Tom Martin is becoming quite well know in the feminist and anti-feminist blogosphere. He has taken the unprecedented action of suing a Gender Studies department – the renowned LSE Gender Institute in London, UK – for discrimination against men. As Martin has said:
‘When “women’s studies” became “gender studies” departments, it signalled a new era of inclusion for men’s issues – a rejection of this now is a betrayal of men and equality.’
I have a PhD in gender studies, and my view is that no matter what the subject is called, it will always be based on feminist dogma, and on a misandrist view of the world. Again, as Martin has pointed out:
‘Patriarchy theory – the idea that men typically “dominate” women – is omnipresent, when research shows women tend to boss men interpersonally. Texts highlight misogyny but never misandry, its anti-male equivalent’.
It is in the light of this bias in gender studies that I came to read Mark Simpson’s 1994 classic Male Impersonators . And to examine how and why it has been omitted from the reading lists of gender studies courses, including modules on ‘masculinity’.
In Male Impersonators, Simpson undresses the idea of the ‘natural man’ and shows us how men perform masculinity, in popular culture in particular. Gay strippers and drag artists, ‘macho’ body builders, pornography, sport, The War Movie, reality television, rock and roll. They all reveal, as examined by Simpson, the complexities and subtexts of modern masculinities. One of the many striking things about reading this book in 2011, seventeen years after it was first published, was that it seemed as ‘fresh’ and new as it must have done in 1994. I think this can only be because the subject it focuses on- men, and their representation in culture, is one that has been ignored and distorted by subsequent gender theory, and by day to day feminism.
Feminism has done three things particularly in relation to masculinity that relate to how gender studies has come to ignore and belittle men’s experiences and perspectives. And these three things explain why books such as Male Impersonators are not on gender studies reading lists:
1) Whatabouttehwimmin?
Feminism has been based on the assumption that men are ‘catered for’ by society at large, and within academia, and so any treatment of gender has been focused on the disadvantages faced by women, and how women have been ‘omitted’ from research, arts, literature, history etc.
An example of this assumption can be found in another book published in 1994 –Angela McRobbie’s Postmodernism and Popular Culture. The book has many discussions of women, girls and ‘femininity’, but look for ‘masculinity’ in the index and you will draw a blank. She justifies this glaring omission with statements such as this one:
‘It is in buying and selling clothes that girls and young women have been most active. The male bias of subcultural analysis has relegated these activities to the margins…’
(McRobbie 1994:163). (my emphasis).
2) Men are Monsters
Feminism, when it has considered masculinity, has tended to treat it as ‘a problem’. Heterosexual masculinity in particular has been ‘pathologised’ by feminist gender academics, with heterosexual men being portrayed as the oppressors of everyone else: hetero women, queer women, queer men. In 1995, Raewyn Connell (Then Robert W Connell) published Masculinities, and this became the ‘bible’ of masculinity studies. Its core idea of ‘Hegemonic masculinity’ gave the ‘problem of heterosexual men’ a fancy name.
The idea that straight men have power that they use to oppress women in particular, has been used by feminist writers such as Elaine Rapping, an American media and film analyst, to justify statements such as this:
‘Everywhere you look there are books, movies, discussions and news reports about male violence… Faced with the deadly serious question: ‘why are men such creeps?’…’ (Rapping, 1993:114)
3) ‘Masculinity’ is Gay
The only aspect of masculinity that feminism has allowed to be considered without completely dismissing its value, has been ‘queer’ masculinities, and this has been left to ‘queer theory’ and considered an issue for gay men to worry about. Mark Simpson for example tends to be categorised as a ‘gay’ writer on ‘gay’ men’s issues, and when he is mentioned in books about masculinity, it is often in relation to his work on gay pornography. Feminist writers suggest there is a definite line between ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ men, and in doing so they are endorsing ‘gay’ men as somehow better than straight men, suggesting they deserve consideration as people, not just ‘oppressors’. But at the same time they are marginalising any positive representation of masculinity into the box of ‘queer theory’. In other words, feminism suggests that taking an active interest in men and masculinity is ‘gay’ in itself.
Mark Simpson’s Male Impersonators is an interesting case study then, because, far from actually ignoring it, feminist academics have in fact taken its ideas and effectively stolen them and manipulated them for their own, feminist ends. In doing so they have ‘erased’ Simpson himself, by deliberately failing to cite his work in their bibliographies.
A number of feminist academics have made it clear they must have read Male Impersonators, but have not acknowledged just how much his book has ‘inspired’ them, and in some cases have not mentioned Simpson at all.
The most well-known of these is probably Susan Faludi. Her book Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, published in 2000, the year after Bordo’s The Male Body, certainly draws on the themes introduced by Simpson in Male Impersonators.
In particular, Faludi’s chapters on ‘hood ornaments’ – men’s newfound ‘decorative’ role in culture, and ‘waiting for wood’- men in pornography, seem to owe a great deal to Simpson’s Male Impersonators. Anecdotal evidence tells of an interview with Faludi, where Simpson’s name was brought up and she declared ‘Oh Mark Simpson. I’m his biggest fan!’ But not such a big fan that she could include his book in her huge bibliography.
Other academics who have obviously drawn on Male Impersonators with little or no reference to Simpson include Susan Bordo, whose The Male Body (1999) completely ripped off Simpson’s earlier book ( I explain how here ), Germaine Greer (2003), Ros Gill et al, (2005), Harris (2007) Eric Anderson et al (2009) and Hall (2010).
Though its lack of recognition saddens me, there is something about the fact that Male Impersonators is a ‘lost’ treasure that makes it so much more precious. Not only does it seem as radical now in its ideas as it was when it was written 17 years ago, but it also provides a clue to ‘how we got here’. The book is particularly precious to me because the thing that has been hidden from view and from our understanding, the thing it uncovers, is something I love dearly: men.
Male Impersonators gives us a clue to why David Beckham is now such an iconic man.
But Male Impersonators is back and it is as explosive and as dangerous as ever. Maybe they won’t be able to get the lid back on this time. I hope not, for all our sakes.
Metrosexy by Mark Simpson is out now on Amazon Kindle. Male Impersonators is being re-released soon in the same format.
Quiet Riot Girl is an anti-feminist blogger with a keen interest in men and masculinity. It is that interest in fact, which turned her into an anti-feminist.
{ 139 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for posting this!
I did not put it in the piece but here is the link to Tom Martin’s campaign against the LSE. I am not very optimistic about his chances but I think he will be shaking up academia and the feminist establishment anyway.
http://www.sexismbusters.org/
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
22
I’d be curious about reading this “Male Impersonators” book, though kind of cautious as well.
Maybe it’s because feminists have successfully stolen its ideas. Whenever feminists push ideas like “performing masculinity”, because of their intense dislike of masculinity itself, they imply that that this performance is less authentic. Yet, because modern sex-positive feminism is so heavy on promoting feminine sexuality as powerful and real, when feminists say that women “perform femininity”, it has no weight. Thus, everyone performs femininity or masculinity, but only the performances of femininity are authentic.
This is, by the way, consistent with how heavily the feminists promote their favourite pets, male to female transpersons.
And that sense that masculinity is fake also fits into an earlier article I’d written here which discussed why male feminist bloggers disquise themselves as women online, and why the head of a men’s studies department changed his gender.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/06/15/sock-puppetry-of-the-penis/
Anyway, is the book friendly towards men and the various manifestations of masculine energy?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Indeed,
Masculinity, even the concept of said, has been mercilessly crushed by the relentless juggernaut of Feminism.
Brothers, at this foul moment in history the need is clear: We have to develop a new concept of what it is to be a man, what our societal, sexual and personal roles are and how we fit into the grand scheme of things.
After ‘Zero Hour’, once we have defeated the venomous hydra that is the “wimminz rights’ movement” it will be neccessary to construct an entirely new framework of gender relations.
One that is fair and proper to men…for once in history. Freedom, justice and equality is long overdue for us brothers. It is time to seize it, to fight for a better world so that mayhap…our sons will one day not have to suffer through the vile gauntlet we were served.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Okay Ill go first.
Garbage. This is mental masturbation. Code pink anyone?
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
41
Migu – please give some examples, eh? Blanket dismissal is a bit “so what?”
I think QRG has made some useful points here, I am a hetero male who became an adult in the 1980′s and I’ve never felt I’ve been even slightly privileged. I get very irritated by the laziness of most feminist argument, and your non-comment belongs in that category.
A lot of us, back then, were very dismissive of feminism, and thought in terms of class and (sometimes) race. That stuff hasn’t gone away, just got covered over with obscurantism and convenient fictions that blame me and others because we have penises. It’s very easy, and also ridiculous.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
21
Do you think it is garbage that a man is suing a gender studies department Migu?
Or was it just the way I told it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
19
Garbage. This is mental masturbation. Code pink anyone?
Actually, it’s pretty great stuff. The fact that you’re not bright enough to grep the author’s underlying points doesn’t make it garbage.
Go back to the playground, Migu. Let the grown-ups discuss real issues.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
33
I’m always amazed at how garbled feminist and post-modern language is. Read Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. His clarity comes from the truth that he represents. He will be known as an even greater pope than John Paul II.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
16
BTW, Quiet Riot Girl, thanks for the clear, concise essay. I look forward to reading more from you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
15
I’m always amazed at how garbled feminist and post-modern language is. Read Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. His clarity comes from the truth that he represents. He will be known as an even greater pope than John Paul II.
His clarity comes from a good education and knowledge of philosophy. I became a fan of him here:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2005/11/habermasvsthepope/
These two fellas illustrated the manly virtue of the socratic dialogue, being able to vigorously disagree without calling names or foot-stomping (which is so popular here). Despite his history of volunteering for the Hitler Youth and other such childhood misbehaviours, Ratzinger’s a decent fellow with a solid grounding in philosophy and reason.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
22
I’ll explain something that differentiates men from women: men, possessing the Y chromosome have more divergent traits than women. This means more of both geniuses and dullards, more of both players and geeks, more of both Einsteins and Hitlers. We, amongst other traits, are evolution’s genetic laboratory, because biologically, our inability to reproduce make us the most expendable. This is why we are also the risk takers. We are the strongest amongst our species, AND the weakest. We are the trash and the treasure, but for both end-results, we are vilified.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
3
Ratzinger never volunteered for the Hitler youth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
5
“Quiet Riot Girl is an anti-feminist blogger with a keen interest in men and masculinity. It is that interest in fact, which turned her into an anti-feminist.”
Oh I donno about that.. Seems to me she is more ‘into’ gay men ‘stuff’ than anti-feminism….
That said, very interresting post.
TMOTS
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
6
Thanks TMOTS
But maybe you are reinforcing the point I made in the article, that one reason men are ignored in gender studies is people think taking an interest in masculinity is ‘gay’ in itself.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
25
Well allright. It’s true I’m constantly fighting between gay and straight.
I have a new identity. Thank God for the metrosexual. We can now all be gay and straight at the same time. Really you know that is all men are doing putting on a masquerade and fighting for team A or Team B.
Piled High and deep in Gender studies. No thanks I’ll let you all fight it out. I don’t waste time interpreting garbage, I throw it away.
Have at it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
20
Okay boxer philosophy man. Get back to me after you read Human Action.
Here it is for free. http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf
Here is another great philosophy. http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx.
They have a store if you prefer a bound book. A priori in all its glory. Have fun doctor boxer
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
11
I appreciate your efforts riot girl. How would you feel if you were us? If society went to war with you when before you were born then screwed you your whole life long.
You girls don’t even seem to be able to handle the toilet seat being up, how would you handle a political hate movement designed to psychologically torture you so they can rob you?
Universities filled with young women egging each other on, completely perverse.
The people screwing you and still every day screwing you called themselves feminists. They are encouraging your son to be gay during a deadly viral epidemic.
How would you feel if then they took your kids, then they took their soul. Kids will sell our thier grandmother for a little tricket or candy.
How would you feel? Well that’s how we feel.
In the end you will be very lucky if some of us go MGTOW.
I think people are starting to wake up, I follow the mrm, that’s what I do, your sisters had better start looking for real estate in Bolivia, or where ever the last group of facsists lived.
Maybe the PTB set you girls up…you didn’t have to do it, you are nothing but traitors, disgusting.
The sign of low self esteem in a man is now any relationship with a western woman..IMO.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
6
“Despite his history of volunteering for the Hitler Youth and other such childhood misbehaviours, Ratzinger’s a decent fellow with a solid grounding in philosophy and reason.”
Get your facts straight. Conscription is not volunteering.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
8
Oh and by the way….it’s Mens Rights Activists, not anti-feminists.
When you go to someones living room you shouldn’t ignore or insult them.
And yes I’m aware of the subtext….feminists don’t want to acknowledge us and this month invented anti-feminists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Thank you for a fine essay, QRG. The men’s movement needs good analysis, and this is an excellent contribution.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
17
What happened here? How did firepower start making the most sense. Wow..
Okay philosophers a quick introduction to praxeology.
Ludwig Von Mises:
Philosophers had long since been eager to ascertain the ends which God or Nature was trying to realize in the course of human history. They searched for the law of mankind’s destiny and evolution. But even those thinkers whose inquiry was free from any theological tendency failed utterly in these endeavors because they were committed to a faulty method. They dealt with humanity as a whole or with other holistic concepts like nation, race, or church. They set up quite arbitrarily the ends to which the behavior of such wholes is bound to lead. But they could not satisfactorily answer the question regarding what factors compelled the various acting individuals to behave in such a way that the goal aimed at by the whole’s inexorable evolution was attained. They had recourse to desperate shifts: miraculous interference of the Deity either by revelation or by the delegation of God-sent prophets and consecrated leaders, preestablished harmony, predestination, or the operation of a mystic and fabulous “world soul” or “national soul.” Others spoke of a “cunning of nature” which implanted in man impulses driving him unwittingly along precisely the path Nature wanted him to take.
Other philosophers were more realistic. They did not try to guess the designs of Nature or God. They looked at human things from the viewpoint of government. They were intent upon establishing rules of political action, a technique, as it were, of government and statesmanship. Speculative minds drew ambitious plans for a thorough reform and reconstruction of society. The more modest were satisfied with a collection and systematization of the data of historical experience. But all were fully convinced that there was in the course of social events no such regularity and invariance of phenomena as had already been found in the operation of human reasoning and in the sequence of natural phenomena. They did not search for the laws of social cooperation because they thought that man could organize society as he pleased. If social conditions did not fulfill the wishes of the reformers, if their utopias proved unrealizable, the fault was seen in the moral failure of man. Social problems were considered ethical problems. What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens. With righteous men any utopia might be realized.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
6
Oh and by the way….it’s Mens Rights Activists, not anti-feminists.
There seems to be a very broad spectrum, beginning with people like ifeminists dot com (these seem to be feminists who believe in equality, and who diverge only slightly from their more rabid sisters) progressing through roissy, continuing through the happy bachelors, to the mgtow, to masculists (male supremacists). Ours is a syncretic movement, taking ideological sustenance from a diverse group of sources, and most of us will never agree on many specifics.
I’ve been in debates (often good natured but at the same time very pointed) with the celibate crowd, who hold as their one true way the complete abdication of even a casual sexual relationship. Their points are sound, but it isn’t something I’m able to do (I like to have sex with women, even though I don’t want to enslave myself to one through marriage).
I’m becoming convinced that this is as it should be. The Men’s Movement ought to have frayed edges and many ideas, as men are many and not one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
16
The second paragraph is mises too. I screwed up the HTML
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
20
I already said as much. Thanks for reminding us.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Feminists weren’t satisfied in trying to redefine men, they realised they had to redefine masculinity.
Modern-day gender studies seems to be a manifestation of this desire to “own” masculinity. If feminists can set the terms on how even the most “masculin” man defines himself then feminism will decide the basis of any future debate.
Feminism thinks it has to control men if it is to “liberate” women. Whatever this liberation actually means I don’t think even feminsts are sure.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
@ Boxer
Part of the formation of a mrm will require some men to identify with this term.
Feminists are very adept at manipulating the conversation by misuse of words.
We at the Spear Head should be watching for abuse of words especially when a feminist posts and refuses to even address us by the moniker we embrace.
It’s disrespectful. Men have been trained for the last 40 years to take it like dogs.
As riot girl admits, it’s working. We won’t even stand up for our name….
So, Alcuin, whats the weather like in Asia? I can’t wait, 3 years to go till I join you…..seems like forever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Thanks, this is an awesome post.
Feminists are the pigs of the animal farm. We should release our self from images of masculinity imposed by our culture and choose our values for ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
Kwl!
Then, 90 min. later:
…hypocrite.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
14
Concepts, especially those that are consider for organizing society, should be easy to understand and clearly explainable. For instance, take a male toddler and girl toddler, the male will gravitate to the red fire truck and girl to the pink doll. Indeed, when concepts are too complex for some of us “dolts” to understand that’s when us “dolts” know better to pay extra attention. People like to hide things in fancy talk. gays and feminists are experts at creating fancy sounding dialogues that do nothing more than make them feel smart and appear smart to the real dolts out there (students of women and queer studies) but hold very little substance other than an eloquent whining fest on nature and feeling bad about themselves and blaming the rest of us for it. Of course, when this gibberish is mixed with “activism” and political correctness it acts as subterfuge for them to see their agenda through. In the end it’s an artificial construct created by people who, though claiming otherwise, are actually very ignorant and narrow minded – you have to be to believe their ideas.
For instance, the gay agenda and gay ideology (or academic narrative – I use “academic loosely here) is predicated on certain things that are still, whether they like it or not, uncertain and debatable i.e. 1. that gay is born in 2. that gay is natural 3. that gay is superior to heterosexuality. Likewise feminists have their “constants” in place too i.e. no differences between men and women etc. What this creates is a perverse and flawed ideology from the onset and thus must be dismissed outright…if only we had true academics with a backbone! This is what makes these ideologies so distasteful and grating to listen too, because, they ignore the faux foundation both are built on. It’s as though you are being told this house is just as upright as the others never mind it is floating on air? I saw this happen in the 1990s and knew that if these “cool and hip” groups were “true to themselves” as they like to boast, they would reject their very own arguments, again based on the very truth they said they embraced.
The problem is that for all the holes in women and gay studies it has been “empowered” to influence our culture. So, now we have a cultural ideology built on air. The ramifications are severe; we are living in the “new normal”, which is anything but normal. For instance, nambla is slowly gaining popularity amongst these same groups and thus our culture. Worse, that most people, accept an extreme minority within academia and government, never knew that in the 1990s power over our culture was conferred without our consent to radicals. And even worse, that as these radicals went full tilt to realize their extreme visions they camouflaged their agendas with doublespeak because (and this is admitted) they knew people would reject it – the “safe schools” initiatives is a perfect example. And even even worse they remain in power today and are only demanding more power to manage us!
So now, we have not only a narrative in place but an actual engineered perception locked into our cultural eyes. Accordingly, all men are viewed as gay first and “conditioned” to be heterosexuals through “social constructs”? This gets to me because on one hand “they” do a Spanish Inquisition against all things that might “offend” others?? Well, someone assuming I’m gay is extremely offensive to me. That I submit to a perverse sexual act(s), or that I suffer from any number of proctologic conditions brought on by dangerous anal sex…Oh Yeah I am offended! And is it too much to ask our “open” culture to admit that the vast…vast majority of people (if left to decide for themselves) would come to the same conclusion…it is. Today, though we are hyper sexualized, I argue that we know less about our sexuality than ever before. Because we have two groups leading the way in our understanding of sexuality (gays and feminist) that are flawed at the molecular level; it stands to reason that the path that they are leading us into is wrought with ignorance, and it is.
For starters, no one is discussing the obvious paradox among these devoted secular ideologues, who by default endorse academia’s belief in evolution. If so, then evolution has some very harsh things to say about homosexuality, moreover this can be understood by both professor and plumber Joe…alas it meets the simple criteria I highlighted above. Evolution would suggest that, if gay is born-in, then the furthering of a gay person’s genes has been canceled by nature. The reason is because nature has decided that the person is not worthy. It’s callous and exemplifies the cutting indifference of nature, yet, how can that be contradicted under that premise of survival of the fittest and the gay agenda’s very own and coveted constant of ‘born-in’? lady gaga? Furthermore, evolution also suggests that without any spiritual dimensions to life our purpose is to procreate and to ensure the survival of our genetic offspring so they can continue to procreate. That being said, every conceivable measure to ensure survival and the successful transmission from one generation into the future demands optimal conditions for one’s family…that means mom and dad, male and female. Again, a stark contrast to particularly the feminist and gay agenda, which wants us to believe that the nuclear family is actually evil.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Look, you guys have to read his book. A woman I almost married gave it to me at one point. I was in love with her, so as a good little slave I read it. (she was into metrosexual)
Everyone that is a regular here has read it before. The Author even admits as much. Go check out all those hyperlinks in her post.
Hell, go over and read the GMP for a day. You’ll get to re-read the book. Might take two days, but it’s all there.
And how you all think this is some new breakthrough is beyond me. The whole metrosexual “male impressions” idea started back in ancient Greece and Persia. It was even present in Sumeria. The concept of a Eunuch comes from male impressions.
The book should be “Female impressions of Male behavior”
One of those would be. “We tell men what they are, and then when they act that way we can tell them the opposite and they will agree”
Followed by “All we need to do is put them on a football field and tell them to either score a touchdown for me, or sack their own quarterback in the endzone.”
That crap is an instruction guide on how to be a good slave.
There was once a time when you could respect the PhD. Now it is nothing more than a billy club. A simple tool really.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
3
@ Migu
Yes, I am certainly aware of what was said and have nothing against metrosexuals. I am getting back in the dating game and must buy some new clothes and will likely don the garb of the metrosexual without hesitation.
I am who I am however I dress.
But what Riot Girl is saying is that academic feminism is a fraud, and the fraud goes deep to the root. The intersting thing to me is a Phd in feminism is here to say that the intellectual fraud is well known and unimpeded.
Intellectual fraud and hiding references to work you use is a crime. In the university people are fired.
This tells me that the fraud of feminism will not be removed from campuses volentarily.
And the fraud tells us the type of ammunition to use.
They will have to be removed.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
There is a certain age that is cut off from any significant, applicable knowledge of history.
This uneducated group is not to be blamed for the past indoctrination sins of their teachers, only their present failure to investigate on their own, now free from overbearing, PC State Educrats.
That environment is difficult to overcome.
It is also coupled with the author’s observation, that like Beckham, males have become sissified, egotistical preeners obsessed with FEMININE issues and things.
My dad would spit on them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
4
@Rocco
I saw that too. It seemed to me more like a safe place to run to. Good tactics, but a failure in overall strategy. At least it’s never worked for me.
@firepower
How do you get people to read history and believe it? You know, just what happened, who did it, and why? All I ever see is a challenging of credentials. What good is a credential if it is granted by a fool?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
American gender-feminists claim “violence is patriarchy”, when in reality most of the violence in America is coming from the segment of society with very few fathers or male role models around at all. This statistically more violent segment of society could easily be called more of a “matriarchy” than a “patriarchy”.
In fact, any academic that is “beyond the perversion curtain”, may well observe that by removing males from public schools, and removing good fathers from the lives of their children, the American femi-nazi elite are manufacturing a “matriarchal underclass” of broken, divided, and un-educated laborers.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
I’m just going to put a close-italics here.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
QuietRiotGirl is one of the best female MRA’s in the web. We are lucky to have her here. Looking forward to more posts from her on Guardian Comment is Free too. Good post, when women see other women criticising feminism it gives out a very powerful message.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
15
It seems you’ve got some queer pop culture sneaking into your blog here.
I don’t know what to make of this. Is she saying that metros are the new face of masculinity and that is good or is she saying the same but that it is bad?
Perhaps I’m a dullard but it appears as though she writes an awful lot about queer culture and metro-sexuality. I have no idea what this article is about aside from the blatant plagiarism of the feminist writers. One question I have to ask myself is that if the feminists are stealing his work, is it something I want to study or read about? I think not.
So again; for or against? Who knows. I’m not a good writer so I don’t do much of it. I wish others would follow my lead.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
5
For instance:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/boxing-pretty/
“He also shows his slightly hairy chest, another sign of ‘manliness’ being asserted by a big-titted boy.”
WTF?
I still don’t know what to make of this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
@Migu:
Garbage. This is mental masturbation. Code pink anyone?”
Ditto.
+10
All that crap has become irrelevant.
What’s in it for you? Ans.: sweet fuck all.
Get rid of the f*cking sh*t and go your own way. And let the fecking feminists rot in their own bile. Their existence is an insult to all living things, some kind of incurable birth defect.
Hint: Anyone who tries to redefine your masculinity is your enemy and you must deal with them accordingly.
Or you will never be free.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
Thanks for all your comments. I am still in ‘moderation’ so I can’t respond easily!
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
21
That’s what I mean. WTF??? Where in the hell are all these downvotes coming from. If that’s what you want to do go ahead, but at least recognize your strings are being pulled.
Blood goes above the belt. I know it’s hard but it can be done. Anything else and the cobra is charming you.
Oh well, flak=on target.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
2
I apologize Tom. It was my fault, and I don’t have the option to edit.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I am interested in people’s comments about my writing on ‘metrosexuality’ and versions of masculinity that may not fit the usual MRA model.
But my main point was to show how gender studies marginalises ALL men, and all men’s voices. Including a man who I consider to be a major theorist of masculinity. Whether you agree with Simpson’s point of view or not, the fact his work has been ignored, is suggestive of a wider problem. Is what I am saying.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
23
@ Towgunner
Excellent post, well said, here here, that is exactly how I feel.
I wish what you wrote was the featured post.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Some things are complex – like molecular biology or Latin verbs. But many other things are simple. They only become complex when people make them so – in order to hide the distortions that are being injected into the dialogue. I agree with the previous poster: trickery is ever present in the World and Feminism and Homosexual Activism are nothing but such Cognitive Terrorism leading to Political Trickery leading to our Enslavement.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
@Migu:
“Garbage. This is mental masturbation. Code pink anyone?”
You got that right. “Boxing is camp. Working out is camp. Men (boys who do this are Fagity. Forming a bond with another man is homoerotic. Etc”
Really! I’ve never seen somebody say so little with so many words. Reminds me of academic masturbation in the form of aimless drivel with more footnotes that actual original content.
It seems that everything is just gay to her.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
Hmmm, this started off as a short reply to Jabberwocky but then I got carried away as usual. This is not all directed at you, Jabberwocky, so don’t panic!
The divergency part is correct but your conclusions are on less solid ground.
I had a flash of anger when I saw the word, “expendable”. Are you saying, on a subconscious level men realise they’re expendable and that is why they’re prone to being reckless? I would consider the same men to be brave, selfless, and assertive at a time of action, but never, “expendable”. I hope you think this too, otherwise, I would wonder why you were here.
Next, you bring up intelligence. I’ve included some data regarding IQ range in whites. It’s from 1937, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t still be accurate:
You can see that for every “dullard” (70 IQ), you get almost two “geniuses” (130+ IQ). But as Darwin, whom I assume you were referring to when you wrote, “strongest”, and “weakest”, has said:
Therefore, it’s erroneous to think that high intelligence means superiority. Instead, it means that anyone that does not respond to change is in danger. When a grazing gazelle, or one drinking from a stream, notices an approaching predator, it’s response is to run away from the threat as fast as possible. It was in a safe place, but the predator has made it unsafe. It does not continue to eat the grass, no matter how luscious, or to drink the water, no matter how cool or refreshing. On the contrary, it responds to the “survival of the fittest” contest, initiated by the predator. The winner survives another day but the contests will never stop coming until the day it fails. Perhaps this time, it will outrun the predator, perhaps it won’t. But at least it responded, which is far more than humans are doing. Over 300 years ago the ruling classes issued their own contest to the rest of us. They have been applying little “changes”, but people, in the most part, have not responded as they are too busy, eating, drinking and watching TV.
Unfortunately, these changes have cumulated in the perilous situation that we men, find ourselves in today. I believe our countries are already bankrupt, and it is only the fact that the “creditors” will soon receive the whole planet, that they have not called in their debts. The ruling classes have bought the Earth and all it’s chattel (including us), with worthless paper money because people did not respond to usury, taxation and other harmful legislation. Unlike, the evil ruling classes, I am sympathetic to human nature. Although, it is difficult to tell whether our most serious failings are due to human nature or the mind control and conditioning we all have to suffer.
Regardless, we are definitely displaying weakness, as long as we continue to not respond. I don’t consider the ruling classes to be strong though; they are simply not exposed to change. I think this is weakness, if anything. So we are all weak in our need for safety, and in this need for safety is the source of our danger. The ruling classes were created when gullible, foolish, and ignorant people thought that safety lies in leadership and later, government. But the only thing that lies in government is wealth and power. And the wealthy and powerful rely on danger to stay that way. Thus, the public must face danger so that the ruling classes don’t have to.
It’s a crazy situation where the danger generated by the majority is relatively trivial (assault, robbery, homicide) compared to the trouble that the minority (ruling classes) causes (genocide, world wars). Homicide is not trivial, but the ruling classes instigate murder on a far greater scale than the public is even capable of. Also, how much of crime is people just trying to survive in an economy that was designed to rob them? I’m sure, without usury and allowing true human nature to prevail, crime would plummet and only the incorrigible criminal and psycopath would continue to be a menace. A relatively small criminal element, that would be easy to deal with, as long as we don’t elect them.
I recommend downloading, Money Is Debt, from youtube (link below), and check out Mike Montagne’s channel while you’re there (Mathematically Perfected Economy). Together, these should explain once and for all why the economy is just a tool to rob you and why SHTF is a mathematical certainty.
Money is Debt
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Jabberwacky,
Regarding your comment at 7:30 October 4th. That was pure simple insightful brilliance. I guess the old complaint by women that they can’t live with us and can’t live without us men is true. Deal with it.
Separately, I saw an ad for a new TV show called the “gentleman”. It seems like it’s a modern feminist teaching tool for what us men are supposed to be: “i am this but not that” bullshit. I don’t watch TV or have cable, heck I don’t even have a TV set.
William J Bennett has just written a disgusting piece appearing on CNN called ‘Why men are in trouble’. The social conservatives and progressives, and the far right and far left, are equally so clueless.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Quiet Riot Girl should have our ears and input in that she is trying to take the definition of Masculinity back from the Feminists who would be the last people I would trust to give me due credit.
In the greater scheme of things, MRAs have much bigger things to worry about than whether our fashion sense is sufficiently macho, but it does distract the leftist/progressive camp.
But let us hope that her, and other intelligent people return to the big picture and there are much worse things the modern Western male has to deal with. War, financial collapse, urban violence etc are, to me, on a level higher than issues like divorce and family court laws, which are then on a higher level than sexual identity. Ya get me?
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
19
“If I am correct in my interpretation of his work, I think Simpson might go so far to say that sports (and manly cave fag bonding) are in some ways excuses in themselves, for men to get drunk and ‘bond’ in a very homo way.This differs from Anderson et al, who seem to present sports as becoming less homophobic, and more ‘gay friendly’ , more ‘inclusive’. But this begs the question, without ‘homophobia’ what would be the point of sports at all?”
Code PINK!! This chick is off the hook. “If you bond with anyone except a female, you’re gay” “If you do anything that I think is gay, you’re gay” “If you deny you’re gay, you’re gay”
I can’t believe you let her post here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
5
@Lovekraft:
“But let us hope that her, and other intelligent people return to the big picture”
WTF? It’s like the Emperor with no cloths. Why can’t anyone see that this is mindless intellectual masturbation?
The “big picture” is that we don’t let chicks like QRG tell us what is gay and what is manly. She doesn’t get to tell us how gay we are. THAT’S THE BIG PICTURE!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
7
@ Witman
This gay bullying of men by feminists is a sign of their insecurity.
Raising a male child in this bullying environment was a challenge. I was the only parent so physical affection was important to my sons development.
At the same time I could sense this bully mentality regarding men and physical contact really made American women nervous.
My own father was not physicall affectionate with me, I had no example so I did my best.
I didn’t let the bullying affect how I hugged my son but I did become very aware of who was doing the bullying and why.
Like the slave who shows interest in something other than manual labor, our slave masters can’t have men doing, saying or thinking thoughts that are not always focused on women and their needs.
It’s straight up bullying, it affects the way men interact and it’s an integral part of organized feminism.
And it will have to stop.
MRM to feminists: If you don’t stop calling us fags we’re going to stop inventing vibrators.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
33
Have them
LIVE it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
When one accepts that Feminism has become the state religion, and that Gender Studies departments are the Feminist Church, their apparent indifference to open inquiry becomes clear.
As unbelievers we here are all heretics, and historically heretics have usually been treated with particular brutality. Special kangaroo courts, summary judgment, imprisonment on absurd grounds, dispossession of property, ostracism from society, restrictions on movement and association. And, of course, executions.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
I hope so too. Unfortunately, it’s far more likely that feminists will blame war, the economy, and violence, on men, as the author above points out. Of course, with this attitude, the “solution” is “less men”. Provided, none of us are foolish enough to go to any FEMA camps, or their equivalents, they will need men to deal with other men. The “winners” will be promised a place in Utopia, which will exist only as long as it takes to eliminate all external hostility. Then Utopia will become slavery with no way out, since you just killed off all the brave men, who might have saved you.
Yes. Goodbye, Utopia. Hello, microchipped-24-hour-surveillance-communist-dictatorship-nightmare. But hey, ladies, at least you will be safe. Well, you won’t be permitted to complain, anyway. Same thing, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
@ QRG
I knew that would get the fem-nasties. But vibrators are cheap plastic and will break. Recent reading about the period your discussing, the coup lead by Hitlary in the 1990′s, the decade of the woman, showed the only thing women are good at is shopping.
That quote was by a serious scholoar was made in the 1990′s before the propaganda campaigns so is more accurate than what we know today.
So, feminists will run out of cheap plastic vibrators and will be very very upset when their WGTOW tool is no longer available.
If your not nice, we may even start an anti-vibrator campaign….
Example:
What right minded woman would use a vibrator….the tool of the devil…
Is your libido so completely broken you need a vibrator?
Real women don’t need power tools in bed.
Red flag guys, if she pulls out a vibrator, that’s the first sign of the crazy…
You get the picture.
Us men can be very creative.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
28
“After ‘Zero Hour’, once we have defeated the venomous hydra that is the “wimminz rights’ movement” it will be neccessary to construct an entirely new framework of gender relations.”
Hows about just referring back to the previous state; where men worked to provide for their wives and children? Where married motherhood is again exhalted rather, than derided and ridiculed? Where women who try and act like men are shamed for being unfeminine, just like men are now for being their natural selves. Where men and women are treated equally under the law. Where women actually LIKE and appreciate men again.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
7
LOL!!! I nearly laughed my arse off when I saw this one. Talk about telling lies in the media! LOL!!
“We crave dependability, domesticity”
Until the divorce…., right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2045026/Mr-Average-new-Mr-Right-Ideal-man-dependable–domesticated–6ft.html
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
OT
So there you have it guys…..want to rattle feminists, threaten thier vibrators.
While we are having fun here, women complaining that men they “train” are going on to marry other women. They are trying to figure out how to make men pay for this training I suppose.
Here is what the marching orders look like to the average american woman. You know the reason she left and took the kids? She read it here, in Madmselle, or Elle or Ms.
In almost paragraphs our author treats us to the terror of a woman that dumps a man and, how dare he, moves on with his life:
” Feelings of despair, inadequacy, doubt and hate fill her heart as she tries to comprehend where she went wrong and why she was not the one receiving the return on her investment. Her “ring the alarm” attitude can quickly become ‘’I broke the windows in your car” rage if she is not careful.”
http://madamenoire.com/72906/boys-to-men-are-you-training-your-boyfriend-to-be-somebodys-husband/3/
It’s hard to imagine that the nation is taking these sort of people seriously but, here we are.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
OT,
and notice that this pack of lies is funded by the rockefellers.
Talk about, lies, damned lies, and statistics!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044989/What-mancession-Study-shoes-women-recovering-recession-significantly-slower-opposite-sex.html
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
You’re not getting it.
Much of what she wrote is indeed offensive – because it’s true. Saying “Beckham is a manscaping pretty” etc may hurt, but it is the unvarnished truth.
If mrm is incapable of examining itself it is no different than the engineers on Titanic taking offense that the sinking passengers are duly pissed.
And, if the engineers desiging that next grand ship fail in the same way to heed the truth due to hubris, then God damn them all to hell.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
6
So you’re just going to let some mentally masturbating chick in here to tell us what Beckham is or isn’t? Only Beckham decides what his version of masculine is just like some freaky queer study mental masturbater gets to decide what being a lady or woman or feminine is to her. She has the right to her opinion and we don’t have to like it but you don’t have to let Miss “Every man is a fag” in the backdoor either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
6
@ Firepower
I was just commenting on a phenomenea I have seen recently that surprised me. For all the shit women give men they are really untouched by the attacks men feel. Women are operating like there is no gender war.
The vibrator comment you should understand because this was the joke 30 years ago….women need vibrators. Well, nothing has changed for team woman. They have not grown at all.
I think you know that I am not about actually discussing stuff on the internet with feminists. It’s propaganda to me and I’m studying how to affect a successful web campaign.
Then I write about it here.
So far, surprisingly, I find that feminists still can’t get over that they need vibrators, it must piss them off the rare time they see a penis erect.
You can see that this is the only two times Riot Girl responded. Vibrator issues, you would think I was talking about their cat….they must really love and hate their vibrators.
And surprisingly male feminists are still bothered by the word mangina.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
David V October 4, 2011 at 11:08
“QuietRiotGirl is one of the best female MRA’s in the web.”
So is she willing to write an article denouncing the 250 out of 250 women of the International Womens Club of Dublin for condoning a criminal woman who committed the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse?
Is she willing to denounce the THOUSANDS of women I have invited to sit on juries and to fairly and justly try a woman who is properly accused of a crime by a father?
Is she willing to enroll women into serving on said juries?
Has she denounced the vast majority of western women as LIARS and HYPOCRITES for demanding “equality” in such areas as the good jobs and pay in the good jobs while not demanding equality in the categories of war dead, workplace dead, incarcerated, homeless, alimony payers and child support payers?
I checked her blog. I couldn’t find ANY articles about these items. Maybe I am just a bad searcher. Can you please link from her blog where she has been denouncing women on these points please?
The TRUTH is that even the BEST women supporters are CRAP and WILL NOT speak one TENTH as strongly as I am speaking and will not do ONE THOUSANDTH of what I have done. And still stupid men give them credit merely for being women.
Again….here are 250 out of 250 of the most PAMPERED women in existence condoning a woman criminal. About 70 email addresses of these CRIMINALS are published. I am YET to see a woman post me emails writing to these women denouncing them as the CRIMINALS THEY ARE. For to aid and abet a KNOWN CRIMINAL is ALSO A CRIME.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/337/scope/posts/Default.aspx
And here is how a decent woman talks. Notice she is SCATHING of criminal women and weak men who will not oppose them. When TENS OF THOUSANDS of western women start talking like this? AFTER they have addressed the crimes of women in courts? THEN I might start listening to a woman. Before that? I look at womens actions and compare them to mine. And women are TOTAL FAILURES when I compare their efforts to mine and the other men I am collaborating with. If women do not like being called TOTAL FAILURES? Then let them act like my equal, not just make the FALSE CLAIM they are my equal.
I know PLENTY of men who have worked as hard as I have on re-introducing the rule of law into Australia. But I do not know ONE WOMAN who has done one one hundredth of what MANY men have done.
Stop being a mangina and giving women credit THEY HAVE NOT EARNED.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/39/threadid/718/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
26
I denounce feminism and feminist -dominated culture. P-A-N
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/every-day-is-womens-day/
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/
http://deathatthemall.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-end-of-men-or-misandry-business-as-usual/
I don’t go round denouncing all women or all men. That seems pointless to me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
21
See what I mean? You let this chick in and everything is gay.
You can’t un-invent the vibrator
You can’t un-suck a dick
But you can stop your site from being a gender queer rag.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
12
Rocco October 4, 2011 at 13:26
“And surprisingly male feminists are still bothered by the word mangina.”
Rocco. Men HATE being called manginas….they really do. One guy decided to write to me on facebook and tell me what a woman hater I was and I stuck him straight into my mangina hall of fame….the immediately then said….wait for it….that he would CALL THE COPS if I did not remove his comments! LOL!!
Who does THAT remind you of? Oh, yes, that’s right. It reminds you of a WOMAN because the FIRST thing a woman does is say I will call the cops.
Here is my mangina hall of fame. Feel free to spread the link around.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/57/scope/threads/Default.aspx
And if any man here thinks that the FIRST thing a woman does when she is FACED WITH THE TRUTH is NOT threaten to call the cops? Then read this email trail. This woman WROTE TO ME and her THIRD response “if you respond again I will call the cops”.
Oh…these wimminz and their niggerz are SO EMPOWERED!! LOL!!
LOSERS!
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
7
oopps…forgot the link..
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/109/threadid/726/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
“Quiet Riot Girl October 4, 2011 at 07:35
Thanks TMOTS
But maybe you are reinforcing the point I made in the article, that one reason men are ignored in gender studies is people think taking an interest in masculinity is ‘gay’ in itself.”
This is correct.
Homophobia is a feminist and liberal construct intended to serve the purposes of enabling attacks on men and making men afraid of being thought queer. I mean more so than previously. You can neither oppose gays nor take up for them nor show any traits that they may be considered to have.
Actually, you aren’t confused. You know whether you are and chances are you aren’t.
But then, once accused of being a witch you found everything you did proved the accusation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
@QRG: “I am interested in people’s comments about my writing on ‘metrosexuality’ and versions of masculinity that may not fit the usual MRA model.”
I really couldn’t give a flying fook about your writing, your versions of masculinity, or why you think that they do “not fit the usual MRA model” (compare, e.g., Jack Donovan), particularly since you’ve acknowledged they are based on known preconceptions and lies (“our preconceptions and the lies we tell ourselves about men and masculinity”).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
26
Quiet Riot Girl October 4, 2011 at 13:30
“I denounce feminism and feminist -dominated culture. P-A-N”
” I don’t go round denouncing all women or all men. That seems pointless to me.”
I didn’t suggest you go around denouncing ALL women or ALL men. So why would you say that. Oh. That’s right. Because you are a woman and the FIRST thing a woman does is TELL SUBTLE LIES so as not to be caught out BY THE TRUTH. You can’t even help it QRG. Women are PATHOLOGICAL LIARS who don’t even know they are lying most of the time.
I asked David V some specific questions.
I asked him to find out if you were willing to denounce the THOUSANDS of women I have asked to serve on juries who have refused to do so.
I asked him to find out if you were willing to denounce ONLY those western women who are NOT campaigning for “equality” in the six areas of war dead, workplace dead, incarnated, homeless, alimony payers, child support payers.
And I put the question whether David V might put the question to you are you willing to denounce the criminal women of the international womens club of Dublin.
As you can see. I have at NO TIME referred to ALL women or ALL MEN.
That virtually ALL WESTERN WOMEN do fit into these categories is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. That virtually ALL WESTERN WOMEN are LIARS AND HYPOCRITES IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
Now. You want to try and tell another subtle lie to me QRG? For I am quite prepared to take you apart publicly until you are willing to match my denouncements of CRIMINAL WOMAN and until you are willing to demand JUSTICE for all those men by being willing to sit on a jury yourself and campaign for others to do so too.
When you have faced down cops and judges threatening to throw you in jail? When you have video recorded a man committing the crime of impersonating a magistrate? When you have lawfully noticed all the members of the federal government of your country in your own name and called them the criminals they are? When you are prepared to put your life on the line for what you believe in?
THEN get back to me and tell me how you “denounce feminism”. Until then? I find your “denouncement of feminism” to be severely lacking when measured by my high standards.
No. We are not equals.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
@Quiet Riot Girl
“I don’t go round denouncing all women or all men. That seems pointless to me.”
But you go around shaming men for bonding and doing male activities. You’re shaming men for doing manscaping or body building. You shame men for doing anything to make themselves look and feel better. You shame men for achieving (i.e. a boxing belt). You shame them for being famous and banging Victoria Beckham.
Maybe you don’t denounce all men, but it seems like you’ve picked one (at least) for each of your “you’re a fag” traits.
From now on when I read the word “camp” in the context you use it, it will immediately disqualify that person as one I would even consider a Voice for Men. Women do not get to decide what is masculine! Men like Mark Simpson may get the benefit of the doubt, but even other men do not get to tell us (read me) what is masculine and what is faggoty (camp). Support your queers and I’ll support the male homosexuals as men but I will not tell them what it is to be a man.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
4
@ QRG
I liked your article in response to Rosen, I agree completely.
The other thing I like about your work is that Typhon Blue reads what you write and comments.
She’s brilliant.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
15
I read the article and followed several of the links. I’m with Migu. Garbage. Mental Masturbation. No disrespect to QRG. I’m not talking about her article, but about the entire field of gender studies. One of those weird academic bubbles built on 19th century phantasms.
Migu quotes Ludwig Von Mises: “They dealt with humanity as a whole or with other holistic concepts like nation, race, or church. They set up quite arbitrarily the ends to which the behavior of such wholes is bound to lead.”
Here we are getting close to my own research. Burke also describes the nature and effect of these “holistic concepts”, but it was St. Augustine who really nailed it. These “concepts” are for the most part rooted in modern forms of neo-platonism, and especially the works of Hegel and the Young Hegelians. These were known in late antiquity as ‘natural idols, such as the philosophers use’ (to transliterate St. Augustine). Among the moderns, Science or Reason came first. Society came after, and the Nation and nationalism. Newly lawless governments created tyrannies which led men to make great sacrifices for Liberty.
Equality is an idol much favoured by the feminists. An abstract notion to which great sacrifices are demanded. In short, a false idol. There are good reasons why the early Christians would refuse to make any sacrifices to these idols, even on pain of death.
Along with these new idols came the old dialectic, which was the method of reasoning used to examine and resolve conflicts between these idols. It’s bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out.
The question of identity is redolent of Manicheism, or its modern variant developed by Neitzsche. It is not simply taking Self as an idol, but a sacrificing of oneself to become an idol. The mention of American Psycho was interesting (following I forget which link). In the opening monologue he pretty much says that he has been an idol, a person he himself invented, for so long that he has quite forgotten who he is or ever was. Down that road lies nothing but madness.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
PS QRG. You women claimed “equality”.
So don’t bother bitching or moaning to me when I measure you by MY standards and demonstrate just how far SHORT you and all your sistas fall.
Take it as a challenge.
Lift your game.
Take it like a man.
Act like a man.
You know…all those things WOMEN say to us men after our CHILDREN are kidnapped and abused….after our houses are stolen…..after our companies are destroyed.
Go fix the MESS WITH WOMEN before bothering to respond to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
10
@ QRS
So, you have a PhD in womans studies but don’t consider yourself a feminist. If I may ask a question, what year did you realize that you could no longer support feminism?
No agenda, I’m just curious, thanks.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
OT
Men are acting up, 12,000 california prisoners are protesting conditions with a hunger strike.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/prison-hunger-strike-swells.html
At the same time as women are being set free…..just because of their sex.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Hi Rocco
It was a number of things. I had a really hard time during my Phd studies getting to write and research what and how I wanted. I realised my feminist supervisors had an agenda they wanted me to follow and I wouldn’t. And I was punished for that.
When I began to blog a couple of years ago I started to critique feminist dogma, and that is when I got the whole ‘treatment’ from feminists on the blogosphere/online. I basically said to myself if this ‘ideology’ cannot take criticism there must be something wrong.
I also read Mark Simpson’s work which was the best I’d found so far on men, masculinity and critiques of feminism, and how feminist dominated culture is misandrist.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
19
And how anything a man does makes him gay?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
@ witman
Nothing a man does can “make him gay”, and nearly all we’ve learned growing up is feminist propaganda used to manipulate us.
I no longer hold any of it to be true. I’ve heard everything you can think of….the perennial, we’re all gay inside…lol.
No we’re not, it’s just that during our lifetime there has been a group pushing an aganda and our mothers were in on it. (not yours, the generic our)
So no one said, listen to those crazy people, like they used to.
IME gay men and women know it when they’re young. Straight people are the same way.
One of the worst things they did was make straight men question their sexuality. It’s similar to the psy-ops torture they did in Abu Ghraib to the prisoners.
These people are like Mengele from WWII, for real, and now their in power.
This is why I fear for men as Rebel describes.
The feminist establishment is sick and powerful, very dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
@Rocco:
I know this. That is why I’m so offended at this gender queer individual posting at a men’s site. It’s just wrong and the-spearhead had turned a bad corner!
@QRG
You can’t make me gay no matter how hard you try. Perhaps this is some cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing from some past homosexual (female lesbian (same thing)) that you did and you’re trying to correct your mind. You can’t make everyone gay to fix your own issues darling.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
30
@ witman
After last comment, I would have to agree with you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
@Umslopogaas October 4, 2011 at 06:07
Indeed,
Masculinity, even the concept of said, has been mercilessly crushed by the relentless juggernaut of Feminism. ”
Agreed.
But in a dyad, if you crush one you crush the other. What’s left of feminity now?
What’s now left of masculinity is that which cannot be crushed. This inevitably leads to hypermasculinity.
The dichotomy that now exists between the sexes is permanent. There will be no end to the gender war.
Unless the entire species changes to a sexless one, reproducing artificially.
This may be in our future.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
I didn’t have a problem with the article (not even sure what it was trying to say to be honest).
I’ll just add that “masculinity”, those general traits emanating from the average man’s biology (particularly testosterone), have been demonized, ridiculed, and mocked. The intent is to undermine natural male strengths and feminize and weaken men so women can compete. Male domination throughout the entirety of history is all the proof you need that women on the whole cannot compete with men naturally.
When you oppress men and force equality of outcomes by social engineering, you put many men at a severe disadvantage because women still have the advantage of possessing pussy power. All else being equal between men and women, collectively, women win. And that’s what we are seeing in modern society: men falling behind because they don’t have a vagina. The are no white knights and fair maidens supporting and helping men.
We will never progress as a society until we openly and honestly acknowledge the profound reproductive and sexual advantages females have.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
This is how self centered women are.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2044493/Janet-Street-Porter-Question-Time-Women-dont-want-gimmicks-want-power.html
“The Tories are in full damage limitation mode, as research indicates women think their policies are hitting them disproportionately hard. It’s easy to see why: we make up the bulk of part-time workers and we’re being laid off in large numbers.
Millions of us work in the public sector and will be affected by redundancies and changes to our pensions. We’re bearing the brunt of increased food prices and cuts to child-care provision. We are worried about the impact of tuition fees on our children.”
Any talk of unlawful arrests based on false allegations of men? Any talk of having your kids kidnapped and abused? And talk of women having their houses stolen and their lifes work plundered by greedy and selfish ex husbands? And, of course, there is NO talk of how many women are killed in workplace accidents….all those dangerous public service jobs they do. Beware the papercut, eh.
Nope? Colour me surprised.
Western women are the most self centered greedy people I know and the manginas who let them get away with it DESERVE all the shit that is thrown at them.
I used to say to my wife that the way she treated me her broken finger nail was a bigger deal than my slipped disks.
Ladies? You express wonder at why men like me despise your hypocrisy. Well. Just keep reading about what women say and remember 50 million MEN died in world war II. And almost NO women died in combat yet you call these men “oppressors”.
Sooner or later some of your number are going to have to start denouncing YOU WOMEN and NOT “feminism” or ideaology. It is PEOPLE who commit actions that are to be held responsible and be denounced. NOT “ideas”. Don’t blame “feminism”. Blame the women and manginas who stood by silent even when they were made aware of crimes being committed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
Feminists wants to “own” MRA / MRM.
“We fight / fought for men’s rights too! See?”
NAFALT by any other name
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
Unless I’ve completely misunderstood this article — it’s entirely possible that I’m an even bigger dullard than witman fears he might be — it amounts to a recommendation to read Simpson’s book.
But I can’t see why I would want to.
Here’s how she introduces us to the book:
OK, “undressing” is a cute metaphor, but without saying anything about the “clothes” that are figuratively being taken off, it doesn’t do any real work.
But in fact, as will become evident as we read on, there doesn’t seem to be anything like “undressing” going on here. Quite the opposite.
Since when is masculinity a “performance”? That word suggests that we’re already entering the world of make-believe, of dissembling. In other words the “natural man” isn’t being “undressed”, he’s being clothed — even if it is in something “absolutely fabulous”.
Simpson, we’re told, explains ” the complexities and subtexts of modern masculinities.” I’m with migu and witman here. wtf? Now masculinity is a “text”, with “complexities” and “subtexts”?
Our author underscores her focus on the “performance” or “text” of masculinity when she tells us that “men, and their representation in culture” have been ignored or distorted by gender theorists. (italics added)
So instead of showing us the essence of “natural man”, “stripped” of whatever “clothing” has been concealing that essence, what we can expect from Simpson — according to this article — is a description of the clothing styles and mannerisms of men as they appear in popular culture.
And what men? “Gay strippers and drag artists, ‘macho’ body builders, pornography, sport, The War Movie, reality television, rock and roll.”
Yawn. The only item in that list that might interest me is war movies, but even there I know that what they offer has been Hollywoodized, and that the actors are usually poseurs. Analyzing those things might be an interesting intellectual exercise, maybe even fun, but you wouldn’t be analyzing anything real — only “presentations”.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
“Has she denounced the vast majority of western women as LIARS and HYPOCRITES for demanding “equality” in such areas as the good jobs and pay in the good jobs while not demanding equality in the categories of war dead, workplace dead, incarcerated, homeless, alimony payers and child support payers?
I checked her blog. I couldn’t find ANY articles about these items. Maybe I am just a bad searcher. Can you please link from her blog where she has been denouncing women on these points please? ”
Here we go again. As soon as a woman shows up here, you demand that they promise to sit on one of your juries, yada,yada,yada, and that’s your only criteria for judging a human being, if they follow YOUR rules for living. It’s getting tiresome, Peter, your flooding every.single.thread. with OT links, insulting anyone (men and women alike) who don’t agree with everything you say. This isn’t your blog……
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
19
Crella you fool, don’t engage Nolan or acknowledge him with anything but a red thumbs down.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
19
@Peter-Andrew: Nolan (c) October 4, 2011 at 13:27
“I checked her blog. I couldn’t find ANY articles about these items. Maybe I am just a bad searcher.”
No, you’re just a moron. Why would anybody else mention your marital problems in their blog? Nobody gives a damn. We don’t have to because you’re always telling us how stupid we are, how happy you are and how much money you have. Go play in the sandpit by yourself. Also, stop using the word “niggerz” you sheep fucker.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
21
Masculinity isn’t performed. It just is.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
I have now posted evidence, on sexismbusters.org , of the male-blaming bias in the gender studies curriculum I’m suing, along with an explanation of why this case has a great chance. Also, you will be able to access the AVFM interview I did last week (36 mins 30 seconds into show).
I have done another interview for Men’s Matters Radio, due out soon, and have just shot a video on LSE’s campus, asking students whether discrimination against men in a curriculum is ever justified – exposing the enormous levels of ignorance on men’s issues, even among gender graduates. This vid is in post-production now, but is going to take things to the next level.
I still need further funds, so to all those who are wavering about making a donation, please go to the updated site, read up on all the additional evidence, and make an informed decision about whether this case is worth backing or not.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
She’s just another iteration of a femmy trying to define masculinity in that typical matriarchal gate-keeping way that da femz do. All, in service of her own interests. Fairly typical femmy strategy. As usual, she reduces masculine consciousness to sexuality and twists everything around, which is merely a projection of feminine consciousness, ie sexualised, projected, externalised, veiled, general dissimulation. Femininity is extremely adept at flipping the scripts of feminine conciousness and attributing their thoughts and motivations to others, in this case, da menz. If ya point it out to them, they’ll either drop it back in your laps, or look for ways to perceive it that way. This is why they’re such big fans of po-mo, relativism, linguist gymnastics, self identity and the rest.
She’s trying to crash the party by putting on the right act. Her analysis has enough reasonable points, to conceal the half truths.
She’s here to muddy the waters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Nuthin personal, but you have little to no intellectual credibility as someone who has a PhD in Women’s studies (or gender studies, or pretty much any field with “studies” as part of its title).
You’d be far more intellectually impressive and interesting if you’d spent your twenties busking guitar while shooting junk than sitting in university classrooms engaging in vacuous circle-jerks (pardon the gender-inappropriate metaphor).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
“But my main point was to show how gender studies marginalises ALL men, and all men’s voices. Including a man who I consider to be a major theorist of masculinity. Whether you agree with Simpson’s point of view or not, the fact his work has been ignored, is suggestive of a wider problem. Is what I am saying.”
===========================================
MRA is a subset of the so-called Manosphere, which is largely an interwebs phenomena. We are largely focused on populating masculine consciousness with masculine memes.
There is no ‘problem’ at this end of town. The problem is for wimminz rights activists and their gendered political rhetoric. You want da menz to enter the fray and play your game, your way. Such is the nature of politics. Saying that wimminz studies marginalise menz is generally of no interest to men. Most of us dont care that we are going where we dont want to be. Or that left wing rhetoric excludes those on the right. Or vice-versa.
It doesnt matter that you’ve rebranded wimminz studies and call it gender studies. The proble for you is not the marginalisation, but rather the disengagement, of men. That lack of participation is your achilles heel. Without men stepping onto your pitch, you cannot get them to play by your (new feminised) rules.
Trying to get menz to focus on the concept of masculinity and how its defined is playing by the femmy po-mo self-identity book of rules. Many men can see thru it and will reject it intuitively for the ploy that it is, namely a social control mechanism.
l neither agree nor disagree with simpsons work, its simply meaningless and no amount of po-mo induced relativist linguistic gymanastics will make a shred of difference. Its beyond redundant, is is functionally useless and ultimately pointless.
You’ve got a run here, b/c the relevant admins are ultimately sypathetic to your ‘get men back to the table’ agenda. Most likely b/c they are invested in, hooked into or by the femmy social order in some way.
Again the problem which you are aluding to is your problem.
Its unlikely you possess, nor are willing to cultivate the outlook nor the consciousness to even understand this contention. For ultimately its outside of your frame and taken to its logical conclusion totally contrary and counter to the interest of your self identity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
Correction
“Most of us dont care that we are going where we dont want to be. ”
s/be
Most of us dont care that we arent going where we dont want to be.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Here she doubles down on placing more emphasis on the pop culture image rather than the reality (italics added):
Really?!? Beckham? Famous with whom? Readers of the Guardian?
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
@ wittman,
did you say “rag”.
LOL. Can only imagine the turmoil in riol gals echo box.
What, did l just say ‘box.’
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Spot on, fmz.
With all due respect to brother Tom Martin, I really don’t care whether the masculine perspective is included in “gender studies” or not. It’s a spurious academic discipline, like everything else that is described as “_____ Studies”.
Only a fool who knows no better use for his time would voluntarily sign up for one of those classes. Why subject your brain to pomo logic pretzels when you should be studying differential equations?
You’ll be a lot more use to the world if you study the science of materials, for example, and how to do cool things with carbon nanotubes. Or maybe invent some better batteries.
Civil engineers are also going to be in demand, since our infrastructure is crumbling around us. Somebody needs to know how to build those bridges, and you don’t get that kind of knowledge by spending all your time confronting the noodlings of some NYC/Parisian pseudo-intellectuals.
In other words, go STEM, young man!
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
@Corky Again
“You’ll be a lot more use to the world if you study the science of materials”
Or just invent something. I had a nice Friday afternoon recently when I researched and discovered a way to insert an image into a TV stream when the video went blank. That shit is fun and the only reason I do the mundane stuff I do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Although I agree that Gender Studies is a bullshit field, I’m glad that Tom Martin is a man putting is name out there and making some noise. I would never disparage that. Sure, it’s like pissing in a hurricane, but every little bit helps.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I also invented a way to tear down (carny term) the Zipper (carny ride) with a single man when it used to be a two man job. I used a “come along” and a rectangular steal bar. This allows for setup and tear down of said ride with one person. The only time you need a second is 10 minutes to drop or raise the tower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper_(ride)
Now a one man job! There can only be one! The sensation you’re feeling is the Quickening! Do you feel it?
That is what makes a man. The quickening. We must be the one to retain our heads.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
This chick is just messing with your brains. Trojan Horse. Don’t trust her.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
2
Migu, I’m with you. Absolute drivel with only selected “authority” and alot of opinion piece from the writer to back up her contentions. What do I care what a chick thinks anyhoot?
@Alcuin October 4, 2011 at 06:42
“Read Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. His clarity comes from the truth that he represents. He will be known as an even greater pope than John Paul II.”
Why? Will he be more successful in hiding the crimes of the Catholic Church than JPII? Truth! What a larff. Most senior members of the Catholic Church wouldn’t know the meaning of the word truth if it jumped up and bit them on the behind.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
18
Thanks for a good new (to me) book to look for. Maybe it only matters to ivory tower types. Feminist theory guarantees that male bias and oppression will be found in every time and culture (Mary Lefkowitz), which anyone with half a brain knows isn’t true, so it’s all gotta be BS since it’s fantasy-based. Real people don’t have the luxury of living that way.
I also wanted to point out a much earlier treatment of one of the three subjects: John Gordon’s “The Myth of the Monstrous Male”.
The bullying and power-playing and emotional abuse of males has been going on a long time. Almost all of what feminidiots say about men is nothing but projection. It’s a common tactic to employ when conducting psych warfare, because it confuses the victim and causes them (us) to waste time defending themselves. Better to not take ‘em seriously in the first place. Remember, if you act as an equal, women will treat you like a dumbshit.
Another 90′s book which looks at men in culture and how masculinity is portrayed was “Not Guilty”, by David Thomas.
To me, the other two best mens books of the 90′s were Farrell’s “Myth of Male Power” and Ellis Cose’s “A Man’s World”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Unless I’ve completely misunderstood this article — it’s entirely possible that I’m an even bigger dullard than witman fears he might be…” CorkyAgain
I think I’ll have to sit in the dullard’s corner with you and Witman because I didn’t really understand it either. I certainly got my back up, as always, whenever a woman attempts to discuss masculinity. The sheer hide of telling us what is or isn’t gay! Gay men not financially beholdent to the queer studies industry reject their attempts to define us and our straight brothers. Bossy lesbians and pussy-whipped poodle-carrying faggots who’ve gotten above themselves. They will never represent or speak for me – even if I understood the curious babble they use to express themselves.
“I think though, that when men get overly anxious about showing how not-gay they are, it is a bit…gay.” QRG
Throwing in a bit of gay shaming? Is that meant to put Mr Witman in his place? Not even you, a self-declared anti-feminist, can resist the urge to silence an inconvenient male. How do you expect a gay man will react to your use of the gay slur as an insult? Did that even occur to you? Mr Witman states that he is not gay because he is straight. See. Things really can be that simple.
“Women do not get to decide what is masculine…I’ll support male homosexuals as men but I will not tell them what it is to be a man.” Witman
Respected and reciprocated, Mr Witman. Men supporting each other in a war against feminism. Now that, I understand. If Ms Girl wishes to support the MRM, all well and good. However, she must appreciate that she can never speak with any kind of authority about masculinity – gay or straight.
Rocco sums up the truth with the most accurate statement yet:
“Nothing a man does can “make him gay”, and nearly all we’ve learned growing up is feminist propaganda used to manipulate us.”
Bingo!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
2
@andybob.
Nice work man.
Gay man puts kibbosh on typical femmy sexual identity nonsense.
Turn Code Pink back on itself and call their bluff with gay men accusing wimminz of homophobic hatred.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
0
“fmz October 4, 2011 at 19:00
…………
She’s trying to crash the party by putting on the right act. Her analysis has enough reasonable points, to conceal the half truths.
……….”
“andybob October 4, 2011 at 23:57
…………
“Women do not get to decide what is masculine…I’ll support male homosexuals as men but I will not tell them what it is to be a man.” Witman
Respected and reciprocated, Mr Witman. Men supporting each other in a war against feminism. Now that, I understand. If Ms Girl wishes to support the MRM, all well and good. However, she must appreciate that she can never speak with any kind of authority about masculinity – gay or straight.
………..”
Mixing truth with lies is a standard technique since you can always find something in it you agree with even if it’s so wrong as to be ridiculous.
It also can give the impression of someone begining to realize how wrong they are.
Much of what she says can be stuff she has been taught and really believes (because feminists said so) is true about men or what men want to hear. Sort of like the girl who grew up with girls and who on a first date assumes boys want to talk about clothes, shoes, gossip, and their feelings. Especially hers. Females trying to understand men, after all, don’t pay attention to men or even observe them, but ask other females about them.
This essay is beneficial in that you can pick out useful items to cite and truthfully explain that they came from a feminist’s essay.
And it also might be a rare case of one of them recovering some sanity.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
This is classic, “Do I think Tom Martin is Garbage”
Umm no. I reserved that for you. Not sure how Randy Rhodes would take to you usurping the band he made famous but oh well.”
The Randy Rhodes comment is about as relevant as your “Do you Think Tom Martin is garbage?” And you are feminist PhD. Still not impressed.
I’ll just relate a little story. I was 19 in a women’s studies class in Spokane. The topic was language. The exercise was redefine negative words used to demean women. The words were as follows:
Hammer, Pound, Nail. Even back then I said, “This doesn’t make any sense.” The hot little studies TA said, “Well please give us an example Migu” So I said……
“What about the carpenter who uses his hammer to pound the nail into the board?”
I was kicked out of class. (The next day we were given a chapter to read after my example that day) At least here I only had my Garbage comment deleted. I stand it by it. Pure Garbage.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
28
“Crella you fool, don’t engage Nolan or acknowledge him with anything but a red thumbs down.”
I’m tired of the endless interruptions of meaningful conversation, of threads being derailed. I got it off my chest, I’m done. I blow up every 3-4 months of marathon scrolling.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
17
“I had a flash of anger when I saw the word, “expendable”. Are you saying, on a subconscious level men realise they’re expendable and that is why they’re prone to being reckless? I would consider the same men to be brave, selfless, and assertive at a time of action, but never, “expendable”. I hope you think this too, otherwise, I would wonder why you were here.”
When we were hunter-gatherers and then at least pre-industrial, men were more expendable in regards to the tribe/colony/nation-state’s survival on an individual level, if a tribe’s strength correlated to size, and considering inter-human conflict and warfare has been constant throughout history, population size always mattered. It has nothing to do with a person’s individual worthiness, just the mathematical realities of child-birth which requires less men in comparison to women to attain population replacement levels and/or growth. Evolution has taken this into account. Testosterone increases risk taking and competitiveness. It’s useful for some men to sacrifice themselves to risk when occasionally the payout for success has a multiplier effect for the larger genetic group as a whole.
Next, you bring up intelligence. I’ve included some data regarding IQ range in whites. It’s from 1937, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t still be accurate:
—
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change”
Exactly, and males being more diverse than females increase their chance of being able to be responsive to change. Or at least some of them.
“Therefore, it’s erroneous to think that high intelligence means superiority.”
I never said that. We would have to define superiority in context of a hierarchical system. Evolutionarily, I could argue that bacteria has been more successful than humans.
Sorry, gotta run to work. Don’t take my brevity for anything other than that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Quiet Riot Girl October 4, 2011 at 07:35
Thanks TMOTS
But maybe you are reinforcing the point I made in the article, that one reason men are ignored in gender studies is people think taking an interest in masculinity is ‘gay’ in itself.
___________________________________
And maybe you are twinsting my words to mean what you want them to mean.
I was merely stating that I visited your blog, and I found a rather large quantity of items refering to gay this and gay that. Which lends credence to the fact that gender studies type people (read feminists) tend to have a woody for that sort of thing.
As someone else has already stated, visions of a trogan horse..
TMOTS
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Jabberwocky:
I appreciate the reply but nothing you have said has changed my mind about your original post. You base most of what you say on obsolete hunter-gather, stone-age, logic. Just because men are capable of sacrificing themselves when absolutely necessary does not men their lives are less important or they are “more expendable”, which means the same thing, despite your protest. More expendable than who, I wonder? And who decides? Once you say things like that, you start placing values on human lives. In other words, you start to consider “a person’s individual worthiness”:
The people that want a one-world-government say the same thing. What about genetic diversity? If a man impregnates many women, doesn’t that just increase the chances of half-siblings meeting and reproducing? Population size is important you say. Yes, it is because size implies that the gene pool is large and diverse and incest is kept to a minimum. Tribes are obsolete, therefore, the manpower of a large population is irrelevant. Technology and propaganda, is what wins wars in this age. We should know this better than most; is the government not at war with us? Is it not winning and do we not outnumber them?
So, the genetic advantage of population size means nothing when you go against “evolution” (which creates male babies about fifty per cent of the time), and artificially reduce the number of men in the population. Yes, I know, you didn’t express this, but your mind is half-way there.
I was speaking in terms of fitness within a species, and so was Darwin. Besides, I’m pretty sure that the term, “bacteria” is the genus, and therefore contains more than one species. So not only are you comparing different species but a single species versus an entire genus of species. A bit unfair! I concede, bacteria are pretty badass, especially the ones that eat sulphur. If there is a hell, I’m taking a tube of sulphur-eating bacteria with me.
Everyone:
Anyway, I’m not trying to be a smart-arse, but it’s not what you know or don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you think you know. People think they know about society, and the economy and the government. They don’t; they just think they do. This is what is hurting us. This is why I bring up usury and that Money is Debt video on youtube, and Mike Montagne. That stuff will shatter a lot of the lies people are carrying around in their minds and cause some serious problems for the liars. Isn’t that what we want? Well, watch the videos and talk about it with people that are afraid to visit MRA sites. The information you learn cannot be “shot down”, with the usual cries of “misogynist” and “conspiracy-theorist”, or other worn-out words used to smear people who dare to think and challenge commonly-held beliefs.
PS Don’t take it personally if I challenge your post. It just means I want to know your reasoning. I’m here to learn, and that’s impossible, if you don’t challenge others or yourself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I appreciate the original point of this article–to draw attention to the work of Mark Simpson. He is, to me, the best observer and thinker on Anglo-American masculinity, and he spots trends in how men behave, how they are represented, and, most importantly, how our collective sense of what is “naturally male” changes.
Those who are open to the subtle and layered commentary Simpson makes on the whole phenomenon of masculinity should read plenty of him–he is a spewing fount of witty, thoughtful writing. Male Impersonators brilliantly shows the shifting line of lived masculinity; his book Anti-Gay skewers the happy consumerist version of ‘we’re just like you’ gay identity. Simpson loves margins, messiness, grit, and contradiction, and has a keen nose for hypocritical b.s.
If you need things in permanent discrete boxes–gay, straight, real, feminist, anti-feminist–he may be too much of all those for your tastes. Don’t take me word for it–read a lot of him.
Also check out The Trouble With Nature, by Roger Lancaster.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
That’s what pomo theory taught her to do. There is no privileged meaning to your text. It means whatever she wants to read into it.
Just like there is no privileged meaning of masculinity. It’s a text she reads however she likes — and in her case, it seems to be magazine cutouts of Marky Mark and John Beckham pinned to a teenaged girl’s bedroom wall. (Or is it a gay man’s wall? Hard to tell. But hey, we can read her text however we like.)
There is no substance to what she writes, because pomos don’t believe in substance. Only appearances.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
BTW, it seems that some of QRG’s comments have disappeared from this thread.
For instance, I no longer see the one where she explains why she included the picture of Beckham, or the one where she assures me that he is famous.
Last night there were also some other comments from her, where she made some lame attempts to respond to some of the points that have been raised.
So if anyone is coming along later and reading through the comments, don’t be puzzled if it seems as if some of us are responding to points that were never made. They were, but the thread has been elided.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Yeah, that was me. With new/guest authors, I prefer to avoid too much repartée with readers — doesn’t always turn out well. Once people get used to the commenters and there’s more familiarity it’s easier to respond, but it takes a bit of acclimation.
Like or Dislike:
2 
12
crella October 4, 2011 at 18:07
“It’s getting tiresome, Peter, your flooding every.single.thread. with OT links, insulting anyone (men and women alike) who don’t agree with everything you say. This isn’t your blog……”
Gee Crella. Having the lies and hypocrisy of women reflected back at you is “tiresome” and you don’t want to hear it. Hhhmmm.
What about the TENS OF MILLIONS of men who have been criminally abused? Oh, that’s right. Demanding justice is “tiresome”, while women committing crimes is perfectly ok.
By the way? I am not criticising people who “disagree” with me. I am criticising people who REFUSE TO SIT ON JURIES TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I am also criticising people who REFUSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES.
And what you and manginas like chevy chase or “Peter” and all the others say does not matter to me ONE BIT.
I have PROVEN that the VAST MAJORITY OF WESTERN WOMEN ARE LIARS AND HYPOCRITES.
And I will continue to call wimminz and their niggerz LIARS AND HYPOCRITES until such time as ALL MEN who wish a path to justice have had their day in courts. ALL those who “oppose” me are merely opposing the creation of a path to justice for men who have been criminally abused.
And you are WELCOME to OPPOSE the re-introduction of the rule of law and the creation of a path to justice for men. I shall merely point out that is what you are doing.
By the way? The SHIT you women have gone on with for the last 40 years?
Guess what? That was really fucking tiresome too. AND it was ALL LIES.
How about you go tell all the wimminz and their niggerz how TIRESOME they are, eh?
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
16
“Gee Crella. Having the lies and hypocrisy of women reflected back at you is “tiresome” and you don’t want to hear it. Hhhmmm”
No, I’m tired of your rants breaking up every thread, regardless of topic.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Anyone with half a brain knows what women can and will do. You’re not Christ’s second coming, coming to pull the wool of the eyes of the unwashed masses. You are not the only intelligent life form on the planet.
Your entire yardstick of good/bad of whether someone will sit on one of your juries. Where do you get off decreeing that anyone who doesn’t do as you say is deluded , stupid, a liar, etc? No one’s awarded you a fiefdom yet…
You have a lot of information to share with people, more power to you for the research you’ve done and your dedication to the cause of men’s rights. However, ranting and raving and name-calling takes a lot away from your message. Every thread becomes a scroll-a-thon. I’d like to read other people’s opinions, too.
Where were you 40 years ago? Why did you do nothing, see nothing until 2008? Don’t rub it all off on everyone but yourself. For someone who woke up to the MRM years, and in some cases DECADES after everyone else, it’s rather presumptuous for you to barge in and try to tell everyone else that they’re stupid and don’t know what they’re doing.
Once again (sighs) what your wife did to you was wrong. Unequivocally. You just can’t make the rest of mankind responsible for it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
13
“I was speaking in terms of fitness within a species, and so was Darwin. Besides, I’m pretty sure that the term, “bacteria” is the genus, and therefore contains more than one species.”
Sorry, let me rephrase. I could argue that evolutionarily, bacteria is more fit than primates. Or something like that. (I gotta watch my metaphors for scientific accuracy I guess.)
“Once you say things like that, you start placing values on human lives.”
Are you saying they have no value? Or that all their values are exactly the same? Either way, I disagree.
“Just because men are capable of sacrificing themselves when absolutely necessary does not men their lives are less important or they are “more expendable”, which means the same thing, despite your protest.”
Something that is ‘expendable’ can be the ‘most important’ thing. Don’t conflate two words that have specific definitions. (Oil is expendable for example. We don’t save it, we burn it.) There is great value and honor in sacrifice for the greater good. In Sparta, you got no grave marker unless you died in combat. For women to get a grave marker, they had to die in childbirth. There is a reason we send young men to war before anyone else; they are the most capable for war, and unfortunately expendable. We don’t send scientists or engineers or generals to the front lines, or women and children for that matter. That does not mean they are not heroes and of immense value or of deserving infinite respect. It’s just the hard, cold truth of reality. A tribe/society/culture can get by best having lost a large chunk of it’s young men more so than adults with accumulated skills and knowledge and/or women capable of helping the population rebound. You can’t argue with such a long pattern of human behavior. Tradition is accumulated wisdom expressed more through behavior than understanding. That does not mean it might not be time for this to change.
A lot of the rest of what you are saying is taking what I said out of the context of the realities in which our species evolved, ie. the past. The last 300 years has given us a new technological/scientific environment that we exist in, and we have had little time to genetically or culturally evolve for it. My statements are based on how evolution has molded us in the past, and how this molded the differences between men and women. It is the evolutionary history that speaks to our present human traits. Nothing I said is incorrect as far as I am aware. Male expendability compared to women is evolutionary fact for most species. It is simple reproductive math. Your genetic diversity argument would only apply to very tiny population sizes, and even then, probably less so than than you would think. That does not mean a man is worth less because he is worth less reproductively. A man’s sacrifice may make him the most worthy man in history for instance. The fact that men are expendable in many ways makes us more valuable to ‘progress’, to the broader evolution of ‘culture’ and ‘society’ at large. If you want an easier life, it’s best to choose to be a female. If you want to take risks that may have huge payouts for yourself and maybe mankind itself, I’d start with being a male. Unfortunately, that puts you in a more precarious position. I callz em az I seez em.
You’ve got spunk. I like you. Feel free to continue. I like debate. It’s healthy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
And lets not forget, when I say men are more expendable, I mean generally, averaged out over a large enough population group, (and this is important) in context of our evolutionary history! Things are a little different in the modern world. One man, an Einstein type for instance, may be worth saving over thousands and thousands of females. Many specific men, and some specific women, are worth (yes I place value on things, sue me) thousands of little baby girls. But when a group goes to war, or does something very dangerous or risky, you don’t send your baby factories. Those baby factories make more war heroes and explorers and geniuses to replace the ones you may end up loosing in your gamble.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Jabberwocky:
R: “I was speaking in terms of fitness within a species, and so was Darwin. Besides, I’m pretty sure that the term, “bacteria” is the genus, and therefore contains more than one species.”
J: Sorry, let me rephrase. I could argue that evolutionarily, bacteria is more fit than primates. Or something like that. (I gotta watch my metaphors for scientific accuracy I guess.)
R: This is less important. The only time we need worry about the success of bacteria is when we have an infection or they are interfering with our source of food. Bacteria are not plotting our downfall, therefore we should focus our attention on the attitude and behaviour of other humans who can and do threaten our survival in more immediate and dangerous ways. Of course, I’m speaking of the ruling classes and their deleterious plans for the rest of us. And that includes you, Jabberwocky. You may sound like them at times, but you are not one of them. Some people like to aspire to a higher class but there is no “room at the top”, everyone’s status was decided long ago.
R: “Once you say things like that, you start placing values on human lives.”
J: Are you saying they have no value? Or that all their values are exactly the same? Either way, I disagree.
R: I’m saying why place values on human lives at all? It’s possible for us all to live in a lawful and sustainable manner. Nature has provided everything humans could possibly need. Only the greedy are dissatisfied and only the greedy wage war. Once we remove the greedy and their entourage of psychopaths, a fair society prevails and the concept of the relative expendibility of humans is largely retired. I say largely, because we should not make any room in our fair society for those that will not obey the law or live in sustainably. These types are parasites and therefore expendable in every sense.
