Is 'Boycott American Women' a Feminist False Flag?
Perhaps you have heard of a blog, recently commenced, by the name of Boycott American Women. The title, I am sure, reveals the genre.
Now, I grant that any man on earth is entitled to seek a woman anywhere on earth where it shall please him to so seek. But while I am fully aware that this theme has been popular among certain segments of what you might loosely call the men's rights sub-sector, it is not a theme which I, myself, find politically advantageous to address in my writings. Accordingly, you will find the Counter-Feminist blog silent upon such matters.
At any rate, the author of Boycott American Women (or BAW) has left comments at various MRA websites requesting that they add his blog to their link roll. I don't know how many have complied with this request, if any, but I know that I was not among them. I feel that there is a glut of such writings already, and that the non-feminist revolution needs to "raise the curve" in certain respects, in the interest of rhetorical discipline, intellectual crystallization, and branding.
So again, I have not linked the BAW blog, and have no intention of ever doing so.
But I find the BAW blog to be of interest for other reasons. To be quite plain-spoken, there is something about it I don't like. To me, the odor of phony baloney wafts far too strongly from it, and I am not alone in that appraisal. It seems altogether too pat, too neat, too glib, too potted, too boilerplate, too self-parodyingly lowbrow, too much like a set-up job. Moreover, certain quirky inconsistencies, which I'll not take the trouble to go into, stand out to my critical gaze.
And I find it difficult to understand, by-and-large, the purpose of such a website. What is it meant to accomplish? This is not apparent on the surface, which might seem to hint that the blog itself is more than meets the eye.
Briefly then, I have a sneaking suspicion that the publisher of the BAW blog is a feminist who has created this website for tactical and propaganda purposes, as a ruse -- although I could be wrong. But you may go to BAW and make your own evaluation:
http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com
But now, the plot thickens. The popular feminist website Feministe has strangely taken notice of BAW and posted about it (on 12-27), and the commenters are having a merry old time using BAW for mudflinging practice in the time-honored feminist manner. Go have a read:
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/27/boycott-american-women/
Again I say, that all of this has fallen into place far too . . conveniently. Why on earth would the Feministe people find out about BAW so very, very soon after its debut? What would lead them to learn of it so quickly? Why the hell would it appear in THEIR comment section, of all places? And more importantly, seeing that BAW is so relatively obscure, why would they even condescend to take notice of it whatsoever? All in all, this seems, well. . . disproportionate.
All of this, combined with the "phony-baloney" factor, inclines me to speculate audibly about such things with the intention that the world at large shall hear it. And if I am wrong about this case in particular, I am certainly not wrong about such things in general. Such things do happen.
And I feel it is wise policy to put into circulation the simple common acknowledgment that such things do happen. This will help to foster a healthy skepticism -- on the part of all, but especially on the part of potential supporters -- toward manifestations of this nature. In such manner we may set a pre-emptive onus of imputation upon our adversaries, and innoculate ourselves against forces that might tend to skew our branding.
============================================
ACHTUNG, BITTE!: If you got here from the link on Pandagon, go have a gander at THIS:
Amanda Marcotte Says You Want to Rape Her!
Now, I grant that any man on earth is entitled to seek a woman anywhere on earth where it shall please him to so seek. But while I am fully aware that this theme has been popular among certain segments of what you might loosely call the men's rights sub-sector, it is not a theme which I, myself, find politically advantageous to address in my writings. Accordingly, you will find the Counter-Feminist blog silent upon such matters.
At any rate, the author of Boycott American Women (or BAW) has left comments at various MRA websites requesting that they add his blog to their link roll. I don't know how many have complied with this request, if any, but I know that I was not among them. I feel that there is a glut of such writings already, and that the non-feminist revolution needs to "raise the curve" in certain respects, in the interest of rhetorical discipline, intellectual crystallization, and branding.
So again, I have not linked the BAW blog, and have no intention of ever doing so.
But I find the BAW blog to be of interest for other reasons. To be quite plain-spoken, there is something about it I don't like. To me, the odor of phony baloney wafts far too strongly from it, and I am not alone in that appraisal. It seems altogether too pat, too neat, too glib, too potted, too boilerplate, too self-parodyingly lowbrow, too much like a set-up job. Moreover, certain quirky inconsistencies, which I'll not take the trouble to go into, stand out to my critical gaze.
And I find it difficult to understand, by-and-large, the purpose of such a website. What is it meant to accomplish? This is not apparent on the surface, which might seem to hint that the blog itself is more than meets the eye.
Briefly then, I have a sneaking suspicion that the publisher of the BAW blog is a feminist who has created this website for tactical and propaganda purposes, as a ruse -- although I could be wrong. But you may go to BAW and make your own evaluation:
http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com
But now, the plot thickens. The popular feminist website Feministe has strangely taken notice of BAW and posted about it (on 12-27), and the commenters are having a merry old time using BAW for mudflinging practice in the time-honored feminist manner. Go have a read:
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/27/boycott-american-women/
Again I say, that all of this has fallen into place far too . . conveniently. Why on earth would the Feministe people find out about BAW so very, very soon after its debut? What would lead them to learn of it so quickly? Why the hell would it appear in THEIR comment section, of all places? And more importantly, seeing that BAW is so relatively obscure, why would they even condescend to take notice of it whatsoever? All in all, this seems, well. . . disproportionate.
All of this, combined with the "phony-baloney" factor, inclines me to speculate audibly about such things with the intention that the world at large shall hear it. And if I am wrong about this case in particular, I am certainly not wrong about such things in general. Such things do happen.
And I feel it is wise policy to put into circulation the simple common acknowledgment that such things do happen. This will help to foster a healthy skepticism -- on the part of all, but especially on the part of potential supporters -- toward manifestations of this nature. In such manner we may set a pre-emptive onus of imputation upon our adversaries, and innoculate ourselves against forces that might tend to skew our branding.
============================================
ACHTUNG, BITTE!: If you got here from the link on Pandagon, go have a gander at THIS:
Amanda Marcotte Says You Want to Rape Her!
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:41 PM
42 Comments:
Fidelbogen, I read the Feministe post about it too(remember, I link to feminist *and* MRA blogs), I think it was a comment... that was in moderation. I don't think it's a real thing either. I want to say it's a clever hoax. But...then there's the idea of it being some intelligent troll...
I have way too many ideas about it. I can't decide what it is supposed to be or it's purpose. I might do a post about it as well.
Sorry about the double post.
You can't even comment on his blog. I don't understand his(her?) purpose. Is it legit? Maybe. I don't know, his posts are real short and I doubt that those letters are legit. My husband hasn't got a post from him on his blog...I'll go take a look. 'Cause I wan't to know.
Fake or not, some shock and awe tactics are certainly welcome when dealing with the holier-than-thou feminists. And it is especially fun to see the indignation from the American skanks. The responses from those skanks are actually very educational and very telling.
I doubt this will do anything to discredit the MRA movement, or to paint all of us as loonies. Remember, the feminazis already hate us, but we have been too covert and too non-mainstream to annoy them much.
BAW was on the mgtow forum, and I told him that all women who are infected by feminism are to be avoided - this is not confined by geographical location.
However, American(Western) women are the undisputed world champs when it comes to having a perma-scowl, an entitlement princess complex, and emulating Sex and the City actresses as 'empowered' role models. Also, they are more likely to be fatter and do not age well as, say, Asian women.
The whole American culture is so toxic that if you were an American man and you brought a nice, demure foreign bride back to America to stay with you, she'll get tainted by feminist indoctrination too, eventually making your life a living hell. I believe Eddie Murphy did a stand-up comedy mentioning this. It's comedy. but its inherent truth cannot be ignored.
Boycotting American women is just a start. There's more to boycott when going your own way.
Ok, can someone explain something to me?
This whole scenario brought up something for me... If you notice the reactions on that feminist entry... all of them are to the tune of "bahhhhh, we don't need them either hahaha" or "bah, good! we don't need spend all time rejecting and getting rid of douchebags bwahahahah"
I'm struggling to gather my thoughts here, but I think i know where I'm going... Basically... if you see those feminist sites for a while, you'll notice (especially at the younger ones), there's a very big need to seem like you're pursued.
Anyone else notice that? A ton of catiness and stories about "ugh, this douchebag approached me and I felt sooooo violated, uggggh"... or "another douchebag I have to shoot down, ughhhhhhh"...
Bar the factor that most of them are so unattractive I can't imagine guys actually hitting on them that often... So... Anyone have an idea what's up with that? Like why is there this huge need in feminist blogs to PRONOUNCE and act like you're rejecting and beating men off with a stick, lol...
I've noticed that the individual(s) responsible has (have) trolled on fora quite apart from the manosphere, promoting the site: on videogame sites, on white supremacist sites, etc. It seems somewhat fishy.
Gentlemen, I am the author of the blog in question. I understand your concerns.
First, no, this is not a false flag or a hoax. I am a pretty hardcore anti-feminist.
Two, why did I make this blog? I did not make it for purposes of "philosophically defeating" feminism. You see, the common man is a fool. If you want to reach the common man, you have to dumb down your message to his level. So, that is why I have created the blog in this fashion, so that it can reach the common masses, and not just reach the intellectual minority.
Three, after creating the blog, I immediately started looking for websites that might get a reaction from it. I searched in Google for "feminist websites" and found many, so I went to all of the sites and blogs I found and sent a link to them. They played right into my trap, and reacted, and they reacted QUITE STRONGLY.
I myself am amazed at the level of success this blog has had. I mean, I only started it like 10 days ago, and already have about 60,000 hits. Pretty damn good, if you ask me.
So, I hope that explains everything. I created the blog to get a huge reaction from feminists and American women, and hot damn, has it been a success. It is meant to appeal to the ignorant common masses, rather than appeal to the intelligent class of men.
I'll send this comment also to the email address of the CounterFem blog author, so that he can read it in case it gets deleted or doesn't get posted.
Anyway, if you guys have any questions you'd like to discuss, you can go over to the MTGOW.proboards.com site and you can find me there. Thanks!
It could be COINTELPRO but we will have to see if it goes in that direction. What is fishy is why would a variety of men suddenly be writing in to a new unkown blog. I figured the guy must be getting the information someplace else and posting it on his blog as if they were sending the material directly there. Whatever works to get the word out is ok by me.
My opinion right now is it is not a feminist doing this but a guy that finaly did get fed up with the attitudes of American women, found the mens blogs and decided he had to jump start his to get into the blogging action. I think the guy is realy just spoiling for a fight with the feminists and hoping to pick up some profeminist trolls to do battle with.
I've decided that the blog is a elaborate troll designed to confuse those in the femosphere and manosphere with some agenda related to neither feminism or the MRM. I think it is wise to say that this is some /b/tard from 4chan.
@B.A.W:
If your name were written in blue letters rather than black, it would settle my concerns more effectively. . .
Anyhoooo.....
I figured BAW was more than met the eye, and it sorta looks like I was right. And those testimonial letters read like they were all written by the same person -- somebody who is well versed in a certain lingo and a certain discourse! ;)
I understand, of course, that one communicates with the "great unwashed" in a language they understand. But personally, I feel that the best way to do THAT is to focus narrowly upon the abuses and outrages against men as a class, and stay away from anything that sounds like socially-based complaining about women.
Or, woman-centric discourse, as I like to call it.
Of course, I realize that Average Joe is almost completely woman-centric in his discourse. But I figure, why not wean him away from this in a manner that speaks his language just as effectively?
I also find it interesting how easy it is to stir up the feminists by tossing something LOWBROW at them! Things that might pose a genuine threat to them on a higher level, will fly completely below (or above?) their radar!
I figured out long ago that most of them aren't as bright as they pretend to be; they just have a collection of bright sayings that they repeat over and over in various combinations. In time, this wears thin.
@Fidelbogen
Like I said. I think BAW is a /b/tard from 4chan. He has trolled everywhere I normally visit/lurk. The testimonials are too cardboard cut out for me and I find the writing uncompelling. If he is legit, than he went the wrong way in promoting his blog.
@LC:
Hmmm. . you have the advantage of me here. I must confess that I do not know what "/b/tard from 4chan" is! :(
A /b/tard is someone who posts on the notorious /b/ board at 4chan. That board has no rules and is infamous for Project Chanology(among other protests) and trolling "for the lulz". I post there every once and a while to let out my inner troll. I think BAW is a /b/tard trolling for the lulz. I should post a link to an lolcat or something...
One more point- the "comments" or "testimonials" written and posted on my blog are actual read men's comments. I just collected about 1000 comments or so, where men are talking about how much they dislike American women, and how much they like foreign women, and posted it. Of course, I changed their names to protect them.
So no, the testimonies and comments that appear on the blog are NOT my own writing.
@Anonymous AmericanWomenDisliker
You can prove that claim by simply linking to the original locations where you extracted those comments from.
-AlekNovy
@Anon AmericanWomanDisliker
Riiight...Links?
My suspicions about you being a /b/tard seem pretty accurate right about now. You should have stayed at 4chan, little troll.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Ohh poor wittle baby... are you upset becoz ur an american woman? and that most men despise american women? poor wittle thing!
ddd
"Ohh poor wittle baby... are you upset becoz ur an american woman? and that most men despise american women? poor wittle thing!"
lol wut? :-p
I is married and happy. :-)
They were talking about the Boycott American Women blog on the radio this morning.
Here's the link to the radio show (scroll down to "Boycott American Women" and click LISTEN.
http://www.wildmorningshow.com/cc-common/podcast.html
If this is a feminazi setup I believe it could backfire also it is a sign that feminists are stopping to below gutter level.
I have noticed that there is no comments section - nuff said!
I'm still shocked! Johnny robber me of my thunder with his BAW. LOL-- that's ok. He's not trolling, he's fed up like all men. And this is nothing new. Johnny is just the first one to get himself in the papers.
As for me. I blog, and have two of them! http://american-women-suck.blogspot.com
http://americanwomentoday.blogspot.com/
I do have one gripe though. John used the same template I do! And now everyone wonders if the same person.
There's no conspiracy here - at leat as far as the BAW blog is concerned. Just a bunch of men fed up with the product of feminist social and legal engineering, which IS a conspiracy. But that's another story. It isn't so much that I'm [insert feminist shaming here], but I AM aware of the horrific consequences that the legal system which panders to feminist interests can have on a man.
Like why is there this huge need in feminist blogs to PRONOUNCE and act like you're rejecting and beating men off with a stick, lol...
You clearly don't read very many feminist blogs.
But to answer your question with respect to this specific case, AlekNovy—it should be obvious: feminist women are generally uninterested in dating anti-feminists. Of course if some dude comes along and announces "I'm done with feminism-poisoned American women!" they're going to say "good riddance!" Were you expecting them to start pleading with him? I think you're missing the entire point of the whole feminism thing.
@Anon4:59:
AlexNovy left the building some time ago; would you like me to give a shout-out? Maybe he'll come back.
Anyhoo. . since I am here. .
Don't make assumptions about AlexNovy's reading habits. Most of us activated non-feminists have read a ton of feminist material -- and not just blogs.
So I must demur: it is not AlexNovy or people like him who are missing the entire point of the whole feminism thing. Rather, it is feminists themselves who are missing the entire point of the whole anti-feminist thing.
And therefore, missing the entire point of the whole feminist thing as well.
In other words, the entire whole truth about feminism in all of its dimensions.
We have a special name for this brand of feminist myopia. We call it feminist subjectivism.
Fidelbogen, you seem to have misunderstood the primary point of my comment. I can restate it:
I have observed the phenomenon that AlexNovy described. BAW comments on a feminist blog that is mostly populated by American feminist women. The general response is, "fucken hilarious, good riddance," which is completely predictable. AlexNovy expressed surprise at this response, speculating that perhaps this response is part of an affect that these women adopt in order to seem super desirable or whatever. This speculation completely glossed over the far more obvious explanation for this response, that feminist women are generally uninterested in dating anti-feminist men, and so obviously their response to such a man announcing his decision to withdraw himself from the dating pool will be cheerful.
I supposed that perhaps AlexNovy missed this obvious explanation because he is unaware that most feminist women are uninterested in dating anti-feminist men, and I think this betrays a general ignorance of feminism.
Do you disagree with this? Do you perhaps think that feminist women are generally VERY interested in dating anti-feminist men? I have never seen any indication that this is the case.
"Fidelbogen, you seem to have misunderstood the primary point of my comment. I can restate it..."
Not that I "misunderstood" it, but more like "gave it a miss."
Anyhoooo . . . I agree! It seems quite logical that if I am 'X', then I will neither seek nor enjoy the company of people who are 'anti-X'.
Human nature 101, I would call that.
Moving right along. . your remarks so far seem to contain a snake in the woodpile. I am mentally struggling to pinpoint the location of that deeply buried critter, but I think the key to it lies in the phrase "anti-feminist men". And to funnel it down even more, the term "anti-feminist" . .
Apart from that, I think I can see a possible angle of truth in AlexNovy's comment, while agreeing with your position to the extent stated above.
Moving right along. . your remarks so far seem to contain a snake in the woodpile.
I honestly don't know what you mean here. If you're implying that I am acting in bad faith, you're wrong. I just saw a comment on the internet that I thought was kind of dumb and couldn't resist responding to it.
Is there something wrong with the term "anti-feminist"? I have heard people self-identify as such before, so I assumed it was acceptable. Is there a more appropriate term?
Faith, good or bad, is still . . faith. And as the Apostle Paul says somewhere -- I forget where -- "faith is the assurance of things not seen."
Things not seen. Well. . .
The term anti-feminist is certainly acceptable, as indicating one who opposes feminism. One sees that is logical.
Now, consider the matter presently in question. A certain group of men, with certain traits which certain (feminist) women find undesireable, have been tagged as "anti-feminist" -- for whatever reason.
So the talk must straightway focus upon the content of their so-called "anti-feminism" . . .
Because this has not been clearly stated.
Or you might say it is a "thing not seen."
What, about these men, makes them "anti-feminist"?
That they reject (certain) women on supposedly uncharitable grounds?
That they reject feminism?
Or a bit of both?
I feel now, with some assurance, that we are closing in on the not-seen critter in the woodpile.
Reducing the search radius, you might say. . .
What, about these men, makes them "anti-feminist"?
That they reject (certain) women on supposedly uncharitable grounds?
That they reject feminism?
The latter, obviously. You are now using the exact same bizarre, roundabout reasoning that AlexNovy used. You observe a phenomenon:
A certain group of men, with certain traits which certain (feminist) women find undesireable, have been tagged as "anti-feminist" -- for whatever reason.
For which there is a very obvious explanation. If a person advertises their blog, which argues, among other things, feminism was the cause of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that person is obviously against feminism. That is, they are advertising themselves as an anti-feminist, and it only makes sense for others to identify them as such.
Instead of landing on this obvious explanation, case closed, you ignore it, and start looking for some mysterious "critter in the woodpile."
Would you mind sharing what you think this critter in the woodpile is? I am not harboring any secret agenda here, although I find it interesting that you assume I must be.
@Anon:
My reasoning -- bizarre, roundabout, or otherwise -- has not yet been disclosed.
You addressed the main point clearly and directly, in saying:
"The latter, obviously."
Good. (Although it is not "obvious".)
But you made an evasionary jog in saying:
"For which there is a very obvious explanation. If a person advertises their blog, which..etc.."
The difficulty is, that it was never clearly specified whether the blog owner was to be the exemplar of "anti-feminism", OR. . whether the various men testifying on his blog were to be so considered.
That is important, because the latter don't necessarily address feminism as such, but simply complain about women in an apolitical way.
So when you say that "feminist" women would reject such men on the grounds of their "anti-feminism", it might still be concluded (at least in some cases) that the criterion of "anti-feminism" is really the presence of a naive, apolitical "anti-womanism" in such men.
My reasoning -- bizarre, roundabout, or otherwise -- has not yet been disclosed.
Transparent reasoning is far more persuasive. When people argue in this opaque fashion, one starts to suspect that they are saving something to reveal when they think it will have the greatest rhetorical impact, which means that they do not think their argument is robust enough to stand on its own. But feel free to ignore my unsolicited advice.
That is important, because the latter don't necessarily address feminism as such, but simply complain about women in an apolitical way.
Maybe this is just an oversight on your part, in which case I could perhaps see where you (mistakenly) are coming from, but a significant portion of the posts on the BAW blog, the testimonials, as well as commentary from the blog owner, do actually refer to feminism specifically as the cause of some social ills. It's a small step from there to concluding that the blog owner and at least some of the men whose letters are featured are anti-feminist. If you're going to argue otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
Unless you have been talking about the possibility of a hoax, which is not what I am talking about.
Also, as a tiny aside, you said:
Most of us activated non-feminists have read a ton of feminist material -- and not just blogs.
I would expect somebody who is well-read in feminist theory to know that womanism actually means something very specific. I know how you meant it, but coming from a person familiar with feminist theroy, "anti-womanism" wouldn't be an apolitical stance at all.
It's really important, if you are going to effectively refute feminism, to not provide support for the claim that anti-feminists and men's right activists are ignorant of the philosophy they oppose.
@Anon:
You know what I meant by "anti-womanism", and that will do well enough. Feminism does not own the English language, and a non-feminist will talk like a non-feminist.
Furthermore, "anti-femaleism" sounds clunky.
It's really important, if you are going to effectively refute feminism, to not provide support for the claim that anti-feminists and men's right activists are ignorant of the philosophy they oppose.
Depends on who is making that claim, whether their claim has any pragmatic merit, and whether it is mission-critical to secure their approbation. Canons of evaluation may vary greatly, as may target audiences.
Additionally, if one does not know everything about subject X, it is accurate to say that one is "ignorant" of subject X at least to that extent. The question is whether it is necessary to know everything about subject X, or merely to know what is vital for one's purposes.
"a significant portion of the posts on the BAW blog, the testimonials, as well as commentary from the blog owner, do actually refer to feminism specifically as the cause of some social ills. It's a small step from there to concluding that the blog owner and at least some of the men whose letters are featured are anti-feminist."
Very well. Returning to the original point, that "feminist" woman do not fancy the company of "anti-feminist" men (which I do not doubt), there remains the question of what specifically about such men is critically constitutive of their so-called "anti-feminism".
Is it the simple, bare fact that they might say "I do not support feminism"?
Or is it the more complex fact that they might have an unlovely anti-womanistical attitude?
Either one of these items could stand alone, untouched by the other.
"If you're going to argue otherwise, the burden of proof is on you."
I would classify my present task not as argument, but rather enquiry.
Finally, a word as regards "transparent reasoning". If all matters in this world could be presently comprehended, with no possible basis for controversy, then "reasoning" as such would serve no purpose. Indeed, it is precisely the "opacity" of things in the first place which generates the need for "transparency" . . and transparency can only be reached by stages. Transparency is not a given, hence, one does not "reason transparently" but rather toward transparency.
The universe, you know, contains both the seen, and the not seen.
Additionally, if one does not know everything about subject X, it is accurate to say that one is "ignorant" of subject X at least to that extent. The question is whether it is necessary to know everything about subject X, or merely to know what is vital for one's purposes.
This is absolutely true, and I certainly wouldn't hold it against an anti-feminist if he were ignorant of some obscure thing. But Womanism isn't some obscure thing. While, of course, I am not saying that you should let feminism dictate how you use language, I am guessing that you don't deliberately use terms to mean something other than the commonly accepted meaning in the context of a discussion about feminism. It makes you look ignorant, and if you are simultaneously claiming that you are well read in feminist theory, it makes you look downright silly.
I mean this as FYI, that is all.
I would classify my present task not as argument, but rather enquiry(sic).
Finally...toward transparency.
Okay, I clearly misunderstood. I had assumed that you disagreed with what I was saying, and were presenting an argument against my comments. If your purpose is simply inquiry — as opposed to presenting any theories or thoughts of your own that merit consideration — then I am satisfied with my own analysis of this situation. Thanks!
Sorry, that "sic" was included in error.
" . . then I am satisfied with my own analysis of this situation. Thanks!"
An easy out. But you'll never learn about that snake in the woodpile.
I've received links to this site in multiple e-mails and have also noticed it on several forums. The author is quite prolific and he's posted just about everywhere possible.
I do believe that this is either a hoax or a troll. Perhaps he's actually involved in the Men's Rights movement. Perhaps he is going his own way. However, there are a few things about his blog and his methods that have me wondering.
Links to this site have been spammed in almost every possible venue where he would be noticed. Womens forums were a given. What really had me scratching my head was posting in white supremacist forums. Did he think that going in there, ranting about how much white women suck would inspire solidarity with the men there? Or did he know that it would annoy them and get them talking, thereby upping his hit counter and making him seemingly more popular? Because, given the nature of a white supremacist, they're not going to agree with him that Asian women are superior to white women. It would be an amazing contradiction.
I've also seen quite a few threads where he "participated" and this participation consisted of posting snippets from his website and refusing to answer any questions or actually respond to the preceeding posts. Many were legitimate, well thought out questions. If there were from a woman, it was the exact same schtick about women being children and ridculing them about wanting equal rights. If the asker was male, it was a quote about men being pussy whipped "manginas." He would also throw out epithets (fat pig, skant, whore etc.)and then chide responders by stating that they had no argument if they threw out epithets at him. He'd actually respond that way, even if no epithets were levied at him. The threads that I read were quite puzzling. It became apparent very quickly that he had no intention of inspiring any discourse, but rather was attempting to annoy as many people as he could, as much as possible.
There's also the stunning lack of contact information. Comments are not allowed. There is no way to e-mail anything to the blogger. Exactly where is he getting all of these stories? Is he stealing them from other venues and then posting them, possibly edited. Is he making them up himself? The writing does appear to be quite similar, between the allegedly different authors. He claims to have compiled 1,000 different testimonials, but declines to show his work, as to where they came from. He does not post a single link to any of the information that he hold up to be absolute fact. In reality, the basis of his hatred of American women boils down to "They all suck. They're fat, ugly bitches and they all suck." His ranting amounts to a series of temper tantrums with no identifiable reasoning and not even a token attempt at providing any verifiable fact. All of his entries are held up as truths, with the only proof or source being that they were said by a man.
I have a lot of respect for the Men's Rights movement and for several people I personally know who are involved in it. These men and women are well educcated on the issues, they can show their work, as to where their conclusions came from and they have a solid plan for what needs to be done about it and how the playing field can be equalled.
This is not that. I'm guessing that this is either someone who wants to show how dumb some MRA men are and is trolling for the lulz. Or someone using the MRA movement to become the next "Leave Britney Alone!" 15 minute internet sensation.
The American entitlement syndrome could also be behind this. Perhaps "John Rambo" (which is lullerific in it's own right) really is a frustrated guy who can't seem to find a woman to give him what he wants, for the price he's willing to pay, and is now so angry about it that truly hates women. In this case, I really fear for any woman that he would import here.
Nearly everything a woman does is based on creating a market for herself. She's almost like a one person boiler room. That's why she competes with other women. That's why she puts on makeup. That's why she lies. She has to create the market so lying, and creating a false image is very important because she has to create a demand. That's how a woman lives. If there is no demand for her, then there is no life. Women are unable to compete with men but they know that if they can create a market, they can live happily. They don't even do this at a conscious level. It's biological.
Also, that guy, Tom Leykis, is a false flag. It's designed to destroy marriage. What's the benefit of boycotting american women rather than fixing the real problem? Leykis advocates boycotting american women also. He advocates not getting married. Where is the benefit for men to live an unhappy single life? Yes, that is the only option for now, but wouldn't it be better to fix the problem?
There is another blog I found.
http://antiamericanfeminism.blogspot.com/
...Another American man is giving up on American womem.
I used to say American females are ugly, foreign girls are hotter, etc. But now I'm in college, and uggghh, the truth is, they're NOT! All over, blondes/brunettes(American girls),and they have this trend of getting kinda thick and wearing these nike tempo shorts. Awwgh, I CAN'T ignore it! I'll be all trying to ignore it, but can't, look down and be *UH? SHOCKED!* I GIVE UP! These girls are confident, and they SHOULD BE! They deserve it! I honestly don't know why they're not MORE cocky, damn! I've deff adjusted my attitude FAST! These guys only talk crap bcuz they're behind a computer screen. If they were on campus around these girls, we ALL KNOW what their reaction would be! The same as mine, hmph! NO GUY can ignore it!Foreign girls don't come CLOSE to these American blondes and brunettes with this style, NO WAY!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home