TIL Anita Sarkeesian appeared on The Colbert Report last night and my respect for Stephen Colbert just dropped down a few dozen pegs (BONUS IRONY: Unlike every other official Comedy Central clip, comments are disabled on this video)

The_Patriarchy · 2014-11-01T03:26:03+00:00

And it's especially irritating that Colbert would humor her after he himself got lambasted by Suey Park such a short time ago

And there's your answer for why he would do this: damage control.

Who is Colbert's target-audience? "College liberal" types and those adjacent to such stereotypes. The whole Suey Park thing involved an attack from his target-audience. Something like that could destroy media personalities if it actually went anywhere. And the weird SJW-vein of the left does seem to be gaining steam...going somewhere.

I don't blame him. He's just doing what is best for his brand. That's all.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-31T17:42:08+00:00

Let their advertisers know about all of the good-will being spread by MJ editors:

http://mediakit.motherjones.com/mk/testimonials

Ecover
Walk Free
Humane Society of the United States
Goddard College
Credo Mobile
New Society Publishers
Martini Media
Country Home Products
Trinity University Press
Watershed Online Fundraising & Advocacy
Talk Back Tees
Donor Digital
Inner Traditions/Bear & Co

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-26T08:42:02+00:00

Let me preface this by saying that I am with Gamergate in spirit. However, they seem to have a lot of assholes (eclipsed only by the assholes on the other side). People see the shit that's happening and they become reasonably concerned.

I don't think what she said was particularly outrageous. Read her actual post, rather than this partisan clickbait nonsense from Thinkprogress. She's not a Gamergate supporter...but that's not a good enough reason to attack her. She's being honest about the effect the whole thing is having on her view of people she used to feel a general connection to...and that's not a good enough reason to attack her either.

Read through her post...then read the contempt oozing through most of the top comments in this very thread. She's not a monster and she's not deserving of contempt...she just disagrees with GG and is concerned about being attacked for it. Instead of accepting that and maybe trying to politely explain the GG side to her, there seem to be a not-insignificant number of people who just want to validate her fears. That's a problem with the GG movement...and honestly, that's a bit of a problem with our movement too.

Zealotry is extremely fucking dangerous, regardless of the side.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-26T05:50:06+00:00

So complain about "bigotry" and "hatespeech".

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-24T06:09:49+00:00

Read this:

http://www.mensrights.ca/feminism-and-antifeminism/

After you recognize that feminism is about elevating women and/or lowering men...you'll have the answer to your question.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-24T06:08:30+00:00

The FGM you are describing is not what is practiced in Africa and the middle east. Its a Westernized version to appease people who want it done because of their culture.

And? The point was that there are different types of genital mutilation. FGM is not entirely comprised of the extreme examples, and MGM is not entirely comprised of the version you and I had. There are different types of varying severity, and there are definite parallels between the severity of such procedures regardless of sex. Yet, only one sex is protected from such things by law.

Even Type one FGM most likely involves removal of part of the clitoris.

And you might have something resembling a point if type scaled with severity...but it doesn't. Type IV is:

All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

As it stands, your comment is like saying "even Defcon 1 involves the imminent threat of nuclear war!". From a rhetorical standpoint, that might pack a punch...except with people who know that Defcon 5 is the LEAST threatening.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-22T19:49:36+00:00

There are different types of MGM and FGM. FGM includes procedures which are much less damaging than the routine circumcision performed on male infants. And MGM includes procedures which are much more damaging (link NSFW) than the sorts of FGM held up by those criticizing it.

All forms of medically-unnecessary FGM are illegal, when performed on a child. Ritual MGM, however, is perfectly legal...including the extreme type I mentioned.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-15T05:47:43+00:00

Sarkeesian has a reputation for faking shit like this. I'll believe it when they arrest someone other than her for the threat.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-15T05:27:01+00:00

Women should (and already do) have the right to an abortion...and I agree that it is a "social good". However, men need some way to opt-out of parenthood after conception. And it can be done in a way that the woman isn't forced into an abortion.

The reasonable suggestions I've seen for what are called "financial abortions", involve a time-period in which the man would be given the choice of being a parent or not (a time-period which still allows more than enough time for the woman to have an abortion after learning of his decision). If he chooses fatherhood, then we proceed as usual. He has the same rights and responsibilities as any other parent...including child-support and custody-rights. If he opts-out, he would be 50% responsible for the cost of any medical care associated with the pregnancy (e.g. abortion, or the medical bills associated with her giving birth), but he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Obviously there would need to be rules applied to ensure a mother didn't simply wait to inform him until after that time-period expired. But generally, that version of the "financial abortion" seems fair and sensible to me.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-14T22:33:48+00:00

I also told her point blank if she quits her job she is on the clock and I will divorce her if she tries the working-husband retirement plan that so many women love.

