Post: #1

Oh, Lindy West. The gift of a beached whale that keeps on giving.



Yesterday, she took on MRA's and folded the manosphere under that heading.

I don't follow everything she writes, but I saw her tweet about MRA's, I thought she might mention ROK or the manosphere. She did mention the manosphere, but she ignored ROK and did not link to any piece on ROK.

What is curious about her piece is the lack of snark and ridiculous over-the-top hysteria. I don't know about you, but when she thinks she has a slam-dunk story or piece, she goes all in with her shitty jokes and all-caps.

I think the manosphere and MRA's are tugging on strings of feminist theory that have only been held in place because to question feminist dogma in academia is to commit career suicide. Roy Baumeister's wife was legitimately worried about his career when he started to take on feminist rhetoric and "facts."

West has quite a bit of meaningless hedging language and attempts to convince us men that feminists truly have male needs and concerns at heart. West tries to paint herself as an advocate for men, as her father was a single, divorced man who raised her and her other sibling. The problem is this: we have see the heart of hearts of the feminist movement. Their radical works are a matter of public record: we can read their screeds, watch their meltdowns in literary or video format. The stranglehold on academia they wielded for so long has been slowly chipped away at by the Internet.

Feminist love to dub 3rd wave feminism a feminism aided and abetted by the Internet, the but the truth is that it gave men platforms they lacked previously.

The haughty arrogance that characterized feminism and spoke volumes about the rigor and validity of feminist claims has been challenged slowly. It started with brave individuals like Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers. Men like Roy Baumeister and -- to an extent -- Steven Pinker have slowly chipped away at the mindlessness of feminism.

Now, websites like Return of Kings, are creating heavy-hitting pieces that don't timidly approach feminism like a beta at a bar trying to hit on hot chick, but gob-smacking feminism right it's rotten mouth, rocking its putrid fangs. There certainly is a diversity of articles on ROK, but just about every staff writer has an article stomping out feminism.

If you think some red-pill revolution or any sort of serious social movement is getting birthed here, I would put down the brandy. Men -- as a class -- are becoming more aware of the bullshit in society and how much of it is sponsored by feminism. Lindy seems to be trying to get out in front of MRA concerns, pretending the shallow narcissism of feminism will somehow expand its purview to issues that affect men. As she shows, feminists will only get behind any issue if it can be tied to men and blamed on men. They might be for paternal leave, but only if the underlying rhetoric blames gender, patriarchy and oppressive males.

All that being said, claiming to not take MRA's and the manosphere, but then giving us platforms on major media sites and mentioning that some of our concerns ARE valid, but that we blame the wrong things is strange. How dare you blame anti-male policies, social narcissism and big government that crowds out father figures? I think Lindy feels the bombs going off, but has no idea how to react or what to think. She has been taught many things to think and how to relate to the world and the manosphere challenges many of those ingrained thought patterns. She hasn't confronted men and women who challenge feminist narratives so stridently and in ways she's never heard. I'm sure that she would piss her granny panties reading The Last Psychiatrist.

The main problem with moral judgmentalism and the blame game (Whew! They are all just misogynists!) is the short-term gain is nothing compared to the long-term issue of not actually addressing substantive claims. Mindlessly claiming that a position is not based out of evidence or is based out of hatred might feel good and great out of the gate, but it doesn't hold up long term. Moral puritanism could possibly construed as an addiction, as the judgment needs to ramped up as the initial high wears off and the judged need to become even more depraved, evil and hateful.

In the end, Lindy has no idea how to deal with MRA's or the manosphere. I bet ROK is a secret fetish read for her.

For the record: I hate how we are reflexively lumped in with MRA's.

Post: #2

I see that picture, and I imagine her at home opening up a stick of butter and just eating it.

Post: #3

First off, there's nothing little about Lindy.

Second, although her entire screed is one that reads identically when pointed at feminism rather than the 'MRA' menace Lindy attacks, the core of her argument - and one I've seen repeated ad nauseum by the Jezebel commentariat - is a No True Scotsman fallacy: that only the most misogynistic, bitter basement virgins qualify as MRAs. She actually states in that piece that other men are able to advance the same mens rights issues without a concomitant hatred for women, but these men who advocate for mens rights are not Mens Rights Advocates because the latter are misogynists who hate women.

Remember, in the updated American doublespeak, if you're a "feminist," you're actually pushing for equality and rights, not female power; but if you're a "mens rights advocate," you're pushing for male power, not rights or equality.

Post: #4

(03-02-2014 03:17 AM)lurker Wrote:  the core of her argument - and one I've seen repeated ad nauseum by the Jezebel commentariat - is a No True Scotsman fallacy

I think the fallacy in her argument is that she is equating anyone who thinks we have gone too far in prosecuting rape with some idiot who posts nonsense like "In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month."

That is a Ad hominem (by insulting MRAs, she thinks she can dismiss their claims as a whole) and a fallacy of composition (very few MRAs express themselves as poorly and inappropriately as the ones she quoted).

Jezebel wishes to get clicks and ad views by inciting the anger of self-centered females who do not wish to be women.

Post: #5

Quote:I think that it is very telling that both MRAs I've met in real life both blasted me for having a "faggot job. What are you, a woman?" The whole movement is just an excuse to hate on women for not obeying their every whim.

And teacher. I teach first grade. And it's awesome.

I mean, if there is a such thing as a "faggot job", teaching elementary school would be one right?

Post: #6

^It's obvious they don't interact with MRA's.

Like just about any modern ideological movement, they have no idea what is really talked about by the "other side."

As expected with feminists, they don't engage with dissenting or different opinions in good faith. They just pretend they are on the other side of a binary -- in which they are the good actors.

Post: #7

(03-02-2014 03:17 AM)soup Wrote:  I see that picture, and I imagine her at home opening up a stick of butter and just eating it.

Nah, that would be keto! I reckon she rolls it in sugar first.

It's enough to give you nightmares ay?

Post: #8

I think her 6'5 good looking boyfriend needs a heavy dose of the manosphere . Dude is beyond omega levels...possibly damaged in more ways than one.

Post: #9

(03-02-2014 03:17 AM)soup Wrote:  I see that picture, and I imagine her at home opening up a stick of butter and just eating it.

Post: #10

There's an old song called "Blackmail" by a '70s group called 10cc. In the song, the singer snaps photos of an unknowing woman while she's having sex and attempts to blackmail her. But it backfires:

"She showed them (to) her husband
He ordered a dozen
He thought they were fabulous...
He sold her to Hefner
Who put her in Playboy
He gave her a centerfold
I made a real blunder
She made it in movies
I made her a superstar"

I'm sure 2Wycked's heart was in the right place with this post, but with the constant attention on this woman in these parts, are we only serving to beef up her "brand" and make her more famous? This is how people get six-figure book deals. And this woman's rantings and subsequent media coverage in a book, IMO, would be the ultimate backfiring on the manosphere. No one needs a LW media blitz.

This is not a call to censor ourselves, but perhaps to think twice about being so bold about posting the names of people who live and die by their Google ranking and Web clicks. Maybe we can do it without placing such names in the subject field? I've learned not to link Jezebel but to re-paste their copy (which also should have been done here). Maybe we need to take it a step further. I didn't give them the Web hit, by the way.

Post: #11

Hope the photographer has insurance...

Post: #12

It's a safe assumption that she, like most women, strive for attention. While it still helps to get support from her fellow women, at heart, she wants to het attention from men. It doesn't matter wether it is positive or negative. She can't rely on her looks to get attention so she will come up with outrageous things to say to get people to notice her. (hence we are talking about her now)

Post: #13

I'm glad she didn't lump ROK together with MRA's. What do we have in common with MRAs? They're mostly guy s who got rinsed in a divorce who are broken. The good thing they did is tell the next generation to not get married. Aside from that, I don't like their approach to life : they like to whine, express feelings, talk things through, protest, appeal, just like feminists. I'd rather take action.

Post: #14

(03-02-2014 06:09 AM)Lucario Wrote:  I think her 6'5 good looking boyfriend needs a heavy dose of the manosphere . Dude is beyond omega levels...possibly damaged in more ways than one.

She's bearding for him.

Post: #15

I've said it before and i'll say it again. This is my one major beef with the "Manosphere" is that it caused me to know who this cow is.

Post: #16

(03-02-2014 12:23 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  I've said it before and i'll say it again. This is my one major beef with the "Manosphere" is that it caused me to know who this cow is.

It's a beef in both senses of the word.

Post: #17

(03-02-2014 10:07 AM)Daddy Wrote:  I'm glad she didn't lump ROK together with MRA's. What do we have in common with MRAs? They're mostly guy s who got rinsed in a divorce who are broken. The good thing they did is tell the next generation to not get married. Aside from that, I don't like their approach to life : they like to whine, express feelings, talk things through, protest, appeal, just like feminists. I'd rather take action.

