MRA Manplainy Man: Men are Violent, Competitive Hate-Mongers

Some gamergater/MRA left this comment on my blog yesterday.

Year late. Leaving this for future readers.
You have to realize that boys will never not be competitive.

Men are not women. Men do not want peace, equality, or social harmony. Men do not even crave deep friendship. Men replace their social minds with a penchant for throwing spears really well. Men don’t sit around and build society. They build the buildings society (women) inhabits and then go leave to kill something. Then they kill other men so their preferred women can have more houses to live in. They are violent, and they will always fight among themselves. They are born like that, and they LIKE it

It sounds great at first – men without dominance struggles! So much suffering eliminated! Mens lives will be better! But it’s unattainable unless you pump male fetuses full of so much estrogen that they will develop into women, but with the wrong set of gonads.

Men must be allowed to fight and be “toxic”, or else they will truly become toxic. They must have safe outlets for competition, hatred, and superiority, and those outlets must be fair so nobody ends up as a suicidal elliot rogers seeking revenge for being born “inferior” while trying to believe themselves superior.

Men need male friends. Men need male-only spaces. Men need sports, tag, dodgeball, and debate club. Men need to be something that completely offends women to the core in a place where women don’t have to look at it.

Men are basically dogs. When you adopt a husky, it will destroy your house if you do not give it an outlet for constant play. A man is a dog. The dog needs to be walked. The human woman may not like walking for two miles every day or pointlessly throwing a ball, and may think that typical dog activities are too dangerous for the poor pooch, but if the dog is not exercised it will destroy her house.

The more men are shoved into a peaceful, feminine social structure the more they will lash out at women. As testosterone levels drop due to industrial pollution, their attacks will become less impulsive and more planned. More death, less injury. More suicide and merciless killing, less glory in battle. Those who will not be born transexual will be born ticking time bombs of eternal frustration. Especially the short, ugly, or even slightly dull – for without fair competition they have the most fragile egos. No value in society, not as far as the nigh-emotionless male brain can comprehend. They’re creatures of utility, you know?

Feminism’s misguided attempt to help the sex the needs the least help will ultimately harm women. just, for the love of god, do not help men. the mens rights movement has proven this to you. when they misbehave towards women, put them down, no, have other men put them down, but they need to misbehave towards men ALL THE TIME.

Moral of the story: Men are violent abusers and any attempt to educate men is hopeless.

Gee, thanks for that mansplain.

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “MRA Manplainy Man: Men are Violent, Competitive Hate-Mongers

  1. Hi, yeah, that comment mostly rings true. I’m surprised a woman didn’t write it. I am quite sure that the different biologies of the sexes do significantly influence their behavior, though of course environment plays a big part and there’s an interplay. Men as a group are relatively more dominating, insatiably ambitious, competitive rather than cooperative, and aggressive, and I’d challenge anyone to prove that’s just gender roles, not biology.

  2. This veers from “mansplaining” to outright “what-the-fuckery.” By the end it reaches Alex Jones-level incomprehensibility. Not only do we need to end toxic masculinity, we need to revamp our mental health system, stat.

  3. I’ve got some ideas about giving men their “male space,” of course, it’s probably not what he’s talking about because my idea involves barbed wired, cement and guards armed with fully automated weapons.

    What I want to know is where is this place: “…a peaceful, feminine social structure.” It certainly isn’t where I live and I must be in one of the most, at least, on paper, peaceful parts of the country. But, I just had some men perform a re-enactment of the shootout at the OK Corral, which left a bullet in, at least, one of my nearby neighbors’ houses. One of these men likes to beat up women and leave them lying around unconscious here and there. He can’t seem to keep his hands off children or out of other people’s houses at night. I’ve moved all over this country and all over the world trying unsuccessfully to escape male violence, so I’d really be interested in hearing about these gynocentric paradise, this “peaceful, feminine social structure,” that has been established in some mysterious far-off place.

    Remember, this dudebro could be your neighbor – or your brother, if you’ve got one, or your husband or boyfriend, if you’ve got one, or your father, if you’ve got one, etc.

  4. Wow what a *clusterf%ck* of bizarre, you know he is probably a tiny geek, he certainly isn’t a navy seal, they get actual mental health exams, so all of this is the fevered dream of a MGTOW man baby. I love how he puts “more suicide and merciless killing” first because he can’t even mentally correlate that less glory in battle is actually the cause since he has only been in battle online or on his television. He even describes himself, _short, ugly or even slightly dull_ how sad really!

  5. Yes, the dudebro’s comment really does disintegrate into gibberish toward the end. The last two paragraphs are pretty much incomprehensible. Maybe he was on something when he wrote it.

    I get that men may be more aggressive and dominant because of hormones and something not right with their brains structure, but how does this explain the pure evil – all the sex perversion, the sadism, the torture that they inflict on us, all of us, whether we are tiny babies, old ladies or anything in between? I can find neither a standard biological or social explanation for that.

    The dudebro is not enlightening in this respect, either. He just seems deranged. But, then again, he also seems pretty typical.

    • Long story short it’s how we’re raised, if not by immediate family then by society and culture at large. In the company of other men raised that way it creates a sort of feedback loop. You’re supposed to fight other guys for idiotic reasons, you’re supposed to be stronger and smarter than women, you’re supposed to drool over the opposite sex at every opportunity — be it in class or online. Any guy can break away, but you have to 1) understand how you were raised is backwards and dangerous and 2) be willing to change. Most guys like this can’t get past step one, which any rehab counselor can tell you is a problem. I want no part of what we lionize as “masculinity.” I think the reason some people immediately reach for the “it’s in their genes” argument is because aggressive male behavior has been encouraged and entrenched in society for millennia. Like any dogma it remains unchallenged for centuries and is propped up by rewarding a favored class and punishing a disfavored class. This applies to theocracies, Jim Crow, apartheid, patriarchy, what have you.

      • Miss Andry,

        I’ve known men who appeared to be socialized outside of all this. My ex, for example, was a large man, but not macho-acting, he was very intelligent, he could, at least, feign sympathy and kindness. When I first really got to know him, he was friends with a man who had a disability that none of the other guys in the gym wanted to talk to. He seemed kind and everyone who knew him spoke well of him.

        Still, he plotted and planned for 7 years (he told me this, years later) to corner me, to get me away from my family, to get his hands on my credit and, eventually, I’m sure he had in mind to get his hands on my family’s assests (a chilling thought considering the monster he really was beneath all that!) and most of all he seemed to want to *feed* on me. He became increasingly perverse in that last year – again, after he got me some distance from my family – and then he became violent and completely sadistic. If you don’t believe in demonic possession, you might have to consider it after an experience like this. His mask dropped. He didn’t even look like the same person. It’s one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever experienced.

        He is not unusual. Most men I’ve known who pretend to be something other than what the MRA who made this post is eventually drop their masks whenever it’s time to execute their plan – when they think they’ve got you cornered and now they can rape and otherwise commit violent acts on you with impunity, without interference and entirely to their heart’s content.

        I don’t believe any man who says he’s not like the guy who wrote that nice piece above. At the very least, I find men to be paternalistic know-it-alls.

        Evil is a thing. I’ve met it, I’ve shook hands with it and I’ve survived it a number of times. I think what is going on with the men I’ve dealt with is above and beyond mere socialization. Male children surely aren’t socialized to be sex perverts and torturers. This is something in them and it can’t be gotten out. They’re born this way. That was what my ex told me, also, he was born that way. He was just good at hiding it when he wanted to. He admitted that he had been doing this for the seven years until he thought he’d cornered me and I couldn’t escape.

      • Just thinking here in this same vein:

        If I were running things, I would decree that after about 2 or 3 years of age, all male children would be put into an special education facility. They would have limited contact with their parents. They would only be released to the public after 18 years when they have demonstrated the possibility of not being violent, sadistic perverts. The rest would be ceremoniously executed – to drive the point home of what happens when men don’t behave like productive, non-criminal members of society.

        This would in a generation or two leave a small number of males in the population. Violent male crimes against women would be punished severely (death penalty).

        I can envision right now the progress that we would make with a peaceful, productive happy civilization. The progress in technology would be beyond anything anyone could imagine right now. The progress in medicine, the arts, the ecology – everything. This planet could be a paradise and the people living on it could live long, healthy happy lives, except for this EVIL – and we all know where it’s coming from. It comes from males. If it is truly a matter of socialization (I’m extremely doubtful about this based on my experiences with all kinds of men in many different countries – Amazon Indians, for instance, men whose families were from remote Mexican Indian tribes, etc.), then, the way to stop it would be through a program of socialization for young males that tries to turn out something other than sadistic perverts.

        Would such a male socialization program have stopped Ted Bundy? I doubt it. I think what he was was simply in him – he was born that way. Of course,his socialization as a male probably didn’t help. By his own admission, porn was the fuel for his crimes. But, porn and normal socialization in U.S. society surely did not teach him to derive erotic pleasure from murdering women and raping their corpses. This has to be coming from somewhere else.

        • To reply to both of your comments at once, first and foremost I’m sorry to hear about the nightmare you went through. Although I’ve suffered abuse (which I won’t delve into here) it probably was not on the same scale at all.

          I also don’t believe in the death penalty, for anyone. I doubt I’d want to mete that kind of punishment out to even the most heinous of mass murderers. I think we need to radically change our culture. I think men need to call out misogyny, I think parents need to raise their boys to be better people. Easy theoretically but not in practice, so we have our work cut out for us.

          I’m also struck by some of the language you used about his “mask” slipping off. It reminds me of what they call the “mask of sanity” for psychopaths and sociopaths, a term which was frequently applied to Ted Bundy, whom you mentioned. In Ted’s case he was a psychopath. He had no empathy from the time he was young and began torturing animals. He graduated to abusing women not long after. With psychopaths it’s an interesting case, since their brains are wired differently than ours:
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/psychopath-brain-hardwiring-concern-for-others_n_3149856.html

          I think the effect of hardcore pornography on violent tendencies is an interesting field to explore, at least for non-psychopaths. In Ted’s case I don’t believe that drove him to commit murder. He gave numerous self-serving interviews in jail, and the one you’re referring to was with Dr. James Dobson — a misogynist in his own right — who was goading Bundy into giving the responses he did because Dobson was on an anti-porn crusade.

          On the flip side you also have Jeffrey Dahmer, who did the same disgusting acts on other men. It’s also interesting to note how, on the rare occasion that you have a female serial murderer, they don’t seem to be sexual murderers. Aileen Wuornos might be the only one I can think of in that she was a prostitute who murdered Johns. Other than that they’re rarely in the same mold and are more often serial poisoners and the like.

          • Yes, she murdered Johns, but you also aren’t allowed to do that. Even if her victims were terrible people, she still deliberately sought out people — I believe seven times — and murdered them. Not the same reasons as other serial murderers, but I don’t think we should give her too much leeway here. If a man deliberately sought pedophiles and murdered them, you can still say the victims were terrible, but it’s still a terrible crime to murder them.

          • As a woman whos experienced abuse by men in prostitution I can totally empathize with Aileen and I think she did the world a service. You can think it’s wrong all you want but these men bought her to harm her. We’re better off without them. I don’t believe in the death penalty either because of the adversarial system of law set up in criminal trials has much room for error.

            However, these men WERE woman haters and abusers. They didn’t have to buy Aileen to hurt her but they did. I’m actually glad they’re gone.

            I feel more empathy with Aileen that I ever will with a man who purchases women’s bodies so they can burn them with cigarettes. I suppose I have a moral compass where I see the context of what these men were doing.

          • Maybe it’s the perspective I have from the legal business, but society just cannot accept the line of reasoning that we can simply murder people because they’re “bad people.” It’s the same reason why I can’t legally shoot to death a bunch of neo-Nazis even if they’re trash whom no moral person could justifiably sympathize with. And yes, murdering them, as well as Johns, is wrong. To deliberately seek people out to murder them is even worse than killing someone in the heat of the moment — it’s cold and calculating.

            But this conversation, like most of the conversations I have with you, did get me thinking of something re. sex work. That is, is it rape most of the time regardless of having a transaction for sex? Because it seems to be a Hobson’s Choice, no? Have sex or starve (or let your children starve) because you have no money? It’s beyond “yes means yes” and actually delves into when a “yes” is really a “no.” Of course that’s just for people who are low income. They’re not the relatively well-off sex workers in the Nevada “Bunny Ranch” or whatever it’s called. If they do it because they like it and they’re sex positive, more power to them, but being sex positive is kind of a luxury in that sense. Not everyone is having sex because they enjoy it, they do it because it’s the line between life and death.

          • I think you’re missing the point. The reason to kill rapist men is not to deter other rapist men or to lower “crime.” The reason to kill rapist men is because they are dangerous to women and the crime will almost certainly not engender any consequences for the man. Killing rapist men is an act of mercy towards other women.

            Pedophiles who are active in their perversion should also be killed, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that.

            This is not an issue of capital punishment. I am not saying the State should do it. I’m saying you need to read the SCUM Manifesto. 🙂

          • Miss Andry,

            I replied to HMQ before I read your comment. What you’re saying about Ted, I say is true of all men. You are all wired differently. Your sensory experience in the world is different from ours because your endochrine system and nervous system are different. I think you’re all Ted.

            And, I do believe very much in the death penalty. Here in the U.S. before the Feds decided there could be no death penalty for rape, we had quite a lot less of it. And, we’re not talking about murder – we’re talking about rape, something which you – not possessing a vagina and other female reproductive organs or a human female body – have absolutely no way of understanding nor do you ever have to fear it happening to you. We do. I have been raped multiple times. I have dealt with sex abuse and other physical abuse from the age of 5-years. I acquired my first stalker – an adult male security guard – at the ripe old age of 16. I have been denied opportunities and left with little option except to work in strip clubs where I had to smile at perverts while I really wanted to rip their hearts out of their chest with my bear hands. I have endured more sexual assaults than I can remember. So, the incident I described to you in my earlier comment was just one episode – one, which paled in comparison to some other horrific violence I have suffered at the hands of men. And, I’m not at all unusual – I could tell you plenty of stories just from other women in my acquaintance which are very, very similar – tales of being taken to remote places against their will, tied up, raped, threatened with dicks and other weapons. This is what you men do and you don’t believe in the death penalty for rapists. Gee, I wonder why?!

            Aileen Wurnos can in no way be compared to Bundy or Dahmer or any male serial killer. She was killing her rapists and the rapists of other women. Of course, you don’t think that’s right – but, those of us who have lived with rape and rapists our whole lives understand fully why she did it.

          • Yes. Aileen was killing woman haters who actually harmed her by ‘purchasing’ her to be a sexual slave they could rape and dominate. Men think if you give a woman some money or if they spend any kind of money on you, they’re ENTITLED to rape you.

          • Also, which is worse? Being murdered, short and sweet – just takes a second or maybe, at most, a few painful and terrifying moments – or a lifetime of what Aileen Wurnos, whose victimization begin in childhood, went through? And, again, Aileen’s experience was not exceptional, at all. In fact, It was pretty common. The only reason we’re talking about her is that she retaliated against men and got caught.

          • You are absolutely right that she did the world a favor. If more johns knew there was a good chance they were going to face death for violating women, we’d soon have a lot less prostitution and trafficking of women and children going on!

            Death and the prospect of death is a deterrent to rape and other violent crimes against women. I’ve been in the position to defend myself in that way because I thought I was going to be killed and I can tell you that when men are thinking for even a split second about the possibility of their own deaths, the oxygen leaves their dicks and apparently runs down to their feet – because they can’t wait to get far away from you! And, they don’t usually come back, afterward!

