A meditation on projection

As we are in the midst of a holy festival, it’s time to contemplate ageless Christian wisdom. In particular, Matthew 7:3:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Now, what does this have to do with my favourite topic of the New Misogynists?

Well, I’ve observed that members of the Manosphere often exhibit the very same negative traits they claim to see in women. Women are, according to their philosophy, rather stupid, solipsistic, bitchy and vain. Women are also terrible gossips and anywhere they go, drama is certain to follow.

This is textbook projection. Men going “tear down women’s rights because I’m not getting enough sex! Me! Me! Me!” is the very definition of solipsism, for example.

As for women being responsible for drama!

Blimey!

Gentlemen, have you listened to yourselves?!

The manosphere is undergoing something of a Stalinist purge right now. One of its female members got too big and too popular for some of them to tolerate, so they’re busy tearing her apart. People have lined up in factions and are sniping at each other from different blogs and the whole thing is – as one of them remarked – like a circular firing squad.

Oh well, it’s hardly surprising. Most movements based on resentment and grievance fall apart pretty quickly, unless they have some heroic ideal to elevate them. Which the manosphere most definitely does not.

But various members are enjoying the spectacle of one of their own being attacked tremendously, like beggars warming their hands by the flames of a burning house. Two minor manosphere bloggers in particular are rushing from blog to blog, leaving comments everywhere they can, like old gossips twitching lace curtains and then ringing everyone they know to spread the news. They don’t seem to realise that the same viciousness being trained on someone else can easily be turned on them.

Which is why they write comments like this one:

“Since gossip and deceit do so much damage there should be penalties for this predominantly female vice. As wanton physical violence is punishable by jail so should a similar treatment be given to gossip and other female vices that entails abuse of the vast social power that women possess as it is with the abuse of male physical power… The hidden insidious corrosive nature of the destructive feminine has not be dealt with and has so far rotted the manosphere from within.”

Gossip a predominantly female vice, you say?

Deserving jail time, you say?

Mote, beam, pot, kettle…

Happy Easter.

 

 

 

 

A misandry challenge

Got an interesting comment this morning, from Apollyon911, who says:

“…I think the concern over ‘misogyny’ is a little rich. There is no shortage of ‘mainstream’ sites that qualify as ‘misandry’ (Jezebel is one for example).

I’m sure some of the commenters are bitter. Some of it self-inflicted. Some of it is not however. The world can be quite cruel (esp. to men on the lower rungs of the socio-sexual hierarchy). But, when I come across various sites that are ‘male bashing’ no one screams ‘misandry’ (except for the manosphere). Strange that.”

Well, hatred in all its forms is corrosive. So if there are sites out there that are hating on men, bring ‘em over here and we’ll analyse/fisk them. But first, some ground rules:

1. They have to be from mainstream sites. I can’t be arsed using my time to rebut some crazy person on Reddit, or someone who writes an obscure blog. When I say ‘mainstream’, I mean either from big media, from academia, or from any kind of organisation, or a blog with reasonably high traffic. If you can find a misandrist equivalent to Return of Kings, or a site where four women are getting together to bash men, bring it over. Obscure blogs with no readers will not get a Bodycrimes Result, however vicious.

2. To qualify as misandry that’s equivalent to the misogyny put out by the manosphere, the piece needs to show the following properties: it has to portray all men in a negative light. It has to portray them as limited, one-dimensional and slightly less than human. Bonus points if you can find a piece that advises the reader on how to exploit men.

3. Advertising is an acceptable entry. If you want to link to a YouTube video that shows men looking dumb in commercials, feel free.

4. The piece has to be contemporary. No recycling of 1970s manifestos about cutting up men, or second wave feminist screeds about how all men are rapists.

5. Finally, just to reiterate, to qualify as misandry, your piece has to apply to all men. What makes the misogyny sites so toxic is they are pretending to offer universal insights into women generally. They show women as one-dimensional herd creatures, with little agency, individuality and no function outside of providing sex and housekeeping. So it’s only interesting for the purposes of this exercise, if your chosen piece demeans ALL men, or a significant population of men.

Right then. Hatred, discrimination and cruelty in all its forms should be exposed, so bring it on.

Internet drama

What would we do without it?

It’s like experiencing high school, all over again. Except at a safe distance.

PS: I’ve said before that when it comes to the Manosphere, they’re all projecting. Female solipsism? The manosphere writers are the most self-absorbed. Bitchiness? Look to the men. The bitchiness of the men involved in this is astounding. Not just the original blogger, but all the hangers-on who have either shuttered their blogs temporarily, pulled posts, deleted people from their blog rolls or spent time rushing from blog to blog leaving comments. Sad gits. All because they’re jealous of the attention a particular woman is getting.

They should all be embarrassed.

Does misogyny cause reading problems?

I’ve been so busy lately I’ve mostly stopped reading Manosphere websites, much to the relief of Mr BC. But this morning I received an email about an article, so I went and took a look. The article in question confirmed my opinion, once again, that hard-core misogynists have something of a reading problem.

They want so badly to believe whatever it is that they’re reading is true, that they literally fail to comprehend what’s right in front of them.

The article in question is ‘Women Can’t Control Their Animal Instincts’ over at Return of Kings.com, written by one ‘raywolf’. Basically, the article is your common-or-garden women-hating tripe. Raywolf starts with an anecdote about how a pet lioness took a swipe at someone, to establish the fact that women can’t be trusted, and then he starts riffing on how women have had a negative impact on his own life.

None of his anecdotes make him look good. He details a broken marriage that was partly based on him marrying someone so he could get a diplomatic passport. (Thus proving he was much too young and dumb to marry, as he evidently didn’t realise – and perhaps still doesn’t – that the only non-spousal family members who can get an ‘A1′ passport are legal dependents a.k.a. children.) Then he talks about being taken advantage of by a flaky flatmate, and then about his relationship with a psycho woman who compelled him to make poor business decisions, which is why he missed out on being part of the global enterprise his former business partner then went on to build.

In other words, RayWolf is the last person any young man with prospects should be taking life advice from. Still, readers were quick to congratulate him on writing such an insightful and helpful article, as RoK readers are wont to do.

And then the weird thing happened.

A commenter called ‘Ruler’ came along and wrote this:

Men are gods and women are less than soulless beasts. But men are partly controlled by biology as well, in the matter of sex, as raywolf says. While rape where a male is the victim is a monstrous, unnatural act, men have a deep-seated, completely natural, biological need to rape girls and women, and should never be shamed or punished for this basic male right and need…

Now that’s some hard core misogyny right there! So hard core, that it even upset some RoK readers, who took ‘Ruler’ to task for advocating rape. This is RayWolf’s reply:

you have to be careful how you word statements like this….. the original point of a marriage contract was to show the women had offered herself up to the man, as and when he felt like it….. thus a man could basically force himself on his woman….. and women do actually like that kind of thing in the right context…..

princesses were married off because it suited the politics of the day, and essentially their new husband ‘raped’ them on their wedding night…. (so much for the Disney princess fantasy…. ) but after a while the woman got experienced and grew to like it….

but none of this means you can go trolling the streets at night for pretty young things…… NO WAY!.

In other words – way back when, aristocrats regularly raped one another, to their mutual satisfaction. But that doesn’t mean us plebs today could or should do it!

Nothing daunted, Ruler cheerfully responds by saying:

OK, good point. Don’t rape. But it is every man’s biological need to force sex on girls of his choosing, teaching her that she is less than nothing and is only here to serve men. And I am clearly not a troll, as I am only repeating what many on here have said, just mistakenly used the word “rape”.

See what Ruler did just then? Outed himself/herself as a troll. S/he gives it away right smack in the middle of a clearly sarcastic comment. At least one reader did understand it was a troll at work. And RayWolf was promptly called out at least once for suggesting that women grow to like forced sex, which is somewhat heartening to see.

RayWolf should have stopped at that point. The conversation was getting close to advocating violence and some readers were clearly uneasy. But RayWolf didn’t pick up on the tone. Which led him to write this:

actually [forced sex] works brilliantly and i’ve tried it with girlfriends…. you obviously have to know them well, but forcing yourself on them, and forcing yourself inside her when she’s still tight, dry and trying to resist makes for great sex, and is very alpha….

the marriage contract was originally all about this act… AND… in my opinion the reason that most LTRs fail is because men don’t have the balls to do this more often… although admittedly it can be hard if she’s in a boner killing mood…..

Oh dear. Tricked into revealing his unsavoury sexual practices by someone who was obviously a troll.

Just why are young men taking advice from this man again?

 

Daily Mail is back on women hating form! (Amended hypocrite edition.)

I’ve fallen out of love with the Daily Mail this past few months. There have been too many recycled stories about people losing dramatic amounts of weight. Too many articles picking over the latest fashions from M&S, wondering if they’re better or worse than last season.

And not enough of the “I’m a bitch and I hate women” stories they specialise in. I’ve had to turn to the much-less-fun Manosphere for my daily frisson of outrage.

But the Daily Mail is hitting back! Maybe it’s found its mojo again now that spring is here, or maybe they’ve come to their editorial senses. Whatever has happened, there is some prime women-on-women hate starting to trickle back to their website.

For example, writer Helena Powell has breathlessly revealed to the world that… she wants to be a stay-at-home mum.

So what? I hear you chorusing.

So what indeed. Basically, she finds that staying home to look after her three kids is both  more rewarding and less stressful than juggling a demanding job and three kids simultaneously.

No, really. She presents the idea that combining kids and career is thankless and hard, as though it’s some kind of astounding  revelation. She adds that she’s discovered she really enjoys being at home with her kids, as though she’s unique. All those other mothers out there apparently really hate being  around their own children.

Here’s a news flash: there is a reason why the ‘lottery fantasy’ is so ubiquitous around the world. I’ve worked internationally, and let me tell you, everybody everywhere plays the same game.

It goes like this: you win the lottery and never have to work again. What is the first thing you do with the money?

Universal chorus, from both men and women: go into work and tell them to stick their job.

Let’s face it, it’s a minority of people who put work at the centre of their lives voluntarily. Most people want a balance. Those who are driven to value work above everything else tend to be workaholics avoiding relationships, workaholics addicted to money, or people who have a vocation (they were called to be a nun, or a doctor, or an inventor or an artist etc). Well balanced types who don’t have a great gift or vocation, would streak out the office door if they could, either never to return, or to return part time. They’d use the increased time to look after their children, write their novel, or travel the world. Many people, if asked what they would miss about work, would tell you it’s the people they work with that they value, rather than the work itself.

What’s so irritating about these stay-at-home-mother versus working-mother articles, is that their real purpose is to pit women against one another. According to Ms Powell, not only are her children happier because she’s home, but she can see that children generally are happier when Mum doesn’t work. (See what she did there? Imply that working women are neglecting their kids.) What she doesn’t explore, however, is why so many women work when they’d prefer to be with their children. All those little problems like finances, and the very real impact that taking time away will have on your career and earning potential, and the isolation and loneliness that modern women can face when they’re at home all day, get swept under the carpet. Instead of coming up with suggestions for how we could structure society to serve the family rather than atomise it, it’s just so much easier to rubbish other women.

Of course, she sneaks in at the end of the article that she too must return to the world of work, despite her wealthy husband, to give her children the educational advantages she wants for them. But she tries to get herself off the hook she’s hoisted other women on, by adding that she’ll be doing PR work from home. I hope she doesn’t mind her clients reading that – she’s implying that the work she plans on delivering to them isn’t “real” work as far as she’s concerned. Any contractor with an attitude like that certainly wouldn’t get my business.

But then, like many people, I need actual results. Because I haven’t won lotto yet.

Oh well, there’s always the Daily Mail to keep me entertained until I do.

PS I went to the lady in question’s website, and it seems her article doesn’t quite cover everything. She moved to Abu Dhabi and seems to have been conflicted about being a SAHM, as you’ll see by her reaction when someone offered her a job:

I have brought the lovely Jemma who used to work with me at M along with me and together we are plotting the next few issues. At the moment Masquerade is quarterly, but it will go bi-monthly from next year and monthly from 2014.
It is strange, much as I loved having time off and being a lady of leisure I could see, even after only a couple of weeks, how dull it would eventually become. I am really enjoying coming up with feature ideas, planning the future of the magazine and working with freelancers I had to let go unceremoniously when M was closed.
So no more lady of leisure, but I am a happier lady, and very much looking forward to helping to create the Condé Nast of the Middle East.

Hmmmm….

(italics mine)

What leads to feminism?

I had an interesting discussion with some Scandinavians last night. My dining companions included a Swede, a Dane, and a couple of Norwegians. It was balmy and we were sitting outside, close to some Roman ruins. Someone remarked that it’s hard to believe sometimes that modern Italians are descended from the Romans, whose incredible discipline and administrative ability allowed them to conquer the world.

Which brought the conversation round to Vikings. How did it happen that the Scandinavian countries are today models of peace, prosperity and social equality, when their ancestors were some of the most brutal marauders in history?

The ideas began to flow.

For a start, there is something about pirate activity that leads to a type of brotherhood and equality, for the simple reason that pirates have to become very good at pulling together and watching each other’s backs if they’re going to survive.

Oddly enough, one of the most important roles on a pirate ship is that of an accountant, because someone has to work out how to parcel out loot in a way that will make everybody happy. This isn’t an easy task, if you think about it.

Say you’re part of a band of Viking raiders, who have captured a British monastery stuffed with treasure. How are you going to divide things that are fundamentally indivisible, like valuable tapestries and art? This is where your accountant comes in. Sometimes you might get less, but next time you’ll get more. And thus is an economic philosophy of fairness born.

Not only that, but when you have a whole society engaged in pillage, you’ve set up a situation where the men will be away during an important time of the year. It’s the women left at home who have to keep everything running, including keeping the farm going. If they don’t, the whole thing falls apart. So power and prestige begins to accrue to women and becomes part of the culture.

The Vikings were a historically unique band of pirates, for a number of other reasons. But some of this dynamic was at play once again in World War II, when women had to take over the running of society while the vast majority of men were away fighting. It took less than 20 years from the end of that war for women to have won equal rights under the law.

Highly militarised societies aren’t necessarily good for women – women in Rome didn’t have any particular power or prestige. But it’s also not historically accurate to claim, as some have, that history shows women are ‘meant’ to be wives and mothers only and that feminism has artificially disrupted these natural roles. It turns out that whether women have prestige and agency or not depends an awful lot on the social choices people make, not on fixed and unchanging biology.