MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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 RascalsLittle 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/Flickrsausyn/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. 

Photo Credit: sausyn/Flickr

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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    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*

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    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.

  • John Galt||

    Stop being a hater.

  • EndTheGOP||

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

  • redonkulas||

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

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

  • John Galt||

    She's in need of attention.

  • Jay Dubya||

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

  • C. Anacreon||

    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!

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • redonkulas||

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

  • Citizen X||

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

    Women: "Well, bye."

  • Illocust||

    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?

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • GregMax||

    Right. You keep tellin' yourself that.

  • Antilles||

    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?

  • GregMax||

    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 :)

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • GregMax||

    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 ;)

  • Antilles||

    :-)

  • ||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ant1sthenes||

    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.

  • Ewald Von Kleist||

    bingo

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    *cumulative

  • redonkulas||

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

  • fish||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    Hey, Cat Ladies need love too!

  • ||

    Nope cat ladies do not meet my "unrealistic standards for women"

    I might take a cat though.

  • ||

    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.

  • Antilles||

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

  • Zeb||

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

  • Bill Dalasio||

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

  • ||

    Kim Davis would challenge that.

  • Ed Kline||

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

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    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.

  • Ed Kline||

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

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

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

  • C. Anacreon||

    Nice.

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • cliffjumper||

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

  • Michael Price||

    "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.

  • redonkulas||

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

  • Choadintheroad||

    you forgot 'gay'

  • Choadintheroad||

    you forgot 'gay'

  • Hugh Akston||

    At least they have an alternative.

  • Paul.||

    I don't call that much of a choice.

  • Rhywun||

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

  • Paul.||

    The Little Rascals is not fictional.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The Augusta National Golf Club is real.

  • Restoras||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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.

  • PapayaSF||

    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!

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    NFL too.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Yep, and neither was the X files.

  • Illocust||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ||

    WINNING

  • Illocust||

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

  • ||

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

  • Illocust||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • some guy||

    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?

  • Illocust||

    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.

  • some guy||

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

  • R C Dean||

    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"?

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • Michael Price||

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

  • Michael Price||

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

  • DenverJ||

    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.

  • DenverJ||

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

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    Fuck bitches, get paid?

  • ||

    "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

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    ASK DOCTOR WARTY

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

  • ||

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

  • ||

    YOU TAKE THAT BACK HER SPAGHETTI IS DELICIOUS

  • ||

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

  • ||

    SHE DOES NOT!!! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

  • ||

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

  • ||

    SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP I HATE YOU

  • Christophe||

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

    Wait, some people don't?

  • ThomasD||

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

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

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

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

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

  • PapayaSF||

    Zoidberg has trouble dating because he "smells like a burning zoo."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • ||

    YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU FUCK I'M WELL OVER 30

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    I WILL NOT BE AN OTTER

    *eats cheesecake, squats 5 sets*

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • ||

    We call that "skinny ripped."

  • ||

    We call that "skinny ripped."

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

  • waffles||

    Bravo

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "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!"

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    yeah baby, he squats.

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    That's not the only thing he juggles.

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    I am not good at this either.

  • ||

    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!"

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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*

  • Citizen X||

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

  • Don'tTreadOnMeChipper||

    Lol

  • Notorious UGCC||

    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.

  • some guy||

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

  • ||

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

  • SugarFree||

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    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?

  • RBS||

    I have to look this shit up every time.

  • Illocust||

    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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    I'm sure I'll be sorry, but GIRL?

  • Illocust||

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

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    People on the Internet are stupid.

  • Illocust||

    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.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Guy In Rayon Leggings

  • ||

    *snork*

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Who cares?

  • Lee G||

    What you did there, I see it.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    Sorry, kinda slow today. Good one.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    +0

  • ||

    Yeah, but "Apathy Story" just had no pizzaz.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    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.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Just for the record...

    I like BOTH of the libertarian women here.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Wait - there are TWO??

    *looks around wildly*

  • Riven||

    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.

  • ||

    (looks around nervously)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Wink.

  • Lee G||

    It's me, isn't it?

    I knew I needed that extra therapy session.

  • Jimbo||

    You and Hitler, yes.

  • Lee G||

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

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    Known aliases: John, Cytotoxic, Tulpa

  • Lee G||

    I thought Cytotoxic was really Nathaniel Branden's head, kept alive in a jar

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    That is actually plausible.

  • Christophe||

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

    *carries on blithely*

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    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.

  • some guy||

    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.

  • Lee G||

    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.

  • PapayaSF||

    They don't even need "bigotry," just a "microaggression" or a reference to an inconvenient fact.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • some guy||

    All evil projects itself onto its victims.

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    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.

  • Lee G||

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

  • Antilles||

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

  • djstaehlin||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • PapayaSF||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • Choadintheroad||

    "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?

  • Jimbo||

    You spelled Asses wrong

  • Animal||

    Woof woof!

  • Jimbo||

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

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

  • Jimbo||

    That is adorable, I will say that.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

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

  • Paul.||

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

  • DesigNate||

    There's no way John is a woman-hater.

  • paranoid android||

    Were you around for his "all women are whores and all successful women slept their way to the top" rants?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • Jimbo||

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

  • Mindyourbusiness||

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

  • Gary T||

    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

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    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?

  • ||

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

  • ||

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

  • ||

    You sure you don't want me to train that out of him Jesse?

  • ThomasD||

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

  • Timon 19||

    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

  • ||

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

  • Swiss Servator||

    It was a documentary. Filmed in real time.

    ....

    Like the X-Files.

  • ||

    You are a terrible Master Shake.

  • Swiss Servator||

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

  • ||

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

  • Eman||

    i didn't know anyone didn't

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    He's black, right?

    He sounds black...

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    You're a chicken!

  • Dot||

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

  • Gary T||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Riven||

    religionism (is that a word?)


    ... Creed?

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ||

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

  • Riven||

    You want to be sickened? I'll give you something to be sickened about!

  • ||

    ...so? I'm waiting!

  • Riven||

    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.

  • some guy||

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

  • ||

    Excuses, excuses. JUST LIKE A WOMAN.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    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.

  • SIV||

    I don't follow gamergate but don't they tend towards anime avatars?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    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.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    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)

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    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.

  • Illocust||

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

  • monkofmimmr||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

    #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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ||

    Did you just collectivize me, Sparky?!? I'll kill you!

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ||

    Mmmmm. She-Ra.

  • ||

    Speaking of Shrike... I haven't seen him all week.

  • Lee G||

    Nor John

    Where's Bo?

  • RBS||

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

  • Citizen X||

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

  • Lee G||

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

  • DenverJ||

    Dude, Kim Davis is a Democrat.

  • ||

    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.

  • waffles||

    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!?

  • ||

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

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

  • jacob||

    Typed the same thing ystrdy about John.

    Bo is very much around

  • paranoid android||

    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.

  • ant1sthenes||

    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.

  • Citizen X||

    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.

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • MarkLastname||

    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.

  • SIV||

    (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".

  • ||

    So they're vegans?

  • SugarFree||

    No, radical Jains. Vegans still kill plants.

  • ||

    Duh. Now I feel like an idiot, Sug.

  • SugarFree||

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

  • SIV||

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

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    I learned about Jainism in an "Eastern Religions" class in college.

    Very, very interesting.

    *slaps mosquito on arm*

  • RBS||

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

  • ThomasD||

    *slaps mosquito on arm*

    I call bullshit.

    Mosquitoes don't have arms...

  • ||

    Just now? Not all the time?

  • Citizen X||

    "I only sip nectar. I make sure to leave some for the bees."

  • ||

    "Eh, no no, no applause. Every time you clap your hands you kill thousands of spores that'll some day form a nutritious fungus."

  • ||

    "A good way to prevent frostbite: just put your hands between your buttocks. That's nature's pocket."

  • ||

    "It keeps your ears warm, too!"

  • ||

    And your nose!

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    Don't let him pick your pocket!

  • Mickey Rat||

    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?

  • SugarFree||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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?

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    BURN!

  • ||

    Sexist, but funny.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Ah, government creates rights argument, intriguing.

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

    Reading is for fags.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

  • SugarFree||

    WHYCOME DIS BOOK NOT FIT IN ASS?

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    NNEED FOWLD IT MOAR - LYK THIS....

  • ||

    HEER. STEVE SMITH HELP.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, I did.

    It did not suggest the perspective I was addressing.

  • ||

    What does "libertarianism alone cannot answer the abortion question" mean to you, then?

  • Gomerphobe||

    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."

  • sarcasmic||

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

    *moves further away from sarc*

  • RBS||

    *moves further away from sarc*

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

  • ||

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

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    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

  • Notorious UGCC||

    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?

  • ||

    That is good. That is good.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    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'.

  • Riven||

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

    I guess... I mean, if there's an achievement for it...

  • ||

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

  • ||

    So when you named your Realdoll Suki and created a persona for "her", did you think you'd finally met the perfect woman?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

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

  • ||

    Sure it was, nutjob. Sure it was.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Suki's dead, hon. Suki's dead....

  • Mr Whipple||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

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

  • ||

    WHOOSH

  • ||

    I'm denying that there's a "rightful social order."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

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

  • ||

    DOUBLE WHOOSH

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

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

  • ||

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

  • lap83||

    "White and black people vote differently..."

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Negger, please...

  • Swiss Servator||

    *narrows gaze*

  • ||

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

  • lap83||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

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

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    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?

  • ||

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

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    If only women voted Republican, then we'd all be free!

  • ||

    From god's lips to your ears.

  • DenverJ||

    "lips" is sexist

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    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.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    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!"

  • Mr Whipple||

    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

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Juvenile Bluster||

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

  • Christophe||

    It's the royalism that discredits the argument for me. "Return of Kings", seriously?

  • PapayaSF||

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    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....

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    Interns are not real people.

  • Mickey Rat||

    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.

  • MarkLastname||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • Lee G||

    +1,000,000 Bo Bots

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm still trying to deal with the Pencil-Case-Clock-Crisis-Islamic-Conspiracy

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

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

  • DenverJ||

    And Trump. We must know what Trump thinks.

  • Citizen X||

    IT'S ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM.

  • ||

    "at one time"

    WTF!!??!!11

  • Jordan||

    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?

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

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

  • Jordan||

    Shit. I didn't even spell it right.

  • SugarFree||

    It really a trilby. Fedoras have been horribly maligned.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    SugarFree must be closing in on level three.

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

  • ||

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

  • IndyEleven||

    Don't forget the Faygo

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'll have her home by Monday.

  • ||

    All it takes is one, broheim.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""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!

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    You look fabulous with your medals on, BTW

  • MarkLastname||

    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!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

    Weird how that works....

    /married life

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    (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.

  • Christophe||

    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.

  • DenverJ||

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

  • SIV||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

    '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.

  • Jalestra||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • NL_||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • NL_||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • NL_||

    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.

  • ace_m82||

    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).

  • Robert||

    How about "entities that care whether they're dead or alive"? That's how I draw the line. "Person" is circular.

  • Mickey Rat||

    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?

  • ||

    What are these objective standards of which you speak?

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • ||

    "base personhood on objective standards"

    "You speak english?"

    /trump supporter

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    'So, basically your shits all fucked up and you talk like a fag'

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ace_m82||

    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.

  • Mickey Rat||

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

  • Lee G||

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

  • ||

    Ha. Good one.

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • NL_||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    What, no eyepatch?

  • Jordan||

    Will you be wearing your Dragonball Z silk shirt too?

  • Riven||

    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.

  • Hugh Akston||

    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.

  • Riven||

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

  • ||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • Riven||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    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?

  • Riven||

    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.

  • Riven||

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

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    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!

  • ||

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

  • Citizen X||

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

  • Riven||

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

  • ||

    Uh, dude, it's the *implication*, ok?

  • Riven||

    Now I just need some tasty treats.

  • Citizen X||

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

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    *hums 'singing in the rain'*

  • Citizen X||

    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.

  • ||

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

    "Overlooking the sitaaay, windows down, jammin in ma DaeWoo!'

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    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*

  • SugarFree||

    [hands over box of tissues]

  • ||

    Why are those tissues crunchy?

  • ||

    Ahhh, that's the manly essence.

  • ||

    Now we see the misandry inherent in the system!

  • ||

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

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    +1 POE

    Remember: only drink distilled water.

  • Paul.||

    In before 1500 comments!

  • Nosea||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

    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.)

  • SugarFree||

    Whoops. 4. 4 other women.

  • Illocust||

    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?

  • ||

    I'll do it.

    (sighs)

  • Nosea||

    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.

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Locker room?

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

  • SugarFree||

    MAYBE YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SMELL OF A REAL MAN!

  • RBS||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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.

  • Citizen X||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

  • Citizen X||

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

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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.

  • ||

    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!

  • Illocust||

    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.

  • Lee G||

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

  • ||

    What is Mrs. Lemuel Struthers? Chopped liver?

  • Riven||

    And Hamster of Doom!

  • ||

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

  • Riven||

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

  • Jimbo||

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

  • Jimbo||

    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!!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I know this about women: they weaken legs.

  • Lee G||

    But enough about Kathy Bates

  • ||

    +24 inches

  • mrsdrpepper||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    are we doing the full litany of women

    Phrasing!

  • Riven||

    Jesse uses a binder to keep the list organized.

  • ||

    Wait. Jesse is a trans male?

    *revises Warty's training plan*

  • Citizen X||

    The preferred nomenclature for a group of women is a "binder."

  • Dot||

    I'm here, but I read more than I post.

  • Lee G||

    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

  • Restoras||

    Tease.

  • Jalestra||

    I do the same...I'm a lurker...

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    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.

  • Pan Zagloba||

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

  • Granny Weatherwax||

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

  • ||

    "We actually have quite a few female regulars."

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

  • ||

    Pretty regularly.

  • ||

    Sweet! In like Flynn!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

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

  • Citizen X||

    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."

  • ||

    You're so bashful, Serious!

  • Paul.||

    It's a target-rich environment for the ladies!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Beats the hell out of OkCupid.

  • Riven||

    Hey! It worked for me!

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    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.

  • ||

    Some of us like kitties, too.

  • Riven||

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

  • Granny Weatherwax||

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

  • Paul.||

    "kitties"

    *nods slowly*

  • ||

    Four, if you count SugarFree's mom.

  • Citizen X||

    SugarFree's mom raises the total from three to seven.

  • ||

    Pshaw, everyone's had a tilt at that windmill. So...about 300?

  • SugarFree||

    These fallacious statements about my mother are becoming hurtful.

  • ||

    Finally!

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • Paul.||

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

  • ||

    Typical woman. Much like your mom.

  • BigT||

    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.

  • Lee G||

    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.

  • Timon 19||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "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.

  • Virginian||

    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.

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • Conway299||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Riven||

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

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

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • Paul.||

    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.

  • Conway299||

    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?

  • Paul.||

    The same reason what Warty does has to be hidden?

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • Conway299||

    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"

  • ||

    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.

  • Conway299||

    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

  • ||

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

  • Zeb||

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

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • crazyfingers||

    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.

  • mfckr||

    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?

  • Zeb||

    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.

  • crazyfingers||

    Then what was the point of this article exactly?

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

  • crazyfingers||

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

  • SugarFree||

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

  • crazyfingers||

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

  • ||

    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?

  • mfckr||

    Projection?

  • RBS||

    There is only sex. Everything is sex. Do you understand that what I'm telling you is a universal truth?
  • Riven||

    Sex must flow?

  • SugarFree||

    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.

  • ||

    So...it's not dictating shit? Even though that's what you claimed?

  • ||

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

  • crazyfingers||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • crazyfingers||

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

  • mfckr||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

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

  • Granny Weatherwax||

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

  • Conway299||

    Judging what? Not getting married in your 20's?

  • Jalestra||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • crazyfingers||

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

  • SugarFree||

    Ah, the "one true libertarian" troll. So tiresome.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Shut the fuck up, SF - you're not even Scottish.

  • mfckr||

    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?

  • ||

    haters

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

  • Citizen X||

  • RBS||

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

    Deal with it.

    *insert Batista gif*

  • Citizen X||

    Hilarious!

  • Lee G||

    You're so smooth too.

  • Restoras||

    "marry a chick, get a divorce, be miserable"

    You got the order wrong.

  • waffles||

    So why is divorce so expensive?

    Because it's worth it.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    HIYO!!!

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    ^^ this

  • Ken Shultz||

    "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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    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.

  • Riven||

    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?

  • Citizen X||

    Hey look, equality!

  • Ken Shultz||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "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.

  • waffles||

    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!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "-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.

  • Gomerphobe||

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

  • Paul.||

    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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    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?

  • waffles||

    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.

  • Ken Shultz||

    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.

  • Paul.||

    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.

  • Paul.||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • waffles||

    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.

  • Paul.||

    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?

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • Choadintheroad||

    "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.

  • mfckr||

    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.

  • bacon-magic||

    Good article, except for the GamerGate misconception.

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Whatever.

  • Paul.||

    I was just going to say that.

  • Arthur45||

    The prime women haters are gay men.

  • Paul.||

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

  • Illocust||

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

  • commodious spittoon||

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Nicole Brown Simpson?

  • commodious spittoon||

    David Lo Pan?

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    +1 "It's WORKING!"

  • Trshmnstr doesn't recycle||

    Hillary Rodham?

  • Trshmnstr doesn't recycle||

    Hillary Rodham?

  • ||

    Fuck, there's two of them.

  • Restoras||

    And other women.

  • GILMORE™||

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

  • Antilles||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • Antilles||

    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...

  • ||

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

  • Paul.||

    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...

  • commodious spittoon||

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

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • ||

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

    stereotype much?

  • Antilles||

    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...

  • ||

    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!

  • ||

    "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.

  • Antilles||

    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...

  • ThomasD||

    Is he stereotyping lesbians? Or stereotyping guys?

    This just gets confusing.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

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

  • Lee G||

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

  • Paul.||

    There's only one insecure Playa.

    Oh, and:

    get pounced on by Nikki.

    Go on...

  • SugarFree||

    She has icy tits. Or so I've heard.

  • Lee G||

    I've even got video

  • RBS||

    Goddamn, people are dumb.

  • Granny Weatherwax||

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

  • ||

    "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?

  • RBS||

    IT'S A FUCKEN GOD DAMN LION.

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

  • Paul.||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

    That is a lie! That is a damn lie!

  • ||

    When they said "like" a poor person, they were being charitable.

  • Riven||

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

  • ||

    /looks at Episiarch all crooked.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Another boring Rufus story.

  • ||

    Tedious AND Canadian.

    A horrible, unforgivable and horrific combination.

  • ||

    I agree with waffles.

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

  • RBS||

    Buckle up Buckaroo!

  • Citizen X||

    Tedious AND Canadian.

    ...but you repeat yourself.

  • ||

    I'm.....Redundant.

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    HEY. GOT AN OXYMORON FOR YOU

    CANADIAN CULTURE!

    HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

  • Citizen X||

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

  • ||

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

    Worst. Mom. EVAR.

    As if we didn't already know.

  • IceTrey||

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    So, it's like sticking a finger in a vagina then....

    /inappropriate woman-hating man comment

  • ||

    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.

  • Paul.||

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

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

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

  • mfckr||

    Is this crazyfingers again?

  • Riven||

    crazyfingers, redux

  • ||

    Overly sensitive male apparently.

  • Lee G||

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

  • waffles||

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

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

    *chucks ENB on shoulder with fist, man style*

  • ||

    Is it bad that I read that as 'you do get the dicks'.

    I WAS GLANCING!

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    Wow - microaggress MUCH, RUFUS??

  • Loki||

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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    GET 'IM!!!!

    *charges*

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That is just what a beta would say.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    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™

  • Heroic Mulatto||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    She is "for hire".

    Jus' sayin'

  • ||

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

  • ||

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

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    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

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    You calling Loki a cucktarian?

  • ||

    ROFL!

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    Too late.

  • ||

    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.

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    You might find what you are looking for here.

  • ||

    Ah, now I understand! Thank you.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

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

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I took it the same as HM.

    (ew).

  • commodious spittoon||

    Go on...

  • ||

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

    Is he Zeb?

  • Jack Strawb||

    "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]

  • Jack Strawb||

    ..........

    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.

  • Almanian - Micro Trumper||

    cool story, bruh

  • ||

    Define sexual assault.

  • John Galt||

    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.

  • waffles||

    Sex is one hell of a drug.
    #YouGoGirl

  • John Galt||

    It's the fuel stock that powers the reaction.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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".

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Sugar Daddy....I like it.

  • Antilles||

    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...

  • ThomasD||

    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.

  • ||

    '"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.

  • ||

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

    Well? Is there?

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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?

  • mfckr||

    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.

  • John Galt||

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

  • SIV||

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

  • waffles||

    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.

  • commodious spittoon||

  • ||

    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.

  • waffles||

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

  • John Galt||

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

  • Antilles||

    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.

  • perpippity||

    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.

  • commodious spittoon||

    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

  • ||

    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?

  • commodious spittoon||

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

  • ||

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

  • ||

    "I do consider myself a feminist"

    You should consider finding a different name

    Everyone hates feminists

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

  • ||

    Everyone? Ah. An absolutist.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Oh and white

    Blocked. White people are the worst.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    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.

  • Clint Townsend||

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

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    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.

  • R C Dean||

    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.?

  • commodious spittoon||

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

  • ||

    Sure, that's it.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    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.

  • commodious spittoon||

    +1 for whinging

  • ||

    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.

  • ThomasD||

    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...

  • ||

    Reason needs to start lining up someone to replace ENB

    My vote is for Shoe One head

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

  • Azathoth!!||

    I'll second that.

  • ThomasD||

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