            If rape and other types of violence against women were taken seriously and rapes were regularly prosecuted (something that has NEVER happened in this country, even long ago) and a good number of those men were executed for their crimes – if this were a regular thing (again something that has never been done in the U.S. justice system), I promise you the numbers and severity of these crimes against us would dramatically decrease.

            Letting rapists and women-killers off is a violation of MY rights and your rights as a woman! But, again, I guess we don’t account for much – we have to feel sorry for the poor, poor menz – can’t have men’s rights to do these things to us violated… nosiree!

          • According to men, the human rights of our rapists (men) are more important than our human rights – after all, what’s a little rape and attempted murder now and then, right? They think that’s what our lives are SUPPOSED to be about, therefore, it’s not much of a crime – I suppose we should be grateful to our masters that it’s classed as any kind of crime, at all. After all, what are we, but mere women whose lives are of no real importance and we have to listen to men when they tell us how the world is because it is THEIR world after all, it’s all there can ever be, and they no better than us.

            Male allies: With friends like this, who needs enemies!

          • It’s not that I just don’t believe in the death penalty for rapists, like I said, I don’t believe in it for anyone, no matter how heinous the crime. That includes mass murderers and terrorists. I think executing people is a human rights violation — something which, aside from the U.S., only the most barbaric of nations still practices.

            As an aside, there is no correlation between the death penalty and a decrease in crime, including violent crime such as rape.

          • I also want to say that, although you believe me to be the equivalent of Ted Bundy — or just a hair’s breadth away from his type — you’ve never treated me anything but cordially here and on my blog, womanofthewoods. I know we don’t see eye to eye on everything and I don’t share you’re experiences but for what it’s worth, I learn things from talking to you. I hardly ever get to talk to people who open up about their abuse.

          • Ted,

            Let me be clear for anyone else who is reading becaue I know people like to pull up more stats and article and studies by men to prove what other men are saying is right or wrong.

            If something like marital rape is not considered a crime, at all, in 1995 and the death penalty for rape was done away with in 1978 (17 years before), then how can we know if it is an effective deterrent or not.

            Men own the law. There are many instances in which they say rape is not a crime. In some states, if the man is living under your roof with you, it’s only called “sexual battery.” In my state, is probably only a misdemeanor – I say that based on what happened recently with the wife-beater (who just moved away several days ago).

            Studies and stats don’t mean much to us when men control it all. They control the language. They define and redefine terms at will and we’re supposed to accept it (like what is a woman? for instance – we just had this one a few days ago, you’ll remember). They own the law. They say who is a full human being. They say who has full rights as a citizen (not us! We still have to pay 100% of our taxes, though!).

            But, this smoke and mirrors isn’t fooling anyone with half a brain. You can’t say that the death penalty doesn’t work in cases where it’s NEVER been tried at all or where it has only been scantly applied, which is the case in the U.S.

            The death penalty would work if rape cases and murders of women were taken seriously, were tried as serious crimes (rapists were not just given probation, or a small fine or jailed for two days – like one of the Stubenville rapists). This has never been done. I dare you to argue with me that it has – because rape, when it has even been considered as a crime in this country AT ALL, has never been widely prosecuted or taken seriously by the men running this horror show.

            So, papers and studies written by the same white men who are owners, our masters, our captors – at least, in their own minds, don’t impress me much.

          • One last thing, regarding the effectiveness of the death penalty, especially in cases of rape – I think this is going to be my last statement about this, anyway –

            In my particular state, when we still had the death penalty for rape and other violent crimes, we had a lot fewer rapes and other serious crimes like murder. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s, such instances – at least, in the official records – were very rare.

            There was something else going on at that time that may have been an even greater deterrent to rape and that was what you might call a kind of extra-judicial punishment. Rapists were hanged by a mob or disappeared – that was the 1950s and 1960s, if not before. This is something that ended because of Civil Rights Laws and the surveillance state. It’s hard to dispose of a dead body these days because of all the new technology.

            I have some relation in a very small town in Mexico. Not much goes on there in the way of crime, either. But, about 2 years ago, a school teacher there raped a little girl. The cops wouldn’t do anything to the guy, who was also an incorrigible and dangerous drunk driver. There was a protest at the police station. They refused to prosecute the man’s crimes against the girl. About a year later this guy ended up dead in a ditch out in the desert.

            He’s dead. He won’t be raping any more little girls.

            So we see that death does, in fact, deter rape – when it is applied. If enough rapists were put to death, there would be no more rape. 2 + 2 = 4.

          • Miss Andry said: “I think executing people is a human rights violation — something which, aside from the U.S., only the most barbaric of nations still practices.”

            Really? How nice. And, what do you think about what has happened to me and billions of women like me throughout our lives. Obviously, you don’t give a damn about human rights violations against us or the fact that we are subject to men’s laws, written by men, for men to protect men and to protect their “right” to harm us.

            The death penalty isn’t a deterrent? Says who? It absolutely is a deterrent – the only thing you men understand is your own mortality.

          • Well there’s Amnesty International for one:
            http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence

            An article from The Denver Post:
            http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts

            And the Washington Post:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/

            And the American Civil Liberties Union:
            https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

            Among others of course. And you realize that barbarically executing people — most often poor people of color — was a concept written by men, for men. Usually white, heterosexual men.

          • Why are you trying to equate killing rapist men with lynchings of black people? That’s laughable. Those black people who got lynched were the victims of racism. They were oppressed people being attacked by the privileged. Rapist men are privileged people attacking the oppressed. What is wrong with you?

          • Well that’s a bizarre distortion of what I was saying. I suppose my question should be, “What’s wrong with you?”

            I stated my opposition to the death penalty across the board. That means for both innocent people being lynched and the worst that humanity has to offer.

          • I think you are confusing me for someone else. I have never stated anything about the death penalty. I am actually against the death penalty. That’s not at ALL what we’re talking about.

          • Sorry I’m just confused because, I really have no idea what you were talking about then. I looked over my responses and I don’t recall comparing rapists to innocent African-Americans being lynched. I thought the only time I discussed people of color was in regard to them being selected for the death penalty at a disproportionately high rate. You responded to my comment on the death penalty, which is why I was confused. So at any rate, I don’t know what you thought I was saying, but I wasn’t saying that. I’ll just say I don’t like killings which are neither in self-defense or the defense of others. Better?

          • ” I’ll just say I don’t like killings which are neither in self-defense or the defense of others.”

            Then why do you keep objecting to killing rapist men? That’s definitely either “self-defense” and/or “defense of others” (women).

          • Because you’re generally supposed to meet force with an equivalent amount of force for self-defense. If someone is unarmed and threatening me, I can’t go and shoot him to death. Meaning you generally can’t use deadly force unless your attacker is using deadly force (e.g. he has a gun). Same with defense of others. And self-defense is limited. As soon as the threat on your life is gone you can’t use self-defense. Now, if I went and sought out Johns and executed them (Aileen shot them several times apiece), that would fit neither category. That’s more akin to premeditated murder.

          • That makes no sense. She didn’t seek out being raped by johns. She was a prostitute who was violated by johns and if she met force with force and tried to anally rape her attacker he’d kill her. That’s the point.

          • No she didn’t seek them out so she could be raped. She sought them out so she could kill them, take their money and hide their bodies, some of which were never recovered. That’s why she was arrested, charged with, and convicted of, first degree murder.

          • Well I wanted to clarify what it really means to defend oneself, in order to distinguish that from what Wuornos did. In her case, she first claimed the men raped her and that she then killed them. Then she claimed self-defense for these seven killings. While not impossible, it certainly seems improbable that the exact same scenario would have played out in a row. Second, she recanted these claims, and from what I remember she said shortly before her death that she merely murdered and robbed them. That is, she was looking for people to kill and steal from. Now, if she planned to go out, lure Johns, murder them and take their money, that’s what I find unethical.

            I’ll go with you on the notion that society doesn’t like men who solicit sex workers. They’re not respectable, well-liked people. But that doesn’t give use a license to seek them out with an intent to kill. If we let that slide, we’d be able to excuse premeditated murder of all sorts of people on the grounds that they’re repugnant people. It’s basically vigilantism and mob violence, without giving any rights to the people being killed. Which is pretty much the essence of our justice system in theory. The accused have rights, the accusers have rights, and we need to strike a balance, not just kill bad people on a whim.

            So yeah, she killed awful people and she herself was an awful person. Also in response to an earlier post, Francois, I don’t have any interest in reading the SCUM Manifesto or whatever.

          • Aileen didn’t seek them out. You do know that many prostitutes are sexually violated by men in their childhood. That was Aileen! She was the victim of this, not the perpetrator. The way we treat women who fight back is atrocious and I can’t help but think it’s another patriarchal trick to subdue women, to tell them, do not fight back bitch. She didn’t kill someone on a whim. You’re simplifying this to the nth degree. I’m saying she was violated early in life and she was prostituted and this became a way of life, the ONLY way of life for her as it happens to many women who were prostituted early in life. She was tired of being abused and fought back. Johns are abusers, by the very nature of what they do.

          • From what others have said about her I agree she had a horribly abusive childhood. So do other serial killers though. That mitigating factor only excuses so much of what a person does though. I don’t excuse Otis Toole just because he was abused as a child in pretty gruesome ways, though.

            As for Aileen, I don’t believe she acted in self-defense seven times in a row, especially when she contradicted her own story and ultimately retracted it. I know Johns are, for lack of a better word, scumbags. But that can’t color my view on it.

            Maybe you’ve read stories about her that I haven’t, but I believe she was a genuine sociopath. She claimed she “killed those men” and “robbed them, cold as ice.” That doesn’t sound like self-defense.

            I think I’ll end things on that note of fundamental disagreement.

          • We’re not talking about Otis. We’re talking about a woman who was perpetually abused by men and then prostituted and violated by men WITHIN a male dominated society.

            It seems to me you’re only focusing on a detail and not on the entire context.

          • I agree that she was abused as a child and was part of an abusive profession. But she was a serial liar, HMQ. She would say things about having had sex with 250,000 men. Her confession had her constantly backtracking and inventing new details about her crimes, often contradicting what she had already said. She recanted her claims of rape and self-defense on death row before her execution.

            I’ve read about her and many other serial murderers over the course of my life, and I’ve gotta say, she killed sleazy people but she ultimately became a victimizer, too, and one who would repeatedly fabricate stories to justify what she did. I have no reason to believe what she did wasn’t murder with malice aforethought. It was premeditated. It was in cold blood. That’s why I’ve been distinguishing between murder and self-defense. She was looking for people to kill, she wasn’t a victim of circumstance on seven occasions in a row.

            And with that I’ll exit this conversation 🙂

          • I don’t think I have anything to discuss with a person who lionizes a serial murderer in the first place. Or who constantly misreads and misconstrues simple responses.

          • Miss Andry said: ” And you realize that barbarically executing people — most often poor people of color — was a concept written by men, for men. Usually white, heterosexual men.”

            Yes, I do realize exactly that and it’s the same bunch of mostly white heterosexual men who now claim it has no effect, when it has never really been tried because crimes like rape and femicide are not taken seriously. There are women and girls missing all over this country – every now and then the show up in the middle of some sex ring scandal like the one going on in England and the U.S. right now involving Prince Andrew and President Rape. (You won’t hear much about it in the U.S. press – because guess who runs that, too?! – You have to go to RT to learn anything about it.) Rape has never been taken seriously. Most of the worst cases of it weren’t even considered a criminal act until between the 1970s and 1990s (I’m talking about the kind where you’re held captive in your home and repeatedly raped by a nice, well-socialized, non-macho, intellectual, atheist, humanist kind of guy who convinced you he’s your best friend on earth, but is really Ted Bundy right below the surface.) This was not even a crime here until the late 1990s – that was less than 20 years ago. The courts were forced to stop giving rapists the death penalty 20 years before that back in the 1970s!

            A very, very tiny percentage of rape cases are ever reported, far fewer than that ever go to trial. An,d only a tiny number – relative the massive number of rapists in the country – have ever been executed.

            This is not enough information for any kind of reliable number crunching about effectiveness of the death penalty in cases of rape.

            I say something similar for cases of femicide. Very few men – and it is by far and away men who commit these violent crimes (I’m not lying awake in my bed at night worried that woman is going to come in and attack me in my sleep! It’s men who do these things.) even end up on the inside of a court room. Most of them get away with it. Murdering women is not a big deal in a country founded by men, for men, run by men, where women are seen as objects and property.

            Aileen Wurnos had every moral right to do what she did. We all have a moral right to kill our rapists. The only reason most of us don’t is we know the rest of you men will gang up on us – ’cause that’s what you do. We do not have equal rights under the law. We do not have an equal opportunity for justice in a country run by the afore-mentioned men – mostly white and, at least, pretending to be completely straight.

            I’m amazed that you think that I can forget for a second who is running this show… really! Do you think we women – especially we radical feminist types – can forget that for even a second?

          • Regarding this remarkably fucked up comment:

            “Because you’re generally supposed to meet force with an equivalent amount of force for self-defense. If someone is unarmed and threatening me, I can’t go and shoot him to death. Meaning you generally can’t use deadly force unless your attacker is using deadly force (e.g. he has a gun). Same with defense of others. And self-defense is limited. As soon as the threat on your life is gone you can’t use self-defense. Now, if I went and sought out Johns and executed them (Aileen shot them several times apiece), that would fit neither category. That’s more akin to premeditated murder.”

            The problem with this asinine thinking is that this doesn’t work for women. Imagine you’re my size – not very big! – under 5’2 and maybe 125 pounds, with considerably less upper body strength than a man of the same size. Your attacker is 5’8 to 6’3″, with a big long reach, and monstrous strength by comparison to you. How are you supposed to “defend yourself with “an equivalent amount of force for self-defense.” Go ahead… take your time… really try to visualize this.

            Even if your attacker is unarmed, you don’t have a prayer of a chance. You’d better hope you’ve got a loaded gun or something in your hand at that moment.

            Now, suppose you are this same small woman and you’re going into a situation in which you are potentially going to be tortured or murdered by a huge, hairy, smelly monstrous man like the one described above. How are you going to prepare yourself? How are you going to survive if this brute gets out of hand – which is very likely, by the way.

            This equal force thing might work for violence between men but it doesn’t work for women – we don’t have equal physical force to bear. Our best bet – the one thing that is going to give us even the small percent of a chance, which is still better than nothing – is to have a gun.

            When I was in Germany, I was told a lot of the prostitutes there carried guns, by the way – guns are not legal at all in Germany, but what are you going to do???

            Once again: Women are not men. The laws and the concept of self-defense under the law were written for men and for the situations that men typically find themselves in – our lives are very, very different. The type of violence, the frequency of the violence we deal with and the opportunity to meet a male attacker or multiple male attackers (as is sometimes the case – been there done that) is not the same as it is for a man. The type of torture that we are generally subjected to by men is also especially horrific. We don’t just get to enjoy a merciful death at the hands of men, we usually have to be tortured by them first.

            Life is not like it is in the Matrix movie – women can’t suddenly fly around the room from wall to wall to defend themselves from attackers. Things that work in the movies don’t usually work in real life.

          • Well part of the question is when a person is in fear for their life. My qualifier “generally” was used to show that usually an attacker must be armed or something along those lines. Of course a victim could be beaten to death. Courts have recognized this in the past. Really it hinges on whether or not a person who used deadly force in self-defense had a reasonable fear that they would be killed or dealt severe bodily injuries.

            I tried searching for a case to give you that I read about in law school. I think it took place in Washington state, and a sex offender had been brought to the home of the victims’ parents. Things escalated and the sex offender — who was huge and, I believe, intoxicated and angry — was towering over a woman who had a gun. She was comparatively quite small, shot him, killed him and claimed self-defense. The court, I believe, agreed with her on the grounds that their comparative size put her in fear of her life and reasonably so.

            Anyway, it all depends on the circumstances. Like I said, these cases usually deal with armed attackers, but sometimes they don’t. At any rate, my “fucked up comment” was merely an attempt to summarize the law. I was not offering an opinion of what the law should be, just what it is.

          • Error correction:

            This is to correct an error in the sentence that affects the meaning of the sentence in a comment I wrote above.

            “The type of violence, the frequency of the violence we deal with and the opportunity to meet a male attacker or multiple male attackers (as is sometimes the case – been there done that) with “equivalent force” is not the same as it is for a man.

          • For the record, Aileen was 5’4″.

            Again, how is she supposed to meet a man with “equal force” in her self-defense.

            Also, rapists can do some very surprising things. They can attack with inhuman speed and strength, in my experience. Once the rape is under way, only a gun is going to stop him without injuring yourself (the woman with a vagina and internal organs that are being stabbed, torn and bruised) is a loaded gun – if you can get a free hand, of course.

            The idea of a woman being able to meet a man with “equal force” under such a circumstance would make me laugh, if it weren’t so horrifying. Men know this. Miss Andry knows this.

            Again, Johns, rape, being prostituted by men – are not like they are on Cinemax! (If Cinemax still runs porn – I don’t know.)

            Sometimes I really hope the Xians are right. I hope there’s a Hell, a big yawning, chasm with fire and brimstone where johns, rapists, pimps and their enablers all get roasted over big barbeque pit for all eternity – I’d like to take my turn in a red devil suit shoving my pitchfork up their anuses.

          • Miss Andry,

            Men’s laws say this and men’s laws say this and still the reality of women’s lives somehow eludes you.

            This is why you men really have no business writing laws or enforcing laws concerning your own violence against us. No opinion you have to give on this matter is of any real value or importance except to illustrate the nature of men.

          • Another point worth making to anyone else reading this regarding the nature of johns.

            Miss Andry, who once again used the prostitution-promoting term “sex worker” to describe girls and women who are prostituted by men, said the following:

            “ll go with you on the notion that society doesn’t like men who solicit sex workers. They’re not respectable, well-liked people. But that doesn’t give use a license to seek them out with an intent to kill. If we let that slide, we’d be able to excuse premeditated murder of all sorts of people on the grounds that they’re repugnant people. It’s basically vigilantism and mob violence, without giving any rights to the people being killed. Which is pretty much the essence of our justice system in theory. The accused have rights, the accusers have rights, and we need to strike a balance, not just kill bad people on a whim.”

            Let me disillusion anyone who thinks that “johns are not respectable, well-liked people.” Many of them are and many johns are influential people – probably in your local government, but certainly in higher government, and they are people of many different levels of influence. It is women who are not respected – not matter what we do or say.

            For instance, I – who was not a “prostitute” but a dancer (another group of women that johns and people who love johns like to call “sex workers” although what we do has nothing to do with sex! But, they see all women as whores or, at least, potential whores and that is the essence of the term, “sex worker,” which Miss Andry so loves.) have been propositioned by all kinds of law enforcement officers, airline pilots, and lawyers. They were all what in the world of men are called respectable people.”

            I have, also, parked my car somewhere and walked across the street to the ice cream parlor and had a man in a fancy car roll by and ask me, “How much?” I have another memorable occasion of walking to the theaters in NYC to see a Broadway show one night when a similar thing happened. It’s a frequent thing to be propositioned by wealthy-looking men – you don’t have to be dressed in any unusual way, you just have to be a woman who doesn’t appear to already have a john on her arm.

            You may remember the well-respected, very popular, well-liked actor, Hugh Grant, who is also a john. If you don’t remember, here’s a link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/hollywood/hugh-grant – He has said, himself, that it didn’t hurt his career one lick. Of course not, powerful johns and other sex perverts run Hollywood – all very well respected men.

            The D.C. Madam, Deborah Palfrey, who was suicided in 2008, so she could not testify in court who her clients were, was just one female-pimp associated with powerful men in politics. The tendency of politicians to be johns is a joke, parodied in the 1985 movie, “Clue,” in which Miss Scarlet is a sort of D.C. madam. People know politicians are johns and sex predators, but they are still considered “respectable” in society.

            This list of her well-respected, popular, well-liked clients comes from this article: http://nstarzone.com/PALFREY.html

            “Among her reported clients were Senator John McCain, Senator Vitter, former AIDS Czar Randall Tobias – the scandal led to his resignation from his State Department position, Dick Morris, military strategist Harlan Ullman – creator of the concept of “shock and awe”, and former Vice President Dick Cheney. Then came the May 1 hanging. It was presented as a suicide from the first mention with no investigation. Like so many other stories with incriminating ties to the elite, it vanished from the headlines as quickly as it appeared.”

            If you want to dig, the Smoking Gun has a lot of documentation on the operations of Palfrey’s prostitution ring. If there was a woman who deserved to die (as opposed to Aileen Wurnos), it was probably her because she prostituted other women: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tags/dc-madam

            A more recent example of a well-respected john in the news is Eliot Spitzer: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/28/report-after-prostitute-visits-eliot-spitzer-pays-more-than-75-million Yes, the divorce cost him, but his career has not really been hurt by this – after all, he’s a man, it’s us – all of us women, any women, who no matter what we do are not respected and are called names like “sex worker” by men who want to turn us all into prostitutes.

            Also, Miss Andry, you are a sick motherfucker to keep using that term at us when you have been told that it is offensive. But, you men come here to cause women who already have a lifetime of injuries by men more grief – there’s not a single exception, no matter how you try to manipulate, you are so transparent!

          • …are called names like “sex worker” by men who want to turn us all into prostitutes.

            Slight correction. The phrase “sex worker” was coined in the 1970s by Carol Leigh, a prostitute’s (there I used your preferred term) rights activist. No it wasn’t created by, or used exclusively by men who want to, er, “turn [you] all into prostitutes.” In fact the term “sex worker” has gained acceptance in scholarly journals and the like, although I get the distinct impression that this doesn’t matter, just like it doesn’t matter that capital punishment doesn’t prevent rape. I respectfully disagree on the idea that I’m a “sick motherfucker” too 🙂

          • Miss Andry,

            I never heard of this term until the late 1990s. It may have been coined in the 1970s, but it took a while for these people to organize and to throw a big net around a whole lot of women – some of whom were (at that time) prostituted women and many who, at least at that time, were not. In that big group, they placed dancers – striptease dancers. I can’t verify the history of the term, but I can tell you FIRST HAND what the effects of its use have been. It used to be that it was illegal to solicit women for sex of any kind. If a guy did that, he got kicked out of a night club. Fast-forward about 15 years later and the strip clubs are now flooded with johns. The last fucking john who solicited me in a night club got smacked in the face. Guess who got in trouble? Yes, me. He’s a nice, respectable man. And, I’m a whore who said, “No.” (7 times in 2 different languages before I clocked the motherfucker.)

            I read the blueprint for this online back in the late 1990s. The people using the term “sex worker” to describe women who were, at that time, not yet being prostituted by johns was to implicate more women a whores.

            You can look up facts in books or online all day long – it doesn’t stand up to my lived experience as a woman living in the cesspool you and other sick motherfuckers just like yourself have created and seem to take such great joy in.

          • You can look up facts in books or online all day long…

            I will, thank you.

            it doesn’t stand up to my lived experience as a woman living in the cesspool you and other sick motherfuckers just like yourself have created and seem to take such great joy in.

            Yes, clearly I take great joy in the suffering others. I’ve based my whole life around that premise. [sarc]

          • Miss Andry,

            Re: “Yes, clearly I take great joy in the suffering others. I’ve based my whole life around that premise.”

            I have no trouble believing that based on your behavior here.

          • Correction to this paragraph: “I read the blueprint for this online back in the late 1990s. The people using the term “sex worker” to describe women who were, at that time, not yet being prostituted by johns was to implicate more women a whores. ”

            The people using this term, “sex worker,” said they did it explicitly to implicate more women as prostitutes. They said they thought it would make the prostitution of women and girls more acceptable. And, they have succeeded in doing this.

            The thing you don’t get and what makes oyou such a sick mother fucker is that I’m not here to be prostituted! I’m not here to be groped and felt up by men AND, moreover, I have the right to defend myself. In the above example, the law no longer protects me from being solicited (which SHOULD be illegal and punished harshly because there are not so many johns that women cannot function in some places), so I had to protect myself. I’m sure some nice, non-macho, loving fellow like yourself sees me as the “aggressor” in this situation. But, women should have basic human rights not to be prostituted and not to be called names like “whore” and “sex worker.”

          • Another correction to the above – because I cannot see to type in this tiny little space here….

            I typed: “there are not so many johns that women cannot function in some places.”

            I meant to say there are NOW so many johns that women cannot function in some places …

            And by that, I mean we can’t function at your work – in fact, most of our work has run out because of all the johns – and sometimes you don’t know a place is full of johns until you’re there for a while. I first figured it out when one of the dancers didn’t show for work the next day because she was beat up by her pimp (they had to tell me twice that they weren’t kidding!), then I noticed another dancer with cigarette burns all over her back! So, this is what the term “sex worker” being used against us has caused!!!

          • No, dudebro, the term that we use and, which we have always used at this blog, is “prostituted women.” The reason we use this term is it takes the blame off the victims.

            You know this.

          • No, I don’t know what terms you use or like to use. I don’t think it takes the blame off the victim either. The only context I’ve ever heard “prostitute” is one that is trying to be deliberately degrading to women who are forced to have sex for money. I don’t like the terms “hooker” or “prostitute.”

          • Miss Andry,

            You are/were the Bread and Roses blogger and you’ve been commenting and, presumably, reading blogposts and comments here since the HMQ began this blog. If you are not familiar with why we use the term “prostituted women” instead of “sex worker” – a term that implies that prostitution is a *choice* of career for women and girls – and why we use it.

            I will remind you that while this is all theoretical to you, it has been a real life experience for many of us. Until you have to worry about being solicited, assaulted and raped by johns at your work place or walking down the street somewhere, your opinion holds little weight. You are just one more brick in the wall. And, I have to agree with Tremblay, you are an insufferable liar. You are, also, either a complete idiot too dense to comprehend what I have said to you regarding the subject of johns, being prostituted, being raped, being subjected to forms of rape that were not regarded as a crime when capital punishment for rape was permitted, etc., or else you are an cold-hearted, sociopathic bastard. It’s hard to say which it is.

          • You are, also, either a complete idiot too dense to comprehend what I have said to you regarding the subject of johns, being prostituted, being raped, being subjected to forms of rape that were not regarded as a crime when capital punishment for rape was permitted, etc., or else you are an cold-hearted, sociopathic bastard. It’s hard to say which it is.

            No, I haven’t read anything about prostitution on this blog. Usually because I mostly read about the MRA-bashing. Also, I don’t think having difficulty parsing your word salad responses makes one “dense” or a “cold-hearted, sociopathic bastard.”

          • Regarding what you call my “word salad” responses:

            “Word salad” is a term used to describe people who sound “crazy” or schizophrenic.

            Calling women “crazy” is a pretty standard misogynistic male’s response to a woman’s objections to being abused – being called misogynistic names, and so on. Women who believe in self-defense, who believe in their own human rights, who dare to talk about their experiences, who say what is objectionable about our own mistreatment at the hands of men like yourself, are in your view “crazy.”
            So, I think we’ll go with Answer B, above: You are a cold-hearted sociopath.

            And, finally, on behalf of abused and prostituted women everywhere, fuck you!

          • “Word salad” is a term used to describe people who sound “crazy” or schizophrenic.

            Or a lengthy, unintelligible response. Or, in your case, a large series of them when don’t merit even a casual glance-over. Also, I don’t think you get to do the “on behalf of X everywhere” thing over a petty Internet squabble you started. If you have a personal problem with me, that’s all it is. And since we’re both talking past each other and I’ve only been skimming your insults anyway, I’m just going to pull the plug on the conversation. If you don’t like me, I don’t care 🙂

          • It’s not a matter of “not liking you.” I don’t know you. You’re just another man, just like every other fucking asshole man I’ve ever run across in any other circumstance. Just because you make some off-hand comments about how bad MRAs are every once in a while doesn’t make you any better than them… you’re just as bad – maybe worse.

            My insults toward you are nothing in comparison to the terms you’ve used against women like me here. They are terms that are used to enforce our oppression. I don’t have any slurs I can call you that are as damaging as the term, “sex worker,” has been to me and countless other women.

            I hope no women are ever fooled by men like you, however, I’m afraid far too many, even some radical feminists, are.

            As I said before, all men have something of Ted Bundy in them. You’ve done a find job illustrating that point here. So, I think your work is completed.

          • Correction to another sentence because I cannot type long sentences very well in a little box 3″ wide and 2″long.

            I said: If you are not familiar with why we use the term “prostituted women” instead of “sex worker” – a term that implies that prostitution is a *choice* of career for women and girls – and why we use it.

            To the end of that, I should have added: “, you certainly should be.”

            You’ve been here posting nearly since the beginning of this blog – and asking the HMQ to do free work for you, looking over this and that on your blog and trying to get attention for your own blog.

            I can’t think what else your purpose here could be: Idiot wandering lost around the internet?; Sociopath who likes to say stupid shit to women who are survivors of all kinds of male abuse; or freeloader looking for a woman to do stuff for him.

            There we now have 3 possibilities.

          • I need to correct some of the language I used in my previous comment, in which I am explaining that it is false to say that “johns are not respectable, well-liked people.”

            I am using Miss Andry’s (who is a man) patriarchal language. Johns are men – not “people,” as such. Johns are always men. They are never women and calling them “people” is obscuring masculine language designed to spread their collective guilt to women.

            Many johns are highly respected *men* and they always have more power than the women and girls they victimize.

        • I agree absolutely! Then again, it’s hard to imagine any educational system worse than public education in the US (esp. worse in terms of gender indoctrination).

          Do you know about Summerhill School? I think that would be a great first step. And they are definitely away from their family. It’s not gender segregated, though.

        • ‘If I were running things, I would decree that after about 2 or 3 years of age, all male children would be put into an special education facility. They would have limited contact with their parents. They would only be released to the public after 18 years when they have demonstrated the possibility of not being violent, sadistic perverts. The rest would be ceremoniously executed – to drive the point home of what happens when men don’t behave like productive, non-criminal members of society.’

          That is really fucked up. You think the world would be a better place if my four year old son were taken away from me and raised in a facility? Are you aware of the psychological damage done to children denied healthy nurturing from their parents? The last place I read that kind of thinking was in the manifesto of Eliot Rodger.

  6. It’s ironic, but I guess expected, that MRAs exhibit the sort of hatred and disrespect for men that even the most anti-men radfem I’ve read doesn’t have.

    I might want to analyze this on my blog at a later time. Of course I will give you credit for finding and publishing it.

  7. Yes, it’s a very interesting statement. I re-read it and still thought it was probably written by a woman, though.

    Francois, you seen to be of two minds, condemning the statement as a statement of hate and disrespect, but also saying we need to end toxic masculinity. Did you mean that the statement, while disrespectful, had a lot of truth in it about “toxic masculinity”? Or did you mean that the writer of the statement was exhibiting “toxic masculinity” in writing it?

    WOOW, you said that you can’t find a standard biological or social explanation for the “evil” you describe, which I read as destructiveness, sadism, and anti-life activity. Now as we all know, though we’re inured to it, this sort of shit goes on everwhere all the time. Here’s this morning’s special incident: https://twitter.com/ExploringBird/timelines/553975018636738560?cn=cmVjb3NfZXhwbG9yZQ%3D%3D&refsrc=email

    As always, there’s not a mention in the report that 100% of the killers were men. It’s a given.

    Maybe the most interesting analysis Francois might write would put the “MRA” note above together with today’s incident, and address 1) how it is disrespectful to men to write what the “MRA” wrote, in light of the daily carnage committed by men all over this planet; and 2) why men do this, from a male point of view. In general men usually say it’s an aberration, which is a self-serving lie, or say that the men have fallen under the spell of a sick ideology, which removes no responsibility since they invented and embrace that ideology, or try to find some deprivation these men suffer, which in this case seems to be the deprivation to their manliness of the state’s helping women learn to read.

    I agree with Freud, who brilliantly described the psychology of his own sex though he did not manage to do the same for women. This is from “Civilization and Its Discontents”,Norton, 1st American Ed., 1962, p. 58:

    “The element of truth behind all this, which people are so quick to disavow, is that men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexual object, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and kill him. ‘Man is wolf to man’. Who, in the face of all his experience of life and history, will have the courage to dispute this assertion?

    “As a rule this cruel aggressiveness waits for some provocation or puts itself at the service of some other purpose…[but] in circumstances that are favorable to it, when the mental counter-forces which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration toward his own kind is something alien….

    ” Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man’s aggressive instincts…the time comes when each one of us has to give up as illusions the expectations which, in his youth, he pinned upon his fellow-man, and when he may learn how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by their ill-will.”

    There is much more but you’ll need to read the book. (I have to add to this analysis by Freud that for a woman to be able to even read it, we must first “translate” it and consider each male pronoun. Freud sometimes uses “man” in a universal sense, which falsely includes women in his description. Other times he uses “man” to refer to crimes primarily against women. Other times it is simply clear that Freud is writing only to men and women are invisible to him, even as victims, as he writes these passages. Thus Freud’s brilliance is so tremendously obscured by his invisibilization of women that much work is needed to catch the basic truths that underlie his flawed langauge)

    • “Francois, you seen to be of two minds, condemning the statement as a statement of hate and disrespect, but also saying we need to end toxic masculinity.”

      I didn’t say anything about ending “toxic masculinity.” I think we should dispense with gender altogether, “toxic” or not. End masculinity.

      “Did you mean that the statement, while disrespectful, had a lot of truth in it about “toxic masculinity”? Or did you mean that the writer of the statement was exhibiting “toxic masculinity” in writing it?””

      I think the answer to both your questions are yes.

      “Maybe the most interesting analysis Francois might write would put the “MRA” note above together with today’s incident, and address 1) how it is disrespectful to men to write what the “MRA” wrote, in light of the daily carnage committed by men all over this planet; and 2) why men do this, from a male point of view.”

      I agree entirely on this! I will talk about this in my analysis for sure.

    • V.,

      Regarding that link: Yes, this is just another day for men, whose atrocities are more often committed in the dark, where they don’t get much press. Only when they do what they do to large numbers of people at once, does anyone seem to pay much attention.

      That’s very interesting about Freud. I never knew he ever said anything so sensible. Although, I think he’s being unfair to wolves. Men are far more calculating than any four-legged predator and they know exactly how to set up their prey, how to act, all the subtle things to do and say to their victims, to inflict maximum damage and get away with it because they usually have the protection of other men. A wolf cannot be “evil” in my opinion because it lacks human-like intelligence. Men are evil because they have such intelligence and use it to pervert everything good, beautiful and noble, not just wildly and carelessly, but with pinpoint precision. It’s as if their purpose in life is to destroy us. They are a choking, poisonous weed in the garden of earthly delights.

      • Yes. I don’t think you can compare wolves to human beings. We’re both sentient and intelligent but humans have language which allows us to have things like theory of mind. We humans can reroute. For example, a stimulus/response system is rerouted in humans. We can say, get angry but know we aren’t supposed to murder. We get a stimulus but our responses are constrained because we can cognitively order and imagine what will happen if we just obey our immediate response. We can make laws, social contract, so that we know not to obey first impulses. Men seem to have serious problems in this area. They obey their impulses and I think it’s because from the time they’re young, it’s encouraged to do so. Toxic masculinity.

        • Yes, and the pure human mind is a noble thing, capable of creating beauty. But, when this nobility of mind is perverted, I call that evil. Animals don’t have the same powers we have and cannot be evil. Alpha male wolves don’t systematically rape the female wolves, strangle them with their front paws for sexual pleasure, then come back later to rape the dead wolf’s body, again – just as a for instance.

          I think the term “toxic masculinity” is a redundancy. All masculinity is toxic. Masculinity may be a social condition, but it derives from the innate male nature in which there is, at least, a little bit of Ted Bundy lurking.

          Through socialization, we might be able to mitigate the Ted. But, it’s still there lurking in the shadows. It doesn’t understand, “Please, don’t do that to me,” or “No.” or “Please, stop! You’re hurting me.” It takes pleasure in our pain because it is wired completely differently and the only think it does understand is a loaded gun in it’s face. When that little cylinder starts to rotate, it suddenly understands the meaning of our words. Violence and threats of violence – that’s the only way to communicate with Ted.

    • V.,

      You’re right about the pronouns. I just re-read that bit about the wolves reconsidering the pronoun. If he meant, “Men are wolves to other men,” then I’d say that’s right. But, what he describes in the preceding sentences, suggests hes’ talking about women, too. In our case, I think they are far worse than wolves – men are very kind to each other relative to how they treat us.

  8. I have to agree with WotW that Ted Bundy is in no way comparable to Aileen Wournos. Aileen didn’t rape corpses, nor did she look for men to abuse. They came to her because she was poor and they used their male privilege to harm her. No comparison at all. She eliminated her abusers and if our laws weren’t man made around men’s property and entitlement then she might’ve not been treated so harshly.

    Maybe someone could have the guts to say, yes we know that murdering people is wrong but this is the simplistic argument that doesn’t apply in Aileen’s case. She was the victim of our male dominated society, not the perpetrator.

    • I’m not sure we should even call it “murder.” It was self-defense. If we all rose up right now and killed our oppressors, it would be self-defense. Men know they’ve got it coming and that’s why they fear the death penalty. They can dish out abuse, rape and murder on women and baby girls all day and all night, but when they think there is even the vestige of a possibility of justice their way in any form, they suddenly become moralizing humanitarians!

      • Error: A whole word is missing from the above sentence. It should be:

        They can dish out abuse, rape and murder on women and baby girls all day and all night, but when they think there is even the vestige of a possibility of justice *coming* their way in any form, they suddenly become moralizing humanitarians!

        (I finally bought a new computer and keyboard, but I’m not using it right now! When I type too fast on this one, keystrokes and sometimes whole entire words don’t register.)

      • Yes, there are lots of victimized women that never take matters into their own hands when men are violating them but calling women who do psychopaths is extremely misogynist and it’s just another ‘she’s crazy’ whenever a woman has enough of male abuse.

        • I’m not saying that everyone who acts in legitimate self-defense are “crazy.” Case in point, State v. Norman, wherein a woman who was battered, abused and exploited beyond anything I’ve ever heard shot her tormentor as he slept. She was convicted of murder. I saw the killing as justifiable. She was rightfully released early after a very public outcry. In this one particular case — just one — I think she’s what she was diagnosed to be: a psychopath who first said she acted in self-defense (six or seven times, mind you) and then changed her mind. I just don’t think she’s an example of what you’re talking about, that’s all. And I only think this because of what I’ve read about her and other serial murderers. I think if this were any other woman we’d be in agreement. Maybe you and I have just read different things about Wuornos? I don’t know. I guess all I’m saying is I view her as an exception and not the rule.

      • You AND Tremblay are profoundly ignorant.

        First of all, rapists are not “bad people.” My rapists and the johns who assaulted me are not “people”at all – they are not human beings, at all, because if they are people/human than what am I?

        Whether a man who rapes is black, white or any other color is of no importance to those of us who are victims of their raping. We don’t care. Men care a lot about this, though and when a woman is raped or murdered, her appearance and that of the man who raped or killed her become of extreme importance to men in determining whether or not the crime was just – whether or not the victim is worthy of receiving justice or whether the perpetrator should be punished. This is an issue for you men and you can discuss together what scumbags you all are for enslaving and murdering other men solely on the basis of the color of their skin. That’s not what I’m talking about here – I’m talking about men raping women and little girls and the efficacy of killing rapists to deter this crime.

        Whether a rapist is publicly hanged for his crime or whether he is quietly disappeared – the end result (death and a cessation of his raping activity) is the same. This was extra-judicial application of the death penalty for rape and it was effective in stopping rape – which you dudes don’t seem to see as much of a big deal.

        Rapists are not people because rapists are not human, despite their outward appearance. Rapists (and I believe men, in general, because you always show your true colors at some point) are capable of doing things I would never have thought humanly possible until I was raped a bunch of times. One of my rapists, as he was holding me down, bruising my arms and crushing me with the weight of his body, explained to me that he HAD to rape me because he did not have a human mind, that his mind was more like a machine and his soul didn’t come from this planet. I think this is probably one of the most truthful things a man has ever said to me.

        The johns who sexually assaulted me while I was at my licensed and legal job performing my job description which did not involve being sexually assaulted (and don’t you EVER call us “sex workers” again, you dumbfuck – my purpose in life is not to exist for men like you to abuse and throw money at) were not human. I cannot think of them as human. My mind cannot conceive of them as such.

        So, right back at you motherfuckers: What is wrong with YOU?!

        I think we all know the answer to that question.

      • You don’t think Wurnos was a victim because you believe that her purpose in life was to be abused, raped and prostituted by men. She’s just supposed to take it like a lady – we’re all just supposed to take the rape and other violence and ongoing threats and stalking from men like little ladies.

        “I’m sorry for the abuse you’ve suffered” or some other similar B.S. you said to me in a previous comment – and you’ve said it before, you probably just can’t remember because you probably say it to random women on the internet all the time. What a bunch of bull! You’re not sorry about anything – you don’t even know me (trust me, I’m someone you’d hate because not only am I female, but I look ALL WRONG!), that’s just something you liberals like to say while you and your dick do nothing to stop the criminals and the crimes they commit. You do everything you can to support the rights and freedoms of rapists and johns and to support the system the men just like you, who came before you, built and maintain with violence against us – oh, you might not be out strangling women and raping us yourself – you probably don’t like to get your hands too dirty, but you like to talk about the poor fellow’s hard life and his upbringing – or the color of his skin – and make every excuse for why he’s a human being with human rights and the right to “define” himself any way he sees fit and and we women are nothing – our lives, our lost potential, our suffering, our deaths really mean nothing to you, except the opportunity to show to people on the internet (and probably in your happy little social circle) what a kindly man you are – “I’m so sorry for your suffering.” What a load! If you were sorry, you’d be doing everything in your power as a man with influence in this society to stop it!

        If Wurnos wasn’t a victim, then in your book, I wasn’t either.

        This from the same dudebro who called us CIS women a few days ago.

        The pieces of the puzzle fit together nicely.

        • To clarify, I’m referring to this comment of Miss Andry’s: “I also want to say that, although you believe me to be the equivalent of Ted Bundy — or just a hair’s breadth away from his type — you’ve never treated me anything but cordially here and on my blog, womanofthewoods. I know we don’t see eye to eye on everything and I don’t share you’re experiences but for what it’s worth, I learn things from talking to you. I hardly ever get to talk to people who open up about their abuse.”

          He’s, also, said the “I’m sorry for your suffering thing” to me a couple of times in comments. It’s all manipulative bull and I think he needs to know that I know it’s bull – and this is exactly the kind of thing.

          And, “we don’t see eye to eye.” No, we don’t. I think I’m a human being. I think all women are human beings with basic, inalienable human rights not to be abused, raped, prostituted by men, etc.

          I’d have more respect for you if you just admitted that your entire agenda revolves around men’s rights – the right for men to define themselves as women and get into women’s space to commit crimes against us, the right for black men to commit violent crimes with impunity because of your white man’s guilt, the right for johns to have access to women to abuse and rape for a small fee, the right of men to rape women in our own homes, the right to define what rape is, what abuse is, to define the law, to define our lives for us.

          No, we don’t see eye to eye because you are a member of the master class and I am a member of the slave class. You are a member of the oppressor class and the perpetrator class and I am a member of the victim class and that’s the way you think it’s supposed to be or else you would be doing something else right now – live talking to OTHER MEN about stopping their raping, abusing and killing of us – instead of trying to unload your faux-sympathetic, faux-apologetic bullshit – which I see right through! – on me for the I-don’t-know-how-manieth time.

      • Scores of us, huh? Like four score, five score? What is that? Lemme see, 80, 100 of us? Maybe there’s a good 20 score of women in the world who don’t “got it comin’.” Le’ssee, that’s 400 innocent, blameless women who don’t deserve to be abused by men. The rest of us are CIS women and sex workers.

        You want to see a sociopath? Look in the mirror, Jack.

    • HMQ,

      Did you notice that of the seven men she killed, at least two were or had been associated with a police department? Here’s wiki, even though they suck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos

      That doesn’t surprise me. I used to work at a club where the main thing they did was toss out off-duty cops for propositioning us! Not to mention my own rape by an on-duty cop and all my scary cop stalker.

      Yes, we women have so many avenues for justice in the system, don’t we?

  9. This comment is really to no one in particular – except maybe you, HMQ, and it’s really very rhetorical. It’s just me sort of wondering about something that I don’t really quite understand.

    I don’t participate anymore, but I still visit forums and blogs on the internet where there are people discussing subjects I have some relationship to – my hobbies, my professional interests, and so on. I don’t go to sites on subjects that I have absolutely no relationship to the subject, that I have no experience with or anything whatsoever in common with the people discussing subjects of importance to themselves. For instance, I would never go to a website where people of a nation or religion that I am not a member of congregate, pretend to be just an ignorant outsider (or be an outright troll), and call those people names and say that their suffering is not important or that those people with a history of oppression and violence directed at them and who are still living with these horrors are not “real victims.”

    So, I don’t understand why people – and by “people,” I mean men – come here and do this to us – repeatedly. I mean it’s not like they ever seem to actually learn anything from us because, clearly, they don’t believe anything we say and everything they read seems to revert back to some personal agenda of their own.

    I can’t imagine even wasting my time like that, so I can’t figure out why they do it unless it’s just more male parasitism. What is the point – if not just to aggravate the holy fuck out of us – what is it?

  10. Here are more well-respected, well-liked johns (including Jerry Springer – why am I not surprised!):

    http://www.ranker.com/list/politicians-caught-with-prostitutes/ranker-news?page=4

    These men are not usually hindered in their careers, a very few spend any serious time behind bars, because men, in general, are well-respected and well-liked in society and the laws were written by them, for them, to protect themselves, while women are thought of as whores, or at least, whores-in-waiting who “lure” men and cause them to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

    Men see all women and girls as an opportunity for sexual exploitation – and those who support men buying the “sexual services” of women are johns by proxy. If you think it is just a-okay for johns to run around soliciting women walking down the street or women at their regular jobs, then you are completely morally bankrupt. We are not here for the pleasure of men, for men to abuse.

    By the way, a certain amount of street harassment, which is a topic for a couple of other discussions here, is johns soliciting you while you are on your way somewhere in the course of your day – much like the woman just walking around NYC in that Hollaback video. A certain number of your harassers will be johns – usually wealthy-looking white dudes talking in a low voice from their cars as they roll alongside you.

  11. Pingback: The masculinists’ hatred of men. | The Prime Directive

Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s