At last, a website that does not degrade my worth and dignity!

Today we begin with this “Introduce Yourself” post on the Antimisandry forum, which is accompanied by the traditional ad for online Muslim dating as well as a rarer, more collectible one for the Charles Atlas bodybuilding program:

Hello I ran and operate Heavenly Devils – A Men’s Lifestyle and Entertainment Magazine and came across this site recently. It has become an inspiration for a new section and has helped me in my attempt to make a site for men…

At last!

…that’s both entertaining and informational especially when it comes to issues that degrade men’s worth and their dignity.

As you’ve likely inferred from the phrase “Men’s Lifestyle and Entertainment Magazine”, Heavenly Devils is comprised largely of tits. But while most not-technically-porn sites would stop at Kelly Brook Bikini Shoot 78-J-Omega-Bravo, Heavenly Devils also has a “MEN” section which exists to inform men of the myriad ways in which their worth and dignity is degraded on a daily basis. Y’know, unlike women.

And that’s kinda the problem with trying to cross-pollinate between the lad mag aesthetic and reactionary men-are-oppressed-too whining: The former depicts the world as a vast beer tasting event held at the Playboy Mansion after it’s been specially relocated to a motocross track, while the latter depicts the world as queen’s egg chamber from Aliens. After a dozen or so solid pages of immaculately plucked, dyed and Photoshopped women posing in their underwear and answering interview questions about how sexy they find socially-maladjusted manchildren with bits of corn in their beards, nobody, not even the invertebrate target audience, is going to be able to read an article about how the world isn’t doing enough to service men without thinking “Haaaaaang on a second…”

But this isn’t the biggest problem with the “MEN” section of Heavenly Devils. The biggest problem is that it’s completely fucking stupid. How fucking stupid? Well: A group of about ten teenage boys raped and beat a girl for two hours while a crowd of their friends stood around urging them on and taking photos. She ended up in hospital for five days afterward. Who has suffered here? Men.

Wow, that is completely fucking stupid!

How are men the victims here, though? I mean, “a bunch of men raped a woman, we have photographs because their friends thought it was the perfect ending to a fun night out” not only looks like a pretty open and shut case of men raping women, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that that is, in fact, what actually happened on the night in question. Almost uniquely, the criminal justice system agrees. Not even Charlie, the author of the screed in question, challenges this version of events, yet still claims that men are being victimised here. How could Charlie have possibly reached such a conclusion?

If you answered “Charlie is an Men’s Rights Activist”, you are correct and win this goat. While the rest of the feminised world-except-Siberia relies on politically correct newspeak like “logical arguments” and “things that actually happened”, Charlie instinctively knows that men are oppressed and that the most constructive response to an event like this isn’t to seriously ask why or how it happened, it’s to work backwards in order to justify those instincts. Y’know who doesn’t have instincts? Robots. Charlie, in his first and only wise move, doesn’t suggest women actually caused the gang rape in question, but he does blame a woman for reporting it in a way that makes men look bad. Jouranlist Sandy Banks, misandric harpy that she is, has come to the conclusion that a bunch of young men raping a woman and finding it entertaining is, just maybe, symptomatic of a culture among young men which treats victimisation and misogyny as both entertaining and acceptable. Charlie’s having none of it. Charlie knows the truth. Charlie brings to light one startling fact that Ms. Banks, clearly too busy offering severed testicles to a statue of Lilith, has failed to take into account:

Let’s be honest here these were not men, they were boys.

I think you’ll find the actual honest answer is “No, wait, they were teenagers”. The use of “boy” here, like every other time it’s used to describe someone over the age of 12, is supposed to suggest something innocent and childish, as if it’s possible to accidentally gang rape someone while trying to find your place in the world. And even if we do accept the teenagers in question as “boys” then… Well, that’s even worse, isn’t it? The idea that people don’t even have proper sexualities yet are already using sexuality as a weapon is terrifying and proves that something really is unimaginably fucked up.

Of course who in today’s society knows what a man really is anymore right? Would a man stand up against this sort of thing or would a man have participated in it? [...] According to those that want to degrade the very name man this is exactly what a man would do, stand by and watch or actually participate in such a horrifying act.

Let’s imagine, just for a second, you’re running a Men’s Rights blog. Since you have a propensity to go on self-pitying rants, yet are also aware that your belief system has the structural integrity of yoghurt, you decide to make a list of Emotive Rhetorical Questions Not To Ask and pin it to the wall behind your desk. Now… Surely, surely the fucking pole position on that list would be “Would a man ever participate in rape?”, yes? Because not only is the answer really, really obvious, it’s the kind of answer that’s going to make everyone hate you.

And then, somehow, he makes us hate him even more:

All of these people were youngsters without direction. Youngsters who don’t understand where they fit in this world sexually. Youngsters who still need to learn what’s right and what’s wrong.

Your eyes do not deceive you. They gang raped her because nobody had told them that gang rape was bad.

If someone is vulnerable, screaming and in distress while you and nine buddies take turns ritually humiliating her for no purpose other than rituallly humiliating her, then basic human empathy is enough to tell you that it’s wrong. You do not need laws, because you have tears and screams and blood. What you can be taught is that those things don’t matter when they’re coming from somebody less important than you, something evidenced in, ooh, every heirarchal structure ever created. The most telling part of Charlie “argument”, however, is that if we do accept that these boys needed to be told that gang rape was bad, then we have to also accept that men are inherently gang rapists unless forced not to be. This is the same person who, a paragraph earlier, was complaining that society is out to degrade men. Once again, the only real misandrist involved is the guy complaining about misandry.

So who do we blame for these children not learning what they should have learned by now? The media who report negative stories about how men act and how it’s there nature to be violent has a huge role day in and day out. The laws this country abides by where the man usually loses everything from custody to money if the case involves a “weaker” woman. The law enforcement agencies who are quick to blame the man for domestic violence forever tarnishing his reputation. The women who falsely accuse men of rape to benefit in some way. The economy where a man will more than likely lose his job faster because he is paid more and puts in more hours on average than a woman.

No, wait, he actually does blame women after all. Sorry.