzers, you are fabulous.

    Re the Microsoft 747 question. Mr M is one of those nasty men that does Microsoft interviews most months.
    He says those types of questions aren’t ones that he personally uses. Although he does say that your answer would actually be a good first answer. But then, of course, he would say, now do it without Google. They don’t necessarily want a maths answer, apparently it’s more about getting a measure of your approach to problem solving and to get you talking. Cheeky answers are encouraged.

    Protip though, don’t start talking about what the interviewer’s wife said on twitter last night. (True story!)

    Other strange but true interview horror stories from Mr M:

    The guy who had a phone interview and couldn’t stop belching.

    The guy who said he was sacked from his last job because his boss had said he was an asshole.

    The guy who wanted to work as a games developer, but admitted pirating his games and only paying for them if he liked them.

    The guy on a Skype interview who kept dipping out of shot to google the answers thinking nobody would notice, and even then got the answers wrong.

    Mr M says, yup, they were all men. That’s because the women he’s interviewed have never done anything that stupid.

  36. Possible answers for “how would you calculate the weight of a 747?”:

    – I wouldn’t.

    – There isn’t a set of scales big enough

    – Why do you want to know? YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST SOMEONE CALL THE CIA

  37. ” But then, of course, he would say, now do it without Google. ”

    “Oh, fine, I’ll use Bing if it makes you happy.”

  38. @Kitteh
    Mr M says you’ve got the job. 🙂

  39. Also, he says you get a pay bump for using Microsoft tech. 😛

  40. LOL I thought it might be a trick question!😀

  41. the site: doesn’t need the whole domain either. i use site:au all the time to limit my searches to Australian sites. site:edu, site:edu.au, site:gov or site:gov.au are also useful if you want to limit your search to legit results when it’s something cranks write about.

  42. How do you get the weight of a plane? Call the folks who make it seems obvious. Going all ancient naked Greek guy in the bath seems a bit unreasonablely complex.

    Depending why you need the weight though, going with “the multi-ton jet blah blah etc” seems reasonable.

  43. Going all ancient naked Greek guy in the bath seems a bit unreasonablely complex.

    “‘Eureka’ is Greek for ‘This bath is too hot’.” – Dr Who, circa Tom Baker.🙂

  44. I read you’re article about a man going his own way, and I had to respond!!!.I hope you don’t think all men think this way like disgruntled does, and I wished you would have stated that. This guy is mad, but why???, that’s the real question that needs answering. I have been reading some pretty mean things on the net and wow !!! This anger seems like it goes both ways, have you heard about Hanna rosin??? And other feminist women who say vile things about men and Boys…. What is going on?? Why has it come to this…. Such anger on both sides …sooo sad.

  45. You know what, Chris??? I really don’t care why there are people out there who think large numbers of women need to die because “equality”!!! That’s just morally reprehensible!!! Hanna Rosin never advocated killing large numbers of men!!!

  46. Obvious troll is obvious. 0.5/10.

  47. Chris, two points:

    Nowhere does David say he thinks all or even many men are like the ones advocating mass murder of women.

    This blog is about mocking misogyny. It says so, right up there in the banner. It’s not a blog for deep discussions of why misogynists have genocidal fantasies, or any analysis of their nasty, murky little minds. It’s for mocking them. If you don’t understand that, you’ll miss the point of everything written here.

  48. Hanna Rosin? Pffffff. Where does SHE advocate the killing of men? Or, for that matter, women? Her theories about how men are “doomed” by women’s growing achievements are pulled from her ass, but even she doesn’t go there.

    And if the idea of a gendercide of women doesn’t make you angry, you’re not fucking human. You are the slime of a rotting fungus. Capisce?

  49. Oh, but it’s a defence mechanism by teh poor menz! They wouldn’t advocate murdering millions, or billions, of women if they weren’t hurt and sad.

  50. Well, Bina, she DID write a book called The End of Men.


  51. Men are over? News to me…

  52. The End of Men, a well known work on men’s buttocks …

  53. My husband would happily buy that book, Kittehs.

    Also, I as a man feel really infantilized and coddled by all this bullshit about how we men just need to have our asshole behavior “understood.” Guys, I’m a grown adult. Stop treating me like I’m a baby who shouldn’t be held accountable for my own actions. WTF.

  54. …from one apparently well versed in the art of kissing those same.

    Srsly, though, I’m stunned that anyone thinks men are in a bad way. I see so many perfectly healthy unscathed ones walking the streets…am I hallucinating?

  55. My husband would happily buy that book, Kittehs.

    ::snrk:: I can just see Mac with that book!

  56. Most feminists I read are not fans of Hanna Rosin. She seems to have taken over Caitlyn Flanagan’s role as contrary, pseudo-feminist, kerfuffle-bait at The Atlantic.

  57. RE: Bina

    Easy. If men aren’t oppressed, then WHY IS MY BONER SAD? Riddle me THAT, Manboobz!

  58. Maybe the boner is depressed, not oppressed. Fortunately, there are meds for that.

  59. Depressed boner had me thinking “Put the candle back!” /Young Frankenstein moment

  60. Or they could try muffing. But that would probably hurt their delicate masculinity.

  61. manhatinglesbianbitchslut

    “To achieve parity I want the vast majority of draftees to be females until a general equality is attained with the numbers of dead and maimed males from past wars. To ease the determination I would start with World War 1.”
    Uuuuuuummmmmmm if we’re going for parity between genders then you better buckle up for one hell of a ride. Your right to vote would be the first to go, but trust me when I say it won’t be the last. If we’re going to be thorough here, I think it’s only fair if women could now purchase men as property and sell them, like women were for centuries. You are also not allowed to go to school Also we’d have to shut down all strip clubs filled with scantily clad women and fill them with half naked men instead. Oh, and you can’t own property anymore, either. In quite a few countries you can’t drive anymore. Women might even throw acid at you if you don’t stay in the kitchen and stay quiet.
    And while we’re on the subject, we might as well touch race parity. If you’re a white man (which, if you agree with this logic, you have a 98.6% chance of being one), you no longer have any human rights, really. If we completely ignore the fact that slavery in America happened and that if we are going to treat you as a slave we should lynch you right now, then even in today’s times you’ll have a much greater chance at being stopped and searched by police officers, thrown in jail, being denied job offers, not getting accepted into college (which, sorry, you’re a man, so you never really had a chance anyway).
    Wow, does parity still sound like a great idea? Because I’m not a white man and I’m cringing at the thought of it. It’s almost like white men haven’t been dealt the worst set of cards here.
    Oh, well, if you insist. It was your idea, after all. With your garbage attitude, you’d probably be only worth a goat or two, anyway, so you better hope it isn’t some abusive, man-hating, lesbian dyke who purchases you and makes you do whatever she wants.
    But this is all fair, right?????

    Wow sorry for that rant. Seriously, thanks David. You are awesome. Please never stop showing these misogynist douchebags how ridiculous they are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: