A Dose of Stupid v103

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

A 12 Year-Old Boy’s First Kiss Shouldn’t Be With a Grown Woman

I was ready to agree with that statement until I saw what it referred to:

That little peck was nothing. It is hardly worth mentioning. It certainly does not rise to the level of child rape . And yet Joanna Schroeder could not help herself: Continue reading

These aren’t the nerds you’re looking for

In my previous post, I discussed the first part of Noah Brand’s series on nerds. As I noted, Brand’s argument can be summed up as gamers are losers who were born losers, will die losers, and not even other losers will mourn them.

He attempts to show sympathy towards male geeks, yet instead falls into the ever common feminist mistake of bashing the people he claims to want to help. In his second part, Brand goes full McIntosh.

First, Brand graces us with an excellent Freudian slip:

In part one of this article, we talked about the cluster of people who are, or believe themselves to me, permanently awkward and socially nonfunctional, people who need simple and consistent rules for interactions.

I believe the proper English would be “or believe themselves to be,” however, the mistake is quite revealing. Geeks do not think themselves permanently awkward and socially dysfunctional. They usually think themselves misunderstood.

They’ve tried to make spaces for themselves within geek/nerd culture, where they don’t have to be acceptable to other people, and they respond with rage when they feel those spaces have been violated by “outsiders”.

Geeks did not create a space where they could be unacceptable; they created a space where they would be accepted. They usually have little problem with “outsiders” coming into that space, as long as the “outsiders” respect it. However, many of the “outsiders” do not respect the space. These people only want to control it. They often demonstrate this by harassing and mocking the community, which is ironically the reason the community exists.

Their experience of outsiders, and especially of women, is that they cause pain, therefore causing them pain is justifiable.

That is a very poor strawman. Most geeks do not attack “outsiders” or women, despite the pain they suffer. If they did, few people would target them for abuse. After all, it is unwise to abuse someone who will fight back. Better to abuse those one knows will do nothing, hence Brand’s two condescending articles. Continue reading

Rebranding nerdom as “rage”

Noah Brand resurfaced on the Good Men Project to remind everyone that gamers are losers who were born losers, will die losers, and not even other losers will mourn them.

And that is just the first part of the series.

The amount of condescension and projection in the article is stunning. I agree that the “notion that one is either the bully or the bullied, and it’s impossible to be both, lies deep in a lot of thinking, and it’s a trap. Indeed, it’s one of the primary intellectual sins of social justice movements, when we imply one is either the oppressor or the oppressed, but never both.” The article is an excellent example of that.

It is also precisely what it looks like to bully someone. Brand’s article is yet another body in the three-month-long feminist pile-on on gamers. Feminists took to the gamer hate with a glee and fervor not seen since someone dared suggest some women lie about rape.

Brand attempts to show sympathy towards gamers, yet his definition of sympathy proves fleeting: Continue reading

Laurie A. Couture’s unedited article published on A Voice for Men

I wrote two days ago about Laurie A. Couture and her article she submitted to the Good Men Project. According to Couture, the editors at GMP made her edit the article three times in order to remove criticisms about feminism. Once the article received approval, it was posted only to be edited yet again to remove all references to feminism. That version is still on GMP. A Voice for Men published the original version of the article today.

Now that I can read both versions, I find the editing odder. These are the portions that GMP edited out:

The blockage has come repeatedly from feminists who run most social justice and human service programs as well as from media that is feminist-influenced.

and this:

Increasing numbers of young adults are questioning feminist theory. They are taking notice and are challenging limiting, divisive and sexist beliefs, actions and statements. Social media platforms are exploding with hashtag wars and sign campaigns between feminists and those who are rejecting feminism. Sadly, these campaigns seem to be generating more hostility than mutual understanding.

and this:

It is time to allow a fearless and honest critique of any aspect of feminist theory that minimizes sexual and domestic violence against males, minimizes violence by women and advocates for anything other than compassion and equality in healing these tragedies.

Continue reading

Good Men Project, Bad Feminist Politics

The editors at the Good Men Project continue to demonstrate a profound level of hypocrisy and dishonesty. They want people to think GMP stands for discussing men’s issues. However, time and time again the editors reveal their incessant need to defend feminism, even to the detriment of their claims about open discussion.

Many people experienced this bizarre double-think over the years. Yet, few documented it as well as Laurie A. Couture. Couture wrote a piece titled An Autistic Critique of Feminism: A Humanitarian on the Autism Spectrum Refuses to be Silenced about the Overlooked Side of Social Justice. She submitted the article to GMP, and the editors accepted it. What followed shows the precise problem with GMP and the magazine’s claims about its concern for men’s issues. Couture explains in her video: Continue reading

When hate isn’t hate

Vice columnist Kane Daniel wrote a piece about his infiltration of a men’s rights group. It appears Daniel’s intention was to show men’s rights activists as raving lunatic misogynists. Instead, Daniel demonstrated what bad journalism looks like. He wrote in his piece:

I, like most people I know, am indignant at the very idea of men’s rights activists. A semi-organised group of men who believe the sinister spectre of feminism has inveigled itself into the fabric of culture, society and media. A shadowy illuminati who have succeeded in making men an oppressed majority. If you’ve ever had a friend with some, ah, unusual ideas about Jews, then just imagine them talking about women rather than the chosen people and you get the tone.

(Quick note: according to current population numbers, women outnumber men, so men are not “an oppressed majority.)

This is a common refrain from feminists and progressives. They see no validity in men’s complaints about feminism, so in an effort to justify their dismissal, feminists and progressives equate them to racists. This was Daniel’s first step in telling the reader that they need not take these men seriously. The next was to challenge men’s rights activists’ manhood:

The idea of a bunch of little man babies screaming about the evil militant feminists stealing their rights feels galling. Acting as if the Ghosts Of Radical Feminists Past swoop into their homes while they sleep soundly under The Matrix Reloaded bedsheets and magically castrate them while they dream of a Doc Marten stamping on a man’s face – forever.

Note how Daniel shifts the focus off of feminists in general and blames “radical feminists”. This too is a common tract among the left. It allows them to claim that only a tiny set of feminists harbor the hostile views men’s rights activists detest. This is done just in case someone can present evidence of feminists engaging in such behavior.

Yet despite considering men’s rights activists “little man babies” whining about nothing, Daniel wanted to “try and understand something about them outside of their din of blog posts and YouTube videos”.

His decision: infiltrate a Sydney-based men’s group. Continue reading

Being a Boy: The Monster Inside

Originally posted on March 8, 2014

Here is a suggestion: if you want to change a person’s behavior, it would be best not to trash them while doing it.

There seems to be a problem with feminists and their efforts to change male behavior. Feminists seem to view men and boys as walking predators hellbent on oppressing, demeaning, and hurting women and girls every waking moment of their lives. They also seem to believe that until the advent of second-wave feminism males experienced no other emotion but rage. Feminists marry the two ideas together to come up with the theory that only with feminism can men and boys ever express true emotions and lose their violent tendencies.

Yet this desire to get men and boys to feel has nothing to do with helping them. Rather, it is only about keeping them from hurting women. So volatile is male behavior that only by “softening” boys can they be changed. Or as Jeff Bogle puts it:

Raising strong girls is not enough because a strong girl, even the strongest of mind, body, will, and spirit, can too easily be fractured into a thousand unrecognizable pieces, a glass bottle of glitter shattered on a venetian tile floor, by a physically stronger, drunker, misogynistic boy. We can cobble together and restore some of the sparkle, but it’s doomed to be mixed with crumbs, dust, and dirt, no matter how studious we are. A dulling of the shine. A repeal of the magic.

That reads like something written by someone who has never spent much time around actual, living boys. Continue reading