What do we have in common with MRAs? We advocate for mens rights. Thus making us MRAs. It doesn't matter that we have an entirely different approach to others with similar goals. Don't allow Jezebel feminists to define the term as the pejorative they want to.

Post: #18

(03-02-2014 04:30 AM)placer Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:17 AM)lurker Wrote:  the core of her argument - and one I've seen repeated ad nauseum by the Jezebel commentariat - is a No True Scotsman fallacy

I think the fallacy in her argument is that she is equating anyone who thinks we have gone too far in prosecuting rape with some idiot who posts nonsense like "In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month."

That is a Ad hominem (by insulting MRAs, she thinks she can dismiss their claims as a whole) and a fallacy of composition (very few MRAs express themselves as poorly and inappropriately as the ones she quoted).

Except it goes farther than that. In Lindy's world, all MRAs express themselves as poorly and inappropriately as the ones she quoted, because those that don't show the required level of misogyny "aren't really MRAs." This sentiment mutates her argument beyond a composition fallacy - which ascribes the characteristics of one member of the group to the group itself, or vice versa - to more of a fallacy of exclusivity, where either one or the other option must be true, without regard to third choices or blends of the two: either these men are misogynists AND talk about mens rights, or they aren't MRAs. No middle ground.

The ad hominem, of course, is always there. But watch Lindy's attempt: she's trying to validate the ad hominem by elevating it to a showing of sample bias. She thinks that if she can prove MRAs have a vested interest in subjugating women, then their views on female behavior are subject to greater scrutiny. She's correct in this. Put it this way: how many people here trust Jezebel's opinions on mens issues?

Post: #19

Lindy West is a hackish provocateur who has succeeded 99 percent based on her willingness to "rant" in support of obviously insane ideas. Everything she writes is shtick for the idiot fringe (ie, regular readers of Jezebel). I don't think she would actually believe a word that she writes, except that she gets paid to believe it.

The good news is that, as some skirt she quoted in 2Wycked's link wrote:

Quote:...to dismiss the MRM merely misogynist and extreme would be to ignore the fact that their beliefs are shared by a troublingly large percentage of the American population.

As out there as this board is, the ethos of the RvF is still closer to what most people in America (and certainly outside the U.S.) believe than Jezebel / Lindy West will ever be. On the rare occasion you meet anyone like Lindy in real life, everybody else in the room is thinking When will this dumb bitch shut her yap?, same as you are.

Sad thing is, Lindy's not even a decent writer. You'd think grrl bloggers could've at least picked someone with a little talent as the avatar of their lunacy.

Post: #20

(03-02-2014 01:08 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:30 AM)placer Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:17 AM)lurker Wrote:  the core of her argument - and one I've seen repeated ad nauseum by the Jezebel commentariat - is a No True Scotsman fallacy

I think the fallacy in her argument is that she is equating anyone who thinks we have gone too far in prosecuting rape with some idiot who posts nonsense like "In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month."

That is a Ad hominem (by insulting MRAs, she thinks she can dismiss their claims as a whole) and a fallacy of composition (very few MRAs express themselves as poorly and inappropriately as the ones she quoted).

Except it goes farther than that. In Lindy's world, all MRAs express themselves as poorly and inappropriately as the ones she quoted, because those that don't show the required level of misogyny "aren't really MRAs." This sentiment mutates her argument beyond a composition fallacy - which ascribes the characteristics of one member of the group to the group itself, or vice versa - to more of a fallacy of exclusivity, where either one or the other option must be true, without regard to third choices or blends of the two: either these men are misogynists AND talk about mens rights, or they aren't MRAs. No middle ground.

The ad hominem, of course, is always there. But watch Lindy's attempt: she's trying to validate the ad hominem by elevating it to a showing of sample bias. She thinks that if she can prove MRAs have a vested interest in subjugating women, then their views on female behavior are subject to greater scrutiny. She's correct in this. Put it this way: how many people here trust Jezebel's opinions on mens issues?

It's really amazing to me how many fallacies are so regularly present in her writing, to the point that she must be doing it on purpose.

Post: #21

Still a classic.

Post: #22

(03-02-2014 04:34 AM)dads Wrote:  

Quote:I think that it is very telling that both MRAs I've met in real life both blasted me for having a "faggot job. What are you, a woman?" The whole movement is just an excuse to hate on women for not obeying their every whim.

And teacher. I teach first grade. And it's awesome.

I mean, if there is a such thing as a "faggot job", teaching elementary school would be one right?

Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. A huge part of what is wrong with Western societies is that many of the really important institutions have been ceded to all the worst kinds of women. Many boys in the West can go through their first six years of school and never see a male teacher. If they don't have fathers or other strong male role models in their lives, they then grow up in a totally feminised environment that is extremely hostile to them and deals with them basically by medicating them and putting them in a corner. Then people wonder why boys and young men are falling through the cracks on pretty much everything from educational attainment to crime to substance abuse.

When I was a kid, I went to government schools up until the end of grade three. My teacher that year was a psycho bitch who pretty much had it out for every boy in the class. There were something like two male teachers (one was the principal) in the entire school.

I then went to an all boys' private school where the reverse was true. Other than the kindergarten and first few grades (that were lumped with them) I can name you every single female teacher in both the junior school and senior school -- grade six social studies teacher, year seven French teacher, year nine French teacher on exchange from France, one mathematics teacher I never had, and two (guidance) counsellors. I think there was a Japanese teaching assistant for Japanese at one point, but I never did that subject. That was out of a staff of about eighty to one hundred teachers.

Not only did we get stuff done in our classes and managed to learn a ton of stuff that boys in the government system struggled with, the vast majority of our teachers had complete control over us. Indeed, the whole reason we didn't get a damn thing done in those few classes with female teachers was because they had absolutely zero classroom management skills that didn't involve crying. Our whole objective with our French teacher or social studies teacher every lesson was to make them cry. It was a joke. More than that, I just wanted to put my fist down my social studies teacher's throat she was that stupid. I still remember her trying to tell me that Haiti was in southern Africa. Even at eleven I knew she was an utter moron, as we all did. That nonsense didn't fly with our other teachers because we respected them because they knew what they were talking about and had some presence.

Later, I went on to become a teacher myself. My God you should have seen the women in my course who were going to become primary (elementary) school teachers. To a woman they were all thick as four planks (I used to just about gnaw my arm off whenever we had to do group work) and I could have seen a kid like me or my classmates when I was a kid running rings around them and then being put on ritalin as a result. Incidentally, almost to a woman, aside from one relatively attractive and in shape woman with kids (who was also thick as four planks), they were all fat and dowdy twenty something year olds. Christ, what a horror show. In their entire segment of the course, I think there was one single guy out of one hundred and fifty people. One single guy! He was a thirty-something beta dad, too.

Now contrast that with Taiwan (which few would probably consider to be even remotely masculine as a society). At the elementary schools I have been to, probably a third of the staff are male. It makes all the difference. They joke around with the boys, play basketball with them in the yard, and there are pictures on the classroom walls of aliens with guns shooting dinosaurs eating people. During the breaks, the boys run around with brooms pretending they're kung fu masters. Imagine that in the West! Someone would have a heart attack, kids would be suspended or get criminal records, etc.

A large part of the decline in the masculinity of the West vs the rest is because in the former, you have one beta dad to every one hundred fat, stupid chicks on staff. In the latter, pretty much every kid has a male homeroom teacher sometime in his first six years of school. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons for this, a large one being the fear of being labelled a paedophile.

So no, teaching elementary school is anything but a "faggot job" unless you literally want your kid to become an emasculated omega, high to the gills on ritalin, or in jail.

Post: #23

Quote:There were something like two male teachers (one was the principal) in the entire school.

Same in my elementary school for the first few years. Then the principal left and was replaced by a woman so there was only one male teacher after that.

Post: #24

(03-03-2014 06:54 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  A large part of the decline in the masculinity of the West vs the rest is because in the former, you have one beta dad to every one hundred fat, stupid chicks on staff. In the latter, pretty much every kid has a male homeroom teacher sometime in his first six years of school. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons for this, a large one being the fear of being labelled a paedophile.

Totally agree with everything you said. I think the paedophile thing is huge. American women seem absolutely obsessed with paedophilia these days. I can definitely see many men avoiding teaching because they know that so many people will automatically think "child molester" before they even meet him. Plus, the risk is so huge. Just an accusation is enough to ruin your life. Who'd want to put himself in that position?

Post: #25

Who cares what the feminists think? We don't need their approval, bottom line.