Jim Muldoon Explains How Men Handle Public Life UPDATED

I often read MRA material to get the root problems of masculinity and how men behave. Sometimes I read something that is so indicative of feminist theory about toxic masculinity that I have to share it.

On a post about Nikki Gemmell, Australian feminist author of an article that MRA’s shit themselves over, Jim Muldoon wrote a piece on AVFM that gave me a birds eye view into how men view women and the rest of the world.

We are all used to the various evopsych theories that MRA’s either make up or use to mansplain their hatred of women and feminists. Here, Muldoon gives us a glimpse into toxic masculinity:

Being social animals, we are constantly looking for signs of where we stand with the other humans in our midst. We check for signs of aggression, acceptance, competition, intimacy, respect, challenge, fear, relaxation, panic and more.  Our hierarchical structures are complex, and depend on context. All of which is constantly being re-assessed in real time while we look for allies and potential threats.

This is taken right from his ass since he quite apparently knows nothing about social psychology but it is a glimpse into how men view the world, and especially women.

I highlighted the important words in red. Notice the entire brainfart revolves around where someone stands or where someone is in the hierarchy. This is because men are raised to put everything into a hierarchy and we know that women are low down on this list. But what strikes me is how men view the public sphere. It’s not a cooperative action but one of adversity and threats.

It seems that men think the public is something they must be aggressive with, must show their place to others. This theme is never to breed cooperation because it’s all about where you are on the hierarchy.

Is it any wonder that men harass women in public? When we look at this in terms of how men treat women they don’t know in public it all begins to make some sense, especially since we know what men do to women if we don’t accept the street harassment.

Women are below men in the male mind. When a man street harasses a woman he’s not necessarily doing it because he’s attracted to her. He’s doing it to control and exercise dominance. This is why men harm and even murder women who don’t respond with a smile to their harassment. Women are supposed to accept male control in public.

One thing Justin Trottier of CAFE Centre for Men and Families got right about street harassment is the element of powerlessness that men feel in public. Since men are always thinking about hierarchy, aggression and control they treat the public sphere as a smorgasbord of women they can exercise their control over. Men who street harass probably don’t control many people in their private sphere so they go to the street to enforce male power and they use women they don’t know to make them feel powerful. Men who street harass are simply feeding their powerlessness with power. They know the hierarchy places women on the bottom. This is why dudes don’t street harass other dudes.

Men expect women to capitulate to their harassment because this is all part of feeling like a ‘man in control.’ Women know that this isn’t about attraction. Attraction is the male justification for their need for dominance and control over women. It’s an excuse.

It reminds me of the viral video of the woman who recorded 10 hours of street harassment. Men instantly justified the harassment by focusing on her jeans. If it wasn’t her jeans it would’ve been anything else. We know women in burqas are street harassed and raped. It’s not about what she’s wearing. It’s about the male need for control.

The objections to this video were that it was minority men who were predominantly featured. Some called the video racist. Why do you think the majority of street harassers were minority men given the theory of control and dominance I’ve presented? It should be obvious. Minority men have less power than white males, by patriarchy, which is inherently racist due to the male need to put people in hierarchies. Is it any wonder that in 10 hours the majority of male street harassers were minority men?

This is not to say white males don’t street harass. They most certainly do. Every woman who goes out in public knows this but we can clearly now understand why males that are further down on the hierarchy ladder did this more often in the video.

The website ‘Stop Street Harassment’ gives us some statistics. One of the first studies of street harassment showed that of 293 women, ALL of them were harmed by males. Of 12,000 women in Canada, over 80% were harmed by males. There are many others and the statistics are all the same. In most cases almost all women are harassed by men in public.

If you always want to know where you stand, as in Muldoon’s critical observation of male psychology, it makes sense that the most pathetic and powerless males are the ones that use the public sphere as a way to feel powerful. They pick on women, all women, because men view us as less than, a means to an end.

Remember the post I did on the man-stabbing dress? I don’t think this dress would do a bit of good although it was a great image of the kind of protection women need. I like to imagine that wearing a side arm would make a difference. Just as a burqa doesn’t prevent rape neither does a dress or a weapon.

I hope in our age of technology we can find a way to protect women from predatory males because it seems that nobody has taken much of an interest in raising boys properly. There are tiny cameras a woman can wear that will record male predators. I think we might need to legislate this because men aren’t changing. Maybe with a huge fine they’ll understand it?

It’s a shame we have to legislate things like this. Male behaviour demands it. If men cannot learn to behave in public then we have no choice.

UPDATE: It seems MRA’s are hopping mad at this post and they’ve swamped my comments with inane retorts. Of course, I’ll only publish their comments with edits and probably won’t publish most of them since none of them are on topic. So far, none of the comments relate to this post and are just adhoms and straw. One of them was a ‘not all men’ comment that I totally laughed at. If you’re going to try to comment dudes, at least try to stay on topic. If your small brains can’t even do that then don’t even bother. But you will bother because you have no lives and nothing better to do than spew justifications for harming women.


47 thoughts on “Jim Muldoon Explains How Men Handle Public Life UPDATED

  1. Excellent! I think this corresponds with some medical studies to do with the male brain, as well – literally, some parts of their brains are shriveled, which makes them unable to assess threat correctly, to perceive threats where there are none, and to have stunted emotions. They literally don’t feel emotional pain like we do and they don’t retain the memories of violence and abuse the way we do.

    That Hollaback video was *exactly* like my typical day walking to work in NYC. I’ve seen another older Hollaback video that was, also, very, very similar except the woman was holding her own camera and they became physically violent with her when she filmed them harassing and then assaulting her. Again, it doesn’t really matter what the man looks like who is threatening you, assaulting you, raping you, stalking you, trying to kill you, etc., when you’re the victim.

    From my perspective, male violence has to stop. I’m terrified to leave my house! What kind of life is this for anybody and why should this be happening to so many of us?

    You’re right, just having a weapon doesn’t necessarily help – you have to point it between their eyeballs and pull on the trigger a little bit before they get the picture and some of them are so dense and intent on putting their hands on you that even that might not stop them. But, I told you that I was armed at a shooting range the last time a man molested me. It’s a way of keeping women out of “men’s space” and they know that other men will always back them up if we defend ourselves – and there is no way you can defend yourself against so many men – one violent incident after another, after another, after another… why should anyone be sentenced to such a life just because she was born female?

    • You’re right about the gun to the eyes and pressing on the trigger. Most men would laugh at a woman with a gun unless she actually uses it. Then you have to prepare for the inevitable assault he’ll make on you to disarm you unless you just put some lead in him w/o question. This is why arming women is no good because men will just push and push to disarm her and if he’s not successful and she does shoot him, she’ll get blamed, just like rape victims get blamed ‘Why did you shoot him? He wasn’t doing anything wrong!’

      • Yes, what’s bad about it is that even if you do get away with killing an attacker in self-defense once, the next time you’re attacked – and there will be a next time! – they’ll put you away. It’s men and their mob mentality and their belief that women are here to BE attacked, raped, abused and murdered – you’re not allowed to defend yourself and if you do, then more men are going to jump on you.

        After all, you’re not allowed to kill your rapists/johns…

      • HMQ,

        You’re the one with the educational background on this and I have absolutely none, but I really think that whole defense of a bad childhood is a bunch of bunk used by courtroom psychiatrists to try to get rapists and killers off. I watched another documentary on Wurnos since yesterday and they were trying to say the same thing about her – but her childhood abuse was not the problem – being raped by johns was the problem, finding that every single man she ever knew, even trusted for a second, thought *might* be a friend, was a sex predator who wanted to harm her – that was the problem. I understand this completely!

        I used to be against killing people, too, but something about being attacked by mobs of men, putting a gun to your back, holding you captive, saying “Don’t look at my face, Don’t talk!” and yelling and screaming in your face for hours – and some other things they did that I can’t talk about – that changed my mind. I wasn’t “luring” men. I was minding my own business somewhere doing a perfectly normal activity on private property, in a situation that should have been completely safe, when this happened.

        I’ve had a bunch of men try to kill me before and since that incident. I’ve had to defend my life against men with deadly force.

        Death is now my friend.

        Men do what they do – abduct women, rape, kill, prostitute us – because it’s what they do, because their brains are constructed and wired differently. The reason dudebros don’t “see eye to eye” with us is because they are not having anywhere near the same sensory experience on this planet. If this were a virtual reality game and we were all wearing our own virtual reality helmets ours are running on Windows 8.1 and theirs are still running on DOS. Their bodies do not have the same remarkable capabilities as ours – we’re piloting sonic speed airplanes and they are driving over potholes in jalopies, by comparison.

        Apparently, this makes it easy for them from an emotional/psychological perspective to do to us what they do – and then say that we have no right to self-defense – and they WANT to do it because they hate us, they want to destroy us, to consume us. At best, we are a food supply and we are very much an energy supply for them on the metaphysical level – their fucking, slurping, slobbering, rubbing, sucking, and raping is literally killing us for their benefit. When they say they can’t see this, that they don’t realize it, I almost believe them for a split second because they are exceedingly dull (mainly because their sensory development is so retarded), but they most certainly know what they are doing – and they like it and that’s the only excuse for their violence. It’s the only excuse for attacking random women – like in the example of what happened to me above – or attacking any women or girls who are in their immediate vicinity (for instance, their own progeny, or their nieces, or their neighbors’ children, etc.).

        And, anyone of them who says he’s not a part of it is a liar – especially those who deny us the right to fight back however we see fit. These are not “friends” and “allies” to women. In fact, these are the most dangerous men of all, in my experience.

        • That’s why this is a woman friendly space. I’m a woman. I know what it’s like to be a woman and I would never deny a woman’s experience with male violence. EVER. That’s why this space must be protected. We will talk about it and if a woman kills her abusers, I say good for her since we all know the courts just slap them on the wrist and let them walk out and do it again. I’m not buying this whole ‘she’s crazy’ stuff. Not for a second. That’s the ‘go to’ explanation for men to discount women. Aileen was a victim of male violence her entire life. ENTIRE LIFE. I won’t blame the victim.

        • but yet all the great art, literature, technological innovation, and scientific breakthrough is courtesy of the male mind while women contribute about as much as a wet fart in this respect. Stop whining that it’s due to socialization. Women are naturally base creatures, lacking in nobility, and imagination. It is you who runs DDOS, while we’re the ones who invented Windows 8.1!

          >This is typical misogyny by MRA’s. I didn’t edit this comment as it shows just how much men hate women. My response to this comment is that if men are the ones doing all the industrial trappings then they are also the ones to blame for the world being a shit hole which includes rape as a war tool, rape of women men know, battering women, prostituting women, murdering women.

          • @ hehehehe, It’s due a little to socialization, I’m sure, aka social conditioning. It’s also due to the subordination of women, the denial to them of any entry into public life, including education, their commodification, violence and intimidation to keep them subordinate, and many other tactics. No sweat, we’re in the public square now. I see you don’t like that. Worried, bro?

        • Well, this must be framed in a feminist way, otherwise we would just say ‘she’s crazy’ without putting her life in a complete context. If we just sat her down in a courtroom and asked her a bunch of silly questions we could easily frame it as ‘she’s crazy.’ Once you add the feminist perspective and see that her entire life was one male after another abusing her then we can see she was the normal one. Women are supposed to smile after being raped!

          I had a short conversation with Julie Bindel on twitter about women going to trial after rape and being so overwhelmed that they giggle in court. The male judge takes this as the rape wasn’t ‘so bad’ and lets the rapist off on a fine or a month or whatnot.

          I’d say the failure to understand patriarchy and how it operates is what causes this kind of ignorance. A woman CAN smile after being raped, she’s taught her whole life to take it and smile.

          Then we see one women out of billions who doesn’t take it. Our patriarchal culture tells women to take it and smile and take it and smile.

          I’m glad Aileen didn’t take it and smile. I have a vid for you to watch by an old radfem friend of mine.

          After she made that video, hordes of men attacked her calling her a cunt and a bitch. This just goes to show what women are supposed to do when men violate them. Be quiet bitch, and take it. Not a single man had a shred of empathy for a young girl being raped over and over again.

          • She shot a man who violently raped her anally and then put alcohol in her ass and vagina.

            She explains this in the video.

            Justified as self defense. Also my radfem friend defined serial killer and went into the law regarding self defense.

            It was justified, completely.

          • One more thing, I don’t know what it’s like to be anally raped and then alcohol put inside me but I do know what it’s like to have iodine pre surgery in that area. I can’t image the pain. I just can’t imagine it.

          • She didn’t giggle much, but the still said she was “not credible.” That’s what a lawyer-dude said about this testimony in another documentary I watched at YT.

            Here’s the thing, when you tell what happened to you – something like this – to anyone, there’s no way you can do it and be “right” – if you laugh (and I do a lot when I tell my horrific stories) or giggle, then I guess they think it’s all a big joke. If I tell my story and I don’t laugh or giggle, people say I sound so “angry” and they can’t listen to what I’m telling them because all they are getting is my anger and nobody wants to listen to an angry person. So, you can’t win this one – no dick, you lose!

            Gee, I wonder why more women don’t report rapes – to anyone?! … not even their closest friends. This is why.

          • A woman can smile while punching a handsy pervert in the face, too. I used to do it, frequently, when nobody was looking. If you smile, they don’t seem to see your fist coming at their face.

          • Punching handsy night club patrons in the face is *also* self-defense. But, they’ll probably fire you if you get caught doing it, but if the pervert assaults you and you don’t fight back, then you’re accused of engaging in a sex act for money – and you can be arrested as a prostitute.

            Again, no dick, you lose!

          • >Edited by HMQ for mansplaining and blaming the victim.

            Nobody wants to hear mansplaining around here dude. Go find somewhere else to do that.

        • Women actually half the amount of serotonin than men do,

          >Edited by HMQ to get rid of the evo psych crap pulled out of whiny male ass.

    • “I think this corresponds with some medical studies to do with the male brain, as well – literally, some parts of their brains are shriveled, which makes them unable to assess threat correctly, to perceive threats where there are none, and to have stunted emotions. They literally don’t feel emotional pain like we do and they don’t retain the memories of violence and abuse the way we do.”

      Wow! Rather than implying men are less intelligent, perhaps just focus on there being a difference between the anatomy of male and female brains. One isn’t worse than the other, only different. They serve different purposes in the same way as our different sexual anatomies.

      Studies also show men experience stress differently than women. Men experience stress more acutely, and for longer periods; which probably explains male avoidance of confrontation and the need for time to decompress after arguements with women. Please explain how that isn’t emotional pain, men don’t have more heart-attacks and shorter lifespans because their lives are stress-free.

      >nobody said men don’t experience stress. Stay on topic and stop baiting people with this behaviour.

      Also, let’s not overlook the value of male stress response. It enables a quicker reaction to danger so he is able to protect not just himself, but those relying on his protection. As for retained memories of violence and abuse, are you claiming men are less vengeful than women? Men sometimes choose to overlook certain harms because they recognize the potential consequences that will result if they did not. Men have much more to lose in a confrontation than women.

      >Response by HMQ: Nobody cares about the bullshit about men being protective when men have oppressed, raped, beaten, murdered, the biggest class of people, women, for thousands of years. Telling us men have more to lose is more mansplainy mansplain.

