Pimping Bitches For Money: The Misogyny of Mocked Misogyny

So, I wrote this piece a few days ago and AVfM published it. It is about (among other things) how male sexuality is demonized/devalued. It is about how men need to learn self-respect and to value their selves in totality—including the importance of valuing their sexuality.

I wrote that men should stop giving away cock like it’s worthless. Perhaps if men valued their sexuality, they’d be less inclined to inundate women with emails, messages, and pick-up lines. Perhaps if men actually valued their sexuality, the ladies at Jezebel wouldn’t be so inclined to complain about all the free-cock oppression. Perhaps if men actually valued their sexuality, men wouldn’t degrade themselves by harassing, begging, and inundating women with dick pics and pleas for their attention and affection. Just sayin’…if men had self-respect, this wouldn’t happen. No self-respecting man is going to do such things.

It wasn’t a too terribly complicated message. In fact, it’s a rather boring message that I dressed up in some brutally honest words—my kind of “pit-bull savagery.” Learn to have self-respect. Don’t degrade yourself by begging women for their affection and attention. Don’t send women unsolicited dick pics. Don’t set yourself up for gobs of rejection and then complain that women don’t respect you.

Like I wrote, it’s not a too terribly complicated message. Hell, I don’t even think it’s controversial. What could be wrong with guys learning to respect themselves and value their sexuality?

Well, if you live in the Manboobz universe of David Futrelle, this message is pure misogyny. According to Boobz, men who have self-respect and value their sexuality—they are on a “cock strike” against “stuck-up ladies” who need to be taken “down a peg or two.” According to Manboobz, if men have enough self-respect to value their sexuality such that sometimes they may take the liberty of telling a woman no, these men are simply being “giant dicks.”

Telling a woman “no” is misogyny. Reminding a woman that no means no—that’s pure hatred of women because women should be entitled to all the free-cock they want from a man, even if the man isn’t interested in giving it to her. (Sounds like boobz may be a rape apologist?)

In reality, the dignity of a man has nothing to do with misogyny. If a man has enough self-respect to decline a woman’s sexual advances because she doesn’t meet his standards—that is not necessarily misogyny. It’s having standards…and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is a good thing, but to Boobz, standards are misogyny…and for the casual reader of his blog, misogyny is the click-bait he uses to peddle his brand of rubbish and lies. It’s an excuse to extract money from women.

This is where the mocking of misogyny becomes misogyny. He doesn’t care about the women who bother to read his blog. Though he may have a few days in which he invites women and other commenters to share and cry about their troubles, any good pimp knows the importance of faking like he cares. Any good pimp knows how to manipulate the emotions of “his bitches.”

He preys on women who have legitimate concerns about misogyny, equality, sexism, and other cultural problems that affect all of us. When Boobz drafts a click-bait headline like the one below, he doesn’t care about why men are sending dick pics and bombarding women with emails and messages through online dating services. He’s not looking for solutions to these problems. He’s not saying that men who do such things may lack self-respect because the value of male sexuality is often viewed as less-than-worthless in our culture.

What he cares about is how to craft rubbish and lies, how to craft click-bait headlines to drive traffic to his site…and how to exploit the fears of women who donate to his site.

Exploiting women is a form of misogyny…and this exploitation of women’s fears and concerns about misogyny, equality, sexism and other cultural problems is Boobz’ source of income. In this way, Boobz has more in common with an abusive pimp than he has with any heroic slayer of misogyny. Boobz is the misogyny that he mocks. Boobz is a misogyny-pimp.

Aside from insisting that men should learn to value their selves in totality, I wrote about telling a woman that her soul was dog-shit. It was a line inspired by the dark comedy and Christmas classic—“Bad Santa.” I also wrote that men actually do handle rejection fairly well, considering how much rejection men actually endure. And so, I wrote about this hypothetical situation whereby the gobs of rejection typically endured by men was reversed, pointing out that women would typically become incredibly hostile about such rejection. Here is what I wrote:

Women typically feel entitled to free cock. Don’t believe me? Rejected girls are often the most vindictive, hateful, and slanderous cunts of thunder ever unleashed upon the world of men. Try telling a girl no. Tell her, after she makes it clear that she wants your cock, that you’re not interested in giving it to her. Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket. Tell her that she is just a white girl with bird lips and that she is never going to be any good at sucking cock and that she needs to stop pretending that she is doing any favors and learn to compensate for her inadequacies by becoming “kinky.” Tell her that her vapid life of shoes and pop-culture and materialism are soulless pursuits of dog-shit. Watch what happens. If you Jez-ladies wanna know what “hostile” means, see this rejected woman.

I never encouraged anybody to treat another person in this way. (And I never would encourage that kind of abusive behavior.) It’s vicious on purpose—to illustrate the callousness with which men are routinely rejected. It illustrates the depths of degradation that some men are willing to endure for the chance of getting affection, attention, and sex from a woman. I actually encouraged folks to consider how some women *might* react to being treated this way. Nobody was actually rejected. Nobody was actually told that her soul was dog-shit.

However, women in Boobz’ comment threads were actually hostile about this hypothetical rejection. Boobz emotionally manipulated readers of his blog (effectively treating them like a pimp does “his bitches”) with his click-bait headline and blatant lies. These hostile women were proxy to the rejection of a woman that never actually happened…and they didn’t handle it very well. In fact, there is a lot of hostility in his comment threads—anecdotally proving another one of my points.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…or the fury of women who were fake-scorned.

Lies, Slithering, and Weasel Boobz: Washing the Walls of Smeared Excrement

I admit it. It all starts with a lie.

Lie No.1. 

Boobz claims that my screencap (the one not meant as part of my rewrite, but was posted by mistake via the editors at AVfM) is a forgery, saying that it is the result of the “AVfM Google forgery technique,” a process of sneak-typing the word “man” into the search bar to make it look like the search results are skewed. This is what he wrote in his piece of shit article, Worse than Wrong: A Voice for Men resorts to phony screenshot and outright lying to avoid admitting embarrassing error [UPDATE: Story gets stranger]

This is clearly speculation on the part of Boobz as Boobz has no proof or any kind of evidence at all (at least not that he has so far published) that the screencap is altered in any way. In fact, Boobz doesn’t even have evidence that the screencap is “phony.” He even admits in GWW’s comment thread that the “screenshot doesn’t seem to have been photoshopped.”

It is simply a screencap and that’s all. As such, we all agree. Nothing about the screencap has been “photoshopped,” or MS painted, or tampered with in any way. There is no question about it; the screencap is weird, but contrary to Boobz’ claim, there is nothing “phony” about it.  Here is the screencap in question:

Here is a screencap of the email sent to Dean Esmay about this screencap and its weird results.

As everyone can see, the only claim made by me about it is that it was taken today (which was 6.14.2013) and that I had no idea how search engines work. It was not submitted as part of the rewrite, which you can view here. It was not submitted as any kind of proof about my prior claim. It was submitted as proof of my confusion about my search results. (Scroll down a bit for my evolving understanding and hypothesis about these weird results.)

Since 6.14.2013, the weird results (as evidenced in the aforementioned screencap) happened at least 4 different times. I have screencaps of each and here are the other three.

The above screencaps are compressed into one .jpg for size considerations. Other than that, no alterations have been made to them. (The yellow lines on the far right screencap are an artifact resulting from my video capture software, which was running at the time of capture.) I’ve made a screencap video showing one occurrence of these weird search results in live-time. (Pay close attention to the first 90 seconds or so of the video.) I am more than willing to submit the full-size (individual and uncompressed) screencaps, as well as the aforementioned video, for expert analysis to show that no tampering ever occurred. They are in no way “phony,” “forged,” “faked,” altered or tampered. However, they are certainly weird. There is no question about it. Notice how the business results do not appear in the upper right corners of the pages. Also notice the contrast between the search bar terms and the terms listed at the bottom of the page. You will also notice in the video, at about the 18 second mark and under the search bar of the first attempted search, a momentary message popped up to indicate that “Google Instant” was unavailable.

