It was at a UCL debate on the question: Is Feminism Sexist and does the MRM even exist?
They went to dinner together. Isn’t that convivial? They totally know each other. More surprising, they’re not the same person. They sure sound like the same person.
The debate ran as I would have expected and there were no surprises. Tom Martin gave a good account of himself; Steve Moxon attempted the impossible and tried to explain the complexity of evolutionary psychology in under 1 minute (please read his book); there were a number of “can’t we all just get along?” types; a couple of male-feminists who were disappointed in the comments from men (hell, let’s be more honest; they were disappointed in being born male); lots of emotion from a couple of women about how discussing false rape meant that genuine rape was being trivialised; and the good, old fashioned man-hating types embodied by the substantial Estelle Hart.
…
The debate came and went and then it was off to a restaurant for further discussion for myself, Tom Martin, Steve Moxon, and a few other guys who shall remain nameless…
And then he goes into why he hated all the other guys, but that’s not relevant. (Deep rifts!)
From one of the comments at the link:
Debated quoting that, but, sunlight/disinfectant, and all that. Now excuse me while I struggle to refrain from headdesking myself into concussion.
Uh. Yeah. I heard part of an Angry Atheist rant along those lines (but worse) yesterday and after a few seconds I was scrabbling around madly to find the stfu button.
That’s actually one of the strange things I see from those parts of the MAN culture, is this strange anti-sex vibe. That sex is for power, status, and simply getting one’s rocks off rather than any sort of physical and emotional connection.
it just seems so foreign to me.
Speaking as a male feminist, “disappointed” isn’t how I would describe my feelings about being born male. “Ashamed to be sharing the same gender with specimens like these” would come closer to it.
The “village bike” comment was what really got me riled, though. If you actually view a woman as a human and not a sperm receptacle, what flipping difference does it make how many partners she’s had in the past? I can’t begin to describe how much of a non-issue this is.
@4 It’s probably insecurity, worrying that they won’t match the performance of her previous partners. Strangely, I’ve read Savage love for a decade and (to the extent a disinterested outsider can discern) this “problem” appears to be much less of an issue in the gay community.
That said, I have some serious cognitive dissonance from not particularly caring how many partners my monogamous partner has had in the past (therefore not insecure), but caring a great deal about and feeling great unease over the notion of her increasing that number during out relationship (therefore…???).
Russel “Taliban” Blackford has popped up in the comments section.
Thought you might like to know, Ophelia.
But when are people going to address the REAL issue of all these false auto theft claims???
COME ON PEOPLE THIS IS A REAL THING THAT HAPPENS!!!!111!!!one!!!!
WHY DO MY TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE FALSE AUTO THEFT CLAIMS??? ALSO MY INSURANCE MONEY!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
/perspective
No. It isn’t nearly so innocuous, however much we might like to believe it were. It’s about dominance, status, and being the Primary Filler-Upper of the Female Cum-Bucket.
It has nothing to do with “worrying” about “performance” or anything that would suggest a concern with how the woman does or does not enjoy the encounter. Don’t fool yourself; it’s uglier than you want it to be.
No, I’m not disappointed that I was born a male. I’m disappointed that they were born male instead of, I don’t know… slime molds or something.
@9. Oh yes. WTF,if anything, goes through these people’s heads?
Ah, tajparis already posted my response. Good.
I am glad you did post that comment. I have read it a few times trying to get what he is trying to say. What is inside that he is trying to get out? He has very unpleasant feelings, that much is clear. Huge disappointment, I think. I wonder if he senses that he is missing something big that others have.
What is in there that feels so awful for him that he is motivated to project onto women? The commenter and others like him are sunk deep in something. What is it?
Where does vicious misogyny come from? Why do so many men succumb to it? And proselytize it. We need to know what happens to these guys. No, not to excuse them, but to get ideas of what could change this situation.
@Joel: My personal opinion is that it’s because of the Bronze Rule: Do onto others as are going to do onto you (and hopefully You Shoot First). The other day I spent basically arguing with MRAs (fun! I know!) to cleanse some other bad stuff that I read, maybe try and change some minds. Nope. They really do think that feminism is a monolithic block of men-hating absolutist totalitarians. So in their eyes, they’re reacting in kind.
@ – yeh. Funny how it’s all about him, isn’t it.
@Stacy:
Slut shaming, from the patriarchy? Why, I never…
…would have expected anything else.
A thought-experiment: would it be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing if one were to point out, repeatedly and loudly, that these people, the Steves and Toms of the world, are complete failures to achieve functional adult masculinity? Their petulant whining, their constant air of victimhood, their attempt to project their problems of life-coping onto some grand conspiracy of women. They are the very antithesis of manliness, they have neither adaptability, nor resilience, they will not take responsibility for their own situations, they victimise others while naming themselves as oppressed. They are, in short, pathetic, juvenile, worms.
Or is to just too wrong to throw that kind of thing in the faces of people who are all too likely to take it seriously enough to be deeply hurt?
Well I would want to replace “manliness” with “adultness.” :b
I get your drift though. Men who rant about “women” that way are assuming that “women” are one way and “men” are another, obviously better – so they are manly – only the joke’s on them, coz they’re not.
It certainly is a tempting line to pursue…
Dave, you realize that the same exact characteristics you say are immature are the characteristics that feminists such as yourself constantly display?
“Their petulant whining,”
– Stating experiences that came off as biased against them is a common thing that feminists do as well.
“their constant air of victimhood,”
– Feminists maintain that females are the victims of every situation, even when they have to use logical fallacy to do so.
“their attempt to project their problems of life-coping onto some grand conspiracy of women.”
– Replace ‘women’ with ‘the opposite gender’ and we have feminism’s patriarchy blaming… rather than realizing that people are individuals and responsible for their own actions.
“they have neither adaptability, nor resilience, they will not take responsibility for their own situations, they victimise others while naming themselves as oppressed. They are, in short, pathetic, juvenile, worms.”
– These are the same actions that feminists applaud among themselves. I agree, they are pathetic, juvenile actions. They are unattractive, whether you are a man or a woman or another gender. Anyone that acts this way, be they Steve or Tom or Dave, is a “worm.”
In answer to your question, these traits are a Bad Thing. We should seek to correct them in both the MRM and the WRM. Because they do exist in both, and are a negative force in both.
AAAAND…. whooosh!!!!
Shorter Not Dave: “I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I?”
Straw-feminists are the easiest to burn, of course.
Dave: “AAAAND…. whooosh!!!!”
I actually made that sound and moved my hand over my head when I read that comment. Ha. Where’s the Like button when I need it?
Maybe that’s because you’ve actually had sex? And didn’t need to pay or bribe anyone for it?
Here is the actual debate: