Gender

Why So Many Men Who Hate Women Love Limited Government

Small-government sentiment makes sense in anti-women communities, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism at large.

|

Little Rascals

As evidence of claims that libertarianism holds little appeal for women, critics like to highlight limited-government cheerleading from groups or figures known for sexism, especially men's rights activists (MRAs) and their various offshoots (Gadsden flags in the Twitter profiles of #GamerGate fans are seen as very telling). While they're wrong that libertarian philosophy is somehow inherently hostile to women, it's hard not to notice that a lot of dudes who don't take well to women's autonomy are also drawn to viewpoints that might be described as crudely libertarian. 

The most recent instance of this to catch my eye comes from Vice, where Mack Lamoureux profiles a group calling themselves the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), or "mig-tows." Along with standard MRA views—feminists have destroyed the rightful social order, men are the ones truly discriminated against today, etc.—the community subscribes to a four-part "Levels of MGTOW," the first and second of which involve ditching romantic, social, and sexual relationships with all women. The third step is economic disengagement, in which one "refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life" because government is "tyrannical" and one must "actively drain money from the bureaucrats." The fourth step is wide-scale societal disengagement. The founders of the MGTOW community—or "Red Pill," as it is now more commonly known—said in an early mission statement the group's goal is to instill "masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!" 

sausyn/Flickr

Endorsing limited government in some areas doesn't necessarily make one a libertarian, of course. Libertarianism as a political philosophy is about much more than a sort of generalized anger at "Big Government," or any specific proposal for disabling or disengaging from it—not every Tea Partier is libertarian, nor every misogynist with a Walden complex.

But to the extent that a lot of resentment toward women is bred out of men's dissatisfaction with their current lot in life, it makes sense that these men would also be angry at the government. The misogynist mindset centers on irrationally blaming women for all men's problems, so casting blame on another outside group—the government, the rich, immigrants, big business, some other race—isn't really a stretch. And of all these targets, the government actually makes the most sense if we're talking about bearing (some) responsibility for unemployment and other economic issues men face. 

In general, MRA lists of the ways women allegedly screw men over tend to feature alimony, child support, custody battles, campus sexual assault policies, and domestic violence law prominently—all areas where the state is a strong actor. Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wives without breaking the law, are just fine as is. But others could use a significant scrubbing of sexist precepts. In other words, the "manosphere" isn't always wrong to pinpoint the government as a locus of their problems. 

The bottom line, however, is that while libertarian-leaning sentiment makes sense among the He Man Woman Hating club and your run-of-the-mill MRAs, there's nothing in libertarianism as a political philosophy that is inherently sexist or misogynistic. Contra Salon-esque stereotypes, libertarians do not actually believe that survival of the fittest is a policy goal. Nor is it sufficient to say things like: But you guys don't want to raise the minimum wage, and the majority of minimum-wage earners are women! Disagreements over how best to help women, the economy, and all people in poverty do not mean libertarians hate women, the economy, and people in poverty. 

But just as libertarianism alone cannot answer the abortion question (those who shout "Non-Aggression Principle!" about fetuses already assume a lot outside the realm of libertarianism, such as when personhood begins), libertarianism as a political philosophy does not and cannot dictate personal views of gender norms. That's why there's room for both feminists and sexists in libertarianism. As long as you believe in equality of the sexes before the law, that's all that really matters.

Of course, a lot of both MRAs and liberal feminists stop short of really believing this when it's not in their group's perceived interest. That's why most fail to pass a libertarian smell test even if they do espouse limited-government leanings in some arenas (and, of course feminists do as much as any MRAs when it comes to certain subjects, like reproductive freedom). In my personal experience, libertarianism can appeal to MRAs and feminist-minded folks alike because it's based on protecting people's basic rights regardless of who they are, and getting rid of government policies that infringe on liberty whomever they hit hardest. But libertarians must reject encoding any particular set of beliefs—religious, ideological, or otherwise—into the law. And for people on all sides of sex- and gender-issue debates, that's often a bridge too far no matter how much they want to limit the government's involvement with their wallet or workplace hiring practices or uterus. 

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Uber for Helicopters' Offers to Help New Yorkers Beat Pope-Related Traffic

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ENB, you’re weird. I like that.

    But I just can’t care about this subject….tl;dr.

    Wait – did I just not “take well to women’s autonomy”? Shit, shit, shit, shit….

    *smacks forehead*

    1. You woman hater! Don’t you know that even saying the word women or any of it’s derivatives makes you a hater? It’s hate speech, which government has a duty to ban if not outright criminalize. The phrase small government also means you’re a hater, and a woman hater in particular because men know that women need a government to take care of them and protect them. To suggest otherwise is hateful, and to say it’s so is hateful. Frankly the vast majority of language in the dictionary is hate speech towards women, congress needs to ban the evil book.

      This is so easy to understand, I don’t get why so many men don’t get it.

      1. Stop being a hater.

        1. So it follows that women who hate men must love socialism. Somehow I always knew that about Hillary.

      2. redonkulas.com has a comedy vid on MGTOW and the red pill

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOIduTY0mHY

    2. She’s in need of attention.

      1. below this line = 500+ comment sausage party of derp. count me out.

        1. I saw there was 700+ comments and thought maybe we were back to one of those crazy Mary weekend threads again, from the days prior to registration.

          Oops! I shouldn’t say anything negative involving a woman’s name!

          1. Seeing 800+ now…

    3. Hey man, you really need to stop and give credit where credit is due.

      It took a lot of time and effort, not just to build that strawman but also to wrestle it into submission while simultaneously packing in as many social status markers as humanly possible.

      1. comedy vid using math in what happends to men in divorce redonkulas.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTHTsemlHEk

  2. the first and second of which involve ditching romantic, social, and sexual relationships with all women.

    Women: “Well, bye.”

    1. I don’t get why the idea of disengaging seems to piss people off so badly. These guys don’t owe me anything. If they want to go off and be on their own socially, why the fuck should I care?

    2. I like how these guys act as if it’s their choice to go it alone. Guys like that either can’t get a date, have unrealistic standards for women, or are too clueless to make a relationship work. I’m sure most women are relieved these winners are off the market.

      1. Right. You keep tellin’ yourself that.

        1. That’s been my experience. Except for one guy I used to work with who had NO interest in women (or men) at all, and I truly believe he’s asexual. Why, do you have evidence to the contrary?

          1. Yah, lots. I don’t know how old you are, but MOST of my male friends and cousins find dealing with the seriously out of balance scales in a relationship with a woman not to be worth the candle.
            Not to deny that one could find people who fit your check-list of characteristics above, but I know many who can get dates, have few expectations of women in a relationship, are far from “clueless” about making relationships “work” – whatever that means – but simply find at some point in our hormonal roller coaster ride that most relationships with women cost 5x and the return is 2x. As a rational libertarian what would your choice be?
            But hey we’re all just having fun here and I can take my share of good-natured bigotry about women’s views of men. . . and be very happy 🙂

            1. OK. Thanks for the info. I used a broad brush in my statements and realize there are always exceptions. I’m old, but in my youth I had a series of bad experiences (most of which were my fault) that would have made this lifestyle appealing. I’m a solitary, self-sufficient person who enjoys being alone most of the time, but every so often I need to be with a woman–and not just because I’m horny. And in my current relationship I truly feel I get far more out of it than I give. But you have to live the life that’s right for you, and ignore those who don’t understand or approve.

              1. Well when you both feel you get more out of a relationship than you put in, you’ve hit a sweet spot. I too am old enough to have had plenty of relationships that were not like that (and none that were.) But am also self-sufficient and love being a dad more than anything else in my life.
                As to the broad brush . . . I am guilty of that often 😉

            2. There are plenty of sane emotionally stable women out there. I think a lot of men get in trouble because they either just want sex or are attracted to crazy. The just wanting sex means that guys ignore or overlook fundamental personality incompatibilities on their way to trying to get a woman into bed. And then they attribute the fact that they picked the wrong chick to women in general being crazy and wierd. No, you just should have tried getting to know the woman first to find out if she was sane and compatible.

              1. There are plenty of sane emotionally stable women out there.

                Unfortunately, women like that would never be interested in someone like me. But I’m a big supporter of masturbation because it enables guys to keep a clear head and not make rash decisions just because they’re horny.

              2. Even emotional stability is a little overrated — evolution has equipped men to handle a little instability in their partners from time to time, since e.g. pregnancy and recovery from same can fuck a brain up good.

                Character matters as much as stability; it’s very difficult to have a good relationship with someone who is, at heart, an asshole. Also important, finding someone whose particular bullshit you can put up with, and who can put up with your particular bullshit.

                1. bingo

              3. Hazel, that makes it look like there are close to no women who just want sex — and are emotionally stable (commulative). Apparently, the women who agree to casual sex turn out to want romance/emotional investment — and to go nuts when they don’t get it, Otherwise many of the “just sex”-men should have arrived at a more nuanced picture of women, based on some encounters that went well.

          2. comedy vid on the life cycle of a feminist redonkulas.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Um_TChM0

      2. I’m sure most women are relieved these winners are off the market.

        Well we’re relieved that these future “Cat Ladies of America” club members are relieved.

        1. Hey, Cat Ladies need love too!

          1. Nope cat ladies do not meet my “unrealistic standards for women”

            I might take a cat though.

            1. Interestingly enough my unrealistic standards for women are identical to my totally realistic standards for cats.

              Pet and feed the pussy once a day (not necessarily in that order) and other wise ignore it.

            2. That’s your problem; you have standards. Ditch them and a world of opportunity awaits. You’ll see…

        2. So, in your mind all women that don’t want to date pathetic assholes are future cat ladies?

          1. And of course, we all know women never blame men for not being interested in them.

          2. Kim Davis would challenge that.

        3. my thoughts exactly, though you phrased it better than I would’ve.

      3. While most of the MGTOW dudes are just trying to justify their failures with women, I have a few friends that just love being alone and have gotten too set in their ways to deal with a relationship. They get sufficient satisfaction from their hand and seem happy. “Seem” is the key word. Who knows what kind of pathologies their lack of the basic human need for romantic companionship is subconsciously engendering.

        1. What do you actually know about most of the MGTOW crowd?

          1. I know they are divided into two major groups: the dextrosexuals and the sinistrosexuals, depending on which hand they use.

        2. Prostitution has been the historical response to such unmet needs.

          No, I personally do not think it ideal, or even a valid substitute, but the historical evidence would seem to indicate it is at least sufficient.

          1. just a note, all sex is paid for, a wife is just the long installment plan.

      4. “Guys like that either can’t get a date, have unrealistic standards for women, or are too clueless to make a relationship work.”
        Yep, any time men don’t do what women want it’s because they can’t get a girl. Try to keep the shaming language to minimum in future.

      5. comedy vid using math in what happends to men in divorce redonkulas.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTHTsemlHEk

      6. you forgot ‘gay’

      7. you forgot ‘gay’

      1. I don’t call that much of a choice.

  3. It’s telling that most of the woman-hating clubs are fictional.

    1. The Little Rascals is not fictional.

    2. The Augusta National Golf Club is real.

      1. Do the members of August National hate women? Or do they just want to play golf in peace?

        1. Oh, I know they do not hate women, at least I am sure most of them do not. And, they have some women members now. It was just a cheap joke.

          I actually applaud what they did a few years ago by not acceding to public pressure demanding women entry to the club. They are private; they can do whatever they want, and they did.

          1. That case was hilarious proof of the NY Times’ agenda. They had something like 40 stories about this supposedly huge controversy, and when the day of the big demonstration arrived, one bus with maybe 25 protestors showed up. Fewer protestors than the number of NY Times stories!

    3. NFL too.

    4. Yep, and neither was the X files.

  4. Domestic Violence laws in California state the bigger partner must be taken to jail no matter who is doing the actual violence. So if the cops come in on a woman hitting her husband with a frying pan the husband is the one who will go to jail. This was put in place after laws requiring the aggressor be arrested resulted in too many women going to jail.

    So Yes, Domestic Violence laws need an overhaul in a lot of states.

    1. So, if my wife gains just 3 more pounds I’ll be able to beat her with impunity!

      1. By beat her with impunity do you mean finally lever her off your lap?

      2. I’m pretty sure they make the judgment based on height in most cases.

        1. So that’s the reason most women want to date men taller than they are.

          1. Well cha, how else are we supposed to keep the spider killers in line?

      3. So, if my wife gains just 3 more pounds I’ll be able to beat her with impunity!

        As long as the impunity is no bigger in diameter than your thumb.

      4. Avoid salt for a few days before you need to beat her and you can probably shed a pound or two of water weight.

    2. Domestic Violence laws in California state the bigger partner must be taken to jail no matter who is doing the actual violence.

      That sounds like something that couldn’t possibly be true. I know men tend to be guilty until proven innocent when it comes to domestic violence, but usually its not codified into law. Do you have a source on this?

      1. From my understanding it gets by on that they aren’t actually being charged with a crime (they spend the night in jail not prison), it’s technically gender neutral, and the ability to be justified under it being hard to tell who the aggressor was considering how much domestic violence is mutual.

        1. I see. With no charges pressed, its just a peace keeping measure used to separate the parties until their heads can cool. Gotcha.

          1. it’s technically gender neutral

            Funny how facially neutral laws that have a disparate impact on women are sexist and likely unconstitutional, but facially neutral laws that have a disparate impact on men are okey-dokey.

            Oops. Does that comment mean that I “don’t take well to women’s autonomy”?

          2. Yeah would you be calling it cool if the WOMEN got disproportionately affected?

          3. Yeah would you be calling it cool if the WOMEN got disproportionately affected?

        2. Everybody arrested goes to jail. You don’t go to prison until after you’ve been convicted. And I’d the police take you there against your will, they’re stressing you, and you will be charged with something.
          I believe you are misinformed on this.

          1. While I’m sure you would be stressed, the police are arresting you.

  5. Fuck bitches, get paid?

  6. “NEVER make your princess pancakes. Make HER make YOU pancakes.”

    I hope we get a big influx of PUA trolls. O PLZ O PLZ O PLZ

    1. Your pants seem to be fitting loosely on your thighs lately; are you sick or something?

      1. Fry: Start with a compliment. Tell her she looks thin.
        Dr. Zoidberg: [calling to Edna] You seem malnourished. Are you suffering from internal parasites?
        Edna: [pleased] Why, yes. Thanks for noticing.

        1. ASK DOCTOR WARTY

          Dr Warty, you seem pretty strong. So why are you fat?

          1. Because your mom’s spaghetti is so good. Well, not really good, but she makes so much of it.

            1. YOU TAKE THAT BACK HER SPAGHETTI IS DELICIOUS

              1. She puts bread in her meatballs. Like a poor person. Disgusting.

                1. SHE DOES NOT!!! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

                  1. And that fucking stupid red lentil pasta shit? What the fuck is she thinking?

                    1. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP I HATE YOU

                2. She puts bread in her meatballs. Like a poor person. Disgusting.

                  Wait, some people don’t?

                  1. Don’t let him fool you. Any time the meat is ground it is peasant food.

        2. If I said you had a beautiful body, would you take your pants off and dance around a little?

          1. I find the most erotic part of a woman to be the breasts.

        3. Zoidberg has trouble dating because he “smells like a burning zoo.”

      2. Your pants seem to be fitting loosely on your thighs lately; are you sick or something?

        Don’t worry. Sapient Mulch will make sure he doesn’t skip leg day anymore.

        1. I have never skipped leg day. You take that back.

          1. Of course not. I’m sure you just had the thighs of your pants let out.

            1. Jesse, Warty must be sick. I mean, he looks okay and all, but his BMI is probably under thirty.

              1. YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU FUCK I’M WELL OVER 30

              2. I hope he gets better soon. I know how hard he’s worked to achieve hugeness, and it’d be a shame for him to lose that. I mean I think he looks fine skinny-ripped, but you know how he feels about it.

                1. I WILL NOT BE AN OTTER

                  *eats cheesecake, squats 5 sets*

                2. Handsome in the shredded Brad Pitt fashion is pretty good. It is not bodybuilder/mass/intimidating good, but it is pretty good.

                  1. We call that “skinny ripped.”

                    1. We call that “skinny ripped.”

                      Umm we already covered that, Nikki. Go back to your needlepoint, the men are negging here.

      3. “Hey, baby, I hear ugly women are great in the sack, and I wanted your expert opinion on whether that’s true.”

        “Who’s the SOB who hit you? Oh, wait, your face is just like that naturally.”

        “Wow, your moustache is bigger than mine!”

    2. yeah baby, he squats.

      1. I am not good at Warty negs, but I like doing them.

        1. That’s not the only thing he juggles.

          1. I am not good at this either.

        2. It’s really pretty easy. Try something like this: ”

          Wow Warty, I can tell you’ve been doing a shit-ton of squats! I mean, your thighs are nearly as big around as your calves now!”

          1. I don’t have any pictures of them handy, but I like to think my thighs look like a hairier JJ Watt’s. Enjoy.

            1. Oh Warty! I can’t wait! I’m gonna go upgrade the hardware downstairs in the guest room right now!

              *wipes suddenly moist hands on leather bustier and hurries off, humming Discipline*

    3. “When you get into an elevator with a woman, press a higher number than her and then make a big deal about it.”

      1. Lol

  7. I’m sure there are sexists in many political movements.

    For instance, you sometimes hear of a politician drowning a woman in a pond, or groping his staff and random lobbyists he meets, or cheating on his wife, etc.

    Many of these men are from the Party of Women’s Empowerment, and one of the Republicans (Robert Peckerwood) was a liberal choicer Republican.

    1. Hey, the car drowned that woman! Or maybe it was the booze. It was definitely one of the two.

  8. Do we have any legit woman-haters among the regulars here? Tulpa, I suppose, but he’s a pariah, so fuck him.

    1. We have PUAs and they might as well be women-haters. They don’t consider them to be human beings.

      1. I’m so dumb I had to look up “PUA”.

        So anyway, is that a sausage roll in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

        1. I have to look this shit up every time.

    2. I’m a legit MRA, and a lot of people seem to think those are synonymous with hating women. Probably why I get called a G.I.R.L. so often.

      1. I’m sure I’ll be sorry, but GIRL?

        1. G.I.R.L. Guy In Real Life.

          1. People on the Internet are stupid.

            1. Started on early MMO’s to describe the kind of off-putting phenomenon of guys playing chic avatars in ERP’s (Erotic Role Plays). Since has made it out to the rest of the internet like other lingo such as N00B, Newb, lol, & Gratz.

        2. Guy In Rayon Leggings

          1. *snork*

    3. I don’t believe many true woman haters exist. Most straight men are hardwired to desire women, but guys who are incapable of attracting or keeping a woman tend to embrace ‘woman-hating’ attitudes as a defense mechanism. Besides, the opposite of Love isn’t Hate–it’s Apathy.

      1. but guys who are incapable of attracting or keeping a woman tend to embrace ‘woman-hating’ attitudes as a defense mechanism

        I already mentioned Tulpa. Go through the archives. He’s nauseating.

        1. What you did there, I see it.

        2. I prefer clarity, and when labeling people and groups it’s important to understand what they’re really about, and not just making assumptions based on superficiality.

          1. Sorry, kinda slow today. Good one.

        3. +0

      2. Yeah, but “Apathy Story” just had no pizzaz.

    4. Do we have any legit woman-haters among the regulars here?

      I hate most people, but of those I do like, a higher percentage are male than female.

      1. Just for the record…

        I like BOTH of the libertarian women here.

        1. Wait – there are TWO??

          *looks around wildly*

    5. The only time I’ve ever experienced legit woman-hate was outside this forum.

      So you’re all* aces in my book.

      *Except a few. You likely know who you are.

      1. (looks around nervously)

      2. It’s me, isn’t it?

        I knew I needed that extra therapy session.

        1. You and Hitler, yes.

          1. I haven’t seen his posts. Or is he posting under an alias?

            1. Known aliases: John, Cytotoxic, Tulpa

              1. I thought Cytotoxic was really Nathaniel Branden’s head, kept alive in a jar

                1. That is actually plausible.

                  1. I’d like to think Branden would have a bit more humility. Cytotoxic has bombast and arrogance in spades.

      3. You’re a chick? Man, I’d never be able to tell by the way you act on REASON….

        *carries on blithely*

      4. I’ve only met two genuine misogynists in my life, one was a Senior Chief in the Navy and the other works for OSHA. And if any of the hordes of wymyns who sling the epithet “woman hater” so casually around at men who annoy them ever met these guys, they’d probably have to spend the rest of their lives in a “safe” room.

        1. I’ve never met a true misogynist, but I have met a couple of true racists. It really is a sight to behold and it makes you realize that many SJWs have probably never seen real hate like that. If they had, they wouldn’t think that every little comment had some amount of hate built into it. All the little microaggressions are lost in the noise of the real thing.

          1. Just about everyone is mildly bigoted in some fashion. True racists are a whole ‘nother breed.

            The SJWs seek to distort reality by treating any bigotry as full on racism.

            1. They don’t even need “bigotry,” just a “microaggression” or a reference to an inconvenient fact.

        2. Not sure I’ve met many true misogynists, but I’ve met a lot of guys who express tremendous contempt and disdain for women. The funny thing is they’re usually very good-looking guys who have no problem getting women. They’d pick them up, take them out, have their way with them, and then dump them for being a slut. Truly mind-boggling.

          1. All evil projects itself onto its victims.

          2. The two men I define as true misogynists would bleed to death rather than let a female doctor treat them, because they KNOW that no woman could possibly be competent.

            1. I’ve met one of those before. A real gem he was.

            2. Stunning. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that’ll happen someday.

        3. In the early 90’s I worked as a customer service rep on the phones at a bank. We would sometimes have elderly women ask to speak with a man if their call was answered by a female CSR. I always found that interesting.

          1. The original pilot for Star Trek had to be re-shot partially due to the negative reaction toward the female First Officer–mainly by female viewers! So, Roddenberry caved and demoted Number 1 to Nurse Chapel and made Mr. Spock First Officer instead. Women are often their own worst enemy.

            1. Roddenberry was an amusing case: a guy who was all in favor of women’s liberation because it made it easier for him to sleep around.

              1. Been a major Star Trek fan my whole life, but the more I hear about Roddenberry the less I like him. In many ways he was like George Lucas, and his franchise got better after he got shoved aside.

              2. “Roddenberry was an amusing case: a guy who was all in favor of women’s liberation because it made it easier for him to sleep around.”

                You’ve never heard the expression ‘win-win’ before? Are you fucking retarded?

      5. You spelled Asses wrong

    6. I love women. Is there anything nicer than a nice kitty at night?

      Oh wait, I think you meant something deeper than that.

        1. That is adorable, I will say that.

    7. Tony? I thought he was pretty open about it, or maybe he was speaking only of his attraction to them.

    8. We have more sexists than women-haters. Maybe John?

      1. There’s no way John is a woman-hater.

        1. Were you around for his “all women are whores and all successful women slept their way to the top” rants?

    9. I have my moments.

      Did I just write this?

      D’oh!

      I’m with Alamanian. I have no clue what everyone including ENB are talking about.

    10. “Do we have any legit woman-haters among the regulars here?”

      Woman-haters of unusual size? i don’t even think they exist.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOv5ZjAOpC8

      No but seriously unless you are literally in Isis enslaving and raping women real women haters are pretty damn rare.

      I do think there is a lot of conflating hating feminists with hating women though. In fact I am pretty sure ENB is doing just that in the article above.

  9. When did things start going downhill in this country? When were women given the right to vote?

    1. Shoes, too! Don’t forget the cobbler’s role in letting women run free.

      1. And we taught them to read! Oh, the horror!

    2. The whole “women were denied the vote” thing is a false narrative of history.
      Men were also denied the voted, and many other things.

      Just watch Prof. Janice Fiamengo’s brief exposition on how this really went down in the 1800 to 1900:

      Votes For Women?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Ed2BIOHbQ

  10. The most recent instance of this to catch my eye comes from Vice, where Mack Lamoureux profiles a group calling themselves the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), or “mig-tows.” Along with standard MRA views?feminists have destroyed the rightful social order, men are the ones truly discriminated against today, etc.?the community subscribes to a four-part “Levels of MGTOW,” the first and second of which involve ditching romantic, social, and sexual relationships with all women.

    Don’t these idiots know Married…With Children spoofed this 25 years ago with NO, MA’AM?

    1. I feel like Jesse could do well at these meetings. On the other hands, these guys are probably not tremendously attractive.

      1. Sticking it in crazy + desperate + obsessed with how other people ruin everything and they’re just victims sounds like a fucking BLAST.

        1. You sure you don’t want me to train that out of him Jesse?

      2. That’s practically a tautology, particularly when you consider what factors often define attractiveness to females.

    2. Spoof? What do you mean spoof? It was serious wrongthink, just like All in the Family was. That’s why I never watched those shows.

      /Dworkinbot

    3. Uh, no, they don’t. Because to them it’s not a spoof.

      1. It was a documentary. Filmed in real time.

        ….

        Like the X-Files.

        1. You are a terrible Master Shake.

          1. I prefer the X-Files to Highlander, what can I say?

            1. What the? Did you just, I mean, REALLY?

            2. i didn’t know anyone didn’t

          2. He’s black, right?

            He sounds black…

    4. Awww, that was a great bit on Married with children. I loved that show!

    5. Another big false Votes For Women this article makes, is that MGTOWs and MRAs are synonymous.
      They can overlap, but it is not the same thing.

      MGTOW is the instantiation of a man deciding to not associate himself with women in any deep sociological way. He will talk to them, interact with them in casual interactions, and he will have sex with them in a non-committal way, but has made a life choice to not have an interpersonal relationship with them.

      MRAs are men or women who advocate, campaign and are activists for men’s equal treatment and rights in society and law. MRAs also highlight and speak about the inequities that society imposes upon men, while giving women superior treatment and rights.

  11. The thing is, gender partisanship is just another form of idiotic collectivism. I has nothing to do with political philosophy or anything like it. It is much more related to racism and nationalism and religionism (is that a word?).

    Though people will often want to conflate these things, that’s because it’s just another way to try attack the collective group who they dislike. Correlation does not imply causation, to be trite.

    1. religionism (is that a word?)

      … Creed?

      1. No, that’s a movie coming out soon and a shitty band.

      2. Why am I not surprised you listen to them? You sicken me!

        1. You want to be sickened? I’ll give you something to be sickened about!

          1. …so? I’m waiting!

            1. Curse the work filter and my wanting to be employed.

              If I was at home you could expect some extreme body modification gifs and videos of cysts.

              1. Riven, I’ll bet body mods and cysts are like puppies and snowflakes compared to the stuff Epi’s voluntarily watching right now.

              2. Excuses, excuses. JUST LIKE A WOMAN.

  12. Gadsden flags in the Twitter profiles of #GamerGate fans are seen as very telling

    I have literally never seen a Gadsden flag as the profile pic for a Gamergate supporter and I also don’t think Gamergate was in any way sexist given the number of women involved.

    1. I don’t follow gamergate but don’t they tend towards anime avatars?

      1. Yes. They’re dweebs. You see lots of anime avatars, lots of video game characters, lots of comic books. Never seen one with a Gadsden flag.

        Gamergate fans are who they say they are – dorks who love video games and don’t like having their hobby shit on by leftist whiners. The accusations of sexism were always ridiculous if you bothered looking at what they were actually saying.

        1. I’ve seen a few Confederate flags over the last month.

          I think GG started out like that… but lately, it’s overlapped a whole lot with the MGTOW-types (judging from the KotakuInAction subreddit)

          1. I don’t think the movement exists anymore. I think most of the people who were actually interested in video games are getting out and there are some right wingers who don’t give a shit about that periodically posting under the tag.

            You never saw that at all, even 3 months ago.

            1. It’s been going on for over a year now. I’m amazed it kept steam as long as it did.

            2. Gamergate is broadly a coalition of left and right libertarians but they’ve had a big tent philosophy since the beginning and have included people from both the extreme right and the extreme left ranging from white nationalist to communist, although they have been more wary of the far right.

              The movements definitely got quieter but they’re far from dead, frankly most of their goals on ethical journalism were reached so far as was realistically possible for them to be reached and that meant a lot of people have either moved on or are only lurking in the movement these days.

        2. In fairness i have seen them.

          though i think it is modified with the snake being a USB cable or something and with a new logo that says “Don’t tread on my vidya” or whatever.

          They came out about the same time Amazon and Apple banned video games that used the confederate flag.

          Lots of Civil war strategy games were taken down and gamergate to show solidarity for freedom of expression in video games used all sorts of flags in their avatars in protest.

    2. #gamegate itself wasn’t sexist, but a whole lot of sexists jumped on the bandwagon. Which caused most of the people with a legitimate gripe to wander away.

      1. Anything where collectivist obsessives can insert their narrative will be taken over by them. Because they obsess over this shit and most other people don’t. Obsessives always win, because they care *so much*. And they love, love, love to fight with their chosen enemies. They love it more than anything else.

        1. That’s why Epi is an anarchist and will go out of his way to deride collectivist bullshit wherever it rears its ugly head.

          1. Did you just collectivize me, Sparky?!? I’ll kill you!

            1. Dude, you’re more obsessed with collectivists than you are with getting into Nicole’s She-Ra underoos.

              1. Mmmmm. She-Ra.

        2. Speaking of Shrike… I haven’t seen him all week.

          1. Nor John

            Where’s Bo?

            1. Bo was around the other day. I haven’t seen John in a couple of weeks.

              1. John disappeared at the same time that Kim Davis went to jail. This is probably coincidence, right? Right?

                1. If it’s not a coincidence, then he just today converted to the GOP. So I find that unlikely.

                  1. Dude, Kim Davis is a Democrat.

                2. As I understand it, he has left for periods of time in the past, but I think this time he may have become convinced the commentariat and writers are beyond redemption. I think he’s reloading in his basement.

                  1. I liked John. Especially when he would go totally off the rails over some minor quibbling point. That was the best. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

                    1. Yeah, that was pretty funny. No thought, equivocation or filtering. Just,

                      YOUR A FUKCING IDIOT! I CANT BELIVE YOUR THAT STUPID`1!

            2. Typed the same thing ystrdy about John.

              Bo is very much around

            3. I have a theory about what happened to John. It may be impolite to say, but he’s an asshole, so whatever: I think his wife left him.

              I noticed that the nadir of his meltdown was the Trump vs. Megyn Kelley kerfuffle after the GOP debate, wherein he started ranting furiously about how all women are whores who can’t be successful unless they sleep their way to the top. Then later someone made some relatively harmless joke involving John’s wife and he went ballistic.

              Could be he’s so wrapped up in dealing with it/stressing about it that he decided to take his time off from posting here, which I can’t imagine was healthy for him anyhow, considering how worked up he got over trifles.

              1. I was sort of wondering the same thing. He had never been overly sexist before then that I had noticed, and he had claimed to be married, but never seemed especially positive about it.

                The way he jumped all over Kelley sounded like a guy whose wife just left him for someone else.

          2. Oh man, it was hilarious. Shriek was around yesterday morning, got called out with some economic stats, and flounced because he had to “go do some work.” He hasn’t been back since.

      2. Horseshit. It was all the false claims of sexism that made the initial critics realize exactly what they were really up against. Not just a corrupt and incestuous media relationship with game companies, but also the entire progressive/SJW/collectivist mindset.

      3. In contrast with ‘non-sexist’ feminists, who still cling to their movement even though it’s been dominated by sexists at least since the ’70s.

  13. (those who shout “Non-Aggression Principle!” about fetuses already assume a lot outside the realm of libertarianism, such as when personhood begins)

    They’re “pro-life”, not “pro-personhood”.

    1. So they’re vegans?

      1. No, radical Jains. Vegans still kill plants.

        1. Duh. Now I feel like an idiot, Sug.

          1. Don’t worry. People always forget the radical Jains. And they barely have the strength to get out of bed most days anyhow.

            1. But they do. Someone has to sweep the ants to safety.

              1. Usually novices that haven’t yet committed to the lifestyle fully. And they don’t have them sweep the ants out of everyone’s way, just their way. They don’t care about your crusty gym sock of a soul.

                1. I learned about Jainism in an “Eastern Religions” class in college.

                  Very, very interesting.

                  *slaps mosquito on arm*

                  1. I did too, my professor had that particular class outside, in the middle of spring, in the South.

                  2. *slaps mosquito on arm*

                    I call bullshit.

                    Mosquitoes don’t have arms…

          2. Just now? Not all the time?

        2. “I only sip nectar. I make sure to leave some for the bees.”

          1. “Eh, no no, no applause. Every time you clap your hands you kill thousands of spores that’ll some day form a nutritious fungus.”

            1. “A good way to prevent frostbite: just put your hands between your buttocks. That’s nature’s pocket.”

              1. “It keeps your ears warm, too!”

                1. And your nose!

              2. Don’t let him pick your pocket!

    2. And the pro-abortion rights side is not making the opposite assumption that is equally outside libertarianism that a human fetus has no rights under the law?

      1. It has no rights under the law. That’s why you guys are trying to change the law.

        1. It has no rights under the law. That’s why you guys are trying to change the law.

          The same applied to those of African descent prior to a very large war.

          1. Do you actually think this is some sort of devastating counter-argument to my statement of plain fact?

            1. I mean, if the Dred Scott shoe fits…

              Rights “under the law” (the current law) is almost a meaningless term. The government thinks it hands out “rights” left and right, and thinks it takes them away even easier.

              In general “the law” has no bearing whatsoever on NAP.

              1. Mickey Rat was talking about the law. Morals and the law have a tenuous connection at best, but the law was the subject at hand.

                1. True, but I was talking about the more interesting point, not about law or morals, but NAP (what we all supposedly agree on).

                  In general, “the law” (aggregate) is jacked up. Morals are different among different people. Also, just because I know [A] is wrong doesn’t mean that [A] violates NAP.

                  1. By all means, let’s stop the existing dialog and talk about what you want to talk about.

                    1. Unnecessarily snide remark…

                      We can argue about what the law says, post Dred Scott or post Roe v Wade, but it will do little to change it. We’re libertarians, and we’re interested in NAP.

                      SugarFree made a point that the law said [A]. I made a point that “the law” is basically useless and sometimes in obvious contradiction to NAP. It’s a libertarian website, so I wasn’t off base.

                    2. Are you going to cry now? I think the women are all commenting further down.

                    3. Ha ha, I was a frikkin US Marine, don’t think I’m gonna cry because some random commenter was snide.

                      Was my reply off topic? I don’t see how.

                    4. Buck up, little camper. I’m sure someone somewhere out there thinks you’re special.

                    5. What’s your problem, pilgrim? Got a problem with people who think clearly? Or is it just that you can’t actually win any of your arguments and insults are the best you’ve got?

                    6. BURN!

                    7. Sexist, but funny.

        2. Ah, government creates rights argument, intriguing.

          1. You really are retarded, aren’t you? I mean, there was this rumor going around you were retarded, and I thought people were just being mean. But, no, you really do have a significant mental impairment.

          2. Mickey. Read more. Move your lips if you have to. Just read something. Anything.

      2. And the pro-abortion rights side is not making the opposite assumption that is equally outside libertarianism that a human fetus has no rights under the law?

        So, you didn’t read the post.

        1. Reading is for fags.

          1. LOOKIT MISTR ENGLUSH TEECHR WITH HIS REEDIN AND LANGWUJ AN STUFF.

            1. WHYCOME DIS BOOK NOT FIT IN ASS?

              1. NNEED FOWLD IT MOAR – LYK THIS….

              2. HEER. STEVE SMITH HELP.

        2. Yes, I did.

          It did not suggest the perspective I was addressing.

          1. What does “libertarianism alone cannot answer the abortion question” mean to you, then?

            1. Means the same thing as someone saying libertarianism alone can’t answer whether them niggers have rights cuz we can’t all agree they’re “persons.”

  14. Of course limited government is anti-women. If you don’t want a big government that doles out money and special privileges to certain groups, like women for example, then you obviously hate those groups. There is no other explanation except raw hatred.

    1. You’re starting to kind of scare me with how good you’re getting at this.

      *moves further away from sarc*

      1. *moves further away from sarc*

        Good idea, we going to end up the fleeing children to his Arab wedding.

    2. So hatred or hatred. Yes, I think you’re right. That does seem to be how it is these days.

  15. Along with standard MRA views?feminists have destroyed the rightful social order, men are the ones truly discriminated against today, etc

    Women More Likely to Be Democrats, Regardless of Age

    Poll: Which issue is most important? Men and women split

    1. Women are less likely to say that what is best in life is to destroy your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women?

      1. That is good. That is good.

      2. My experience in that area is limited to gaming (tabletop and video), but women are more likely to go for absolute destruction of their enemies. If they have to fight, it’s to achieve fast and complete victory with as few survivors as possible, and certainly no silly ideas like ‘sporting chance’ or ‘letting them escape’.

        1. but women are more likely to go for absolute destruction of their enemies

          I guess… I mean, if there’s an achievement for it…

        2. You can’t judge all women by your mom, dude. I mean, I certainly try not to considering her performance in the sack.

    2. So when you named your Realdoll Suki and created a persona for “her”, did you think you’d finally met the perfect woman?

      1. I realize you know you’re wrong and this is to get a rise out of me, but that was John who created ‘Suki’.

        1. Sure it was, nutjob. Sure it was.

          1. Suki’s dead, hon. Suki’s dead….

            1. I’m pretty sure Suki is a real person, but that’s not her real name. If she’s not, John’s good. I had a few convos with Suki on FB a couple years back.

              (Yeah, I’m an FBfgt)

              I’ve been on these boards for a while, in and out, IDK if you guys really think she is just a character or alter ego invented by John, or if you just like busting his balls about it.

              It’s hard to tell with you “old-timers” sometimes. But then again, I didn’t think Lonewacko was real at first.

    3. What I love about Longtorso is that he thinks everyone else will agree that those two links are supposed to prove the line he quoted right.

      1. Men and women vote differently. You’re actually denying that? That’s so cute.

        1. I’m denying that there’s a “rightful social order.”

          1. Awwwww, it thinks it has opinions like a real live person. It doesn’t get the food unless it puts on the lotion.

            1. DOUBLE WHOOSH

              1. Why are you white knighting for Nikki? It will never get you laid.

                1. But…but…I thought it would! Teach me your ways, sensei! And call me grasshopper while you’re at it.

        2. “White and black people vote differently…”

          1. Negger, please…

            1. Okay, been by twice. That’s just too funny. C’mon Swiss, give him a break.

              1. I thought it was funny too.

                Incidentally, can’t we take advantage of the PUAs’ supposed affinity for small government?

                We could have those neggers voting libertarian for the next 200 years

    4. Oh yeah, you. I guess you count as a regular. Sort of. Are you a pariah, though? I want to say yes, but I’m not sure.

      1. Pariah? You want a fucking pariah? Shall I break it down?

    5. So why did you kill off Suki? She was more interesting than your PUA link posting nonsense.

      1. You and Epi seem to have a weird obsession with someone else’s used RealDoll. Y’all can’t get a real girl for your threesome?

        1. No, we want Suki, just like you. We feel it’s all we can get. Just like you.

    6. If only women voted Republican, then we’d all be free!

      1. From god’s lips to your ears.

  16. MGTOWs are weird motherfuckers and I don’t like them though. I’ve never met a MGTOW who didn’t seem to be doing women a favor by staying away from them.

    1. The MGTOWs and the RedPiller PUAs are just weird. I’m convinced though that at least half the MGTOWs are gay and don’t want to admit it to themselves, so they revert to second grade “Girls are icky and have cooties! Stay away from them!”

    2. MGTOWs are wannabe “alpha” males who don’t know how to slap a bitch around every once in a while.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW6IrQSR9X4

    1. I’m not clicking on that one. Any better sources than that fuckatrded probable rapist RooshV?

      1. It’s the royalism that discredits the argument for me. “Return of Kings”, seriously?

  17. I think ENB just proved the MRA’s point by pulling rank on Solowey and pushing her post to the top.

    It was second to the helicopter post just a few minutes ago and now its first. Hmm….

    1. Interns are not real people.

  18. There are a hell of a lot of presumptions operating here that MRA groups and Gamergate people are in whole or significant part idelogically against women’s autonomy. The entire article is made up of dubious assertions based on intellectual base stealing.

    1. Well ENB is still a self-identified feminist after all, so kinda par for the course.

  19. I hope this becomes a discussion about #gamergate, which was at one time The Most Important Issue in the World.

    1. +1,000,000 Bo Bots

    2. I’m still trying to deal with the Pencil-Case-Clock-Crisis-Islamic-Conspiracy

    3. No. We won’t know what the most important issues is until we poll the millennials.

      1. And Trump. We must know what Trump thinks.

    4. IT’S ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM.

    5. “at one time”

      WTF!!??!!11

  20. the community subscribes to a four-part “Levels of MGTOW,” the first and second of which involve ditching romantic, social, and sexual relationships with all women.

    How many fedorahs must one own to reach max-level MGTOW?

    1. You have to know the difference between a fedora and the kind of hat that’s like a fedora but isn’t first.

      1. Shit. I didn’t even spell it right.

    2. It really a trilby. Fedoras have been horribly maligned.

      1. SugarFree must be closing in on level three.

        1. No, I’m already enslaved to an alpha female. She leaving me at home tonight to care for her aging cat while she whores around town.

          1. You’re talking about your mom, right? Tell her I’ll pick her up at 8.

            1. My mom has gotten wise to your “game.” But I hear that Crusty Juggalo’s mom was just in a car accident. Coma wards were always easy pickings for you.

              1. His name is Buck, and he likes to fuck…

              2. Dude, don’t give up my secrets! How will I remain an alpha?

              3. Don’t forget the Faygo

          2. I’ll have her home by Monday.

    3. All it takes is one, broheim.

  21. “”anti-women communities””

    yeah, sure. I bet they spend more on porn than anyone else on earth.

    Look, can we just dispense with the “MRA/SJW/TERFs/PUA/MGTOW” alphabet soup and just call them all “losers”?

    (*also, make room for the Alt-Right people… the Cuck-using crowd needs an acronym posthaste)

    I fail to see why the opinions of these horn-honking internet-cliques are supposed to be relevant to the general public* in any way.

    *yes, that includes me. I’m very general!

    1. You look fabulous with your medals on, BTW

    2. Because someday those internet cliques are going to kill all the women in the world if we don’t get SWAT teams in those basements right away. ISIS can wait; somewhere, some fat guys are arguing with feminists on twitter. #yesallwomen!

  22. “The community subscribes to a four-part “Levels of MGTOW,” the first and second of which involve ditching romantic, social, and sexual relationships with all women.”

    I’d rather chop off my hand.

    To have romantic, social, and sexual relationships with women, you have to make certain compromises, and that really is the glue that holds society together.

    If it weren’t for women, I’d go build myself a cabin in the woods.

    1. My wife is getting me to build HER a cabin in the woods.

      Weird how that works….

      /married life

  23. (those who shout “Non-Aggression Principle!” about fetuses already assume a lot outside the realm of libertarianism, such as when personhood begins)

    Well it’s unquestionably human life at conception. As for personhood, that is indeed an unanswerable question but I would think, since the stakes are so high, it is best to err on the side of caution in not murdering someone with a right to life.

    So I don’t see anything unlibertarian about, say, a 20 week abortion cap.

    1. It’s not unlibertarian, and neither is the opposite position. You have to bring in other stuff to decide which one is correct. Which is what she’s saying.

      1. Christophe, you’ve been earned before about using logic on these boards.

  24. Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wives without breaking the law, are just fine as is.

    Sexism and heteronormativity right there Elizabeth.

    Domestic violence is now a crime against the state. Prosecution doesn’t require the consent of a complaining “victim”. The policies aren’t “just fine as is”. Taking one partner, particularly the breadwinner, off to jail and ultimately prosecuting that person in court over the objections of the ostensibly battered partner isn’t consistent with liberty.

    1. Prosecution doesn’t require the consent of a complaining “victim”

      That’s because women don’t know what the want and the State knows what’s best for them. The fact this attitude doesn’t infuriate modern Feminists is all the proof you need that it’s not about equality.

      1. ‘Modern Feminists’ don’t beleive most women know what’s good for them, and that they must decide for any woman who would, for instance, vote republican.

      2. Of course we don’t know what’s good for us. If those of us who believe in actual equality say that we’re told that we’re internalizing the misogynistic mindset that we’ve been brainwashed into. Because we aren’t smart enough to disagree or we wouldn’t be disagreeing!

        You just can’t argue with that kind of stupid.

  25. But just as libertarianism alone cannot answer the abortion question (those who shout “Non-Aggression Principle!” about fetuses already assume a lot outside the realm of libertarianism, such as when personhood begins)

    Not to start it, but really, why do you insist that NAP should only apply to the arbitrarily defined “persons”? Don’t you see that it’s the same exact logic that the US government used to redefine the word “citizen” in Dred Scott? There is the subjective term “person” and the objective term “human”. Only those interested in keeping the status quo like the subjective term because it creates the obfuscation required to keep doing what they are doing.

    Let me put it another way, I declare you not a “person”. Now prove you are.

    1. Well it has to apply to some universe of individuals, persons, or rights-holders. It’s usually pro-life people, especially pro-life libertarians, who argue that non-aggression should extend to all persons, and that persons should be defined from conception.

      There’s some universe of rights-holders that have a right to life. That universe might be zero (if you are a committed subjectivist) or only people in your immediate tribe, or it might be all humans, or all living creatures. “Person” is generally a handy way to describe one member of the universe of rights-holders.

      1. It’s usually pro-life people, especially pro-life libertarians, who argue that non-aggression should extend to all persons, and that persons should be defined from conception.

        I’ve seen a few who do that, yes, though more simply refuse to use the “personhood” term at all.

        You don’t need to be a “person” to have rights, BTW. You can define “person” until it’s an empty set if you want. You have to be a living human to have rights.

        1. Right, but is there a meaningful reason to limit it to humans? What about sign-language-using apes or aliens?

          Personhood is a way to encapsulate a broader sense that an individual possesses rights and it can be bestowed on all humans as well as, potentially, non-humans. I think it makes sense to treat all living humans as persons unless some reason can be established to suggest that certain humans are not persons (or not yet persons).

          But even if you reject the label “person” you are still using the same concept. And I think most folks would say that, for example, ET or Flipper or Wall-E might have some distinctly person-like rights.

          1. Right, but is there a meaningful reason to limit it to humans?

            This is a good question, one I’ve actually spent time thinking through.

            Not one I can prove, no, but one I can give evidence to. Let’s assume that you give “rights” to smart apes. Let’s now assume that the smart ape assaults another smart ape. Should you throw the ape in prison? How about murder? Is the ape in any way able to comprehend what’s going on?

            If you have rights, you also must respect others’ rights (NAP). If you fail to respect them, you must “repay” what you’ve taken (justice).

            This gets even more ridiculous when you give “rights” to any predator at all. They exist by “murdering” other animals. If it’s unreasonable to jail them for their “murder”, then they don’t have rights.

            As for ET, by all means, if you can find one, we will have the discussion about rights. Flipper is a giant “fish” who eats fish to survive…

            As for “personhood”, it’s a meaningless term only succeeding in clouding the issue. I don’t care which humans you don’t think have rights, whether non-Babylonians (Hammurabi) or non-whites (Supreme Court circa 1850s). Humans have rights.

            1. I think it’s plausible, from the an-cap perspective, to say that there might be categories of individuals with some rigthts but not all. Most people implicitly accept this position, particularly with regard to children. Children have rights against violence, they may have some sort of right or enforceable debt against guardians to care for them, but most people would say they generally don’t have adult rights to contract or substance consumption (for example).

              Most people would say that animals – especially cute ones like dog, cats, horses, koalas, and pandas – might have some rights to not be tortured, and maybe the right to not be killed at will, but not necessarily the right to wander around freely. So it might be considered fine to restrict the movement of your dog, keeping him in your house or leashing him, but not fine to inflict needless pain on him.

              I think this tiering of rights is a plausible way to approach the rights of non-humans, though obviously I wouldn’t want adults to be treated to a racial or nationalist waterfall of descending rights (e.g. apartheid). I’m not sure how to define the barrier between human and non-human tiering. I was hoping you already had half an answer so I could copy your work and hand it in.

              1. My answer, as the “tiering”, is simple. There are 2 “tiers”, children and adults.

                A child has some rights that pretty much no-one argues with, like the right to life, or the right to not be terribly mutilated… OK, so most people think that. However, the child doesn’t have the “right” to play in the road at 3 years old. There are certain rights that the parents seem to hold on to until… well it used to be puberty but now it’s around 18 years old. At the point they are now considered “adults” (whenever that is), they now hold all their rights. You may raise them “wrong” in my opinion, or slap their hand when they haven’t aggressed against you, but haven’t violated NAP. Parents hold certain rights (in order to keep them alive and well until they can also be trusted to hold themselves to NAP, that’s important) until the child has proven they are competent to do it themselves.

                As for animals, they have no rights; yes, 0 rights. While it’s absolutely despicable to torture animals, I will tell you that if it’s your animal, you may do it without having violated NAP. Now, I won’t trade with you, even talk to you if you do so, but there are no NAP protections for them.

                It’s important to keep in mind that all “rights” stem from NAP. If it violates NAP, it violates someone’s rights. The reason that parents can corporally punish their children is because they can’t yet fully handle their responsibility to hold to NAP, but they will be able to so eventually (presumably).

          2. How about “entities that care whether they’re dead or alive”? That’s how I draw the line. “Person” is circular.

        2. The question is do you base personhood on objective standards or base it on arbitrary standards to meet utilitarian goals to make a particular preferred policy inarguable?

          1. What are these objective standards of which you speak?

          2. I’m saying it’s entirely unnecessary. Apparently:

            Persons are a subset of humans. Persons are the only humans with rights. Therefore, only persons have the protections of NAP.

            You see what happens if you redefine “person” to mean “anyone I don’t like” even if it’s on objective grounds, right? You get the Dred Scott decision, or something very close to it. You also get Hammurabi’s Code, where “don’t murder” meant “don’t murder Babylonians”.

            Ergo, “personhood” is a counterproductive term, made up by powerful humans so they could keep doing whatever they wanted and assuage their guilt. OK, that last bit was editorializing, but still.

          3. “base personhood on objective standards”

            “You speak english?”

            /trump supporter

            1. ‘So, basically your shits all fucked up and you talk like a fag’

      2. It is rather telling when some ‘libertarians’ attempt to read determining just who possesses liberty out of the concept of libertarianism.

        When it is central to the very exercise.

    2. You still have to make the case that it’s wrong to kill a human for some reason, you know.

      1. You still have to make the case that it’s wrong to kill a human for some reason, you know.

        True. Though, if it’s not wrong to kill humans, then government has no purpose whatsoever from a libertarian POV. Probably true from a Conservative POV. Perhaps not from a Liberal POV (social justice may be that important).

        Basically, I’m going to run on the assumption that if government is to do one thing, it’s to punish murderers.

        As I’m actually an anarchist, that’s not even really my point, as I’m simply saying that if there’s a “worst” violation of NAP, it’s murder.

      2. For this particular discussion to make any sense the libertarian principles that human rights exist must stand as a given.

      3. I bet your mother was always telling you to play nice.

        1. Ha. Good one.

      4. Oooh, I have a radical thought. How about:

        Because by their very nature they are entitled to liberty, and absent some offense that liberty should not be infringed.

  26. I subscribe to the simplest explanation: feminism and women’s issues have been coded as progressive and progressive policy positions have been coded as feminist and pro-woman.

    So it’s almost inevitable that guys who are anti-feminist will also be anti-progressive, because the two positions are so often portrayed as overlapping and reinforcing. Which actually works out nicely for partisan progressives and Democrats, but not so nicely for libertarians who don’t want to be saddled with MRAs and their rhetoric or tactics.

  27. Sure, you all like to mock us p.u.a’s, but none of you will be laughing at me after I strap on my metal-studded belt, and then wrap the steel cable bracelet around my wrist, and then clasp the yin/yang necklace around my neck, and then place a new trilby on my head. No, I think you women will be impressed with my pea-cocking, and all you men will be intimidated.

    I will be sipping my Red Bull and vodka ALPHA-style tonight.

    1. Will you be wearing your Dragonball Z silk shirt too?

    2. I was at the mall the other day–going to GNC on a quest for protein–and I saw this guy walking around with, swear to god, a legit keyblade.

      I only think of it now because he was wearing a trilby also. Ugh.

      1. I saw one of those in the window of a mall shop the other day. I thought it was cool that they were making/selling them, but hella lame that anyone would actually pay money for one.

        1. Give me a man who can weld his own keyblade together.

          1. Yeah, but then he’ll be wasting his talents making key blades.

      2. Which means you noticed him, which means it worked. You are all his now. VICTORY FOR ALPHA PEACOCK!

        1. Oh, I more than noticed him.

          I stalked him around the mall until I could get a decent creepshot of him because I knew my boyfriend wouldn’t believe me later unless I had proof.

          1. So, a woman will stalk me if I add a keyblade to my peacock arsenal. Noted.

      3. with, swear to god, a legit keyblade.

        Riven, I just want to make sure I’m clear on this: It was an actual, hand-held, weapon-type object, as if he were Sora? Not a lapel pin, or, some plushie item?

        1. Yes–it was a real, hand-held, weapon-type object about the length as a baseball bat.

          He even had it nonchalantly resting over one shoulder while he and his mall rat friends wandered the mall.

        2. Although I’m sure he fancied himself more of a Riku, based on his all-black outfit.

          1. Oh, so he was going for the Org 13 vibe, eh?

            I didn’t know anyone was making them (well, selling them). I guess it was bound to happen, but,…well, whatever.

            Get in where you fit in, Riku!

    3. Not milk-plus? You droogs have really gone downhill.

      1. The difference between Alex and his droogs and modern PUAs is that Alex got some.

        1. Uh… But in the book it was rape, and in the screenplay it was originally meant to be a very young girl…

          1. Uh, dude, it’s the *implication*, ok?

            1. Now I just need some tasty treats.

              1. Some moloko to sharpen you up for a bit of the ultraviolence?

                1. *hums ‘singing in the rain’*

          2. I was thinking of the sped-up scene in the movie where he gets it on with the two girls while listening to Beethoven, but uh… If a disclaimer is necessary, i am NOT advocating that PUAs go all STEVE SMITH on anybody.

    4. “I will be sipping my Red Bull and vodka ALPHA-style tonight.”

      “Overlooking the sitaaay, windows down, jammin in ma DaeWoo!’

  28. Wow. I’m profoundly disappointed that these luscious alpha males have taken themselves off the market denying me and other women their manly essence.

    Boohoo. *wipes away tear*

    1. [hands over box of tissues]

      1. Why are those tissues crunchy?

        1. Ahhh, that’s the manly essence.

    2. Now we see the misandry inherent in the system!

    3. “Women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence.”

      1. +1 POE

        Remember: only drink distilled water.

  29. In before 1500 comments!

  30. Nice– Elizabeth. Sometimes I feel I’m the only female in this man forum 🙂 A while back I read an article on Vox that most of these gender disenfranchised gents were mostly Libertarian bent.
    It just seems that everyone wants a soap box and the internet is the proverbial tit to soothe their angsts.. All of us have more facets than a single description–regardless of your gender.

    1. There are three other women in this very thread. Can you spot them? (Hint: Not Episiarch, although the ruined mess between his legs might make you think that.)

      1. Whoops. 4. 4 other women.

        1. So SugarFree, which woman needs to give you the silent treatment interspaced with bitchy comments about your manliness to your peers for the next three weeks?

          1. I’ll do it.

            (sighs)

        2. Oh good, because I just came back to defend my homeys. I was going to say I’ve never been attacked for any of my views but then again, maybe they wish they weren’t so similar to their own because I’m very feminine -most times.

          1. We used to have more women, but Warty’s… um… musk(?) drove them away.

            But it really does stink like a locker room in here most of the time.

            1. Locker room?

              More like the inside of an M1 tank….gah!

              1. MAYBE YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE SMELL OF A REAL MAN!

            2. To be fair, one of those women was Mary, soooo….

            3. I think Warty just needs some direction and I’ve agreed to instruct him on Jesse’s’ behalf. Sort of like house training; I think I’ll have him eager to please by the time his legs are back in shape.

              1. You will have plenty of time for him to get those legs back into shape; it is going to take awhile.

                Has he been on a “kale only” diet or something?

                1. Oh he’ll deny it, but I think the colonics have been slowing him a bit. He’ll come around when I’ve had a chance to work with him. Well, when Nikki’s done.

    2. Sometimes I feel I’m the only female in this man forum

      There are a surprising number of “women” who post here. I assume they are all the same man, but I could be wrong.

      1. That has never, ever stopped you from trying to pick them up though, has it.

        1. How dare you! I will not have my reputation besmirched. I am a gentleman.

          1. Hey, it’s almost sort of admirable, in a way.

            For you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6ER2_4q5KQ

            1. I am touched.

              The women who post here tend to be intelligent and have at least some self-respect, and I find those two qualities to be absolutely abhorrent.

              1. I can certainly make room in the program for you too. I’m sure working alongside Warty, we’ll have you right-thinking in no time!

    3. Nicki, invisibileFurryHand, HazelMeade, myself, and I think another chick is running around. I just can’t remember her handle.

      We actually have quite a few female regulars.

      1. Riven, SusanM, Ms. Struthers to name a few more

      2. What is Mrs. Lemuel Struthers? Chopped liver?

        1. Wait, are we doing the full litany of women on H&R or just the ones participating in this thread?

          1. I just wanted to contribute and not feel like a useless woman, Jesse.

            1. Yes!! This comment from Riven! I cannot even…

          2. Don’t try and weasel out of your othering all the females on H&R! You probably think they shouldn’t have jobs too, amirite??!!!1!!

            1. I know this about women: they weaken legs.

              1. But enough about Kathy Bates

                1. +24 inches

                2. I see what you did there.

          3. are we doing the full litany of women

            Phrasing!

            1. Jesse uses a binder to keep the list organized.

              1. Wait. Jesse is a trans male?

                *revises Warty’s training plan*

            2. The preferred nomenclature for a group of women is a “binder.”

      3. I’m here, but I read more than I post.

        1. Just looked at your website. This would make my 5 year old the happiest kid in the galaxy.

          http://dabbled.org/wp-content/…..ostume.jpg

        2. I do the same…I’m a lurker…

      4. Everyone always forgets me. I guess it’s more proof that I’m actually a gay man trapped in a woman’s body and not a real girl.

        1. Well we all know Granny Weatherwax wouldn’t put herself forward, no one could accuse her of putting herself forward…

          1. I don’t even know what that means. Could you mansplain it to me. Pretty please?

      5. “We actually have quite a few female regulars.”

        How long do you have to be around to be a regular?

        1. Pretty regularly.

          1. Sweet! In like Flynn!

    4. I believe three lucky ladies of Reason have found their significant other here.

      1. That’s a pretty novel definition of “lucky.”

        Say, there’s a tagline to attract females to Hit’n’Run: “The odds are good, but the goods are odd.”

      2. You’re so bashful, Serious!

      3. It’s a target-rich environment for the ladies!

          1. Hey! It worked for me!

        1. It is! There are few other places on the internet where you’ll find so many who fall into the magical combo of STEM type+gun nut.

          1. Some of us like kitties, too.

            1. Warty, no one wants to hear what you do with kitties in the dead of the night in your dungeon.

            2. I prefer my kitties to be soul-less murdering bastards preferably with battle scars. There are no squirrels in my yard.

            3. “kitties”

              *nods slowly*

      4. Four, if you count SugarFree’s mom.

        1. SugarFree’s mom raises the total from three to seven.

        2. Pshaw, everyone’s had a tilt at that windmill. So…about 300?

          1. These fallacious statements about my mother are becoming hurtful.

            1. Finally!

      5. I’m not sure I consider it lucky, but it is significant and Warty is an other, so okay, I’ll go with it.

  31. I can explain this phenomenon very easily.

    All sorts of different kinds of fringe movements are going to be attracted to libertarianism, because libertarianism is the one political philosophy that endorses allowing such fringe movements the freedom to practice their fringe beliefs without interference.

    Case in point: It’s the same with segregationists, and it will probably be the same soon with anti-gay Christians, because libertarians are the only political group saying it should be legal for people to privately discriminate.

    Any political philosophy that espouses genuine legal and social tolerance of ALL belief systems is going to be seen as an ally and defender of those belief systems. For better or worse.

    What’s important is for actual libertarians to remember that defending a bigot or mysogynists right to be bigoted and mysogynistic is not akin to agreeing with or endorsing bigotry and mysogyny. Even if the bigots and the mysogynists start calling themselves libertarians and trying really really hard to be be friends with you.

    1. That’s a damn good point, Hazel. Which male did you steal it from?!? Huh?

      1. I emailed it to her an hour ago. Didn’t even get a thanks.

        1. Typical woman. Much like your mom.

      2. Who did she steal it from?

        “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
        …H. L. Mencken

        Greatest libertarian? At least many of his comments are great.

    2. I don’t think it’s all that important for libertarians to remember it, because in general I believe they do.

      I think it’s important for libertarians to convince others of it. And that doesn’t seem to be an easy task.

      1. This. It’s the Salons and Slates of the world who don’t understand it, intentionally or otherwise.

      2. It’s not always the case. In the past many libertarians have been way too friendly with southern segregationists – see Ron Pauls old newsletters. There’s the whole Lew Rockwell wing that appears to believe that southern racists are good potential constituency, and there was a fair amount of line-blurring over the militia and patriot movements within libertarianism during the 90s, and to a lesser extent with respect to the Tea Party.

        But in the present it also looks like there is a sizable similar faction forming around gay marriage. See the number of people on these boards defending Kim Davis, and getting butthurt over the gay marriage ruling. We have people here who are more pissed off that Christian bakers have to bake cakes for gay wedding than that gay couples were getting denied marriage licenses by a government official.

        In both cases, i do think there are some libertarians who have trouble walking that fine line of defending someone’s right to be an asshole, without actively supporting the assholes.

        1. “We have people here who are more pissed off that Christian bakers have to bake cakes for gay wedding than that gay couples were getting denied marriage licenses by a government official.”

          Well, in fairness, one falls more into the category of an offense against liberty, the other is mainly an offense against equality, and so it’s not surprising one would bother libertarians more than the other, and vice versa for egalitarians.

        2. We have people here who are more pissed off that Christian bakers have to bake cakes for gay wedding than that gay couples were getting denied marriage licenses by a government official.

          Well one of these involves a person being sent to prison, and the other involves someone walking out of a courthouse without a piece of paper.

          I’d prefer that neither bad thing happen, but that doesn’t mean I can’t easily tell what is worse.

    3. Not so much “seen as” but “is.”

      Much like the First Amendment- if it doesn’t defend truly offensive speech then it really isn’t worth much at all.

  32. Speaking as someone who is MGTOW, I like libertarians becuase it’s all about the freedom to live the life I want. I don’t want to do the typical, “marry a chick, get a divorce, be miserable” existence so I choose not to do it.

    I don’t understand why that offends people so much. If MGTOW are such losers, than just ignore us. It’s not as if we are passing laws against you.

    1. Live and let live and mock. It’s nothing personal.

      …Um, except that I guess it’s extremely personal. So, uh…I…uh…. I like your hat.

    2. Nobody’s saying that [you can’t], sir.

      We’re pretty much just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

    3. I don’t understand why that offends people so much.

      I don’t either, but I think a lot of the pushback is the need to announce that you are MGTOW and the band together for support. If you just lived your life the way you want you’d just be another happy batchelor.

      I’m, of course, not saying you don’t have the right to announce and socialize, but that alone is quite a bit of the resistance you see.

      1. but I think a lot of the pushback is the need to announce that you are MGTOW and the band together for support.

        I agree. It’s like if people who “refused to procreate because society doesn’t need [fill in the blank]” formed a support group.

      2. okay, but understand to me that sounds ridiculous. If I kept my opinion and lifestyle hidden I would be fine…but why. Why does what I do have to be hidden?

        What is this exactly that makes me vice’s enemy?

        1. The same reason what Warty does has to be hidden?

    4. I just find it hard to comprehend that a straight guy would choose to go through life without some form of female companionship. Women can be frustrating sometimes (as can we guys), but I feel the good far outweighs the bad. And having sex is the only acceptable way for a man to connect with another person on a truly intimate level. I would never put down someone who makes a conscious choice to go it alone, especially since that’s one less guy I have to compete with.

      1. Well, as Norm from Cheers said,:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weBbZ11d5LM

      2. well what does companinship mean? I have female friends, some of which have tried to start a relationship. I said no, and we continued being friends. Simple. I have sex with an escort who is very attractive and I get along with great. So I have sex.

        No girlfriend means I devote mor time to work and studying. I feel like in a few years I will be in a great place for my career and making a really nice living. I’m not hurting anyone and I think I’m pretty happy.

        Also anyday I want I can “stop” and join the dating market again. I don’t see the upside in doing things the “normal way”

        1. Well, it seems like rather than collectively disliking women, you just aren’t interested in a relationship with any. It’s the collective dislike that radiates from so many of the others who claim the same mantle as you that causes the problem, I would say.

          1. I dont think I’m an outlier here. Most MGTOW I’ve met are similar to me.

            I think mgtow get a bad rap on the internet becuase the only thing people see on the internet are the arguments with feminists. If your only exposure to mgtow is when they debunk a rape story ala UVA or criticize the wage gap than you are getting a fragmented picture.

            But no one lives solely on the internet, and it’s unfair in my opinion to assume that we despise women as people becuase we disagree with some feminist analysis

            1. This is the same for all groups re: the internet. We all get judged by the labels assigned, typically by others.

        2. If you are happy and you aren’t mistreating anyone else (which sounds like an accurate assessment), then you are all good.

        3. I’m technically not ‘normal’ either since I’m 51, have never been married, and don’t have children. So, I get why you would eschew a traditional relationship. I prefer to have a steady girlfriend because I don’t feel the pressure to go out and meet someone. But to each his own. If you’re truly content and happy (and I believe you are) then you should ignore the criticism.

    5. But seriously, no one wants you to live a life you don’t want. The support-groupishness of the acronym seems a little strange to me, but what do I know

      Let your freak flag fly; shine on, you crazy diamond.

    6. Liberals (and apparently cosmo “libertarians” like Elizabeth) believe they have the right to dictate how other individuals choose to live their lives.

      I don’t hate woman. I just don’t believe the trade-off is worth it considering the social and political times. I make good money, am tall, am in shape, am relatively handsome. I could easily get a woman. I just don’t want to. Hope the haters can deal with it.

      1. Liberals (and apparently cosmo “libertarians” like Elizabeth) believe they have the right to dictate how other individuals choose to live their lives.

        Uh. Where has the author ever dictated anything like this?

        1. Some people (with a complete lack of self-awareness) seem to think that commenting in any way on how someone leads their life means you want to dictate how they live their lives.

          1. Then what was the point of this article exactly?

            1. derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

        2. This entire article is just an attempt to shame certain men into submission. It is not befitting of a supposed libertarian publication.

          1. It’s like you get sexual satisfaction out of saying the dumbest thing possible.

            1. Attacking me is sure to get you laid any moment now LOL

              1. Why do you think it is that the guys who say they don’t care about getting laid are always accusing other people of only doing anything in order to get laid?

                1. There is only sex. Everything is sex. Do you understand that what I’m telling you is a universal truth?

                2. They aren’t getting laid, Nikki. So they think this must be what works.

                  In fact, “crazyfingers,” sock puppet that you are… I think you have been saying dumb shit all week. You’ll slip up soon, or slink off. Either way, you don’t matter at all.

          2. So…it’s not dictating shit? Even though that’s what you claimed?

          3. How do you think libertarians think people should operate instead of using coercive force? Shame is fair game.

            1. I think libertarians should not care one way or another how others choose to live their lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone (or supporting coercive government).

              Crazy notion, I know.

              1. You ignorant child. We can judge you as harshly as we like and not be doing anything the least bit unlibertarian. You should read more.

                1. Yeah and I can judge you for being a liberal pretending to be a libertarian, which I do.

                  1. Yeah and I can judge you for being a liberal pretending to be a libertarian, which I do.

                    It’s fine if you’re going to judge, but at least be factual about it.

              2. So you seem to be…commenting negatively on how other libertarians are choosing to live their lives, even though they’re not hurting anyone or supporting coercive government. Why is that allowed?

                1. Nicole, beating up on a retard like this is unseemly. Show a little class.

                  1. Dude! It’s Nikki. It’s like you’re trying to stop her from being the worst.

            2. Judging what? Not getting married in your 20’s?

            3. No, I don’t think that’s right. I think a libertarian can believe in freedom and equality and still be human and judge people. And while I will not make a law against hating gays or black people, I do care if someone hates them and will use my free will to choose not to associate with them personally or in business. I can also make fun of your beliefs or mock them for my own entertainment, again, provided I don’t try to force you to change them. Making fun and mocking are not coercion unless you’re just so weak in your beliefs that you’d drop them just because some asshole laughs at you.

              It honestly sounds like the SJW of “you must accept everyone and not care about anything they do that has nothing to do with you” (I know it’s only what they say, not what they do, but I assume you get the point). No. I have beliefs and feelings, I have free will and the ability to choose who I want to interact with. I wouldn’t say libertarians “shouldn’t care”, but they aren’t going to go around marching against you or making laws to make your life harder.

          4. attempt to shame certain men into submission

            You saw something that wasn’t in the article, or even implied. If you truly enjoy your life as it is then what do you care what other people think? How does approval or disapproval of your choices affect you? The fact you’re so defensive makes you appear terribly insecure.

            1. No, I just used to enjoy this site until it was taken over by idiotic liberals pretending to be libertarians.

              1. Ah, the “one true libertarian” troll. So tiresome.

                1. Shut the fuck up, SF – you’re not even Scottish.

          5. I don’t know how/where you interpreted that from.

            I gathered the article was commenting on an apparently conflated phenomenon (that MRAs/whatever seem drawn to libertarianism), but then went on to point out that the two views aren’t necessarily compatible (i.e., “most fail to pass a libertarian smell test”).

            What shaming was there?

      2. haters

        Oh, goddammit. I didn’t want to hate you, but then you went and used the H-word.

        1. Oh, goddammit. I didn’t want to hate you, but then you went and used the H-word.

          Deal with it.

          *insert Batista gif*

      3. Hilarious!

      4. You’re so smooth too.

    7. “marry a chick, get a divorce, be miserable”

      You got the order wrong.

      1. So why is divorce so expensive?

        Because it’s worth it.

        1. HIYO!!!

      2. ^^ this

  33. “The bottom line, however, is that while libertarian-leaning sentiment makes sense among the He Man Woman Hating club and your run-of-the-mill MRAs, there’s nothing in libertarianism as a political philosophy that is inherently sexist or misogynistic.”

    I suspect there are some important implications for women and their rights in the argument between small state libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

    Small state libertarians generally believer that if the government has any legitimate function at all, it is to protect our rights. Our “rights” are the right to make choices for ourselves. This is highly conducive to protecting women’s rights–so long as those rights are not elevated above the rights of men.

    Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, generally believe that protecting people’s rights is a flimsy pretext and that government authority will always eventually be used to inflict the opinions of some on others. This worldview would seem to leave women’s at the mercy of those who may or may not respect their rights.

    Regardless of whether you think society would ultimately be better for free men and free women without a government to intrude on our rights, there would be a transition stage. I’m sure there are people who support an anarchist outlook to some extent because they resent the government intruding on their ability to discriminate against blacks and gays. And I don’t see why that wouldn’t also extend to women for some anarchists.

    1. I don’t imagine women will ever agree to trade in the protection they get from the government for something less than what they have now. The world just doesn’t work that way, so we better find a way to make libertarian guys more accepting of and attractive to women–or we’re just never going to live in the kind of libertarian world we want. Unless we drop out of society and give up on having relationships with women–and I’d rather chop off my hand.

      1. This worldview would seem to leave women’s at the mercy of those who may or may not respect their rights.

        So… they’d be just like everyone else?

        1. Hey look, equality!

        2. No. They’d presumably be treated like women were for centuries–until they organized and started using the government to do their bidding.

          If you want them to give that up, you’re going to have to offer them something better than what they’ve got.

          1. So are you saying that you think there would be a regression in the understanding of human rights? That all gains made for females is due to political activism and there have been no advancements in human thought regarding rights?

            I think I get where you’re coming from regarding incentives but since you brought up “how the world works” could you please point to an example where a group was able to wield government power in its favor for all time and it never crumbled or came back to bite them? Or do I misunderstand you?

            1. “Could you please point to an example where a group was able to wield government power in its favor for all time and it never crumbled or came back to bite them?”

              I agree that any violation of anyone’s rights hurts all of our rights and the responsibility we all have to respect each other’s rights.

              If we’re selling libetarianism to women and minorities–who are not yet libertarians–which argument do you think sells better?

              The argument that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of every individual–regardless of sex or color?

              Or the argument that there shouldn’t be a government, and women and minorities are just gonna have trust us?

              And please understand that our political future almost certainly depends on selling libertarian ideas to women and minorities.

              1. our political future almost certainly depends on selling libertarian ideas to women and minorities

                Wow. You’re right. I do think collectivism in some form comes more naturally to women than men. But we’re Americans damnit! Your big idea shouldn’t be controversial.

                The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of every individual–regardless of sex or color!

                Hurray!

              2. The argument that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of every individual–regardless of sex or color?

                Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t that been the message of the Libertarian Party since its formation? How successful has that been? What amount of salesmanship can overcome parts of human nature, like tribalism, or the tendency to act in one’s self-interest? Maybe I’m a misanthrope but I’m trying to understand what you’re saying.

              3. “-our political future almost certainly depends on selling libertarian ideas to women and minorities”

                Thank you Ken. I agree with this wholeheartedly. As a lesbian transwoman in the US, I have had the opportunity to experience this topic from nearly every possible angle, which I don’t think many have had; and as an atheist, I have no need to subordinate myself to others’ intellectual framework or incorporate additional agendas into my thinking.

                I think the protections government offers have come about as a sort of intermediate stage, forced by activism where needed, blindly pursuing the ideal of equality. This relates directly to the concerns of minorities, (and please understand, I do NOT support all LGBTQI+ efforts to change law and policy), in the context of achieving equality, in that, as an intermediate stage, I think some protections may be warranted, but should be replaced as quickly as possible by true equality as quickly as culture allows.

                “Wow. You’re right. I do think collectivism in some form comes more naturally to women than men. But we’re Americans damnit! Your big idea shouldn’t be controversial.”

                Collectivism? I don’t know it’s that necessarily, perhaps banding together while under pressure or to face a perceived mutual threat. And you’re right, this should absolutely not be controversial.

          2. Back when women were sent to war to die by the tens of thousands while men stayed home?

    2. Small state libertarians generally believer that if the government has any legitimate function at all, it is to protect our rights. Our “rights” are the right to make choices for ourselves. This is highly conducive to protecting women’s rights–so long as those rights are not elevated above the rights of men.

      I think that women-haters (real women-haters) will find a home in limited-government settings because they will generally view the state as advancing womens’ rights/protections/agendas at the expense of men.

      Which to a very, very limited degree can be true. But it seems the ‘groups’, especially the so-called “Men’s rights groups” (which I always find awful- sometimes ironically for sexist reasons of my own) believe it’s a pan-government conspiracy that applies at all levels of society.

      Primarily, this ‘limited area’ of which I speak pertains mostly to divorce law and child custody issues.

      1. “Primarily, this ‘limited area’ of which I speak pertains mostly to divorce law and child custody issues.”

        A lot of that is built on antiquated ideas about female inequality, their supposed inability to support themselves financially, and assumptions about men being inferior at child rearing.

        You’d expect that sort of problem to go away as those stereotypes wear down–assuming women are offered something better than what they have now.

        If men are discriminated against in those ways, it really does become something like the dynamic of getting rid of Jim Crow. Of course, men are by no means treated as badly as blacks were under Jim Crow, but the power dynamic and the means to overcome it may be similar.

        Why should white people in the South give up their privileges? There are moral arguments, and I agree with them.. It’s morally wrong to treat blacks as inferior to whites–but no matter how morally wrong Jim Crow and apartheid were, whites stuck with it for a long time…

        Whites didn’t give up their privileges in the South until they had no choice. When blacks wouldn’t accept Jim Crow or apartheid anymore, that’s when those systems broke down. If and when men organize, locally and nationally, start voting as a block to reform these laws that discriminate against them, and literally won’t put up with discrimination anymore, things are going to continue as they are.

        1. There is no reason for women to give up their privileges in that regard–apart from the moral argument. But has moral argument ever been enough by itself to displace an entrenched interest from a position of power?

        2. That won’t happen because of white knight syndrome. Men cannot vote as a block because many men will break ranks to rise up and defend woman against anything that could be perceived as an attack. Between this and the sexbot threads I’m starting to agree that civilization is just the product of men attempting to get better and more consistent access to sex. Well, here we are.

          1. The lifespan of men drops dramatically when they’re long time wife dies before him. A remarkable number of men die within a few years of their spouses. The only thing that returns such a man to his statistical norm in terms of life expectancy is getting remarried.

            Statistically, you know what happens to a woman’s life expectancy when her husband dies before her?

            The correct answer is nothing.

            Yes, we need women more than they need us. We’re talking about biological imperative, here, and there are many other organisms that come together collectively only for access to females. Why do male salmon go to so much trouble swimming upstream to spawn? Because that’s where the women are going to lay their eggs. When we’re talking about natural selection, we’re mostly talking about women choosing their mates. And when we’re talking about society, we’re talking about cultural and institutional heritage centered around access to, cohabitation with, and protection of women and their offspring.

            These red pill guys are right in that in order to exclude women from having any influence over you, have to drop out of society. Women seem wicked when you’re unwanted–because your place in society is a function of the women in your life. Even if you’re a Catholic priest, your position in society is a function of the Catholic women in your parish and church that support you. There is no society without women–just groups of castaways.

            1. Statistically, you know what happens to a woman’s life expectancy when her husband dies before her?

              The correct answer is nothing.

              Damn, I would have guessed the answer involved the pool boy.

            2. Yes, we need women more than they need us. We’re talking about biological imperative, here, and there are many other organisms that come together collectively only for access to females.

              I’m not sure I’d make this conclusion so flatly.

              Something tells me there are far more complex issues here, many of which may ultimately be unknowable.

              There’s lots of circumstantial evidence that women (of all stripes) still seek a traditional family, a man, a child, a family… lesbians also seem to crave the same thing: a (mate), a child, a family.

              We just had someone post an interesting article about Norwegian woman going IVF and having children on their own. When you read down into the story, over 70% of those women craved a man, a child, a long-term relationship, a family.. but couldn’t get it in Norwegian society– primarily because (according to the article) Norwegian men weren’t interested in those things.

              I’ve always believed that men in general don’t seek long term committed relationships. It doesn’t mean they don’t enter them, but there’s a primal draw away from them.

              1. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, given sufficient female genetic variation, the number of males needed to ensure species survival is quite low.

            3. Men need to be needed. And if a large powerful government supercedes that need then men will oppose it in favor of smaller government where they are needed.

              Nah, seems too simple. I actually think you’re spot on with your take on the red pill.

          2. I’m starting to agree that civilization is just the product of men attempting to get better and more consistent access to sex

            *looks around*

            Was that ever in question?

    3. There is one other group you failed to mention.

      Consider the declaration that that MRA’s are inherently anti-women. The logical corollary is that women’s rights organizations must be equally anti-male. However the rhetorical dodge used to counter act this is that “historically oppressed groups” are incapable of being oppressors.

      Which is pure Marxism.

      1. “Consider the declaration that that MRA’s are inherently anti-women. The logical corollary is that women’s rights organizations must be equally anti-male.”

        Lesbian separatist groups are inherently anti-male. Just like the homosexual separatist MGTOW’s and MRA’s.

  34. You should really change the title of this article?since as you correctly point out, the MRA misogynists don’t have any inherent love for limited govt.

    If this were an overtly patriarchal system they perceived as benefitting their interests, they’d totally be big govt shills for it. These are the same sorts of people who thrive on certain perks of repressive Islamic societies where women can be regarded as chattel.

  35. Good article, except for the GamerGate misconception.

  36. Why isn’t the term ‘misandrist’ tossed around as frequently and casually as ‘misogynist’? It’s clear there are FAR MORE women in this world who despise men than the other way around.

    1. You mean it’s not intrinsic to the feminine identity like motherfucker and asshole are to the masculine one?

      Equally, the term Male Chauvinist, while abused when it was used, has completely evaporated.

  37. Whatever.

    1. I was just going to say that.

  38. The prime women haters are gay men.

    1. I have seen more than a non-insignificant number of gay men treat women with a certain snobby contempt.

      1. If Fag Hags were your main interaction with a gender wouldn’t you have some contempt for them too?

        1. Having been the One Straight Male Friend of a Queen Bitch Fag Hag, I can attest. She had a chip on her shoulder the size of something unexpectedly large.

          1. You know who else had a chip on their shoulder that led to trouble….

              1. +1 “It’s WORKING!”

            1. Hillary Rodham?

            2. Hillary Rodham?

              1. Fuck, there’s two of them.

    2. And other women.

    3. That you think that even makes sense says a lot about you.

    4. From my experience, most gay men love women. Lesbians, on the other hand, universally despise men–especially straight ones.

      1. Not in my experience. Like anybody else, there are a variety of attitudes. I’ve known plenty of lesbians who actually like and get along with men. I’ve known some that feared them. And I’ve known some who disliked/despised them. I’ve known gay guys who love women. And I’ve known gay guys who just are completely, totally uninterested in women but don’t dislike them. And I’ve known gay guys who really disliked women.

        And luckily, I’ve known a lot of people who don’t like or dislike people based on categories, but rather judge each person for themselves. Unsurprisingly, these are the people that *I* tend to like.

        1. Interesting. I’ve never encountered (or even heard of) a gay man who disliked women (my girlfriend has several gay male friends who she’s very close with). One of my sisters is gay, and she and all her friends embody every unflattering lesbian stereotype–including an intense hatred of men. Perhaps it’s a generational thing since I’m old and from another era…

        2. +1 Non-denominational, agender, non-sexual, agnostic, median altitude, mathematical base number, accelerated entity contact.

      2. Lesbians, on the other hand, universally despise men–especially straight ones.

        That’s not true.

        I count lesbians as an unfortunately large segment of my female friends. I say “unfortunately” because that means I’m stuck in the friend zone.

        There are lesbians who are just, you know, lesbians, and then there are what I call “agenda lesbians”. I don’t hang with any of those, but I do know a few…

        1. All of the women I know were very gentle and understanding when they let me know they’re lesbians.

        2. As I mentioned above, perhaps this isn’t true anymore. Lesbians today are pretty much free to live like a guy and no one cares. Thirty years ago this wasn’t as true and probably created a lot of resentment. My lesbian sister is 60 and is a truly horrible, awful person. But I also work with a 30-year-old lesbian lady who is one of the nicest and sweetest people you could ever meet. Maybe all the angry lesbians are old and dying off–which is a good thing.

          1. “Lesbians today are pretty much free to live like a guy and no one cares.”

            stereotype much?

            1. Yeah, because pointing out something that’s clearly true is offensive to people too PC to comprehend. If a woman wears men’s clothes, eschews makeup and essentially lives like a guy, it’s no big deal. But if a guy wears a dress and puts on makeup he’ll be mocked and likely assaulted. This is why so few women have sex changes to become men–because it’s not necessary. On the other hand, the only way a guy can live as a woman is go through the whole gender re-assignment procedure. Now, tell me what part of this is wrong. Yeah, I knew you were just talking out of your ass…

              1. Golly, sorry, I had no idea this was such a sensitive topic for you. I do find it pretty amusing you describing me as “too PC to comprehend” and “talking out your ass”.

                And your choice of examples is awesome, because I can address nearly all of them from personal experience. So, to set the context for my response, I am a lesbian, transwoman and I am also a father. I know members of all the groups you reference; Crossdressers, trans men and women, lesbians, all of them are or have been friends of mine.

                “Now, tell me what part of this is wrong.” Nearly all of it.

                “If a woman wears men’s clothes, eschews makeup and essentially lives like a guy, it’s no big deal.”

                True enough, but those characteristics alone do not mean she’s lesbian and there’s a lot more to it for trans men, a critical distinction you seem oblivious to. I am friends with many lesbians and very few of them appear as you describe. Some of the dykes DO wear makeup, some have long hair, some wear dresses. It’s almost like they’re representative of a cross section of any other population! Amazing!

                1. “But if a guy wears a dress and puts on makeup he’ll be mocked and likely assaulted.”

                  Also true, but IMO, gender and how it is policed is a societal issue that is evolutionary and will resolve over time. It’s also a result of transphobia which once again, will resolve over time as more people know someone who is trans, just as it did for gays. Potential persecution is what keeps most crossdressers in the closet. And yes, I know many of them and their wives too because it is estimated that nearly 98% of crossdressers are straight.

                  “This is why so few women have sex changes to become men–because it’s not necessary. On the other hand, the only way a guy can live as a woman is go through the whole gender re-assignment procedure.”

                  On this one, you make it clear you know very little, if anything about trans people and are far too lazy to even read a tiny bit of the plethora of information that has become available on the net. Not all trans people have surgery or “the whole gender re-assignment procedure.”, whatever you think that means.

                  I think you would be best served by doing some research about the people and issues you seem so intent on challenging, as this attempt has only made you look like an ass.

                  1. I am a lesbian, transwoman and I am also a father.

                    Ah…so that explains why you’re so touchy and thin-skinned! I expressed opinions based on my personal experiences and you feel the need to impugn my character and then “transplain.” I think we’ve established who the actual intolerant person is…

            2. Is he stereotyping lesbians? Or stereotyping guys?

              This just gets confusing.

      3. Not at all in my experience. I’ve known dozens of lesbians. Played softball with many for years. If they hated men, why would they play co rec ball with a bunch of guys? We used to go to out of tournaments and have a blast.

        The bar I go to turned 80 this year, owned by the same family. Used to be a blue collar/railroad bar and still is. Probably 20 lesbians are regulars and nobody gives a shit. We have a few pops, watch some games, shoot pool and have a few laughs. Just being people and friends and nobody gives a fuck who anyone goes home with.

        We argue about politics but it’s never identity politics. The fucks on both sides who do that are the problem. It doesn’t have to be that way.

  39. Over 300 comments over an article I’m pretty sure no one read? Except to look fondly back on The Little Rascals and wonder how in the world Alfalfa could die so young.

    And did I read right? Episiarch’s mom puts bread in her meatballs like a poor person?

    1. She thinks she’s doing it to be fancy. Stupid moulignon.

    2. Oh but the fun is in watching the insecure playa’s come out of the woodwork and get pounced on by Nikki.

      1. There’s only one insecure Playa.

        Oh, and:

        get pounced on by Nikki.

        Go on…

        1. She has icy tits. Or so I’ve heard.

          1. Goddamn, people are dumb.

          2. That kitteh was just playing. If she had been serious, that poor fool would’ve been et.

          3. “Lots of commenters here saying that this was bound to happen as “wild animals are unsuitable as pets”. We’re wondering where you all stand on the “dangerous dogs” debate? When does an animal become too dangerous to be classed as a safe pet?”

            IT’S A FUCKEN GOD DAMN LION.

            Did this doofus just compare domesticated dogs with a LION?

            1. IT’S A FUCKEN GOD DAMN LION.

              I nominate this comment for the section of the print mag that quotes comments.

            2. No shit. It’s like people don’t understand the difference between an actual Wild Animal, and a Domesticated Breed that when mistreated, might be prone to aggressive behavior.

              If you own a fucking tiger, the OWNER IS ALWAYS POTENTIALLY on the menu.

              1. I always tell my wife that if her two cats were a couple of pounds larger they would eat her, AND ME !

    3. That is a lie! That is a damn lie!

    4. When they said “like” a poor person, they were being charitable.

    5. You are correct, Rufus. Just like po’ folk. It explains so much, doesn’t it?

      1. /looks at Episiarch all crooked.

    6. Another boring Rufus story.

      1. Tedious AND Canadian.

        A horrible, unforgivable and horrific combination.

        1. I agree with waffles.

          Question is. How do I do a make over a-la Cuntlyn Jenner?

          1. Buckle up Buckaroo!

        2. Tedious AND Canadian.

          …but you repeat yourself.

          1. I’m…..Redundant.

            /drops head in sink. Splashes water on face. Looks in mirror and contemplates. Punches mirror.

            1. HEY. GOT AN OXYMORON FOR YOU

              CANADIAN CULTURE!

              HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

              Now let’s go fuck your politicians in the ass TO DEATH!

    7. I heard Epi’s mom only cooks frozen fishsticks on Fridays. Store-brand, not Gorton’s.

      1. I AM NOT A GAY FISH! I am a genius and the voice of a generation!

      2. Wow. I best she doesn’t get the Kraft Mac and Cheese either.

        Worst. Mom. EVAR.

        As if we didn’t already know.

    8. It’s called a panade. You mix bread and milk together and put it in your ground beef recipe and it makes it more moist.

      1. So, it’s like sticking a finger in a vagina then….

        /inappropriate woman-hating man comment

    9. I think Epi is a real life Italian…which means his mom is an Italian which means like all Italians she sucks at cooking Italian food.

      1. No, it could mean the maid (or the milk man) was Italian.

  40. Well, well. One more insult from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Beginning to see a prog….a pattern.

    1. Is this crazyfingers again?

    2. Overly sensitive male apparently.

  41. I think ENB deserves some congratulations. 400+ comments on late Friday afternoon

    1. Yeah, that’s pretty good. Well, for a girl.
      #BanBossy

  42. Goddamn, ENB, I gotta concur with Lee G. – you do get the clicks.

    *chucks ENB on shoulder with fist, man style*

    1. Is it bad that I read that as ‘you do get the dicks’.

      I WAS GLANCING!

      1. Wow – microaggress MUCH, RUFUS??

  43. *looks at number of comments already generated, slowly backs away hoping not to be noticed by the hordes of shrieking howler monkeys*

    1. GET ‘IM!!!!

      *charges*

    2. That is just what a beta would say.

        1. I remember a few individuals who used to hang around the front of the public library preaching to everyone that black Americans were really “Israelites” and thus Yahweh’s Chosen People?

          1. Those guys are hilarious. Here’s a video of them debating a woman dressed as a clown. Really!

            1. LOL! That’s them! I asked one time about genomic sequencing and they didn’t take it too well.

              About the clown: totally would. With or without the facepaint, doesn’t matter.

                1. Fate smiles upon me this day. I owe you one.

              1. Ha, just saw the one guy has a Ghostface Killah bracelet. Funny.

            2. Just say no to tit tats….if I won’t hire a hooker with them, I certainly won’t hire a tit tatted clown. NTTAWWT

      1. You calling Loki a cucktarian?

      2. ROFL!

    3. Too late.

  44. ENB, I’m not the most educated so I googled “Walden complex” and all I get are results about apartment buildings. Anyone care to enlighten me? I’m not asking to be spoon-fed; just a link will suffice.

    1. You might find what you are looking for here.

      1. Ah, now I understand! Thank you.

    2. I took it as a Henry David Thoreau being “self-reliant” at Walden Pond reference.

      1. I took it the same as HM.

        (ew).

      2. There was a commentor named Thoreau way back in the early days of Hit and Run…what ever happened to him?

        Is he Zeb?

  45. “Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wives without breaking the law, are just fine as is. ”

    I had no idea Ms. Brown was this incompetent. The implication that MRAs have any sort of problem with punishing perpetrators of IPV and DV is obscene. The men’s rights activists I know are interested in:

    1) Getting rid of the Duluth model for DV, which ends up resulting overwhelmingly in the arrest of men following DV calls without regard for the evidence, without regard for who made the 911 call, and even though women are the primary instigators of DV and are responsible for a small majority of serious injuries inflicted thanks to women resorting more often to the use of weapons.

    2) The establishment of shelters for battered men, especially battered men with children, in proportion to the percentage of victims. [continued in next post]

    1. ……….

      3) The publicizing of female on male violence in proportion to how often it occurs, rather than the absurd treatment of DV as largely something only men do to women.

      4) The publicizing of female on children violence. As any of the many “Child Maltreatment” reports issued by DHHS points out, mothers acting alone are overwhelmingly the primary perpetrators of child abuse. Mothers acting alone also perpetrate a majority of parent murders of children under 13. The depiction of men and fathers as the primary abusers of children is a grotesque fraud, and also women’s abuse of children is also a key indicator of women’s abuse of men.

      I mean, it is indeed all too often the case that when you scratch an MRA you get a right-wing asshole, but Ms. Brown doesn’t appear to have done even basic research on the movement. Given what else she wrote she might also want to take a look at Hanna Rosin’s (yes, that Hanna Rosin) “When Men Are Raped: A new study reveals that men are often the victims of sexual assault, and women are often the perpetrators,” noting that men are sexually assaulted by women nearly as often as the reverse. It’s available on Slate’s website. If the author of “The End of Men,” a devout feminist, can acknowledge the violence women do to men, surely Ms. Nolan can entertain such sacrilege.

      1. cool story, bruh

      2. Define sexual assault.

  46. The ladies are going be hysterical for paying them any attention if you give them any attention. The ladies are going to be hysterical for not paying them any attention if you don’t give them enough. It takes some really precise tuning to get it just perfect to please them. There has to be something worthwhile at the end of the tunnel to justify that kind of effort.

    1. Sex is one hell of a drug.
      #YouGoGirl

      1. It’s the fuel stock that powers the reaction.

      2. I’ve yet to meet any woman who would react poorly to excessive sexual attention from someone she’s in a relationship with. I mean, sometimes you’re not in the mood, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t flattering. Being constantly told how hot you are and how much someone else wants to fuck you every day, three times a day, does wonders for one’s self-esteem.

        1. Sexual attention is a good. Simplified, its value decreases with increasing supply. – The man you describe appears “needy”. As a woman, you have to know that that’s neither good for him, nor “for the relationship”.

        2. You never met my ex. We were together for 20 years and often went years between sexual encounters because she was too tired or not in the mood. I was always up for it, but she was not. Fortunately, my new girlfriend is the polar opposite and these days it’s usually me who’s too tired or not in the mood (which is understandable since I’m as old as her dad). Everyone is unique so it’s important to find someone you’re compatible with.

          1. Sugar Daddy….I like it.

            1. Yeah, I’m like her daddy but there’s no sugar. I earn a meager living and most of my assets were taken by my ex. My gf is a beautiful, young lady who could easily meet a guy more attractive and wealthy than me. Don’t know why she’s with me, but I’m grateful she is. Everyone should be as lucky as me…

        3. Maybe you just aren’t getting the full story, or are not meeting truly other sorts of people.

          My wife has come home from girl’s night on multiple occasions and told me about some of the women who openly confess to not respond well to such attention from their significant other. And it clearly stems from a deep distrust and/or dislike of men in general- rather than being flattered by the desires and complements they denigrate it, saying things like “he doesn’t really mean it, he’s just horny and would say the same thing to anyone,” or similar such.

          Misandry is not only real, it is much more socially acceptable.

          1. ‘”he doesn’t really mean it, he’s just horny and would say the same thing to anyone,”‘

            Granting hyperbole, it’s not that far off. However, the key word is “would”, and the question why he doesn’t.

    2. “There has to be something worthwhile at the end of the tunnel to justify that kind of effort.”

      Well? Is there?

  47. “liberal feminists”

    Yeah this is bullshit.

    Cathy Young is a “liberal feminists” same with Christina Hoff Sommers

    The 3rd wave feminists to which you are referring don’t even like being called liberal.

    Progressive Feminists would be more accurate.

    1. Speaking of Cathy Young she had a speech recently that was protested by feminists holding signs calling her a “rape apologist”.

      Why do we get an article about a group of Monks called “Red Pills” who no one has ever heard of while the bat shit insane feminists who are getting invited to talk at the UN are being ignored?

      1. Why do we get an article about a group of Monks called “Red Pills” who no one has ever heard of while the bat shit insane feminists who are getting invited to talk at the UN are being ignored?

        Their batshittery has been more obnoxiously self-evident to a point of being common knowledge that scarcely needs written about. More articles telling us how insane those people are wouldn’t be very thought-provoking.

    2. Nothing liberal about forcing others to live up to your expectations.

  48. Did anyone get around to asking/answering “Why do so many women who hate men love big government”?

    1. Perhaps the government is taking the place of a man in their life?

      H&R, come for the casual misogyny, stay for Epi’s mom.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRquPxdHNGE

        The last chart in the video is a poll that found 80% of the public think feminism is sexist.

        1. Well everything is sexist so 20% of the public is wrong!

    2. That would be incredibly sexist. It’s a one way highway around here, pal.

    3. Because Big Government provides the things that men once upon a time provided for women. But Big Government is better because these women don’t have to pretend to like it or even act nice. Even the most loathsome woman can count on extra rights, special benefits, and cash payouts. No respectable man would tolerate these women, but Big Government has no standards. Hence, undateable women will always love (and vote for) Big Government.

  49. Ridiculous. Almost no men actually hate women, unless feminists, for example, actually hate men. What each hates is a certain way of being a man or a woman, or a certain set of opinions and feelings that are associated with masculinity or femininity. Unless you plan on using the word “misandrist” or “man-hating” as often as “misogynist”, don’t use either one.

    Although I think anyone willing to use terms whose definitions, the way they use them, they can’t tell you– as most people can’t of misogyny– doesn’t deserve anyone’s attention.

  50. Can we all just agree that this is the PM thread tonight? So I don’t have to keep two tabs open.

    It’s all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  51. Because Corning, if you look at your coment like an outline, feminist is a subheading of UN and I frankly could give a shit about the UN. Therefore, anything that comes under that is ignored. I do consider myself a feminist, but what gets said by or about feminists in, or connected with the UN has no bearing on my own perception of my womanhood or the world around me. Understand?

    1. But some group of self-isolating acknowledged losers who operate youtube channels and subreddits are of paramount importance?

      1. Of course not. I simply responded from my own point of view, which is all I can do.

    2. “I do consider myself a feminist”

      You should consider finding a different name

      Everyone hates feminists

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ4tXdY_du8

      1. Everyone? Ah. An absolutist.

        1. Obviously i am using rhetoric (as is Sargon) when I say “everyone”. (though to be honest I really think feminists tend to hate themselves)

          But yeah feminism is deeply hated among the public at large.

          1. Okay, well that sucks. Gosh, I’m an atheist too. Does that help? Oh yeah, and trans. Oh and white. FUCK! I’m in trouble, huh?

            1. Oh and white

              Blocked. White people are the worst.

              1. As with most things we carry in life, not a choice, but if it leads me towards truth and communion with the true worst, who am I to argue?

            2. two of those three are not like the other…

              Also I am thinking at least for me atheism may be genetic as well. I find that I simply have no faith and that lack of faith feels innate like the desire to eat fatty foods, breath, wonder at open spaces and fuck women.

              Anyway feminism isn’t genetic it is idiotic.

              1. Well, I agree with you about the atheism, I have never been able to develop faith in any universal being no matter how I’ve tried in my youth or as I’ve gotten older.

                Sexually we’re different as I have no restriction on sex, but currently also prefer women.

                I do not however agree that feminism is idiotic, I simply claim it is a response to the current patriarchal social environment and when society evolves to equality for everyone, there will be no need of it.

                1. I think it’s not if “feminism” is idiotic, it’s that a lot of feminists that get a lot of attention are idiotic. It’s apples and oranges.

  52. Radical political movements attract people who are at the ends of the bell curve of many issues beyond politics.

  53. I’m confused and frightened over this article with weird acronyms and words I’ve never seen before.

    But if the gist of this is that people who don’t like being told what to do (libertarians) are more likely to avoid relationships with women, well then this could have been stated in an instatwit or something.

  54. I’m sure this has been flogged to death in the 500-odd comments above, and I have zero knowledge about these various fringe men’s rights groups, but are they really calling for the subjugation of women to men, or are they opposed to what they see as women’s privileged status in various fora, such a family court, etc.?

    1. They’re not paying proper lip service to the heroic contributions of women and their enduring fight against oppression.

      1. Sure, that’s it.

    2. The 500 comments consist of the usual juvenile and puerile fun, along with a decent bit of whinging.

      I assume the latter portion of my comment will increase exponentially throughout the night.

    3. I am pretty sure Honey Badgers are not “for the subjugation of women to men”

      to be honest they are the only MRA’s I am familiar with.

      I think a lot of pickup artists are called MRAs when they really aren’t. I am not sure if they are pro-women subjugation either. They are more pro-psycholsexual manipulation of women. or at least the selling of a method to manipulate women that probably does not work any better then not being a lard ass having a job and proper self grooming.

  55. Reason needs to start lining up someone to replace ENB. I mean, it’s pretty clear that she’s angling for a move to Politico, or maybe she wants to be the liberaltarian counterpoint to Volokh at the WaPo…

    1. Reason needs to start lining up someone to replace ENB

      My vote is for Shoe One head

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYiSTPhz4M

      1. I’ll second that.

      2. Nice, she makes it seem effortless, even though you gotta know it’s not.

  56. This seems like as good a place as any to air some grievances.

    I think the reasons I have trouble in love is the same reason I have trouble keeping a job. That is, I don’t make any effort to change in order to win approval. Sincerity is important to me because I think it is the foundation for virtue and true happiness. What’s the point of having a personality if you try to be all things to all people?

    I used to think that if I did a good work, my bosses would overlook my apathy. Wrong. It turns out you have to pretend to like your job and your boss. In fact, that part is more important than what you actually do. I could probably have kept jobs longer had I acted the part, although I’m not a good actor and constant lying and posing is very distasteful to me.

    1. In a similar way, I think getting a girlfriend involves a lot of pretending, and the shorter/uglier you are, the more you have to pretend. You have to smile when you don’t mean it, wear clothes and a hairstyle they approve of, pretend to like things you don’t like (such as dogs), and agree with things you don’t believe. I’m in a real jam because being nonreligious turns off Christians and liking guns turns off liberals, and almost all my dates fall into the first category or the other. Much like my bosses, I have found that my dates tend to get upset when their views are challenged.

      I had a date once that went pretty well. Later, she texted me and asked me what I did that day. I said I went to the rifle range. She said something to the effect of “eww, guns”. Never heard from her again.

      Another time, I ended up talking to my date about the wage gap. I forget how it came up, but I know I didn’t pivot the conversation there. I said it was a myth and that when you control for the job and the number of hours worked, the difference is negligible. Well, she didn’t like that and stormed off.

      1. There’s plenty of girls out there who are nonreligious, fine with guns, and could give a fuck less about womyn’s issuez (wage-gap shrieking, etc).

        1. I’ve dated more than a few with all of those traits. They’re not uncommon.

        2. I believe you even though I have yet to meet any.

        3. I exist…but I’m married..sorry!

          Though I’m more than fine with guns, the husband and I have a standing date for the range every Thursday night.

      2. Awwww….You have my approval Derpetologist.

      3. Aren’t you a professional translator or sommat? Why not open every conversation with a line about your talented tongue? And then shut up, because apparently you’re very challenging.

        1. I will be an Army linguist sometime next year if all goes well. I figure having been in the Peace Corps would be enough to salve the heart of a typical prog, but no, you have to believe it all.

          You can get some wiggle room if you are tall and have a lot of money, but otherwise, intelligence and being decent don’t seem to help much.

          1. Are you cunning?

          2. Honestly, I’m in the same boat, though by the sound of it nowhere near as interesting or accomplished as you. If it weren’t for former friendships turning romantic I likely wouldn’t get any action at all. But since my most recent ex packed up and moved on, I’m mostly okay with that. I don’t know how old you are, but in my late twenties I’m beginning to realize that being alone for a stretch isn’t awful. Men haven’t got the sort of imperative women have. We appreciate in terms of income and success over time?precisely what women value most. There’s not nearly the same pressure on men to find a wife as there is on women to find suitors, and so young women in their prime are a pain to date now but a pleasure saved for later.

            At least, that’s what I’ve told myself since my ex left.

            1. I’m 30.

              There are various factors working against me: I’m short, been fat, usually have a beard, few friends, frequently unemployed, hold many unpopular opinions, rarely smile, poor dresser…

              But I have been praised for my honesty, intelligence, sense of humor, and the interesting life I’ve led.

              1. Peas of a pod, you and I. But I really think you’re neglecting your primary asset: long-term earning potential. You’re a man with career prospects. A provider.

              2. “-hold many unpopular opinions,”

                I think you should carry on and think positive. I describe myself as a lesbian, but the reason for that is largely because as evidenced here, there is a lot of sexist bullshit running amok in the world. Were I to again consider men, holding unpopular opinions would be a primary positive criteria for me.

                1. I hung out a lot with a pair of lesbians in college. They lived on top of a bar and let me play their video games. One of their friends who turned out to be bisexual made out with me. Good times.

            2. If it weren’t for former friendships turning romantic I likely wouldn’t get any action at all.

              Unless you look like a model, this is how I think most relationships begin, especially successful ones.

              1. I do in fact look like a model. I imagine mannequins made of me would feature prominently in whatever BDSM shops caters to men of Warty’s disposition.

            3. Since we are bitching, I broke off a date with a real woman (who thinks I am funny and not grotesque and possess two breasts*), to go on a man-date (doing the exact same plans) with a sad guy who cried the last time we were hung out together because I was yelling at him about why he was sad. After I finished yelling at him he held me tight, dick-to-dick.

              My point: either I am a good friend or secretly gay.

              *Seriously, two of them.

              1. How many breasts did he have? Did you feel as though you traded up?

              2. Crusty, you moron, you invite the girl to the man-date then show her how sensitive you are. Either that or she laughs at you. Win-win

                1. Or you talk up your depressed friend so much he makes a pass at your girlfriend and they leave together.

                  1. Then the deftly unloads his problems on the waitress, “I guess I’ll be picking up the tab because my best friend left with my date *manly sigh*” who feels bad for him and he gets pity sex. Win-win-win!

                    1. I imagine in that scenario the waitress will present herself to the alpha male friend and leave the subordinate male behind to be ostracized from the troop. I learned all about sexual dynamics from David Attenborough.

                2. That would be an option, but I know he wants to talk to me about his crumbling marriage, so it is best if we are alone. I will listen to him talk about whatever his problems are and try not to give him advice (which he always asks for). There is a 50% chance I will punch him in his throat.

                  I was going to take her to an IMAX theater to watch Everest, because her and I both really liked Into Thin Air. However, I loaned him my copy of the book a few weeks ago, and he devoured it and won’t stop talking about it.

                  He has breasts, but they are too small to be of any use to me, or I would think anyone else.

                  1. You do sound like a good friend. Personally I am not very patient with emotionally high-maintenance people

                    1. I have known him for twenty years so I do not really have a choice. He did not become high-maintenance until she moved out. However, if he acted the way he does with me with her, I understand her moving out.

          3. intelligence and being decent don’t seem to help much

            There’s probably a lot of women with the same complaint. My experience was similar to yours until I enlisted. I was not prepared for the number of women with military fetishes although I guess it depends on where you’re stationed. Plus, the whole physical fitness thing helps, even if those stupid 5AM “boots and utes” runs through the sand can handicap gains, most bases have decent weights.

            I agree with the advice given to you here: don’t fake it. There are literally millions of potential mates out there for you but you need to “keep it real.” Your odds are pretty good so don’t stress if you haven’t yet found a desirable match.

      4. “eww, guns”.

        “she didn’t like that and stormed off.”

        Do you have any comparable stories with religious women?

        I am guessing it is you who act like the leftist women in those stories.

        1. I forgot the best part of the “eww, guns” story. My response was to say that 2nd amendment made all the others possible.

          I’ve had dates with believers, and the subject of religion never came up. There was a time when I was trying to line up a date with a Christian, but she was concerned because she’s worried I might refuse to baptize our potential children. I said I would not mind if they were baptized.

          In my experience, once they find out I’m nonreligious, most believers have no interest in meeting me.

          1. My question is: Why would a nonreligious person even want to establish a relationship with someone who makes a central focus of their life something he has no interest in?

            I like guns too, but it’s not the sort of thing I build my life’s work around, so even if my spouse isn’t into them, it’s not a real issue – which would be the same if she was an avid birdwatcher or some such hobby I do not care for.

            But in the case of religion, at least for the devout if not necessarily the ‘social’ practitioners, that is something that will inevitably prove problematic at the very least.

            A bit of advice: The wise ones look at you and conclude that “he does not understand what he does not know.”

            NTTAWWT, just that it is probably for the best for each of you.

      5. Um, no.
        Do NOT pretend to like things you don’t like in order to get a girlfriend. That won’t work as women will pick up on it, eventually find out that you aren’t who you claim to be, and dump you.

        There are girls out there who like the same things you like. Want to meet some? Join a gun club. Join a club for atheists. Etc. Do the things that YOU like to do, and meet people via those activities.

        1. Do the things that YOU like to do, and meet people via those activities.

          This! Or try something new. I’d advise against picking up girls in bars

          1. Hmm. I like drinking alone. And hiking alone. And browsing the net alone.

            I did go to a few atheist meetings once, but it was mostly grumpy old men. There was a girl there who seemed to like me, but unfortunately she was very fat.

            I don’t think there’s any point in hooking up with someone I’m not attracted to, even if they like me.

            1. There are TONS of hiking clubs on Meetup. And the ones I have been in are essentially singles clubs too. Seriously. Mostly single people (otherwise they would be hiking with their partner), and if they hike a lot they probably aren’t fat.

              Although, to be fair, there are a lot of lefty-environmentalist types in them. But I still wouldn’t hide your atheist gun-toting ways, because if there is a closeted gun lover in them how else is she going to find you?

              1. When I lived in TX, I went to various churches in hope that perhaps there was a closet nonbeliever among them. I even went to a Mormon singles group a few times. No luck.

            2. You should like them too, obviously.

              Try this, think about your ideal woman (at least as many, if not more, of the characteristics should be intellectual and psychological as physical, you perv!) then from that come up with some new activities or groups you could join based on this hypothetical personality.

              If you are going to fully extend the work=relationship analogy, most jobs are found through networking. So go places you’re likely to meet the type of person you want to meet. If you’re really feeling brave you could ask people you know to set you up too. Just like you’d ask them to recommend you for job opportunities they know about.

              Also, maybe try volunteering

              1. In college, I had a full-on Unabomber look. A classmate offered to give me a makeover, which I declined. Another time, a classmate invited me to some exercise class to meet women. When I got there, I found out it was a dancing/aerobics class. All women except me, but I did not feel like dancing around in front of them.

                Fun fact: one time I was drinking with some classmates and I said something like, I feel more comfortable hanging out with you now. One guy said: “Thanks. It’s nice to know that after knowing me for 3 years, you now consider me an acquaintance.”

                1. I’m an introvert too so I know what it’s like to not feel comfortable around most people. But you don’t have to. You just have to meet enough until you find someone you can be comfortable with.

                2. So it’s the fault of the entire female gender that you’re a boring prick with no social skills?

                  Another ‘libertarian’ who doesn’t see the need for personal responsibility.

                  Look, Derpetolgist, you’re an a-hole and that’s why men and women hate you. SImple.

              2. “think about your ideal woman”

                The body of Fairuza Balk, the personality of Daria Morgandorffer.

                1. Fairuza Balk looks like she feeds on men.

      6. I totally relate to everything you said here, Derp. Pretending to be something you’re not is a path to disaster. Most women will hate and/or resent us men no matter what we do–so we might as well do the things that make us happy and not care what they think. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that women respect men who do as they please and don’t give a fuck about anyone else. You’re still a young man, have your whole life ahead of you, and (I believe) are destined for good things. Just over three years ago I was in a miserable, sexless relationship and was just waiting to die so my suffering would end. But now I’m in a great relationship (we just celebrated our 2-year anniversary) with a beautiful woman half my age. Btw, I’m old, fat, ugly, poor, and dress like a slob. Unfortunately, she’s deeply religious and says grace before every meal, but we’ve found a way to make it work. Stay positive, stay true to yourself, do great work, and someday you’ll meet a woman who appreciates those qualities.

    2. Even so, I have not given up the hope of finding love and a job I like. I’d even like to have kids someday, although I am very reluctant to get married. Both my siblings went through messy divorces and I’ve witnessed a few others. It seems foolish to enter into an agreement that has a 50% chance of failing and may cost thousands and thousands of dollars to get out of.

      Robin Williams ended paying about $36 million to his ex wives. That’s enough money to spend $1000 a night on hookers for 92 years. The reason John Cleese is still working instead of enjoying retirement is because of his outrageous alimony payments.

      People who are worried about declining marriage rates should probably work to make divorce less punishing to men.

      1. It seems foolish to enter into an agreement that has a 50% chance of failing and may cost thousands and thousands of dollars to get out of.

        Or you could simply enter into a relationship with someone indefinitely without getting married.

        1. And stay out of common marriage states.

      2. Not being super enthusiastic to marry might be a good thing in your case. You don’t want to come across as desperate. Most sane rational people aren’t going to rush into marriage. It’s common for people to live together for years before marrying these days, and you certainly don’t need to be married to have sex.

        1. “you certainly don’t need to be married to have sex.”

          For which I am thankful.

      3. Give up now. You have no hope.

    3. Yes, you definitely need to pretend to like your job. No, it’s a terrible idea to pretend you like dogs just to get a girlfriend.

      Dog people need to date dog people, and cat people need to date cat people. This is probably an even bigger relationship deal breaker than religion, IMO.

      1. But almost all women in my dating pool like dogs. One time, I was chatting up a girl and she broke things off when she saw that I dislike dogs. I tried to explain that I’m willing to put up with one, I just prefer not to be around them. Not good enough, said she.

        1. I’ve never met anybody who was that fanatical that they would immediately stop talking to you for not liking dogs, but regardless, sounds like you need a new dating pool.

          1. I have dated in Chicago, the DC-NOVA area, north TX. The last was by far the worst. Morbidly obese and single moms with many demands as far as the eye could see.

          2. I am apathetic toward cats and I am allergic to them. I won’t date the cat people.

          1. There was a time when I was visiting a lady friend and her chihuahua jumped up and clamped on my arm while I was fixing her door knob.

            My saint-like patience came in handy that day.

        2. Yeah, but it would never work long term. You would never really be happy and comfortable being around the dog, which means you could never live together contentedly unless she got rid of the dog. A dog lover is going to notice that right away and think “Well, this isn’t going to work out ….”

      2. Dog people need to date dog people, and cat people need to date cat people. This is probably an even bigger relationship deal breaker than religion, IMO.

        *curls into fetal position and cries about my doomed relationship while my cats taunt my wife’s dogs*

    4. You have to smile when you don’t mean it, wear clothes and a hairstyle they approve of, pretend to like things you don’t like (such as dogs), and agree with things you don’t believe.

      There’s a difference between “pretending” and being the best version of you. Smiling when you don’t mean it and looking nice are superficial things that don’t reflect the real you. They are you with extra polish. The latter two things are opinions and beliefs that you are entitled to keep, although you might not find it tactful or in your best interest to always state them.

      1. Btw, you are right that work and relationships have a lot in common. But you shouldn’t have to pretend at work either. If you can’t be the best you and do your job, then it’s not the right job.

        1. Yes. I will agree that I could be in a more fun job that gets me more energized and spending way less time on H&R. However, the grim reality is that I have it pretty sweet and need that checkmark on my resume in order to move on. I’m almost 30 and have been on three slightly different career paths since finishing my undergrad. The onus is on me to roll success into success. So in some sense I have to suck it up and “fake it til I make it”.

        2. My thinking was that most people don’t like their jobs and that’s OK. I still think it’s OK to take jobs you don’t like when you’re young and you don’t have many options. But now I think that once you finish your education and have some work experience, you really ought to find a job you actually care about. At least that’s what I decided.

        3. What’s the best you? Pure hedonism? In that case, doing a job you hate but that pays well can mean being the best you.

    5. Being steadfast and aloof tends to yield some success with girls. If one is superior at something material (meaning “of importance”, though there is a connection to financial prospect). As for your bosses, I wonder how loyal they perceived you to be.

      1. This only works if you’re good-looking and/or charming. For an ugly guy like me being aloof only brings relief to most women.

  57. As evidence of claims that libertarianism holds little appeal for women, critics like to highlight limited-government cheerleading from groups or figures known for sexism, especially men’s rights activists (MRAs) and their various offshoots (Gadsden flags in the Twitter profiles of #GamerGate fans are seen as very telling).

    Have you considered that some of these critics are full of shit?

  58. “But libertarians must reject encoding any particular set of beliefs?religious, ideological, or otherwise?into the law.”

    This is, literally, impossible. Our support of limited government is itself an ideology. I support minimal government because I believe the non-aggression principle creates the most moral social order humanly possible as well as a host of utilitarian reasons. Note the moral choice.

    1. So, as a libertarian, I shouldn’t be trying to encode my ideological belief that the government shouldn’t pay people to do nothing into the law?

    2. Morality depends on human will (which depends on human reason). The minimum element of morality thus is autonomy. Requiring it, the respect of it – and no more than it – thus is objective. It’s the most general law – see Kant – possible.

  59. So why does Feminism exist at all any more?

    From what i can see the only real issues women have (excluding shit like sexist air conditioning and that guy who wore that shirt while landing a space ship on a rocket) are:

    Access to abortion birth control: check
    Right to vote: check
    equal rights like speech, property, religion, guns etc: check
    Access to education: check
    Jobs: check

    Everything else is whiny bullshit used by nannies as an excuse to regulate, tax and censor.

    1. You intend to stay a virgin your entire life, don’t you?

      1. You don’t intend to stop beating your wife.

    2. Everything else is whiny bullshit used by nannies as an excuse to regulate, tax and censor.

      It’s like you’re new to politics or something. Relax. Pour yourself a cold one. Take a deep breath. Smile. You are alive, and life is good.

      1. I did not type the above in anger. Feminism has lost any justification for its existence as far as I can tell.

    3. At this point, it is almost entirely about creating the illusion of continuing oppression so as to keep the movement going, and maintain the flows of money and votes to the appropriate politicians.

      1. Also, there are a lot of people walking around out there with Women’s Studies degrees, and they shut down a lot of the Borders and Barnes & Noble stores. So all those Women’s Studies majors can’t work retail anymore–not even with a master’s.

        1. Clever, but true Ken. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Just a heads up , Borders is tits up.

  60. Oh, come on Reason your usually pretty good but #gamergate is an off shoot of the MRA?! seriously? while they do have some supporter overlap and a common enemy that doesn’t mean one is an offshoot of the other.

    Next you’ll be claiming progressivism is an offshoot of libertarianism because they occasionally agree and both dislike Neo-nazis.

    1. Gamergaters are SO sensitive … sheesh.

      1. #GAMERGATE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME! YOU BETTER! IMPORTANT! AGREE!

        1. I’ve never played Gamergate, but I used to play Stargate in the arcade back in the day.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsLddrhQav4

          1. So Stargate was like the sequel to Defender right?

          2. Watching that video i am struck by how Williams games had the best sound design of arcade era. I wonder if it was because of their pinball roots.

        2. You two can whine all you want, but we are winning.

          http://twitter.com/mombot/stat…..2708009984

          1. You are missing the point. I think you ascribe a level of importance to #gamergate that is at odds with reality. Obviously it is important to you, which is fine, of course.

            1. Ignoring its importance do you find ENB’s article about Vice’s article worrying over women who might not like liberty cuz icky MRAs more or less interesting then an article about gamergate?

              1. I do not find any of it interesting, other than that misogynistic MRA, PUA types deserve to be mocked and shamed the same way SJW types deserve to be mocked and shamed.

                1. Precisely.

                2. misogynistic MRA, PUA types

                  Do you know what misogyny means?

                  PUA are trying to convince women to have sex with them. That is everything but women hating.

                  The only MRA group I am familiar are the Honey Badgers. They don’t hate women.

                  The “bad” MRA group described in the vice article and ENB’s article seems more apathetic then hateful.

                  Why do feminists always use the wrong word for everything?

                  Note: my experience with the SJW feminists screeching about gamergate has been they have a lower opinion of women’s self determination then any MRA or PUA i have seen.
                  ie internalized misogyny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSbFBo9LOw

      2. How’d you determine the “SO”; where’s his excess?

  61. I have never heard of this MRA or any of these other alphabet soup. So the “so many” part must be wrong. Please name one crazy individual or individuals rather than smear men in general for a few lunatics. There are some crazy women too but they are not all man haters nor are the vast majority of women.

  62. Men are hard wired to protect women. This trait is inherent to propagation of the species. It really shouldn’t be taken seriously that men “hate” women in any appreciable number.

    If half the women on earth died the population would nearly half, if half the men died it would barely move. The protection of women is obviously a trait that would be passed, and “hating” women would not in significant numbers. For women self preservation would be passed.

    Historically men fought and died to protect women, and women avoided fighting and dying because dying isn’t good for humankind.

    All we have today is the extension of this phenomenon applied to a bored and stupid populace. There’s just as many men who want to protect “women’s rights” as there are women for the same reasons. They’ve both been hard wired through history to protect women. Even though the entire issue is largely bullshit and always has been its just human nature.

    1. “Children and women first” has been and still is in effect, to some degree. Yeah, from a group-selection point, women indeed are more valuable. Reproductive success essentially is limited by the number of women, while it takes but a few men. (This gets complicated by the fact that it takes male warriors to fight another groups male warriors. If you have too few men, any women will be captured by and lost to the other group.) On the other hand, individual men do have reproductive reasons to rape women. Both, the protect, and the harm trait are in play. (Even there things are more complicated, as women – in terms of reproductive success – have some reason to respond positively to powerful, dominant men. In this context, consider women’s sexual fluidity, divergence of physical and psychological arousal, and rape fantasies — all compared to men.)

      1. “Children and women first” has been and still is in effect, to some degree.

        Not in MENA, as far as I can tell. The wave of migrants into Europe is mostly younger men, which must mean that there are a lot of women and children abandoned to the tender mercies of ISIS and their fellow Islamonutters.

        1. As it happens, that came up below. There I wrote that the (EU’s) left is now arguing that these men make the journey because they are better suited to its dangers, physically and psychologically. It is said that they intend to transfer money they earn in the EU to their women and children, and to later transfer them to the EU, more safely. I pointed out that this marks a contradiction to the left’s usual views of men and patriarchal societies.

    2. As much as I hate Amanda Marcotte (the fact she looks a lot like my ex is not a factor) I would still insist she take the last seat on the lifeboat of a sinking ship. Because I could not live knowing that a woman (ANY woman) died for me. I would not extend this consideration to most men (particularly those who believe as Ms. Marcotte does). Sexist, I know. But it’s how I’m wired and I can’t help it.

      1. Sorry, that bitch is so stupid the gene pool would be better off without her…though in general I agree, just not in her case.

      2. Difficult to tell, without having been in such a situation. I find it likely that I’d choose to follow that rule myself. That being said, it’s a prima facie case in favor of women; there could be an exception when deciding between a random woman and a man I have a deep relationship with.
        Observe the position of feminsts/the left on this. Commonly they deny that such a rule is in place, and that men are self-sacrificial* protectors. However, as it turns out, the refugees currently coming to the EU are predominantly young males. Society at large criticizes that, and shows a clear preference for women and children. They are seen as deserving, whereas male duties are often seen as contrary to fleeing. Hence selected media footage. Now the remarkable thing is that the left argues that these young men migrate because of their women and children. According to the left, they are better suited to make the physically and psychologically demanding journey, and they do so to then support their women and children, via monetary transfers and by having them (more safely) transported later. At the same time, these men (the average male refugee, many in absolute numbers) are from countries said to exploit and oppress women. Where they have acquired their remarkably chivalrous mindset is anyone’s guess. So all of a sudden the left embraces sex differences and male benevolence.

        1. Lastly, I want to emphasize the “women and children first” rule. Look up the number of male compared to female deaths on the Titanic. This very rule not only broke supposed sex hierarchies, it even broke class hierarchies. Elite men sacrificized their lives for low class women (with quarters on lower levels of the ship). Consider male deaths compared to female deaths at the Twin Towers. Worth noting that the attackers were male, too.

          *Self-sacrifice is complicated. Cicero has a good example. Someone is wrongfully imprisoned by the enemy and sentenced to death. The enemy releases him on the condition that he returns. He gives his word to do so. In keeping his word, he sacrifices his life, but maintains his self, his character.

          P.S.: By the way, note the expression – rule – that a man is only as good as his word.

  63. You never come out and say it directly but you imply that MGTOW is rooted in misogyny. It isn’t. I know people in that community, hell I basically am one, and f I don’t particularly care much for women it’s because I have just about nothing in common with most of them and I see no reason to treat them like princesses just because they are the gatekeepers of sex.
    They vote overwhelmingly democratic, many are under the mass delusion that they are part of an oppressed or victimized group. Most also studiously ignore any evidence to the contrary. They serve less time for the same crimes, they have higher acceptance and graduation rates in college, and they outright outnumber men.They choose to be day care teachers, and nurses more often than doctors and MBAs but they still whine about the non existent wage gap as if someone is stealing from them. They file for 70% of divorces and divorce courts overwhelmingly favor them in terms of division of assets and who gets the kids. On top of all this, Maury Povich has made millions showing how many of them lie about paternity. Which for some crazy reason is still not illegal even though it’s fraud.
    Men still do almost all of the hard work, and are looked down on for it. Intellectuals sitting in their offices with their teaching jobs in buildings built by real men, and when have I ever heard a woman acknowledge that? Camille Paglia, and a handful of libertarian women, that’s it. Otherwise, ungrateful bitches all.

    1. I see. You don’t hate women, you just casually collectivize them, write them off as worthless to a society built by “real men” and consider them ungrateful bitches when they’re not actively oppressing you and other men.

      But it’s not misogyny! No siree!

      1. It isn’t misogyny because misogyny only counts if it is backed up by a power structure of inequality. Since the power structure is tilted in favor of women, men can be as hateful as they like, just like black people can’t be racist.

        1. Up next week ENB will write an in depth article about the #KillAllMen hashtag….

          and by next week I mean never

      2. “you just casually collectivize them”

        I have never seen ENB or other reason writers do that ever. Not even once. In fact i think it might be unpossible for them to do that ever. impossible. Never happened. Nope. not once. Totally not happened at Reason. Not at all. Nada. zero times. no. not……

        nativist racists from India

    2. Wow Ed, Do you sometimes go by the name, “John”?

  64. As long as you believe in equality of the sexes before the law, that’s all that really matters.

    As long as you strongly oppose coercion, even that doesn’t matter from a libertarian perspective. And frankly, no one believes in equality, at least not completely. If for some reason we had laws related to maternity, only a crazy person would demand that they apply to men and women equally. (Yes, I am being cisnormative in my terminology. The number of fucks I give can be counted on one hand, without the use of any digits.)

    and, of course feminists do as much as any MRAs when it comes to certain subjects, like reproductive freedom

    Libertarian feminists, maybe, but prog/socialist feminists don’t usually support reproductive freedom as an end, they support it as a means to further the end of population control. If China-style measures ever slipped into the Overton window, you can bet quite a few would be arguing to “incentivize” abortion or make it mandatory.

    1. “And frankly, no one believes in equality, at least not completely. If for some reason we had laws related to maternity, only a crazy person would demand that they apply to men and women equally.”

      The rule is that the law has to treat materially similar things similarly, and materially dissimilar things dissimilarly. The classic problematic example to that is a law that prohibits interracial marriage. The argument goes that equality is maintained, because blacks don’t get to marry whites, and whites don’t get to marry blacks. Works with ice-cream, at the same level of abstraction. Allowing the consumption of no other ice-cream than strawberry equally restricts all /before that one law/.

      1. By the way, another interesting example is forced association (Brown). In every problem case, there’s a search for the neutral principle. Allegedly, there isn’t one in the case of forced association and non-association. Yet there is. The key is the level of abstraction. Let’s say black guy demands that white guy goes to school with him. The decision is not binary, between association and non-association. White guy could demand that black guy dance with him, or have sex with him, whatever. So it’d be forced schooling (against white-guy’s will) versus forced sex (against black guy’s will). The neutral principle is negative liberty. No forced anything. Allowing any forced association allows all forced association.
        The only thing open in this theoretical realm is the matter of public goods, not in its utilitarian aspect, but in its aspect of unjust enrichment. At any rate, whereever negative liberty applies, there’s no room for (other) law.

  65. Comment thread’s too long to read just now, but in case this hasn’t been brought up, at least according to polls in the USA, women are significantly more authoritarian than men. So it’s more that women are anti-liberty than that libertarians are anti-woman.

  66. Have you noticed that virtually all feminists are left-wing? The most negative position MRA folks could actually take is some version of moralistic conservatism. Yet apparently they hew closer to classical liberalism. So I guess feminists are more numerous and extreme, thus worse than “masculists”.

    Your own position is dubious. You seem to hold it as an objective truth that women are more disadvantaged than men. Express your position on that clearly, along with your beliefs in evolved versus socially constructed (psychological) sex differences. (You profess to negative liberty. So formally that deals with the element of egalitarianism.) You can’t objectively show that woman are more disadvantaged, nor that there are no considerable evolved sex differences.

    1. “Yet apparently they hew closer to classical liberalism.”

      Well… I don’t know if the MRA and PUA crowds are exactly the same, but some of the PUA links people have posted here, especially in the age of Trump and cuckservativsm, have been to shit that could have been cribbed straight from Mein Kampf.

      1. What does “PUA” stand for? Anyway, one addition to my original comment: It’s possible to be a classical liberal politically, but to embrace egalitarianism privately. The missing question is whether Elizabeth considers her feminism to be political in nature, and not just private. A general question, though, is some political feminism compatible with classical liberalism? Doesn’t look like it.

        1. What does “PUA” stand for?

          Pick Up Artist.

      2. “but some of the PUA links people have posted here, especially in the age of Trump and cuckservativsm”

        LULZ

        that was me I think.

        I linked to the return of kings and then all hell broke loose.

        Totally worth it.

        May it be so again:

        http://www.returnofkings.com/6…..kservative

        Note: the link does not work for me…probability wants me to turn on my cookies….not going to happen.

    1. ‘Unsurprisingly, given the author and publication, it is laced with feminist social justice warrior horseshit, ‘

      Er, did he just accuse Reason of horseshitting around with SJWing?

  67. “Some of these policies, like men not beating up their wives without breaking the law, are just fine as is. ”
    Which is not what MRAs object to. In fact MRAs are in favor of people who use violence being arrested, charged and convicted. What they object to is policies deliberately made to shield women from arrest and convict innocent men. Name an MRA who thinks that it’s OK to beat their intimate partner.

    ” critics like to highlight limited-government cheerleading from groups or figures known for sexism, especially men’s rights activists (MRAs)”
    And where is the evidence that MRAs are more sexist than the general population, let alone feminists?

  68. There are some things that MRAs point to that are, in fact, real problems:

    1 – The family court system is, to such a degree as to render notions of equal protection under law bad comedy, tilted toward women.

    2 – Big-government liberals and “compassionate” conservatives (read, liberals who aren’t socialists), push for policies that have the effect of putting the government in the role of sugar daddy.

    3 – There is an active push to contrive a separate and unequal-to-a-Kafkaesque-degree system of justice targeted specifically towards men, with the active connivance of government.

    4 – Women are, as a very general rule, more disposed to increasing the role and power of government.

    But by all means ENB, keep whacking that strawman; you’ll defeat him yet.

    1. I have no problem with one, and I doubt ENB or most other libertarian-minded people would have a problem with it either.

      Two has nothing to do with gender, three is a more retarded version of one, and four is the mindset that inspired the article.

      1. Well, I for one have a problem with the anti-male animus of family courts.

        As to numero dos, government as sugar daddy marginalizes men from families and ultimately society. So I gots a problem with that also, from both a narrow libertarian perspective (welfare bad) and from a social perspective (marginalizing men bad).

        1. The anti-male animus of family courts is a serious problem, I agree with you.

          I do not think the welfare state issue is about gender, or at least the solution to the issue should not be based upon gender.

          1. Observe the pattern of redistribution. As far as groups are concerned there is a net financial transfer from men to women. So there’s a female group interest in the welfare state. (There are further aspects. Things are more complicated.) One interesting thing is that men’s advantages are more financial, women’s advantages are more personal, in intimate relationships (friendships) and diverse interests. It’s much easier to redistribute financial than personal advantages (visibility, and control through the systems of taxation and banking). That’s an implicit bias, a predisposition of the welfare system. What I find remarkable is that the death gap receives virtually no attention, whereas the pay gap receives a lot.

          2. “I do not think the welfare state issue is about gender.”

            But the likes of Sandra Flake does think it is about gender.

            Ditto those trying to protect planned parenthood for “women’s health care” (nevermind why the government is paying for anyones health care why do we need government funded speciality clinics specificly for one gender?)

            Ditto just about every feminist out there.

  69. I am not really sure what to say about this article, which didn’t really say anything specific enough to pin down.
    I am an MRA, and I am an ardent libertarian, as well as a libertarian domestic law theorist.
    It is very easy to identify whether someone is a libertarian or not.
    It is a little harder to classify MRAs since there are many different self-identifying people who claim to be MRAs, and might be as well as not be libertarian.

    There is a definite overlap, but there can also be a definite distinction.

    What I object to, and am a bit pissed of at, is an attempt to characterize all MRAs as uncouth louts who hate women, and want superior rights for men over women in society and law.
    Anyone who does that, self-identifying as MRA or not, is simply not a libertarian.

    1. “It is a little harder to classify MRAs since there are many different self-identifying people who claim to be MRAs, and might be as well as not be libertarian.

      There is a definite overlap, but there can also be a definite distinction.

      What I object to, and am a bit pissed of at, is an attempt to characterize all MRAs as uncouth louts who hate women, and want superior rights for men over women in society and law.”

      It’s hilarious when these attacks come from feminists, as “masculists”/MRAs are simply their theoretical counter-part, with all merits and flaws. (So what you have said applies to feminism itself. – In my view, the term is nonsensical (indeterminate, and philosophically redundant), except for its (contemporary) empirical associations: left-wing, egalitarianism, extreme social constructionism, patriarchy.)

    2. Hi, I’m a female and I’m not a feminist. If there’s one thing I object to, it’s the attempts by too many feminists to categorize all women as feminists and then tear down women who say they’re not. Or if they don’t agree with the whole of the movement, if they’re “cafeteria feminists,” they’re called “exclusionary.” Or if, heavens to Mergatroid, they may even agree with some things that MRAs support. Then they’re fair game!

      I think people should have the right to believe what they want to believe as long as it doesn’t call them to harm someone else. Maybe I just think that “freeing the nipple” is a stupid attention-seeking movement and also think that dyeing your armpit hair is gross? I wouldn’t enact a law against it, but that doesn’t mean that I privately, in the sphere of my own individual preference, have to approve of it or “accept” it.

      But that’s the problem with a lot of these safe-space feminists. They think that disagreeing with someone amounts to a personal attack deserving of punishment. They’re actually a disgrace to the reasoned and independent women of the previous waves of the movement. Something tells me Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton might want to slap these pink-haired brats upside the head for what they’re doing to the face of women’s rights in civilized societies. It’s because of hysterics like this — the man-haters’ club — that the women’s movement has gotten a bad name.

    3. i don’t give a shit if women are libertarian or not. i know that i am that is good enough for me. none of the women i have been with were libertarians and all them are either socialist or superstitious. Why would i even care about her political beliefs? Voting doesn’t mean anything and democracy is random.

  70. *surveys smoking wreckage of this thread*

    ENB, well done!

    1. +1 crater

    2. If you consider this wreckage, then some thing must have hit your head. It can’t have been some part of wreckage; because there is no wreckage.

    3. I hadn’t checked this thread myself since yesterday. 800+ comments? Good grief

  71. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT GAMERGATE.

  72. It’s very simple. We first have to see that feminism is not about equality, it’s about superiority. Never does feminism seek to dismantle where the state favors women, it seeks equality where women were disparaged by the state and more favors from the state beyond equality. It was one of the early issues in suffrage and the idea of true equality lost. Feminism is also leverage to expand the power of the state in people’s lives, the economy, and so forth as well. It is mutually beneficial as are most relationships groups seeking an upper hand in society find with the state. Hence any parallel to desiring limited government starts and ends with how personal romantic relationships have been interfered with by the state.

    Libertarians of all varieties are no doubt familiar with “love it or leave it”. And it’s no different here. Either learn to love the game or leave it. That is what modern feminism like modern statists propose thinking they won’t be taken up on it. The branch of libertarianism that deals with how to move to another country and so on is the closest philosophical parallel to MGTOW. Those who chose the ‘leave it’ option.

    Given how the state has warped interpersonal relationships in this regard Is it really surprising some people don’t play? The costs and risks have increased while the benefits at best stayed even. It’s simple economics really.

  73. Hi, i just joined and I have a question.

    Is there a word for women who don’t hate men but love limited government?

    1. Menklimgovphilfems. Nice question. But this highlights the problems with definitions. You combine highly specific (women; love) with fairly broad elements (don’t hate; limited government). A definition which captures exactly that in one word is impossible. Well a lexical, analytical definition. You can come up with a nominal one, in which you just choose an existing word or invent a word and say that this is what it means. I like the word dinosaur (and think that women are totally not like dinosaurs), and several others ones as they are, so I’d encourage you to invent a new one. Menklimgovphilfems is not sexy.

      P.S.:

      I’m not even sure there is word that means “does not hate men”.

      1. Androphyllic?

        Of course that means loves men, but getting there . . .

        Andropathetic maybe?

        1. I don’t know, Andropathetic reminds me of Guyno-Americans, MA’AM… also gynocerous. But none of that is helping here.

      2. comedy vid on the life cycle of a feminist redonkulas.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Um_TChM0

  74. When women stop the genital mutilation of man, i’ll stop supporting man’s rights.

  75. So ENB is an idiot

  76. Another big false Votes For Women this article makes, is that MGTOWs and MRAs are synonymous.
    They can overlap, but it is not the same thing.

    MGTOW is the instantiation of a man deciding to not associate himself with women in any deep sociological way. He will talk to them, interact with them in casual interactions, and he will have sex with them in a non-committal way, but has made a life choice to not have an interpersonal relationship with them.

    MRAs are men or women who advocate, campaign and are activists for men’s equal treatment and rights in society and law. MRAs also highlight and speak about the inequities that society imposes upon men, while giving women superior treatment and rights.

    1. “MRAs also highlight and speak about the inequities that society imposes upon men, while giving women superior treatment and rights.”

      Yeah, the male equivalent to feminists. Yet some thing gives feminists the idea that they are superior, while every critique they level against masculists is one of themselves.
      Classical liberals hold that there is no “comparable worth”: incommensurability. And with all the differences between men and women, it’s not possible to determine who is more advantaged. The only coherent end-point would be to make them entirely the same, both in terms of preferences and goods they have. However, it wouldn’t be possible to do so instantly, so one would have to select female disadvantages and male disadvantages of the same valence and remove them synchronously. That again raises the problem of incommensurability. Libertarian feminists (if that’s not an oxymoron) should have a particularly hard time in criticizing masculists.

  77. “As long as you believe in equality of the sexes before the law, that’s all that really matters.”

    I guess someone should let Lizzie Brown know that men are the ones who don’t have equal rights under the law. Even when it comes to women’s reproductive rights which feminists believe are under attack, women still have the advantage because legally they can still have abortions or they can give the baby up after he or she is born. Men on the other hand have no reproductive rights at all. They can’t force a woman to have an abortion and of course they shouldn’t be able to but they also can’t give up their parental responsibilities after the baby is born like a woman can.

    1. Abortion has little to do with reproductive rights; it is simply the woman refusing to provide life support to the fetus. If men were required to donate blood or tissue during the pregnancy, they could refuse at any time also.

      Women cannot give up their parental responsibilities any more than men. Besides safe haven laws for infants (which are rarely used), both the mother and father must consent to put the child up for adoption.

  78. MRAs don’t (necessarily) hate women. You don’t need to hate a group to notice that they’re advantaged, and consistently ignoring your groups problems. Most of the women who pushed legitimate feminist issues like access to birth control didn’t hate men. Some of them loved them quite a lot *cough* Sanger *cough*. But they often said that men were behaving badly, because a lot of the time, large numbers of men were.

    Now we come to the present day, where feminists literally can’t find a single example of legal discrimination against them, yet insist that they’re persecuted. Then they insist that men aren’t oppressed in any way whatsoever.

    Most feminists believe that the 63% longer sentences blacks get is due at least partly to racism. (I’ll put the citation needed in here because I know someone else will) [citation needed]. Yet they haven’t even heard of the 20% sentencing disparity between men and women. When they do they generally say “Maybe that’s because men commit more heinous crimes”. Do you think they said that when someone brought up the racial difference?

    Oh and of course I reversed those numbers, men get 63% longer sentences, blacks get 20% more.

    Hating feminists isn’t hating women. MGTOW isn’t even hating women, it’s just not doing what they want. Leaving someone alone is not hate.

    1. “Leaving someone alone is not hate.”
      It is today. O tempora, O mores!

  79. Why should I like women? Maybe women should try harder to be interesting likeable people? Elizabeth, you’re not entitled to my “likes” you have to work for them just like men do.

  80. comedy vid on the life cycle of a feminist redonkulas.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Um_TChM0

    Men in western world have been having there children stolen from them for over 50 years, turned into slaves for over 50 years, blamed and invillinated at every turn. it is apparent in society. so guess what men are walking away from the table and I dont blame them. marriage is a fools game at best.

  81. Why are we supposed to be more concerned about an extremely peripheral internet communities tangential attachment to libertarianism (a peripheral force in American politics itself) than about the fact that openly sexist feminists have long dominated the gender-policies of the most powerful political party in the country?

    Really, these “misogynist MRAs” don’t even show up on the radar next to man-hating feminists these days, a far more influential, better-funded, and better organized lobby.

    I mean, I get that Mr. Benes is quite an asshole, but I’m a little more concerned about the Hitler problem right now. Yeah yeah, Godwin blah blah, I don’t really give a shit.

  82. Men are good at making money and having money, like the guy in Jesus’ parable who tore down his barns in order to build bigger barns to keep all his worldly goods in.

    Women, on the other hand, are really expert in doing with money what it was meant for, i.e. SPENDING IT!!!

    Does government make money, or does government spend money?

    Case closed.

    James Edward Solbakken

  83. Easy the worst article in this website.

  84. Easy the worst article in this website.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.