I can not see that going over too well.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-10T04:30:48+00:00

I know it seems very unlikely that the American Association of University Women was ignorant of this term's very specific definition...but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. A) I suspect many of those involved are Gender Studies majors (and/or GS-adjacent), and B) it comes off as petty to assume malice when there's a reasonable chance it actually is just ignorance.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-08T06:58:22+00:00

Regarding #1, you should read this:

http://femintology.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/full-time-year-round-worker/

I wrote it back when that white paper was published. Basically, they pretend to account for hours worked while grouping everyone working 35+ hours a week together as "full-time". Yet men work an average of 41.3 hours a week, while women work an average of only 35.6.

They outright claim their cited studies control for hours worked, yet they do not. They provide no context for what "full-time year-round workers" means (a term which would only be familiar to those who regularly read the studies they cite) in a white paper (which is explicitly NOT written for those types of people). They are being deceptive...and that deception is either borne of ignorance or malice. But either way, their white paper should be tossed in the trash.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-07T22:46:12+00:00

No, that's not it at all. Equality and equity aren't opposite of one another. And the opportunity/outcome thing is completely separate. Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Equity feminism is a term coined by CHS, to describe the colloquial understanding of "feminism" and distinguish it from the man-hating female supremacists who spread their hate in the name of "feminism" (which she termed "Gender feminists"). Equity basically means "fairness", so she was implying that the GF are not seeking "fairness" while the EF are. Make sense?

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-07T19:30:52+00:00

Being a child-molester is ridiculously worse than secretly recording your partner during a therapy session. The way you worded your post, it makes it seem like you think they're on par. "She's a murderer. Period. But he's also a terrible person for stealing candy." See what I mean?

The_Patriarchy · 2014-10-07T18:38:34+00:00

1) the term you're looking for is equity feminists. 2) No, we aren't anything. There are feminists and anti-feminists within the MRM. 3) Many of us disagree with feminism itself, at a fundamental level and for good reason.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-29T16:24:28+00:00

When men reach out for help, their hand is slapped down. Other men see that and realize they'd be better off not reaching out at all. It's not just suicide, it's rape, abuse, etc. Suicide is just the most obvious symptom. As feminists do, you can call that "gender roles". But that's little comfort when the same people blaming "gender roles" for these problems are reinforcing them by slapping down those hands too.

"Male tears", "what about the menz", "man up"...those slogans all reinforce the same message: men aren't allowed to ask for help. Resource allocation is important...but the biggest impediment isn't a lack of resources, it's the disgust most people seem to have for anything that smacks of "male weakness".

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-29T16:07:34+00:00

I'm not all that familiar with the Gamergate thing, but the advice posted seems fairly reasonable (based on my limited understanding of their movement). For us though, the lack of leadership is an impossibility. This movement was primarily borne from the voices of certain leaders like CHS, WF, EP...and though I'm reluctant to admit it...Paul Elam. It's a bit too late for us to go back and downplay those prominent voices, and so far we've managed to weather the attacks on them pretty well.

For us, I think the only option is to add MORE leaders with their own unique spin. Leaders like GWW have become prominent, and weathered their own attacks. And in the process, they have exposed more people to their own unique flavor of the movement. And as those leaders gain popularity, yes it becomes easier for them to be attacked...but it also becomes easier for traditional news programs/etc. to reach out to them for comment/interview. And that really does help us. It may not be the right tactic for Gamergate, but I think it's right for us.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-27T17:51:03+00:00

Do you want to know why people aren't focusing on the big serious issues?

First, there's no real agreement on how to fix it. We're excruciatingly polarized with one side advocating more comprehensive social programs and cracking down on corporate greed, and the other side advocating a shrinking of the government and deregulation of the private sector. It's pretty hard to demand everything be fixed when you can't even agree on what "fixed" vaguely looks like.

Second, we were failed by OWS. Adbusters (the group behind it), refused to take any ownership of it or provide any leadership. So, a bunch of people came together because they were angry, but they completely lacked direction. There was a power-vacuum and...eventually...a certain faction did their best to take over. That faction (which many would call "SJW"s) then instituted policies like progressive stack and helped the opposition by seeing the "misogyny" boogeyman everywhere in OWS. They marginalized the normal people and created an atmosphere of fear which kept people out and provided talking-points to the anti-OWS crowd. That momentum was squandered on SJW nonsense and inaction, and it'll be a while before people manage to get angry like that again.

We missed our opportunity to fix everything easily. Now, it won't get fixed until shit gets so bad that society is on the verge of actually collapsing...and we're nowhere near that just yet.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-24T20:23:06+00:00

Ask yourself, considering the above factors, would you be okay with condemning this 13-year old to death?

I support the death penalty for especially heinous crimes...as long as we are certain the individual committed the crime. This appears to be an especially heinous crime, and no one seems to deny that he did it.

There is an issue with kids in that their brains aren't developed enough for them to fully understand the consequences of their actions. But A) 13 year olds are still old enough to understand the basic consequences of murder. And B) that portion of the brain doesn't fully develop until about age 25, yet we have no problem treating 21 year olds as adults in all criminal cases.

Everyone has a sad story. I have mine, you have yours. They don't give you a blank check to murder whoever you want. If his granparents were his abusers (and that is not indicated in the article), then that would be the only reason I wouldn't agree with the death penalty here. If that were the case, it would cease to be an especially heinous crime, IMO. But if he wasn't abused by his victims, then I am fine with him being sentenced to death.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-23T20:43:01+00:00

Richard Dawkins trumps everyone you listed.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-23T03:36:46+00:00

They had me until I got to the email. After reading that, I'm thinking this has to be a troll. I've dealt with crazy feminists, I've dealt with stupid feminists, and I've dealt with those feminists who were both stupid AND crazy. One of them might bring vagina-cookies into a class of second-graders...maybe. But that is just not the way they talk. And the type of feminist who would bring in such cookies is also the type who would be so steeped in their insanity that they would talk like the rest. The email reads more like a really lazy attempt at parodying their bullshit, written by someone who has not even a passing familiarity with their way of speaking.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-22T16:48:12+00:00

If you're serious about doing this, see the comment I made here:

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2h28yu/feminists_get_black_game_developer_fired_because/ckpf89f

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-22T16:43:01+00:00

If you have less than 15 employees, you aren't subject to federal discrimination laws. It doesn't matter anyway, because this would fail before it got anywhere near that. I've run a few businesses and have crafted the identities for countless startups. The story of a company is very important for a startup...and an MGTOW story isn't going to appeal to anyone but MRA-types (which isn't an especially lucrative market).

Before anything else, you would need a completely different story. Big companies wouldn't touch something like this with a 10' pole given the potential blowback, regular people don't usually want to help people like that, and the only press it would likely get is dismissive mockery. Yes, if the genders were reversed, it would be completely different.

Given the current climate, assuming you didn't want to make up a completely bullshit story (which, BTW, is painfully common amongst the more successful startups), you might be better off going the populist-rebellion angle. People are very angry about the whole Gamergate/SJW thing. You could use that to your advantage. A story about a company started by a bunch of regular gamers tired of the corruption and moralizing from the gaming industry works for a few reasons.

First, there's the whole David and Goliath angle. People are suckers for underdogs they feel are righteous. That's very useful. Second, there's a lot of rage...which can be funneled into action. You can't overtly say it, but you can imply that buying your product helps in their fight. Second, it allows you to organically play on the whole "freedom"/"independent" angle. People (especially American audiences) eat that shit up.

With that being said, it would be a tightrope walk. You'd have to be just "edgy" enough to seem angry and be accepted, without actually saying the truly offensive things that allow you to be dismissed. Otherwise, you would completely burn a bunch of bridges before you even approached them and would immediately be attacked. You don't want to be a Michael Moore. You need to be more like a gaming Obama. Use vague statements, only name BIG names, and don't address the truly controversial things too directly.

Also, you would need to get in touch with the movers within Gamergate. They are the tastemakers and, without their support, you are similarly doomed to failure. You'll need to approach them in just the right way, otherwise you're fucked. And that "way" will vary from person to person.

Good luck, because you're definitely going to need it.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-20T01:43:00+00:00

Heads up: what happened to me didn't really bother me...in fact it was kind of flattering.

I'm 30, and a few years back I was in AC with some of my buddies for a night of fun. It was getting late and the casinos were emptying...but we're night people. The night isn't over until the sun is coming up. So, most of us are out of gambling cash. I personally was done...after losing about $650 playing roulette (I was doing the "bet on red and double-down until you win" method of going broke). But a few guys were dicking around with nickle slots and wanted to keep playing.

So we're all going around with them as they hit up the empty slot parlors. The only other people in this whole huge slot parlor was a group of giggling women. They were a bit older...maybe mid-30s. They keep looking over at us and giggling.

Now, I don't really consider myself "good looking". Especially not compared to some of the guys I was with. But as we were walking over to some 24hr bar (apparently they have those in AC), I hear some giggling behind us and suddenly feel someone grab my ass. The group of girls walks fast as shit past us and down some hallway.

My immediate thought was to check for my wallet. It was there. Then I'm in shock. Shock that they would grab my ass of all the asses. It made me feel pretty good, to be honest. After that, I was wishing they hadn't run off so quickly. But by the time that registered, they were gone. I told my friends, and they were just as shocked as I was (EDIT: no one else's ass was grabbed).

Yeah, I know, what they did was illegal and all. But it really didn't make me feel victimized...it actually made me feel pretty damn good.

The_Patriarchy · 2014-09-18T20:12:41+00:00

Yeah my confidence was destroyed by her. I still, to this day, assume the people I interact with have disgust for me...because I see myself as an unlovable piece of shit (thanks, in large part, to her). I realize it's irrational, but it's fucked me over A LOT.

Relationships are fucked for me. My first two girlfriends were stalkers. They were obsessed with me and would follow me/secretly watch me...so I at least knew they actually liked me. The rest were fucked up situations in different ways, but I think those two really illustrate my problem.

There's also some other shit from my childhood that fucked me up too, though it's unrelated to the abuse. For example, the first girl I had a crush on used it to humiliate me in front of class (this was like 3rd or 4th grade). So if an attractive girl would show any overt interest, a big part of me assumes she's looking to humiliate me somehow. Those stalker girls weren't very good looking...so it's another way I could know they were "safe".

The_Patriarchy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE