Guest Post by Tyler Narragansett

13 Jun

I’ve been a wee bit busy these past few days working on things for the conference, but don’t think I didn’t notice that stupid article at Policy Mic


The 8 Biggest Lies Men’s Rights Activists Spread About Women


Tyler has a few thoughts on Julianne’s work and he doesn’t mince words when sharing them either! I kinda like Tyler alot.



Femscreed Teardown

by Tyler Narragansett


1.  The most prominent feminists, with few exceptions, do hate men and spout a consistent narrative blaming them for most of the world’s ills.  JudgyBitch has done a great job of demonstrating how full of shit they are.  They may be a small group, but they’re also the public face of feminism.  Show me a feminist that disavows them, and I may respect that person, but anyone who doesn’t is implicitly accepting that the screechy feminist shrews in media have a viewpoint that reflects the movement.


2.  Chivalry is a female privilege.  Calling it benevolent sexism is just playing with words.  It’s ‘sexist’ because it is based on gender, which any privilege for women is going to be.  It’s benevolent because it helps them, kind of like a privilege.  So yeah, female privilege.  It’s females having the privilege of being spared (in the historical meaning) from the gross/brutal realities of force and conflict, and in modern times it’s just treating them extra nice because they’re girls.  Any person who argues that being treated nicer is harmful is a fucking idiot.  Here’s an example that might illustrate this more clearly: it’s in vogue these days to be extra super nice to gays, because they’ve had it so rough dontcha know.  Never mind that nowadays most of the abuse historically associated with being gay just isn’t a thing anymore.  Yes, bullies exist, but it’s not what it was.  That politeness does have a chilling effect on people’s interactions, it puts up a wall, and that’s why I don’t tell people I have to be around.  But ‘making it a little harder for them to know the real me’ is not homophobia, and it’s not harm.  If that’s the worst that happens to me for my sexuality, fantastic.  It just blows my mind that anyone can consider politeness ‘oppression.’


3.  Her argument in this point is based on statistics, so let’s look at those.

  a. Her statement that 50% of men who want primary custody get it, is based on an article that cites no sources, and just says ‘an estimated 50%.’  So she doesn’t get that one.

  b. She does link to a good set of figures about custody outcomes, but strangely she manages to report the numbers wrong, harming her credibility.  Instead of the 10-15% of fathers who get sole custody which she reports, it’s actually a little over 6%, based on the numbers SHE LINKS TO.  /derp.  Actually, when they do go to evaluation or trial, it’s 11%, but those cases account for only 9% of all instances.  So yeah, 6% is the pertinent figure.  By contrast, mothers get sole custody 63% of the time.

  c. Trial numbers do matter some, though, because that’s where the rubber meets the road.  What happens in trial certainly plays a part in pretrial negotiation.  Thankfully, in cases of trial, joint custody happens 40% of the time, so that’s better than nothing.  However, mothers get sole custody 44% of the time, as opposed to 11% of the time for fathers.  Two true statements can be made here: it is most likely (of any outcome) that the mother will be awarded sole custody by the court.  It is also four times more likely that mothers will get sole custody than fathers.

  d.  According to other numbers at her source, 82% of mothers want sole custody for themselves, while 33% of fathers want sole custody.  35% of fathers want joint custody, while 15% of mothers do.  So, while mothers are twice as likely to want sole custody, fathers are twice as likely to want joint custody.  I will concede that 29% of fathers want no custody, while only 3% of mothers do.

e.  Conclusion: she distorts the numbers through ignorance or malice to support her thesis.


4.  God, she is such a dumb cunt on this one.  Not one tiny bit of defensibility.  She contrasts male circumcision to people sewing up baby vaginas.  Who the fuck is comparing those two?!  Yes, sewing up a cooch is worse than circumcision.  That doesn’t mean circumcision isn’t still bad.  As for the health implications?  Yes, female circumcisions are going to lead to a lot of complications, because they’re only done in fucking second and third world countries.  Male circumcision meanwhile is usually done in sterile conditions in first world countries.  And the health benefits of male circumcision?  It reduces the risk of infection for the stds listed from .5% to .25%.  Big. Fucking. Whoop.  Male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcision (when done in the same country), and how much of a heartless cunt do you have to be to defend cutting ANY baby?


5.  I don’t think it’s a defensible argument that feminism is responsible for wars; the person who said that is overreaching.  Curious that she chose that one radical statement (which I’ve never seen before in the manosphere) to base the actual text of this point on, unrelated to the title of the point.  And by curious I mean she’s a disingenuous bitch.

Still, to argue her point, avoiding conscription IS a female privilege, and it will be until women can legally be drafted, or the draft is banned in some meaningful way.  ‘You haven’t been drafted yet’ is not the same as being safe.  And being spared from being dragged to a foreign country against your will to fight, kill, and possibly die for the country that did it to you IS QUITE THE FUCKING PRIVILEGE, YOU UNGRATEFUL CUNT.  Jesus christ, I hate this bitch for thinking that complaining about a privilege means ‘it doesn’t count’ that you have it.


6.  ‘Media’ is such a large and nebulous thing, for which little to no hard data exists, I’m not going to engage in that debate.  For every show I can cite with a bumbling dad, or some hateful bitch getting a pass, she can complain that in this one show the daughter wasn’t allowed to date while the boys were.  We can discuss the gender treatment in any specific show, but we cannot in aggregate.  My impression (vagueness of word intentional) is that men are portrayed rather shittily and reductively in media, but for all I know they could be portraying women that way as well.  I’d be fine writing off popular media altogether as a shit-tastic representation of real human interaction.


7.  Again the bitch can’t even copy-paste numbers.  It’s not 2-8% of rapes that are shown to be false, it’s 7%, based on exactly one study, which encompassed eight communities over a 2-year period, and 2059 reported cases.  Not exactly definitive.  That’s the only study the report says was done in the US, and the gender debate is about US policy and social attitude about gender, and nowhere else.  We may take side trips to discuss england or canada or whatever, but all anyone really cares about is the US.

So is false rape reporting endemic?  No substantive numbers (beyond that one limited study) exist to prove either way.  What MRAs complain about is the fact that the identity of the accused is not protected by law, as that of the accuser is.  Additionally, the only women who have ever been arrested for falsely reporting rape (based on media coverage) had to do it multiple times before being arrested.  So even if I can’t prove false rape reports happen often, I can prove that they’re likely to go unpunished, and are more damaging for the man than the woman.


8.  In EVERY other sphere of society, failure to clearly state ‘no’ or physically resist is taken as implied consent.  Police interactions, security checkpoints, contract law, everywhere that consent is a meaningful concept assumes that if you’re there, you’re participating, and you aren’t verbally or physically resisting, then your participation is consensual, and you cannot legally argue that it wasn’t.  So yeah bitch, absence of a firm ‘no’ is most definitely a yes.  Welcome to the grown-ups table, wanna trade in your sippy cup?

Also, she’s just plain lying that feminists have not redefined rape to include ‘if she’s drunk.’  JB’s done a great job of exploding this bullshit too.  If they’re both drunk, is she raping him?  If she crashes her car into someone while she’s drunk, are they responsible for fixing her car?  In what other facet of society does being drunk exempt you from the consequences of decisions you make while drunk?  None.  You chose to get fucked up, you’re responsible for the consequences, even if you’re not in control of yourself when you do them.  Disclaimer, if she’s passed out, that’s not implied consent.


Her conclusion is that tired old horseshit that feminism is about equality.  Nope.  It’s about women.  If rape is so important to them, how about all the rape going on in prisons?  If bodily autonomy is so important, where’s the feminist article decrying birth control sabotage.  Feminists aren’t doing shit for men and men’s issues, and this cunt is using absurd arguments, outright wrong statistics, and a cavernous lack of fucking compassion to try and tear down the people who are.


In summation, fuck this dumb slag to the deepest pits of every metaphysical, moral, and social hell that exists.  I hope she’s sterile.


P.S. I realized that even the title of her piece is mostly horseshit.  It’s supposedly lies MRAs tell about women.  But only one of the points is actually about MRAs claiming something about women, number 7 (false rape allegations).


1, 2, and 8 are about feminists, which are not synonymous with women.

4 (the circumcision one) isn’t about women at all, but rather about boys.  No one is saying female circumcision is good, they’re saying male circumcision is bad.

3, 5, and 6 are about legal and media attitudes toward women, which is not something about women themselves.


She gets another brown star of shittiness.




6 Responses to “Guest Post by Tyler Narragansett”

  1. Paul Murray June 14, 2014 at 04:09 #

    “So is false rape reporting endemic?”
    ‘endemic’ means ‘only occuring in a specified area’. Kangaroos are endemic to Australia. Not the word you were after.


  2. EWK June 14, 2014 at 18:33 #

    If my math is right, 7% of 2059 is 144. In 2 communities over a 2 year span, that makes it a scarily common occurrence!


  3. mikeinauckland June 14, 2014 at 21:49 #

    Bro I don’t know that calling people bitches and cunts and slags serves any purpose.
    Just makes us all look kinda hateful and angry (and inarticulate).


  4. Jim June 14, 2014 at 21:57 #

    Who gives a shit. They think that about us anyway. Hell, they MAKE UP reasons to hate us so what’s the difference? Besides, he’s not wrong.


  5. Tyler June 15, 2014 at 11:48 #

    According to the paper she links to, it’s 140 across 8 communities during two years. That’s about .73 per month. It doesn’t say what the population was in those communities, or what their relative crime rates were. It also doesn’t distinguish between ‘drag into the bushes rape’ and date rape.


  6. Tyler June 15, 2014 at 12:08 #

    That’s pretty much my view of it. There’s a time for calm reasoned discourse, and that’s when both parties are seeking an understanding of truth in good faith. But when you’re dealing with someone as willfully ignorant (or good old fashioned disingenuous) as the author of that article, there’s no consensus to be reached, and you may as well say what you think. And I think rather ….. poorly …… of her and her article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: