The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Why Do They Make It So Easy?

Posted on | September 18, 2014 | 51 Comments

Feminist blogger @joyintorah18 RT’d the above image on Twitter, which was noticed by MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) Mike Buchanan, and someone then called it to my attention. OK, so who is this feminist? Not the naked lady in the picture, I mean @joyintorah18?

Joy is a Canadian who runs a site called “Mancheeze,” which she describes as “dedicated to critiquing the Manosphere, a loose connection of anti-feminist/misogynist websites run by men.” And she recently put up a post with this headline:

Why I’m A Radical Feminist:
OPEN THREAD Without MRA’s UPDATED

It seems that Joy is running a sort of online clearinghouse for this stuff, in other words. To quote from her post:

A couple of female commenters, Wendy and chiiill, have expressed they are happily in relationships with men. One of the things MRA’s and other male supremacists like to do is say feminists hate men. This is clearly not true. Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.
Granted there are some women, like myself, who for political and personal reasons will not have a sexual relationship with men but it’s NOT the only relationship you can have with a person.
I have male friends. They’re just very few and far between and I don’t see them sexually so it removes much of the problem. Men who can carry on a great friendship with me are far more valuable to ME.
I consciously choose to have sexual relationships strictly with women but there is ONE man who I did have a sexual relationship with and who I fell in love with.
This whole ‘manhater’ line is just a cop out projection that they use to woman hate.

There are so many things wrong with this “argument” that it could be mined endlessly — the Comstock Lode of feminist neurosis — but Joy is not significant enough to deserve such labors, and is not as creatively crazy as Witchwind. So let me just focus on this odd sentence: “Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.”

It is a fact that Andrea Dworkin was legally married to a man. She was a lesbian and her husband, John Stoltenberg, is a gay man who first met Dworkin in 1974. They lived together for about 30 years. But to say that Dworkin “was married happily” is to abuse the definition of “married” as well as to abuse the definition of “happily.”

Was Andrea Dworkin ever happy about anything? Perhaps her rants against men and sex made her “happy” in the same way the blitzkrieg of Poland made Hitler “happy,” but that’s about it.

“Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.”

A sentence like that could never be written by any honest person who cared about facts, but Joy is a Canadian feminist.

Let’s talk about John Stoltenberg, the gay man to whom Andrea Dworkin was, we are told, “married happily.” In 1989, Stoltenberg published Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice, in which he “argues that male sexual identity is entirely a political and ethical construction whose advantages grow out of injustice.” In 1994, he published The End of Manhood, about which a reviewer wrote, “The notion of manhood itself, says Stoltenberg, is a sham, a trap — and those who would redeem it or remythologize it are kidding themselves, for manhood is a mask, incompatible with truly human selfhood.”

To put it as bluntly as possible, Stoltenberg’s attitude toward masculinity is the attitude of Aesop’s fox toward the grapes: He pretends to scorn that which he desires, but is unable to possess.

Any psychologist would recognize that Stoltenberg’s personality is warped by masochistic tendencies and — hey! — did I mention he lived with Andrea Dworkin for 30 years?

John Stoltenberg’s life, career and ideas are a testimony to the truth of something Glenn Reynold recently remarked:

I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves.

This is exactly right. Sane, happy, normal people don’t need “movements” to validate their self-worth. However, people who are “broken” — unhappy, abnormal and/or mentally ill — are continually chasing after some cause, some crusade, some source of secular salvation that inspires them to immanetize the eschaton.

If they can’t save the world, these deranged souls can at least make themselves believe they are morally superior to the rest of us — we who are sane, happy and normal. This would be harmless, were it not for the fact that such “movements” are supported by intellectuals who turn these crackpot crusades into powerful political forces that result in the enactment of policies that make life miserable for everybody. And so we return to the Canadian feminist Joy, and her weird claim: “Andrea Dworkin, an amazing radical feminist, was married happily.”

About six weeks after Andrea Dworkin died in 2005 — she was 58 and had been nearly crippled by damage to her knees resulting from her morbid obesity — Ariel Levy published a long article about Dworkin in New York magazine called “The Prisoner of Sex.” Go read that article (Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five) and then tell me how “happily” Dworkin was married. It’s absurd even to argue about it, and if not for this Canadian feminist idiot Joy, I wouldn’t bother.

Go read Joy’s “radical feminist” post and laugh at the absurdity of it: She’s arguing with a blog commenter and, congratulating herself on what she considers her triumphant victory, she then struts before her readership: “Praise me, for I have slain the dreaded MRA!”

A cheap stunt, that. At least when I stomp a troll like Bill Schmalfeldt, I manage to make a clever joke or two. Joy is neither clever nor humorous. The fact that she’s got an entire blog devoted to trolling MRAs is a sad testimony to the pathetic emptiness of her life.

 

Comments

51 Responses to “Why Do They Make It So Easy?”

  1. M. Thompson
    September 18th, 2014 @ 8:39 pm

    It’s the desire to normalize their insanity and a complete lack of self awareness.

  2. kilo6
    September 18th, 2014 @ 8:44 pm

    *Sigh*

    “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

    – St. Augustine, City of God

    This “empowerment” feminists speak of is the new slavery. If the most important thing in your life is who & how you like to screw, you might be a slave to your passions.

  3. Why Do They Make It So Easy? | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    September 18th, 2014 @ 8:52 pm

    […] Why Do They Make It So Easy?. […]

  4. Dean Esmay
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

    This particular one is particularly deranged; when she engages in argument at all, she is not only humorlous, but she’s outright abusive in her dishonesty. I mean it goes beyond just being snarky to just flat making things up. She goes by several online monikers but she is instantly recognizable by her crazed and deranged style, her tendency to completely change the subject when she’s proven wrong or even challenged on a difficult point. She’s part of a little group who’s been obsessed with selling a narrative that we’re “dangerous” and “misogynists” for a couple years now. That refrain has been picked up from some in the mainstream media, though I predict that too will eventually pass, since we won’t go away, we won’t shut up, and the vast majority of things we actually advocate for (save the occasional hyperbolic rant someone will quote from a few years) are things that everyday normal, sane people should have no trouble with, or might argue with but can see the merits of. This particular critic is symptomatic of a greater problem for ideological Gender Feminism though: its complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It can only win arguments with well-poisoning and bullying, and that only lasts so long when your opponents stand up to it and won’t be shamed into silence.

  5. robertstacymccain
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:07 pm

    This thing she did — setting up some random blog commenter as a proxy for all MRAs, then waving his bloody scalp around — is cheap work. And for her to then hold up Andrea Dworkin as the role model of feminist marital bliss — absurd!

    Yeah, ladies, go find some self-loathing gay man and marry him — that’s true feminist happiness!

  6. Anon Y. Mous
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

    Never mind. Reading helped.

  7. Bluedrgn
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

    Someone who believes that men are human and have rights.

    MRA stands for Men’s Rights Advocate

  8. DukeLax
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

    Deans most famous line “We won’t be shamed into silence anymore”!!! Rock on bro!!! that was a rallying cry for many!!

  9. DukeLax
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:40 pm

    I don’t believe this insanity would have gotten anywhere near as far as it did…without Law Enforcement getting federal dollars for their participation in manufacturing the faulty and inflammatory statistics.

  10. DukeLax
    September 18th, 2014 @ 9:43 pm

    So many guys are now walking away from heter0-relationships….or are they being forced out for self protection purposes???

  11. RS
    September 18th, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

    So, I popped over and read the post. Fascinating stuff. The fact that she becomes increasingly shrill in the face of a very reasonable question, to wit: “why must the personal be political when it is contrary to what one desires?” Stated differently, when faced with two equally benign alternatives, why choose “A” because of political considerations over “B,” when one really desires “B?” That is the question Progressives must answer. Yet they cannot. And their entire reality is predicated upon convincing the rest of us to do precisely that.

  12. TheSharpeful
    September 18th, 2014 @ 10:50 pm

    Wait… isn’t Joy Sael Palani? That crazy person that was stalking all the MRM videos a few months back?

  13. Paul Johnson
    September 18th, 2014 @ 11:00 pm

    Yep.

  14. DannyboyCdnMra
    September 18th, 2014 @ 11:02 pm

    Joy’s page is a wealth of comedy, which I’m sure is not her intention. 😀

  15. Matthew Lane
    September 18th, 2014 @ 11:24 pm

    “The fact that she’s got an entire blog devoted to trolling MRAs is a sad testimony to the pathetic emptiness of her life.

    But not nearly as sad as the fact that she only allows three people to comment on her blog, the three people she can find who agree with her…. Which essentially means the only people visiting her site are 3 people who agree with her, and a whole heap of people looking for a laugh at her expense.

  16. ChandlersGhost
    September 18th, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

    It might just be all of the voices chiming in.

  17. Mens Rights Movement
    September 18th, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

    Women cannot control their artificial wish of wearing provocative clothes!!! Why should men be blamed for lack of self control? A man get an erection when he sees a woman women wearing skimpy clothes. It is natural and no man must be blamed for it. It is every man right to feel erected whenever stimulated……. but still a large majority of Man do not jump on women merely because they get erection stimulated by women wearing skimpy clothes. A large majority of Men have enough self control.

  18. ChandlersGhost
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:27 am

    So…Turns out Andrea Dworkin’s male slave is kinda weird.

  19. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:34 am

    Do I really have to point out to these women again that it is possible for women to “sexually objectify” men? Do I really have to point out that if a fit, toned guy is walking around wearing nothing more than a pair of shorts he’s going to get stared at. Might not be as much as a woman wandering around naked – and as an aside I’d like to point out that the men I associate with would be the first people to strip off a jacket or shirt to give said naked woman to cover up – but he is going to get stared at and drooled over, hence, objectified.

    Is there absolutely no component of physical attraction in the lesbian world? Do they all just assume that there is no such thing as physical attraction because physical attraction is like a unicorn in the radfem lesbian community? Or – and this is my vote – is it that they find themselves attracted to people who want nothing to do with them and so they have to throw a fit and scream bloody murder about men being rapist pigs?

  20. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:38 am

    As a working statistician, I can assure you that 89.7% of all statistics are based upon actual data and calculated by degreed statisticians. And of the total number of degreed statisticians, 73.2% have PhDs, 55.1% from Ivy League colleges. But note that only 32.4% of LE statistics are faulty and/or inflammatory, while a full 97.3% of all statistics are totally pulled out of someone’s bum.

    Hope I cleared that up for you.

  21. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:46 am

    They make no logical sense of any kind. The only thing you can do is either walk away, or humor the insane.

  22. Daniel Freeman
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:55 am

    Once you accept Patriarchy theory, every double standard makes perfect sense, because there is no comparison between the experiences of the Evil Oppressors (men and boys) and the Struggling Oppressed (women and girls). The reasoning is ungrounded and basically promotes selective sociopathy against males, but it has enough internal consistency to appeal to (deranged) smart people.

  23. mark mooroolbark
    September 19th, 2014 @ 1:08 am

    Poor sad, old woman. I almost feel sorry for her.

  24. wgone
    September 19th, 2014 @ 1:55 am

    Why are you wasting your time with this imbicile of an attention whore. She just scourers the men’s websites with her friends up-voting their negative comments to make it look like a balanced conversation. Oh, they hardly ever contribute anything – it requires objectivity, intelligence rationality etc. And feminists hate to be silenced by intellect, just ask Sarkesian or Watson. Feminists don’t know what these things are – why do you think they take something unproven and non disprovable like “Patriarchy theory” and even call it a theory! These anti academics don’t even know what a theory is – but they can vote – and that’s a genie you can never put back in the box. They are just disruptive – for the 60 years that they have been free to study and produce – what is their greatest achievement sheryll sandberg? Really – why dont they start inventing, creating the next biggest revolution in tech, arts or music? What is western civilization getting back for its investment in the feminism experiment? All the want to do is invade already made male spaces and make them feminine – they tried it with Athiesm, Now they are trying it with gaming. It starts off with pseudo scientific cherry picked research – following by victim-hood and whining.

  25. Adjoran
    September 19th, 2014 @ 2:33 am

    They are quite sane. There is a big difference between stupidity and insanity. Not every crazy idea or person who advocates one is insane. Most, in fact, just followed a simple idea that happened to also be wrong and stupid to its logical next steps.

    The why of it is even simpler. It’s a typical leftist construct: their lives have not turned out as they wished, and they do not wish to take responsibility for their failures, mistakes, inadequacies, and character flaws. Therefore, they assign blame to others, assume the mantle of victim, and demand redress from people they never even met.

    Having 3.5 billion men to blame for everything that is wrong in your life means never having to look in the mirror in the harsh light of day.

  26. Feminists: why do they make it so easy? | Justice for men & boys
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:26 am

    […] Yesterday we published a short blog piece concerning an image of a scantily-clad young lady on ‘Mancheeze’, a woeful blog run by a Canadian feminist, ‘Joy’. Her name may be ironic, given she’s a feminist and therefore by definition joyless. It was used for a particularly glum character in the British sitcom Drop the Dead Donkey. The piece got plenty of hits, notably through Twitter, and it inspired someone on the website ‘The Other McCain’ to write a piece about ‘Mancheeze’ which is well worth reading. Enjoy. […]

  27. Joseph Michael Reyes
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:55 am

    A thoughtful, accurate insight into the rants of someone with more issues than Time and Life combined.

  28. leolox
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:16 am

    By attacking some nebulous fantasy known as the “left” you discredit your arguments. But the bit on that Dworkin nutcase is correct.

  29. K-Bob
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:35 am

    Do “Men’s Rights Activists” even exist? I know there are specific rights groups focused on, say, divorce law, but isn’t that category more for humor’s sake?

  30. concern00
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:45 am

    #YesAllWomen should get their kit off for our assessment.

  31. Brave New Man
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:15 am

    Quite liked the story of the lesbian feminist living with her gay best friend. Apparently, it’s a marriage.

  32. NikFromNYC
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:59 am

    Left: The Islamic State is not Islamic.
    Right: The Earth is 6000 years old.

    Take your pick, neither is but a fantasy, though, but culture warring mainstream cults.

  33. texlovera
    September 19th, 2014 @ 8:24 am

    Weak “women” have weak logic. And you can include Stoltenberg in that group.

  34. The Leftist Mind Explained By @RSMcCain And @Instapundit | The Camp Of The Saints
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:03 am

    […] McCain picks-up from […]

  35. Quartermaster
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:41 am

    For the sake of the insane, it would be better if they were placed at the Funny Farm where life is gay all day long.

  36. Quartermaster
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:41 am

    As strange as she was.

  37. Quartermaster
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:41 am

    But, but, but…erection is consent.

  38. kilo6
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:49 am

    The left does exist, although some argue it’s within a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will advance the pre-determined agenda (controlled opposition within a Hagelian dialectic). Not sure if that’s your opinion. Reading Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope

    The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”

    -Tragedy and Hope, pg 1248 (emphasis mine)

    The above quote represents the CFR, establishment GOP, Karl Rove mindset and is likely why the GOP prefers “squish” candidates.

    However, I can not take this to the endpoint of not voting at all or adopting an overly sceptical “conspiratorial” view of things.

    If you read Herbert Marcuse, David Horowitz (former “New Left” founder and advocate of Frankfurt School strategies) or Andrew Breitbart’s critique of Marcuse’s “grievance group” divide and conquer strategy (see Righteous indignation pg 121 etc) which created the “fill-in-the-blank Studies” programs at colleges, there’s ample evidence that the “left” is real.

  39. Geosystem
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:55 am

    As if you need any more proof: http://t.co/EosiJT3xby

    Matt Walsh eviscerated one such Special Snowflake: “I’ll check my white male privilege right after you check your arrogant liberal assumptions.” Kira (and the commenters who believe this pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theory nonsense) are just one more proof of Stacy’s observation that “sane, happy, normal women have no need for feminism”. Heck, I would even say that *any* woman with a lick of critical thinking, happiness, or sanity has no need for it.

  40. Geosystem
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:01 pm

    I think you answered your own question. As cuckoo-for-CocoPuffs as these SLWs are, they are sadly the ones controlling much of the dialogue, as you noted in #GamerGate. The pushback is finally starting thanks to gamers finally deciding to stop enabling their horsecrap, but it’s a long and bumpy road for these whackjobs to finally return to the loony fringe where they belong.

  41. Geosystem
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

    And by SLWs I mean SJWs. As in Social Justice Warriors.

  42. Judah
    September 19th, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

    JoyinTorah seems to be celebrating a different holy book than the one we have in my synagogue.

  43. Wombat_socho
    September 19th, 2014 @ 2:11 pm

    Be careful what you ask for.

  44. Paul Krendler
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

    “At least when I stomp a troll like Bill Schmalfeldt, I manage to make a clever joke or two.”

    Only two? Piker.

  45. DukeLax
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:58 pm

    lol….and entertainingly also!!!

  46. Daniel Freeman
    September 19th, 2014 @ 10:11 pm

    AVfM recently hosted an international conference on men’s issues, held in Detroit. Naturally, different speakers focused on different issues, but it was more a matter of expertise in the one than disinterest in the others.

  47. Jean Valjean
    September 20th, 2014 @ 7:08 am

    The police told the people in my town to lock their car doors and keep valuables out of sight so that thieves won’t be tempted to break in.

    Are the cops blaming the victim here?

    If I took the feminist stance and put my new PS4 on the front seat next to a stack of twenties then I would be outraged that anyone would expect me to change my behavior to prevent someone else from stealing from me.

    Sure, we all have a “right” to be free from theft (or rape), but thieves and rapists aren’t reasonable people.

    Once your stuff gets stolen then it’s gone (usually for good).

    And once you get raped, well, you can’t get unraped can you?

    Women are not children even if feminists think they are. Being equal means you are responsible for your own health and safety and have no right to put that burden on anyone else.

    There are rapers in the world and there are gold diggers, paternity fraud, and abusive wives.

    Each of us has an obligation to protect ourselves from those things.

    The moment a person puts the responsibility of their own protection onto someone else is the moment that they guarantee that sooner or later they will be or feel victimized.

  48. K-Bob
    September 20th, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

    Interesting. Detroit has lost its manhood, so that’s either supreme irony, or a much needed correction.

  49. FMJRA 2.0: Midnight Rider : The Other McCain
    September 21st, 2014 @ 6:04 am

    […] Why Do They Make It So Easy? […]

  50. Daniel Freeman
    September 22nd, 2014 @ 10:24 pm

    My understanding is that it was a deliberate, symbolic choice. Men have issues, Detroit has issues, the men of Detroit have issues — and those issues affect everyone who depends on them.