Sunday, 17 May 2015

An MRA reviews Mad Max: Fury Road

by Dan Cardamon

I'm sure my fellow manosphericals will have heard by now of the boycott of the new Mad Max film, proposed by "I'm-not-an-MRA-I-just-write-like-one" Aaron Clarey on the blog Return Of Kings. I enjoyed Aaron's piece on why Mad Max: Fury Road would probably be terrible, but as a man who likes to make up his own mind (MWLTMUHOM) I went to see it for myself so as to report back and tell you whether or not you should boycott it.

You should.

Like Aaron, I have only the vaguest memory of what the other three Mad Max films were like, but I know there were car chases in them and things exploded so I'm fairly sure they were manly films made for testosterone-huffing 
Alpha guys like Mike Cernovich and myself. The new movie has car chases and explosions too, which may tempt you into going to see it -- but be warned: it's a trap.

Spoilers follow, but since you won't be watching it that doesn't matter.

Fury Road starts promisingly enough. Set in a utopian future where civil society has collapsed and only the toughest survive, we very early on meet a character called Immortan Joe who is the Alpha-est of all Alpha Males. With his stern glare and dedicated cult of fanatical followers, he's what Paul Elam would be if A Voice For Men were a towering rock citadel in a scorched desert rather than a website in decline.

Immortan Joe keeps buxom females hooked up to milking machines and owns a harem of wives none of whom is less than a 9.27 on the Objective Attractiveness Scale. He has an army, he has lots of environmentally unfriendly vehicles, he controls the local water supply and he is worshiped as a god - in short, he's what every man should aspire to be, and what every man is prevented from being by the pussified gynocratic culture in which we live in.

And yet this movie makes him out to be the villain.

We don't even get to see him enjoying his wives, because his wives are stolen from him within the first 20 minutes. And here's where the film really jumps the shark - they're stolen from Joe by another female!

If Mad Max had decided to rescue Joe's wives, and then after two hours' chasing through the desert with Max saving the females from Joe's army Max had won and the females had given themselves to Max in gratitude, that would have been a great movie and above all *realistic*!

I am totally up for watching Alpha Males fight each other for the chance to win a female prize. That is what life is about and it's what movies used to be about, before the SJWs took over.

In Fury Road, the female prizes are *liberated* by another female who has somehow been taught to drive a truck. Not only that, later in the movie even more female characters are introduced - and these ones are *old*! They are old and unattractive and yet they get to speak and even fight and shoot guns. It's as if the rules of cinema don't matter any more. It's a travesty.

If you're an MRA or an MHRA or a MGTOW or a PUA or a 
MWLTMUHOM, you should on no account give Warner Brothers any of your money ever again, not even if they make movies with Jason Statham in them that you'd really like to see, because all the Jason Statham movies in the world can't make up for the feministic garbage that is Mad Max: Fury Road.

In fact, if you care at all about creating the kind of future so teasingly glimpsed in the opening minutes of Fury Road before it starts to suck, you should be supporting the new generation of Red Pill filmmakers who are emerging right now. Filmmakers like Davis Aurini and Nicholas Henderson - visionaries who understand what cinema could potentially be were it released from the ovary-soaked prison it's been shackled to by the vaginocentric Big Studio system.

On the plus side, there are no black people in Mad Max: Fury Road (one of the females is slightly darker than the others but not so much that you really notice). I am not a racist.

Dan Cardamon out.


Dan Cardamon is a fictional character and this piece is a parody.

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Thunderf00t goes to the Marketplace Of Ideas and buys some magic beans

As you may have heard (if your life is as empty as mine is), the atheist and anti-feminist thought leader known as Thunderf00t recently had his Twitter account suspended. Apparently Twitter found it to be "violating Twitter rules, specifically the rules around targeted abuse." He concludes, in his inevitable video on the subject, that it must be about Anita Sarkeesian.

Twitter's judgement might be heavy handed in this case. I don't know how often he @s Sarkeesian, who presumably has him blocked anyway, so it may be unfair to suspend him on these grounds. There's no doubt that his multiple videos criticising Feminist Frequency encourage others to participate in the hate campaign, but whether Twitter can hold Tf00t accountable for others' behaviour is questionable.

But no biggie, this is not the trial of Charles Manson - it's a temporary suspension until he acknowledges that he understands Twitter's rules. Tick a box and he gets back in.

What interests me are a few points he made in the video I've linked to above.

He says: Sarkeesian is "perfectly happy to tweet out videos like 'Thunderf00t busted', which even with the entire support of Anita Sarkeesian's following, and PZ Myers' following - and no intervention from myself - got an organic rating of about 50%".

The "organic rating" he's talking about is the ratio of likes to dislikes on the YouTube video:

We'll pretend to take the "no intervention from myself" bit as true, and just accept Thunderf00t's implication here: that the ratio of likes to dislikes on a YouTube video are proof of the validity of the arguments made within that video.

Is that what he's actually implying? I wasn't sure at first, but a bit later in the video he says this:

"The Factual Feminist [sic] recently put out this video destroying Anita's arguments. And, just so we're clear on the rough numbers, it's about a third of a million hits at the moment, 4000 comments, and a 96% approval rating."

So that is what he's saying. Further evidence comes via a mention of the autotuned response to Hoff Sommers' video ("a 40% approval rating").

I guess that in 'the marketplace of ideas' (YouTube), a video's popularity ("organic rating") shows how correct it is.

Because masses of people could never be wrong.


(I was sure there must be some Latin name for a rhetorical fallacy related to this, but there can't be because Thunderf00t would never do something so silly.)

Saturday, 2 August 2014

Dear prisoners of conscience...

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you've been imprisoned by an oppressive regime simply for doing what you thought was morally right, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you've been tortured, and your family has been threatened, and your workplace raided and colleagues arrested, and you might just 'disappear' forever at any moment. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor British atheist brothers have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself Richard Dawkins, and do you know what happened to him? Some people on Twitter criticised him for something he tweeted. I am not exaggerating. They  really did. They said "your a dick" and some of them wrote blog posts about him, like witch hunters or Inquisitors or Orwell's Thought Police (still not exaggerating!). Of course he blocked many of them and wrote blog responses of his own, one of them in the Huffington Post, but even so...

And you, you journalists and activists, think you have human rights violations to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.


In reference to this and this.

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Ugh, you people! by Richard Dawkins

This morning I posted three tweets together, making a simple logical point. It seemed barely plausible that such an obvious point needed making, but I went ahead and made it anyway. Why? Because I am an EDUCATOR. I love to educate. It's what I'm best at.

My first tweet set out the logic without any specific example:

X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.
It’s hard to imagine anyone objecting to that, and I don’t think anybody did. But what good is a lesson in logic unless it provokes rage, disgust, and an opportunity for my supporters to condescend to my detractors? You might argue that, actually, all of those things are unnecessary - but if that's your stance, go away and don't come back until you've learned to think like me.
I fleshed my logic out with an example:
Rape is bad. Being criticised for saying whatever comes into my head just because I am a man and white is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of rape, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.
The logical point is, or should be, uncontroversial: no endorsement of the less bad option is implied. But what happened when I tweeted this? A Twitterstorm!
Honestly, it is UBELIEVABLE that such a simple, logical statement could provoke the reactions that followed. Accusations that I lack emotional intelligence and empathy, that I was deliberately trolling for responses, that I should choose my hypothetical examples with more care... It's as if you people understand NOTHING!
I wasn’t saying it is RIGHT to rank the ongoing War Against White Men as worse than rape, but that IF you WERE going to make that comparison, it obviously would be. Worse. 
You may be one of those who thinks all forms of rape are EQUALLY bad, and that the War Against White Men is actually just marginalised people asking for different perspectives to be taken into account. In that case my logical point won’t be relevant to you and you don’t need to take offence.
All I was saying is that IF you are one of those who is intelligent enough to see that CENSORSHIP of white mens' opinions is WORSE than rape, this doesn’t imply that you approve of rape. It is still bad. Just not AS bad.

I was only talking logic, with no desire to make light of the seriousness of any kind of rape. The only reason I brought up rape at all is because too few people retweeted my original X vs Y statement, and what good is FREE EDUCATION if nobody shares it?
Honestly, Twitter. You can be better than this. So let's move forward and next time I share my wisdom with you PLEASE try to digest the logical points I'm making without your hysterical female emotions kicking in and leading to a repeat of this ugliness.


Nothing should be off limits to discussion, but we rationalists have somehow wandered into a land where emotion is king.
It is deplorable that there are many people who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as "which kind of rape is worse?".  They are afraid - and I promise you I am not exaggerating - of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell's Thought Police.

Literally afraid. Of literal Inquisitors, witch-hunters and Thought Police who will literally torture them to death simply for wanting to place types of rape on a sliding scale of badness for one's own recreation and amusement.
You couldn't make it up!
Peace and fucking
Richard Dawkins

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Why I will happily censor you

Since writing the Thunderf00t/rape apology posts and publicising them on social media, I've blocked quite a few people and left YouTube comments turned off on one video  -  and inevitably that's lead to lots of  "But freedom of speech...!" and "You can't tolerate any disagreement!" and "What about MY opinion?!"... 

You know how it goes.  This post contains some thoughts on that.

From my point of view, what's going on is this: 

Some people - mostly feminists - are saying that women are pretty well-versed in taking the precautions they can to avoid being raped, and it's now high time that men took some responsibility for preventing rape from being committed.

That's the argument, as clearly as I'm able sum it up in one sentence. It's the argument that the protest placards and the soundbites ("Don't tell me what to wear, tell them not to rape" etc) are referring to.
I don't think there's any need for an analogy. 

 It's an argument that naturally leads to a legitimate discussion: "What can we do? What are some effective ways men can help prevent rape? How can we at the very least avoid making things worse?" And that's a discussion I'm perfectly prepared to have, because it's something that could be productive. 

But it's not the discussion that's being offered. What's offered - over and over again - in response to the sentiment "It's high time that men took some responsibility for preventing rape" is some variant of this:

"No it isn't.  That can't be done.  It won't work. " *

And if that's your argument -- or if your argument amounts to "Yes but for now let's get back to lecturing the women" -- damn right I don't want to read it. You're not helping anyone, and your comment is going to get deleted and you're probably going to get blocked from any virtual space that I control.  And I'm fine with that, because you're a waste of everyone's time.

There is one other related discussion that does interest me, and it starts with this question:

"Why are so many people (mostly men) so very resistant to the idea of talking about rape prevention (as opposed to rape avoidance)?"

The comments here are open.

*And not to forget: "This is not fair, not 100% of rapists are men, I'm not an MRA but I'm afraid I just must take this opportunity to derail because blah fucking blahdy blah"

EDIT: But now I see Eseld has already dealt with that:

Friday, 4 October 2013

What can we learn from Thunderf00t about how not to talk about rape?

Since his video was posted, several people have confronted Thunderf00t on social media with requests for clarification about what he was trying to say. His responses - when they haven't been as sarcastically dismissive as you'd expect - have been similar to the comment below, left by someone under the video on YouTube:
 All Thunderfoot is saying is "we should be able to give safety advice to women without being accused of victim blaming. That's a lot more effective than 'tell men not to rape.'
What's wrong with that?
I threw that out to commenters here. Eseld Sosustow wrote:
Well, it's patronizing, for one. So nothing else considered, that's one thing that's wrong with "giving advice".

Second, it's ignorant because it underestimates the scope and scale of the average woman's experience when it comes to being bombarded by unwanted sexual attention REGARDLESS of any kinds of "precaution". In that sense, it's also presumptuous, since the vast, vast majority of these givers of "advice" don't really understand it in their position. (I'm speaking of men here, mostly, if that wasn't obvious.)

Third, we've already heard all of the advice any of them could ever give. It's like coincidentally being named Steve Jobs and having to deal with people inevitably making stupid Apple jokes for the rest of your life. We've heard it all before, keep the advice (or jokes) to yourself. So simply being obnoxious is another reason.

Lastly, I would have to turn the question around and ask, "What's wrong with trying to educate men and women about consent, the matter of rape and sexual assault, and with trying to enforce a better cultural standard for the treatment of women and their autonomy? What's wrong with that?" I know that's something of a copout by answering a question with a question, but seriously. If the only answer is some defeatist attitude like "rapists gonna rape, bro", then these people can just stop talking. That's their answer, they are no help to the discourse. End of story.
Commenting on Thunderfoot's "advice" in general, Gilliel said:
Well, yes, it's hard to decide whom TF hates more, men (rapists who can't control themselves) or women. But since women are getting the short end of the stick, I'll go with women.
But it's such a nice catch-22: If you take one more precaution than TF deems reasonable you're a paranoid bitch who thinks all men are rapists. If something happens to you, well, you obviously didn't take enough steps to protect yourself, stupid bitch. 
And it should also be noted that the steps we take to minimise risk already greatly diminish our joy in life. 
Tonight, I'll work at a location quite near. The job will finish somewhere around midnight with a drink. Now, I will not drink. I will not drink because my car will be parked quite near in the light where there are many people and I will drive the mile home. If I were my husband, or if my husband were with me, I'd simly enjoy a glass of free champaign and walk. And I'm fortunate: I have a car I can use. 
And DEEN wrote
 "For comparison, when I go into the wilderness, I know there are predators there. It's just an inherent risk that I incur when I enter that environment."

Of course, entering the wilderness is entirely optional, your risks are minimized by only spending limited amounts of time there, and you can simply leave when you feel like you'd want to let your guard down a bit. None of this applies to the environment that women have to deal with.
 And Steve M highlighted part of the Predators Redux article linked to in an earlier part.
He quotes from Lisak's report, one of the most important findings:
Rather than focusing prevention efforts on the rapists, it would seem far more effective to focus those efforts on the far more numerous bystanders – men and women who are part of the social and cultural milieu in which rapes are spawned and who can be mobilized to identify perpetrators and intervene in high-risk situations.
Teach Men Not To Rape--because not only does it target people who don't know about consent but it removes the social license to operate that serial rapists rely on.

Teach Men Not To Rape so bystanders can recognize and call out bad behavior.

Dammitall, that's SUPER IMPORTANT, and the more Thunderf00t complains about it the more important it becomes.
The main thing I take away from Thunderf00t's effort (apart from the obvious) is that in discussing rape and consent, analogies are not only useless but actually counter-productive  - and it's telling that people like Thunderf00t are so keen to use them so often. 

There's no good reason to keep comparing rape to other crimes like burglary and theft. Under the pretence of "simplifying" the issue, all they're really doing is derailing.

Rape and sexual assault are crimes unlike most others. The crime is so tangled up in ideas of male entitlement to sex; the assertion of manhood by way of sexual dominance or conquest; the idea that women exist to provide pleasure to men; fear and subsequent shaming of active female sexuality (and probably a bunch of other ingrained sexist stuff I haven't considered) -
that it bears no relation at all to breaking into a house or taking someone's wallet from them in the street.  And it becomes even more ridiculous when predatory animals like mountain lions are brought into the discussion.

EDIT: Check this comment for a good idea of acts you could use as metaphors for rape, if you really really need to. 
There's also a good video by  the1janitor turning Tf00t's Wonka meme thumbnail against him.

But in future, if a person insists on introducing an analogy when this topic comes up, I'm going to take that as a red flag that their real interest is in avoiding productive discourse.

And that concludes this somewhat pompous summing up.


Thunderf00t is aware of this series of posts, but I don't think he'll be answering any of them any time soon.


Rebecca Watson has made a nice video response to Tf00t 

And so has the1janitor

Thunderf00t finally gets to the end - Part 10

Closing statements from the counsel for the defense:
Let's be real. Boy meets girl, and after a while they ride off into the sunset is a happy ending that puts a smile on everyone's face. And trust is a big part of that happy ending. Telling young women that they should be paranoid that all men they meet are potential rapists and should never be trusted is not something that's going to increase the number of happy boy meets happy girl and ride off into the sunset hand in hand.
Though surely it will minimise their risk of being alone with a rapist, and I was kind of under the impression that's what this video was trying to be about?

During the paragraph above, he shows a screenshot of the famous "Schrodinger's Rapist" blog post.  A piece by a woman talking about the precautions many women already take to avoid danger, and how men can benefit from being aware of that.

I don't know if Thunderf00t has actually read that piece. If he has, he'll have read this:

The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man.  
And this:
Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.
And this: 
To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.
And this: 
The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.
(Obviously, the author of that piece can't speak for all womankind - and I can't speak for all men, but as a male reader I think she did a good job of giving me a perspective I'd never had cause to consider. Which hasn't stopped skeptical dudebros trying to show her she's wrong using the power of fallacious maths)

Aaaanyway: Thunderf00t has proved that he's aware that women are already writing about the steps they take to assess and minimise personal risk - and he's aware that much of the advice coming from women concerns being wary of men. 

And he doesn't seem to like that. To recap:
If you're gonna get paranoid about trusting people it will undermine both your ability to form and maintain healthy relationships

Telling young women that they should be paranoid that all men they meet are potential rapists and should never be trusted is not something that's going to increase the number of happy boy meets happy girl and ride off into the sunset hand in hand.

There is an optimum line here. Somewhere between assuming all men are rapists and should never be trusted under any circumstances, and 100% trusting every man that you meet to absolutely respect your personal desires.
Teaching men not to rape? Bloody stupid. 

Being "paranoid" about the men you meet? Ruins your chances of True Love.

Dressing demurely, not getting drunk, and having good posture? There we go!

Please listen to the man, ladies. He's only trying to help YOU.

But remember that stopped clock? The time for being right has come around again
, and this time Phil uses the opportunity to undermine every point he's been trying to make throughout this entire eighteen minute ordeal:
Now, accurately assessing a hazard does not mean you will never experience that danger. You can minimise your chances of getting raped, do everything that you can to minimise your chances of getting raped, and still get raped. You can minimise your chances of being killed and eaten in the wild but still get killed and eaten. But it will minimise your chances of being in such a situation, while allowing you the greatest chances of achieving your desires.
(On the screen at this point, he has a caption that says:

Minimize the risk factors you can influence! (lock your door etc!)

The locked door metaphor is beginning to look pathological. I'm willing to bet Thunderf00t has used that old "a good key is one that can open many locks, whereas a bad lock is one that can be opened by any key" cliché at least once on his path to becoming a misogyny guru)

But now, finally, we come to the end. And as any good educator knows, what you do at the end of a long tutorial such as this is sum up, succinctly and clearly, the main themes you've covered. Phil Mason does this in four sentences:
For comparison, when I go into the wilderness, I know there are predators there. It's just an inherent risk that I incur when I enter that environment. But for the wonders that I have seen, the joys that I have experienced, it's a gamble that I happily accept.
Having said that, it would just be stupid of me, in the extreme, knowing that there are such predators in this environment to not minimise my chances of becoming a victim.
Or, maybe a more simple analogy. I lock my windows for security, but to brick them up for complete security would be dumb, as it would just rob me of the pleasure of living in this place.
Got it?

"There is danger out there, so a person should take steps to minimise their risk - but not to the extent that they deny themselves the enjoyment that life can bring."

Aren't you glad Thunderf00t was willing to spend at least an hour of his time making a video to tell you that? That he didn't just tweet it?

I'm going to do one more post on this, collecting some of the responses people have left in an attempt to leave the whole affair on a positive note. For now, this might be interesting -- I ran a word check on the entire transcript. These are the numbers of times each of the following words appear:

Women: 10

Victim: 9 

Lock: 6

Door: 5 

Analogy: 4

Wasp: 3

Mountain lions: 2

Men: 2

Consensual: 2

Rapist: [Search key not found] 

Consent: [Search key not found]

Last part