Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:35 PM Mar 2013

...Just don't suggest that "Misandry" is actually, you know, a thing.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/heads-men-win-tails-women-lose/

Direct quotes:


"we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so."

"men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it"


The comments are even better:


Refusing to birth any new male children seems like a much more sensible start. Overpopulation and the resource scarcity that goes along with overpopulation beget more violence, not less, no matter how much reformist activating takes place. I therefore think that population reduction, and specifically a reduction in new male births, is a better path forward.

If every woman on earth refused to birth any new men from this point forward, male violence would actually completely end within 100 years. Can any type of reformist activating hope to be as effective within the same time period?

***

I had the same idea eons ago, except that I thought about giving the boys away to male caretakers on their first birthdays. I also thought of an extremely controversial idea to try and prevent adult males from being larger and stronger than adult females, based on something I read about the nutrition of the first year of a child’s life being determinative of whether or not that child would reach maximum size and strength. Based on that, I thought of reducing the total caloric intake of the male child (and increasing that of the female) during year one, to much outrage, so I panned the idea. My idea was that we could reduce or eliminate the physical discrepancy between adult males and females and at the same time reduce the level of women’s attachment to their male offspring by a) their realization of the necessity of the caloric reduction and b) the early relinquishment of the boys, at age 1.

***

well thats interesting isnt it — dont starve them, just dont let them reach their full potential.

***

That doesn’t mean there can’t be more women than men. That would likely improve things quite a bit. The question is what to do with them that keeps them from inflicting themselves on us.







The parts about deliberately under-feeding (but not "starving", oh no) male babies -along with "reducing any attachment to them" was particularly barf-worthy.
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
...Just don't suggest that "Misandry" is actually, you know, a thing. (Original Post) Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 OP
This is just lunacy. MrSlayer Mar 2013 #1
Oh, absolutely. These people are off in the happy hills with the wee folk. Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #2
Yes, it's not brilliant satire. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #6
"They shouldn't be confused with actual, mainstream feminists" Bonobo Mar 2013 #4
Would the people in question call themselves feminists? lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #5
neofeminism sigmasix Mar 2013 #3
neofeminist? more like anachrofeminist Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2013 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Mar 2013 #8
Unlocking. I think this is important given the discussion of "MRA views" and the like in GD. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #9
Here are some FACTS. I invite everyone concerned to "fact check me"- get it? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #10
-continued- .. so why is this relevant? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #11
No, no, no.. remember.. opiate69 Apr 2013 #12
my favorite is when the people who consistently break the most basic site rules Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #13
Yep.. and I`m seeing a fuckton of "DU sux" lately.. opiate69 Apr 2013 #15
Bashing Skinner seems to be a hobby as well Hayabusa Apr 2013 #14
Wow theKed Apr 2013 #18
Magnum opus. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #20
last time around, the blogger known as "sargasso sea" came back... as "sargasso sea" Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #21
Part #3: okay, so we're not supposed to notice what the comments, there, say. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #16
Didn't you hear? opiate69 Apr 2013 #17
So if the poster who made the reference to the comments wants to clairfy, this would be a good place Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #19
 

MrSlayer

(22,143 posts)
1. This is just lunacy.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:50 PM
Mar 2013

No one is going to do any of these idiotic things. Most people in real life don't give a shit about any of these issues, they just go about their lives like normal people.

I show my completely non-political wife some of these ideas and she just rolls her eyes, the uber-feminist man haters are just a fringe group like teabaggers and anarchists. No one cares what they think. They shouldn't be confused with actual, mainstream feminists who merely want to be treated fairly and equally.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
2. Oh, absolutely. These people are off in the happy hills with the wee folk.
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:56 PM
Mar 2013

Still, it's vile, horrible bigotry which should be called out IMHO. Definitely not celebrated with a wink, a nod, or a "smile".

Nazis, Fred Phelps's gang... they're crazy, hate-filled minorities; but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized. Certainly no one would promote their ideas or blogs on a progressive site such as this.

And no, I most absolutely do not confuse these ramblings with anything resembling real "Feminism", mainstream or no, of which I consider myself a member.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
4. "They shouldn't be confused with actual, mainstream feminists"
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 10:27 PM
Mar 2013

That is EXACTLY what my brilliant, strong, 18 year old feminist daughter says.

She says they are not real feminists and I agree.

Their main defining characteristic is over-the-top, clownish attention grabbing, embittered rhetoric-spewing.

It has as much to do with feminism as chicken mcnuggets has to do with fried chicken.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
5. Would the people in question call themselves feminists?
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 10:23 AM
Mar 2013

It really doesn't matter what I'd call them. In my experience, they'd consider themselves qualified to opine definitively about feminism and what feminists believe.

sigmasix

(794 posts)
3. neofeminism
Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:47 PM
Mar 2013

This disgusting peon to hatred and child abuse is authored by someone claiming to be a feminist- I would suggest the use of the word "neofeminist" when describing these sort of extremists. Feminism is just like any other human endeavor; there is always going to be evil individuals looking for an opportunity to advance thier evil.
And there should be no questions about whether this sort of crap is evil- unless neofeminist hatred for humans with testicles is your position.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
7. neofeminist? more like anachrofeminist
Sun Mar 17, 2013, 05:44 PM
Mar 2013

These attitudes are a relic of the 1970's when these beliefs might have at their peak had several thousand true believers. What remains today is a handful of mostly geriatric crackpots who have found an outlet to connect with one another online.

To equate this with feminism, or even many of the tangents the HoFer's launch themselves on with feminism as it would be defined to most women is disingenuous.

Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
10. Here are some FACTS. I invite everyone concerned to "fact check me"- get it?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:42 PM
Apr 2013

Transparency and Sunlight are the worst enemy of the repeat disruptor, disingenuous game-player, and troll.

One, the bloggers over at radfem hub- with which the FCM blog is intimately affiliated, are a very small, insular group. Members, in particular one of the members commenting in the comment thread linked above, have repeatedly admitted in their own blog to a particular obsession with trolling DU, repeatedly coming back under a series of usernames, despite being banned "so many times" for things like transphobic bigotry. Which, again, is a theme over at radfem hub, the affiliated FCM blog, etc.

Upon returning, that same repeat disruptor has been repeatedly protected and defended by several members of this site, even after those members have been informed of their identity and after they have made additional bigoted comments. This, again, is all part of the record.

The FCM blog, along with the comments in the OP, was linked to on DU. It wasn't just the comments, but the post itself that contained seriously objectionable material. It was locked after the material was pointed out, however the history around the blog and its affiliates has been well known, as they were a source of MAJOR disruption, explored in detail in meta. It is also worth n the offending comments were not some random outlier- instead, they were echoed and commented upon ("interesting&quot by the blogger in question. And nowhere in that comment thread, nor in the prior discussions on the "idea", did ANYONE go "holy fuck, that's some sick shit, what are you thinking, barf!" --- but, rather, there was some sad grousing that such "important proposals" couldn't be discussed because they were considered by the less-enlightened to be "controversial", sigh.

-Continued-

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
11. -continued- .. so why is this relevant?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:42 PM
Apr 2013

because these games, around repeat disruptors, zombies, sock puppets and yes, the ever-popular "shared account" where a password is passed around like a note in the back of the class...

....they've been going on for a long time, on DU. They were known about on DU2. One good thing about the experiment which was meta, was that it allowed some very good documentation on these things to be done out in the open.

(In keeping with the idea that DU members are here to be "educated", right?)

So the radfem hub community is, maybe, 10 people tops. One or two of whom has repeatedly admitted to an obsession with trolling DU. The views and statements of the radfem hub bloggers, including the FCM blogger, are likewise well known. Again, to pretend that the extreme stuff in the comments of that one post are an outlier, are ridiculous- especially when at the top of her page right now there is an anti-trans post, and one of her favorite topics to rail on is the idea that women can't possibly ever enjoy intercourse with males, and any feelings women may have for men are merely a result of "trauma bonding".

To argue that any of this material belongs on DU, ever, is ridiculous- especially since, like I said, the history around this group is well known, as they were behind several very large meta threads last year. Likewise, given the fact that very few people pay attention to this group outside themselves, it's a little disingenuous to imagine that it's falling from the sky as "important internet Feminist commentary". If people think it's a coincidence that the material shows up repeatedly just like the repeat disruptors do, I have a bridge to sell them.

And if people are flailing all over themselves- again- to pretend that things like exposing blog posts where zombies and socks brag about repeatedly disrupting DU is somehow "overzealous troll hunting" like a dog with a bone... right, give me a break.

Or maybe ask why that is.

The dog part might be right.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
13. my favorite is when the people who consistently break the most basic site rules
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 07:55 PM
Apr 2013

like, oh, no pretending to be multiple people, don't come back over and over and get banned, etc. fall back upon or otherwise demand that the rules of the site be modified to their specifications.

I mean, if you clearly don't give a shit about the rules in the first place, why care? (Oh, right, the rules are for those other people).... and even more importantly, if you despise the place so much, why keep coming back?

 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
15. Yep.. and I`m seeing a fuckton of "DU sux" lately..
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:24 PM
Apr 2013

Mostly from posters who are prolific in helping make it suck, IMHO.

Hayabusa

(2,135 posts)
14. Bashing Skinner seems to be a hobby as well
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:12 PM
Apr 2013

from what I've seen, in your links and elsewhere. Hostile takeover in the works.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
20. Magnum opus.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:29 PM
Apr 2013

Thanks Warren.

It'd be interesting to see who was banned between May 25th 2012 and June 1st 2012 and forward that information to MIRT.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
21. last time around, the blogger known as "sargasso sea" came back... as "sargasso sea"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:17 PM
Apr 2013

so it's not even like they're trying to hide it.

If I were admin- and I'm not- I'd take a look at who on the MIRT team was still objecting to banning that person, this recent last time around: after it was definitively pointed out with several pieces of evidence that they were the same massively disruptive entity who was repeatedly banned for shit like transphobia, before.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
16. Part #3: okay, so we're not supposed to notice what the comments, there, say.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:35 PM
Apr 2013

Except, in the now-locked thread, there is a post that says how great the blog is, particularly the comments.

Well, a good 70% of those comments are dedicated to tossing around this "what do we do about men and particularly male babies" football.

And this post- yes, a post here on DU- says "this makes me smile" "particularly the comments", along with something about how if "those men" could read and understand (because apparently we can't) "the comments, they would really be panic-stricken".

wink wink nudge nudge.

Well, guess what. People took the invitation, and read- and even understood- the comments.

 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
17. Didn't you hear?
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 11:31 PM
Apr 2013

Misandry's not a real, you know.. Thing, because it's not recognized by most spellcheck programs...

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
19. So if the poster who made the reference to the comments wants to clairfy, this would be a good place
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:29 PM
Apr 2013

to do so.

Just so we're all very, very clear as to what was said:

This makes me smile.

For the past few days on DU there has been a frantic effort to suppress a discussion of benevolent sexism by making fun of it and changing the subject to doors.

If all those men read the post and comments at your link and could understand even a portion of the conversation they would really be panic-stricken.


Thanks for posting.




Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»...Just don't suggest tha...