R: “Just because men are capable of sacrificing themselves when absolutely necessary does not men their lives are less important or they are “more expendable”, which means the same thing, despite your protest.”
J: Something that is ‘expendable’ can be the ‘most important’ thing. Don’t conflate two words that have specific definitions. (Oil is expendable for example. We don’t save it, we burn it.) There is great value and honor in sacrifice for the greater good. In Sparta, you got no grave marker unless you died in combat. For women to get a grave marker, they had to die in childbirth. There is a reason we send young men to war before anyone else; they are the most capable for war, and unfortunately expendable. We don’t send scientists or engineers or generals to the front lines, or women and children for that matter. That does not mean they are not heroes and of immense value or of deserving infinite respect. It’s just the hard, cold truth of reality. A tribe/society/culture can get by best having lost a large chunk of it’s young men more so than adults with accumulated skills and knowledge and/or women capable of helping the population rebound. You can’t argue with such a long pattern of human behavior. Tradition is accumulated wisdom expressed more through behavior than understanding. That does not mean it might not be time for this to change.
R: There was no conflation on my part. Expendable can mean sacrifice or not considered worth preserving. Men may lay down their lives voluntarily, but it’s obvious to any observer of modern society that men are expendable in the second sense of the word. Why are so many men in prison? Why do more men commit suicide? Why do more men lose their children after divorce? There are many questions like this that show just how expendable men are deemed in society and it has nothing to do with sacrifice.
J: A lot of the rest of what you are saying is taking what I said out of the context of the realities in which our species evolved, ie. the past. The last 300 years has given us a new technological/scientific environment that we exist in, and we have had little time to genetically or culturally evolve for it. My statements are based on how evolution has molded us in the past, and how this molded the differences between men and women. It is the evolutionary history that speaks to our present human traits. Nothing I said is incorrect as far as I am aware. Male expendability compared to women is evolutionary fact for most species. It is simple reproductive math. Your genetic diversity argument would only apply to very tiny population sizes, and even then, probably less so than than you would think. That does not mean a man is worth less because he is worth less reproductively. A man’s sacrifice may make him the most worthy man in history for instance. The fact that men are expendable in many ways makes us more valuable to ‘progress’, to the broader evolution of ‘culture’ and ‘society’ at large. If you want an easier life, it’s best to choose to be a female. If you want to take risks that may have huge payouts for yourself and maybe mankind itself, I’d start with being a male. Unfortunately, that puts you in a more precarious position. I callz em az I seez em.
R: That’s because I’m not concerned with evolution. In fact most of what you post is irrelevant to the modern age that we live in. There are dangerous jobs that need doing, and men are usually the ones doing them. Because as I say, men are assertive in times of action, not because they are expendable. They have never been expendable. Perhaps, people in the past have thought so, because they were living in a primitive and unfair society. We still live in an unfair society but it’s the modern ages; it’s time to update our “beliefs”. Unfortunately, men have been deemed even more expendable in the 21st century. Feminists think men are so expendable they should not even live in the proportion that nature has decreed, roughly 50%. This is the inevitable result of believing men are expendable in the first place. In the advent of abortion technologies and propaganda, male expendability is looking more like genocide.
R: It’s contradictory to believe men are expendable and at the same time honour the fallen. I know it feels good to honour the dead because they died for something they *believed* was bigger than themselves, but the terms “expendability” and “respect”, seem difficult to reconcile. It’s like saying, “when you were alive, I considered you expendable and not that important but now your dead, I respect you.” Maybe you respected them before they died but society doesn’t seem to. Why else do veterans have such a hard time? How come they don’t get housing, and rehabilitation when they need it? Because society doesn’t care; why would it? They think men are expendable. If society does care in general about men, then why does this website exist? Why does PAN have no problem finding off-topic links to “news”-sites reporting injustices to men?
R:I’m grateful to all people that do jobs necessary in a fair society, no matter the level of skill required. Does it mean I like everyone? No, I don’t. But I am aware that the people who do the difficult jobs can only do so because they are living in a productive and stable society (not so much, these days). The people who think they’re at the top, should remember this, for I would say to them: it’s difficult to be an engineer when you’re hungry because no-one produced any food or a surgeon performing an operation when there is no electricity because no-one mined the fuel or manned the power stations. Where does your trash go? Who deals with your shit when you flush it away? Where is your humility? You are just human like the rest of us. Take your place in the wall. Only a fool questions which brick is more important. And right now we are a sorry excuse for a wall.
J: And lets not forget, when I say men are more expendable, I mean generally, averaged out over a large enough population group, (and this is important) in context of our evolutionary history! Things are a little different in the modern world. One man, an Einstein type for instance, may be worth saving over thousands and thousands of females. Many specific men, and some specific women, are worth (yes I place value on things, sue me) thousands of little baby girls. But when a group goes to war, or does something very dangerous or risky, you don’t send your baby factories. Those baby factories make more war heroes and explorers and geniuses to replace the ones you may end up loosing in your gamble.
R: You’re trying to temper the word “expendable”; you can’t; it’s Pandora’s box.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with everything you say, it’s just that Iife contradicts you. If women are just “baby factories”, why doesn’t our society reflect it? Why are they deemed superior to men? Why aren’t they even having babies? The birth rate in white countries is less than 2.1, which is the minimum required for sustaining the population numbers. That means less “geniuses”. If they’re not having babies then they are not valuable, to use your logic. Neither are old women, or barren women. They make just as good cannon fodder as any man. And if it is a “large population group”, and borrowing your attitude, what’s a few women anyway?
R: Childless women is not unsurprising in a society that believes men are expendable in the first place. When life is cheap, why even create it in the first place? In case you think the world is overpopulated and low births are not such a bad thing, consider that the white race is less that 10% of the world population. If it is overpopulated, it is not the fault of the white race. Anyone that suggests that whites should maintain a low birth rate or implement measures to make it so, is genocidal. I’m not saying that your opinions are based on the same motives as the ruling classes but it doesn’t matter, you can’t influence them. You may follow them to a point and then draw a line, but when they go beyond that line, what then? A lot of politicians are pondering the same question, and they are obviously not coping too well otherwise we wouldn’t be in such a mess. It’s called a “slippery slope”, for a reason.
R: I don’t really have anything else to add. I think our disagreement on the expendability of men is rooted in our very different attitudes to what constitutes an acceptable society. I think your attitude leads to a one-world-government, whether you like it or not, because you cannot help but give power to the same kind of people that have it, today. My society does not put women or “geniuses” on a pedestal. The laws are fair and bind all, and life is sustainable. For external enemies, we have the nuclear deterrent, and for internal enemies, we have vigilance and education (not indoctrination). Incidentally, I don’t think people are equal. We have different minds so it’s impossible to be equal. But, we are all equal in our desire to live in a fair society, so we must take our place in the wall. If the wall isn’t good enough for some people (not you Jabberwocky), then you don’t deserve, what I call “gravity privileges”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’m not making any point other than just pointing out the evolved differences between men and women. As I said before, biologically speaking, men have historically been more expendable to a population group because of simple reproductive math. Masculine traits have evolved to take this into account; risk taking, competitiveness, a stronger body in favor of a stronger immune system, a Y chromosome that creates more genetic experimentation, etc. have developed so that men can be bold, take risks, and make great things happen at the cost a having a lower chance of making it to old age. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with science. Just because this is true does not mean I believe it completely applies to the modern realities of life, but simply put, to understand our present and future we must understand our past, especially as that applies to the evolution of our genetics, biochemistry, psychologies, and sex traits. Men and women are different. I’m just explaining how some of those differences came about. I’m not making moral or ethical arguments. Nature doesn’t care about philosophical debates such as these, just survival, and all things being equal, it rather sacrifice a male over a female when a population group’s survival depends in part on population size.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Interesting post. I’ve had some correspondence with Simpson over the years. I read Anti-Gay but skipped Male Impersonators. He’s generally a good guy, but it grates on me that he seems to rush to point out straight men “acting like gay men” to the point that it sometimes seems to be his reason for existing. I find that kind of rude…like he’s trying to emasculate guys who really aren’t always on the same page. Most guys are not David Beckham.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Jabberwocky is 100% correct. Male expandability is the root cause of everything we talk about here on the Spearhead, and why:
- the male suicide rate is 4 to 1 over females and nobody cares
- men die earlier than women and nobody cares
- we send hordes of men to die in wars
- men suffer countless injustices daily and nobody gives a shit
I’ve said before, until the concept and consequences of the reproductive value imbalance between men and women becomes part of mainstream thought, we will be spinning our wheels forever. I don’t have much faith in humanity, we’re generally idiots, present company excluded.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
expandability should be expendability. i make a typo in every post i make. EVERY POST.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Great post, QRG.
Just curious: this article was the first time I ever saw any confirmation anywhere of a view I’ve long harbored quietly and wished to explore further, namely that, in contrast with the notion that men ‘dominate’ women (give me a fucking break), women actually hold the greater share of interpersonal power, as demonstrated by… the way men basically capitulate to women all the fucking time and do whatever they’re told (on that note I hardly know whom to despise more, American men or American women). Tom Martin suggests there is research corroborating this. Has anyone ever encountered this research, and does anyone know where I might read it myself? I would be fascinated to understand this dynamic more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
Just a further note… I’m sick and fucking tired of reading men’s rights magazines. Not that they’re to blame; the last thing I want is to see them go. It’s just that I’m really dying to start seeing more action like the kind Tom Martin is taking, and see it succeeding. The one thing I always think when I’m reading MRM articles is, “So when can we get the party started?”
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
hi David
There are a lot of comments under this article by Martin to wade through, but I think he includes some links to the research in there somewhere:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias#start-of-comments
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
Hi, QRG and all: Yes, he does. His comment can be found on the bottom of page 10 of the comment section (Tom Martin, 9/14/11 3:41 pm). For anyone who is interested, he writes:
“To all those complaining about my lack of references in this article, here are a few:
Men and Women in Interaction – Reconsidering the Differences (Aries, E. 1996, Oxford) – provides meta analysis of research showing women elect men to positions of ‘dominance’. Excerpts are not available on the internet, so you’ll need to order the book.
Goodwin and Rudman (2004) research, shows women say four times more negative hostile sexist things about men than men do about women. Again, you will need to read the research paper itself, as the abstract and associated articles on the internet, downplay the full extent of the problem in order to make it more palatable to a victim-feminist readership.
Finally, for anyone still in denial about the extent of female on male violence, see
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: May 2011
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: May 2011
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.
This video summarizes the problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL1B32E01C0A996AC5
It would be great to see some high profile feminists support this case. Let’s see.
www dot sexismbusters dot org for fighting fund.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
Tom Martin is striking at the snake’s head. What are those critical of him doing? This is similar to the Mary Daly case, but on much larger scale. http://deltabravo.net/custody/daly.php
The hypocrisy is pretty astounding.
“In other words, feminism suggests that taking an active interest in men and masculinity is ‘gay’ in itself.”
Astute observation. Is it a projection of the homosexual women that are a vanguard of radical feminism?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Hi all
sorry for the delay but here is Male Impersonators by Mark Simpson, released on Amazon Kindle. It is well worth buying and reading!
http://www.amazon.com/Male-Impersonators-Performing-Masculinity-ebook/dp/B006K5ZMNE/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1323790873&sr=1-1
Thanks
QRG
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
{ 2 trackbacks }