The hypothesis I’ve developed over the past few days about the weirdness of these search results revolves around how Google’s Instant search results are affected by my broadband satellite internet service and the latency (lag) of that service. The service is very fast, but the latency of the service is about 20x greater than terrestrial internet service. Data has to be beamed off-planet and then back. (Gamers who play online first-person-shooter video games can tell you all about lag. Anybody who has ever tried to play a first-person-shooter video game online via this sort of satellite broadband internet will add many swear words to their fucking descriptions about lag.) If my hypothesis is correct, the “Google Instant” search results are somehow encumbered (or made to glitch) by this latency.

If my hypothesis is correct, does this mean that Boobz is lying when he makes claims about my screencap being a forgery or phony? Does this mean that Boobz is lying when he claims this?

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this:

Or this one, which is contrary to Boobz’ previous claim about “photoshopping:”

Or this:

Notice how Boobz slithers to escape the possibility of making a false accusation here:

Here is some more slithering. It’s a bit like a news channel’s declarative statements that end with question marks. Jon Stewart breaks it down right here in “The Question Mark.”

More slithering:

In honor of Jon Stewart’s The Question Mark: is Boobz a liar who is making false accusations about fraud and phony screencaps? Could it be that in his zeal to hang AVfM, he has hanged himself? Could it be that Boobz has gone and fucked himself? Perhaps such awful things are true? Perhaps Boobz is a slithering sort of weasel who would fuck his own mother for a few extra hits on his blog? Is it possible that Boobz has smeared so much excrement all over the internet and on his blog and about others that he is slowly being buried under mountains of his own shit? Perhaps.

Lie No. 2. 

As my video clearly shows, there is no way to “sneak-search” about “violence against women” and make the results appear as a search about “violence against marmosets” (or “violence against men”). This sort of “sneak-typing” simply doesn’t work in Google’s Instant search bar. As such, there are 3 possibilities:

1. Boobz is using a search bar other than Google for his search results and Boobz is deliberately concealing this fact (a lie by omission), perhaps hoping that his readers “aren’t quite so gullible.”
2. Boobz has turned off “Google Instant” search results and concealed this fact from his readers by not mentioning it (another lie by omission), again, perhaps hoping that his readers “are gullible enough to believe.”
3. Boobz seems to be altering (perhaps forging?) his own screencap to try and concoct evidence for the lie that my screencap is a forgery and to make a false accusation about forgery.

Let’s have a look at Boobz’ search results.

1. If we believe Boobz’ screencap, we can rule out possibility number one. According to Boobz’ screencap, he is using a Google search bar.
2. We cannot rule out possibility number two. It is possible that Boobz turned off the “Google Instant” option in the settings of his browser in order to make his screencap, something that I clearly did not do for any of my screencaps or in my video—as my video shows. If he is running “Google Chrome,” the settings to do this are found on the “settings” page. Perhaps he simply “forgot” to mention this one requirement? Perhaps.

         3. If we could rule out possibilities 1 and 2, we would likely have pretty clear evidence of Boobz’ own fraudulent screencap.

Given that we cannot definitively rule out possibility number 2, we are left with suspicion and speculation. I suspect that Boobz may have deliberately turned off “Google Instant” search results in order to make his screencap. I suspect that Boobz “forgot” to mention the importance of this fact to make it look as though it was really easy to “fake” a screencap and to create leading evidence about me, my article, the credibility of AVfM and its editors, and to be able to make false accusations about forgery. Maybe Boobz suffers from a little bit of “Bombast Syndrome.” Perhaps it’s nothing other than a thoughtless/careless mistake (a lack of attention to detail), but I have my doubts and so would anybody who bothered to try Boobz’ marmoset challenge while using “Google Instant.” If using “Google Instant,” it’s practically impossible to get those sorts of search results, unless there is some sort of “glitch,” like the one I experienced in my video and like those that I screencapped. However, you wouldn’t know this from Boobz’ article. In fact, all Boobz has to say about it is this:

Notice how Boobz’ only stipulation is “don’t pay attention to the highlighted words in the search results.” He makes no mention of “Google Instant” or of turning it off. He only mentions “highlighted words.” Well, if you look at his screencap, there are no “highlighted words.” Given that he didn’t mention the necessity in turning off “Google Instant” (another lie by omission) and that he only mentions the importance of neglecting “highlighted words,” I suspect and speculate that Boobz may not have even known how to turn off “Google Instant.” And if he didn’t know how to turn it off, how did he get those results and correlating screencap? Was it fraud? Was it “photoshopped” or thrown into MS Paint? Did Boobz fake evidence in order to enable himself to make false claims about fraud? Would Boobz fuck his own mother just to drive some more traffic to his blog? Perhaps.

Lie No. 3.

Boobz is claiming that Dean Esmay (an AVfM editor) made the claim that the screencap was taken “BEFORE” publishing. In the comment section of GWW’s blog, Boobz makes this claim:

No claim of the sort was ever made by me and the editorial note clearly shows that Esmay didn’t make the claim either. So far as I know, the only person to claim otherwise is none other than Boobz himself. Here is what the editorial note actually said.

Contrary to the excrement smeared by Boobz, the editorial note made no claims about the screencap being made “BEFORE” the article published. At best, Boobz’ claim is a misreading of the editorial note. At worst, Boobz’ claim is a blatant lie. Is it possible that Boobz “misread” the editorial note? Is it possible that Boobz deliberately “misread” the note in order smear excrement all over the internet, making a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his blog? Is it possible that Boobz would fuck his own mother for a few extra hits on his blog? Perhaps.

Admit it, Boobz. It all started with a lie—the lie that my screencap was a forgery. “You’ve gotta fess up, dude. That’s how it’s done.”

Other Assorted Pieces of Fecal Matter

My name is Jason Gregory. My name is not Jason Thompson or Joshua Thompson. Yes, it’s embarrassing that the editors got my name wrong. I believe the editors, via some weird clerical error, confused my name with the name of another contributor. Given that I’ve never talked with anybody from AVfM and that I’m a new contributor, that sort of error isn’t hard to believe. I don’t believe it was part of some cover-up to try and bury the story—just a fuck up.

Why wasn’t my damage control rewrite published? I don’t know. That is a good question, given that “tallwheel” and Dean suggested doing one. I even suggested a “rephrasing” in the comment thread. I did submit a rewrite, as it appears on my personal blog. Here is a screencap of the email sent to the editors of AVfM and the email contains the MS Word document file of my rewrite.

Perhaps the editors saw my screencap and didn’t bother to understand it—that it was a post-publication screencap and proof of my confusion about the weird search results. My guess is that—a lack of attention to detail.

Why did Dean Esmay suggest in the Monday Roundup that we found screencaps?

I don’t know. That is a good question. My guess is for the same reason that my rewrite didn’t get published. Dean probably saw my post-published screencap in the email and saw my screencaps in the rewrite and thought they were pre-published screencaps. It is probably a lack of attention to details—especially details about some new contributor and his little article.

I am Jason Gregory. I am nobody. Thanks to Boobz, however, I’ve gotten over 1000 views on my less-than-one-month-old blog. Thanks Boobz! “Go fuck yourself.” –Bill Burr

Perhaps. See above. 🙂

[Editor’s Note: Special thanks to Rock Cellar Magazine for the great music.]