      Not to dismiss the horrors of rape,

      >Edited for dismissal of horror of rape. HMQ

      “But, I told you that I was armed at a shooting range the last time a man molested me. It’s a way of keeping women out of “men’s space” and they know that other men will always back them up if we defend ourselves…”

      While there’s no excuse for your molestation.

      >Edited for long mansplainy stuff. Next time don’t mansplain and blame victims on my blog.

      • Wow. I offered reasoned replies to both your post and readers comments, and this is how I’m treated. Clearly you’re not open to discussion and polite debate. You’re a disservice to your greater community. Enjoy your close-mindedness. It’s no wonder your activists aren’t taken seriously.

        >HMQ response: Apparently you didn’t read the sidebar of the blog. MRA’s are not taken seriously around here. You are laughed at, ridiculed because you have misogynist views. Your mansplain isn’t welcome here. Suck it up and go somewhere else. I’m only a disservice to you, and that’s the point.

        I hope every woman here collected some tears before macho man goes on his way.

        • Dudebro is also engaging in reversals. Studies show that it is women – not men – who experience stress more acutely and for longer periods of time.

          Men as protectors? That’s a laugh! Men do live in fantasy worlds though. This example comes to mind: I no longer talk to the dude he was a tourist from another country) who I saved from an ass-kicking some years ago by jumping in between him and his huge attacker with my weapon. A few years ago, he wanted to come for a visit and I explained why this was not a good idea – namely the degree of stress and illness I’m dealing with as a fallout from years of dealing with male violence – and he said, “I’ve always been there to protect you.” This is a remarkably bold, gaslighting type of lie. He remembers very well the circumstance under which we made our acquaintance and it was me saving him from an ass-kicking by some other huge guy. (The dude’s a really weakly-seeming, cowardly type of guy, anyway.). Men make up their own fairy tales about themselves as white knights and slimy reptiles who are really princes and expect us to believe them – no matter how obvious their lies are, they just keep lying! LOL! I guess they’re just grasping at the hope that someone – anyone! – will believe it.

  2. Apparently you know nothing about social psychology, or evolutionary psychology. He stated a 100% observable, empirical fact about human society(including societies that claim to be more egalitarian)and you respond with what amounts to “science is hate”, kumbaya horseshit, and fairy dust, and a long winded, off the mark idea about why men harass women on the street.

    >Edited by HMQ: Except I studied both social psychology and morality in upper level psychology. I’m posting this comment so people can see how dumb MRA’s are. I never ever said science was hate. I’m focusing on HOW MRA’s use science to harm women. In fact, I’m the one with the education in psychology, so this entire comment is bunk. The reason this MRA is so mad, I think, is because I hit a crucial nerve.

    MRA’s focus on evopsych theories that cannot really be tested as they are mostly unfalsifiable which means the scientific method cannot be applied, unlike social psychology which has many ways of designing experiments utilizing the scientific method.

    Instead of explaining why men street harass he just simply tells me I’m wrong. He knows his explanation will be an excuse.

  3. I don’t know if anyone remembers my “translating” of Freud in my last post here, but I pointed out that women were invisibilized as part of the human race in Freud’s writing. He did not write to us among the readers he was addressing, he used the word “man” as if it included women when it really was describing only males, and he included men as victims when describing crimes committed overwhelmingly against females.

    @ HarryO, he did state a scientific fact I do agree with. The only problem is, he was only addressing men, when he says “we” he is incorrectly including women, as all the empirical evidence cites these traits in men only, It is men who are hierarchical, vigilant, and threat-oriented. It is insulting women over and over to not address us (to not include us among his “humans”, and to include us in his discussion of male biopsychology.

    Here is what he said: “Being social animals, we are constantly looking for signs of where we stand with the other humans in our midst. We check for signs of aggression, acceptance, competition, intimacy, respect, challenge, fear, relaxation, panic and more. Our hierarchical structures are complex, and depend on context. All of which is constantly being re-assessed in real time while we look for allies and potential threats.”

    I am a student of Lorenz’ theory of aggression, accept Stephen Pinker’s brief recitation of studies indicating the evolutionary/biological basis of male aggression and hierarchicalization, accept Freud’s theory of the Death Drive in men, agree with the quote above as to men, and accept the new sciences sudying these traits and their origins such as biocriminology and social dominance theory.

    IN my opinion, you have read the quote just as intended; as a man, invisibilizing women. That is however a fatal flaw in the quote. It renders it offensively inaccurate, just as, every time a male philosopher or scientist commits the same underlying error, a woman reader has to attempt to find the truth in the middle of the lie.

    That is why you are wrong in your comment, and House Mouse Queen is correct.

    • Most significant part of the article, imho, is this:

      While the difference in aggressiveness or hurtful behavior seems to have a biological basis, which many scientists relate to the presence of the male hormone testosterone, there is no evident biological component in such personality traits as assertiveness and competitiveness, Dr. Maccoby and other behavioral scientists say. Furthermore, they contend that such traits are heavily influenced by the child’s social learning.

      Yes. Testosterone is necessary but not sufficient to explain male violence. It provides the baseline but social forces mold men. This is in line with my understanding of social psychological models in which the person ‘transacts’ with their environment. This model accounts for biological elements as in:

      a male who has high T levels will be more aggressive and in turn, as the article states, will harm other kids and those kids will, in turn, beat up the aggressor. This is how nature/nurture transacts.

      I’ve always loved the transactional theory of behaviour since it’s a complete theory of how biology and environment make behaviour. The full loop of stimulus or sensation/perception/response is fully accounted for.

    • I agree that T is the main biological hormone responsible for male behaviour. I watched a video of a trans FtT who talked about what T did to her. She said she lost her ability to feel anything and that she got mean and insensitive to her partner.

      This video, and her explanation of what T did to her, really confirmed this point for me.

  4. Hi, HMQ, I agree as you said, “It provides the baseline but social forces mold men.” Those social forces are male-dominated and reflect male but not female needs, it does need to be added. If the dominating group in a society has a certain biological predilection toward aggression, it seems logical that the society it develops will tend to valorize, even exaggerate, that predilection.

    • Well yes, we develop ways to deal with the violence and none of them are satisfactory because the dominant class, the larger/stronger male has the advantage when we get right down to it.

      I think about legislating street harassment, how I’d do it. My vision will eventually come to pass as we will all have recording devices on us and around us. Look at Britain? It’s monitored constantly.

      UBC had a rapist and there was a phone app developed so that a woman would enable the app upon going out and if she was accosted by a male she could simply hit a button and the entire event would be recorded and sent to a central computer.

      I’m also reminded of the movie Girl With the Dragon Tattoo which she uses a button camera to record a man raping her. This is what we women need. Phones are no good because it’s too easy to destroy them. Hiding a camera which records to a central computer is the best solution.

  5. @vychera Women’s subordination and inability to get an education? This is 2015, and not 1915. Women are graduating college at greater numbers than men. If it’s with a useless degree that doesn’t permit them to enter high paying fields like tech or finance that’s their problem. Quota systems will only hurt business which is basically what you want anyway. Women have the same opportunities men do in modern Western society. If you can’t hack it and compete on a level playing field than that’s your problem, and no one else’s. Ironic that feminism wound up showing women’s shortcomings so third wavers play the oppression card and try to impose diversity quotas on private business like any other group of leftists. Pathetic. Like we tell other men, “Man up!” This is what equality really looks like and apparently you don’t like it.

    >This is the most ignorant shit ever. Women are behind you doofus, because men held them OUT of these jobs and education opportunities for hundreds of years. We only have the last 80 being allowed into University, which is a male dominated, man made space. Have you even considered that aggression and competition might not be the best system? Of course not, because male privilege.

    If you can’t hack it? Hack a male system? Women have spent too much time trying to deal with male systems and it’s time women had representation to make new systems. This meritocracy is male focused, and it’s not the best system. It’s the ONLY system. Ignoramus.

    Oh and there’s no such thing as a useless degree. People study for knowledge in certain fields. Doofus.

    Quota systems will hurt? They’ll hurt alright but they’ll challenge male spaces, which is what you’re protecting. Male systems need ending because half the population hasn’t been represented at all. So no, you’re also wrong about that. Not being allowed into professions is oppression and then when getting in women have to deal with male systems that were made for men by men. Yes, that’s oppression and that’s why we need to change things. Deal.

    Men act as if there’s only one system when nobody else has had a chance to develop other systems. That’s what privilege does to the already bloated ego.

    Oh and I won’t publish the rest of your crap comments, because well, they’re whiny and adhom.

  6. @ Jackson, you said “Like we tell other men, “Man up!” This is what equality really looks like and apparently you don’t like it.”

    You are entirely right. That is exactly what formal abstract “equality” looks like: a man. And no, women don’t want to be men.

    As Simone de Beauvoir says, “Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male…Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth…All oppression creates a state of war.”

    Professor of Law Catharine A. MacKinnon puts it this way: “…Male dominance is perhaps the most pervasive and tenacious system of power in history…Its point of view is the standard…its force is exercised as consent…its control as the definition of legitimacy.”

    She also says, “.Consent is a communication under conditions of inequality.”

    And: “The law sees and treats women the way men see and treat women.”

    And: “Abstract rights will authoritize the male experience of the world.”

    If you would like to see Prof. MacKinnon’s reasoning, which I find very persuasive, you can read two of her articles online, which are published in hardback in The Canon of American Legal Thought (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8318.html).

    The online URLs are: http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Certification%20Readings/catherine-mackinnon-feminism-marxism-method-and-the-state-an-agenda-for-theory1.pdf



    When feminists refer to “equality” they are referring not just to formal legal equality, since that only perpetuates the unequal social/political system in place; they are referring to full equality.

    That is why your command to women to “man up” is ludicrous.

    • He’s tried replying twice but can’t keep on subject. He’s ignorant about what you’re talking about, which is obvious from his snippy dumb replies.

      Once he starts using Google and stops shooting off his mouth maybe he’ll make a comment worth publishing. What it comes down to is mansplainy man is denying the world is man made its’ concepts and laws are male focused. He’s a typical MRA idiot denying that while at the same time, earlier, stating men made everything. LOL MRA’s are pretty dumb that way.

      I knew he’d just ignore you and continue to mansplain about nothing. You can’t have conversations with these idiots. They’re just too stupid.

  7. Hi, HMQ, thanks for saving me from attempting another response. I do think those MacKinnon articles could help him get his chops up.

    MRAs are always complaining that feminists won’t debate them. The reason is not just their confrontational mode of debate, which is quintessentially masculine; it’s also that they’re not looking for debate, they’re just venting without any intellectual content. Throwing junk at us like “Man Up” doesn’t add to any feminists’ desire to expend the effort to debate someone like this. Also, I notice that they tend to read low-quality MRA-provided articles about feminism instead of reading texts by feminists.

    • you sincerely believe that if I read more feminist drivel than I already have I’m going to come around to your point of view? This is laughable. What intelligent men who have read feminist texts have deduced is that this is a zero sum game you’re playing, and debate is not necessary. The only outcome can be the full defeat of the feminist movement by any means necessary. I’m pro choice but if it means knocking feminists down I’ll support roll backs on reproductive rights just to hurt, weaken, and enrage feminists.

      >I didn’t edit this comment at all but I’m posting it to show just how dumb MRA’s are and how they’re really just right wing idiots. HMQ

      • No, I’m actually a liberal, but totalitarian feminists like yourself are pushing liberal men to the right. Just look at Gamergate: Yes, conservatives have done a very good job of using it to further their aims, but the majority of gamers are liberals turned off by rad fem activism and the demonization of men courtesy of people like Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander. Sorry to tell you the truth. And guess what? You were called out on Infowars as a harpy and part of their 2014 feminist fails. Congrats! It’s quite an achievement!

        >Response by HMQ. The poor man here doesn’t know what totalitarian means. Women are always blamed for men becoming republican asshats who do everything in their power to control women. Fact is, if you’re a liberal, you’d probably understand why conservatism is incredibly problematic but the reality is, you’re a woman hating nutjob who’s really a neo-con.

        I could care less about Gamergoat except it’s a bunch of MRA’s harming women, as usual, because a woman exercised her sexual freedom as a human being. It’s not about journalistic ethics, and once again, you prove it’s about harming women by mentioning Anita who simply makes youtube videos analyzing video games through a feminist lens. Wow. So problematic for the poor manfeelz.

        I got called out? So that’s where all the traffic is coming from! Nothing quite like being called out by a conspiracy theory whackjob!

        • Wow. I don’t know where to start, here. But, I’ll try.

          So, when you said you’d fight against reproductive freedoms, did you just mean for feminists? So, non-feminist identifying women still have bodily autonomy? Not sure how that’s going to work out IRL. Will doctors and pharmacists have women fill out a political/philisophical questionnaire before they can prescribe/dispense HBC? I’ve had a tubal ligation. Are you going to demand that it be reversed? I think my partner would be sad about that, so would you then allow him to get a vasectomy? Or does he have to start buying condoms on the black market? Don’t think he’d much like that, either. But, honestly, I’m too old to have another kid, even if we could afford one. He might go for celibacy!

          I’m not a totalitarian feminist. Not sure what the ideology entails, actually. Please tell me what they want, and who their best thinkers are so I can do some research? I didn’t get plausible results when I googled them, just some random stuff about Phyllis Schlafly. (also, I realise that this is a radfem space. I don’t identify myself as a radfem, exactly, but I like to lurk here, because I learn stuff. Thx, HMQ!)

          Are gamers really liberals? And have they really been turned into conservatives because Anita Sarkeesian pointed out some sexism in vidya? I need more info! MOAR INFO!!!!!

          Pretty sure no one called me out on Infowars. Don’t remember hearing anyone say “GrumpyOldNurse! I’m calling you out because of all the misandry you’ve been spreading down at the hospital! Your charting hurts men! Also, stay away from that union office, you harpy!”. But, if it’s such an achievement, may I please have my cookie? (maybe this achievement is usually marked by bestowing a trophy or a ribbon, but I like cookies better). Oh, you meant HMQ was called out! Sorry, HMQ, didn’t mean to try to steal your cookie (or ribbon).

          Overall, I’m getting some very mixed messages from you, Jackson!

    • V.,

      Their whole point is to waste our time and energy, to take what they can when it’s to their benefit and to destroy the rest. That’s the reason men come here. They understand that when they can’t assault us physically, there are other ways – like the Dudebro Jackson says in his comment below. The trolling, the pretending to be “allies” and and feminists, B.S., – that’s what it’s all about. These men pretending they don’t know the degree and frequency of violence they do to us and how they created and now support and control the systems that make it possible are all part of the same network. Once in a while, they tell it like it is – usually when they think they’ve got you cornered in one way or another and you can’t escape.

      What exactly does “self-defense” look like under these circumstances?

  8. You said: “He’s a typical MRA idiot denying that while at the same time, earlier, stating men made everything. LOL MRA’s are pretty dumb that way.”

    Well, there you have it. The logic of dominators: this world we utterly dominated for thousands of years works for us, we let you negotiate from your position of relative powerlessness, you’ve nicked us once or twice, so what’s your problem?

  9. I’m not gonna comment on the whole racism issue, I disagree but you already know that. What I do want to point out though is that people who think like this will tend to be the least successful: competitiveness has been linked with lower success in a wide variety of fields, from business to school. Buying into masculinity wholesale predisposes you to become the kind of frustrated male that turns to MRAs and other gender scam artists to understand the world.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s