Contextualizing My New Number-One Fan

In several active threads at the blogs I read, commenter "anon" has made it his mission to inform the feminist blogging community that I used to be a supporter of George W. Bush and the global war on terror. Shocking, I realize, and certainly something I take great pains to keep under wraps, but I suppose the truth will out.

I'm fine with that, but I think it's worth examining anon's own liberal/feminist credibility before determining that he's just a proud supporter of Jesus' General with a hard-on for Truth. What's good for the geese, etc.

Roll tape.

Anon, posting as "J. Pierpont Flathead," has a very empowering message for naughty little girls who love them some cute handbags:

BTW, little girls, my (ex)wife and I chose a new last name for the both of us. Though divorced (though she has remarried), we have both still kept that new last name.

Grow up.

He thinks feminism has lost its focus at Pandagon; he remembers when it used to be about equality and justice, but now it's only about hating men. Curse you, Amanda!

Once upon a time, women’s liberation was about liberating women AND men. Now at Amanda’s site, women’s liberation is about gaining and keeping and leveraging power that women have gained over men, even when that leads to demonstrable injustices.

A common cry there is that it is ridiculous for any man to claim that they are discriminated against in any fashion, BECAUSE of course, they are men and members of the patriarchy.

Amanda’s new and improved Pandagon — basically a hate site towards men not much better than how LGF and Freepers discuss “islamofacism”.

Like any good feminist, he's passionate about abortion rights. To his credit, however, he refuses to let that passion burst into zealotry:

It’s simple. Abortion is a surgery terminating a medically dangerous condition that a woman doesn’t want to have. She has a right to decide whether or not she’s pregnant or not, period.

Nothing is this simple. No rights are as absolute as this. By insisting on absolute rights in a world where nothing is absolute, by insisting you are right and it is simple, and by casting those that disagree with you out, and calling them names, you alienate people who would agree with you on many issues.

By insisting that it is this simple and that there aren’t other deep issues involved you turn off everyone but your fellow zealots.

His remarkable restraint becomes even more impressive once he lets it be known that a woman (!) caused all his misery:

I lost my sense of humor and proportion and irony when my ex asked the court to move away. Under the Marriage of Burgess (since overturned) she was allowed to. When that happened my 49/51 coparenting turned into 25/75 and until I found a job in the new location I drove 1600 miles every two weeks to be with my children. Now moved into the new location, I have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to turn that 25/75 back into 49/51.

Along the way I have won just about every battle in court, including the false allegations of sexual conduct, and I have had 3 court appointed psycholigists agree with me and 1 disagree but I watched my kids grow from 2 and 4 to 6 and 8, and I have had to pay 50% of my wages in support. I live in a 2 BR/apt and barely have enough money for clothes for the kids (and none for myself) or presents for birthdays. The $2500 I pay each month (finally reduced to the GUIDELINE payment of $1059 each month) has gone to house downpayments, house painting, and house renovation.

But he's not an MRA:

And though I am not a member of an MRA, this is what MRAs are fighting for. No fault divorce should come with a presumption of joint custody of the children.

So yeah, I lost my sense of humor and proportion, and would love to find it again.

Where to find that sense of perspective? Maybe the Nice Guy forums can help!

I have never said anything racist on Pandagon.

Nope, that’s something you and your buds reserve for the “private” forums, twerp. And you seem to forget your defense of racist cartoons, earlier. But no matter–we’d all love to expose your Little Boy’s Club rantings to the public eye, if you guys, knowing what vile sexist and racist pigs you are, didn’t keep your forum private so you can speak your hate without getting called out for it.

Dear, dear J. Pierpoint, who I have to address that way because that’s how I address all my moral and intellectual inferiors.

Or victim-blaming and slut-shaming--I hear those are terrific hobbies for restoring mental and spiritual balance:

She went to bed with someone that is stronger than she was and was too drunk to reason. She admits the guy was too drunk to reason. Her words “drunk enough to be deaf to reason”.

That’s fucking stupid, pun intended, and you’re damn right she should bear responsibity for that act.

Then she expects Mr. Too Drunk to Reason to be able to reason. What is that called? That is called fucking insane. Pun intended.

And she worries about what Mr. Too Drunk to Reason may do to her. But guess what, he peacefully and passionately negotiates with her (pun intended), and does nothing to her because he respects her rights.

In the meantime she writes all this down to a near rape experience. And she claims that anyone that disagrees with her is just being disapproviing of her partners. What is this called? Fucking dangerous. Fucking dangerous to men. What a fucking misandrist cunt.

The really sweet thing about anon/Flathead/Benson is the way he's so eager to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. So what's to be done about rape, Mr. Flathead?

Change the attitudes at this site. Change the attitudes that condone Nick Kiddie’s behavior with a person that was too drunk to reason.

Change the attitudes that refuse to address that false accusations of misbehavior by men are in fact a serious human rights problem, a problem of gender equity, a problem that creates bias throughout our court system whether it is in regards to rape or in regards to child custody.

Gender inequality was a problem that feminism used to want to address. This site just advocates a power struggle.

Pitiful sad site….

What, you were expecting something about stopping rapists? Clearly you're too simple to deal with the complexities of justice. Let an expert show you the way:

You are disgusting. You are straight out of Les Miserable. Straight out of Devil’s Island. End justifies the means. You are an enabler of torture. You are a free republican. An LGFer.

Do not confuse yourself with anyone associated with liberty.

Hey! Where are you going? I SAID, let him show you! Don't you care about justice?

You care not a whit for the innocent husbands, fathers, and brothers that are rotting jail or their wives, daughters, and sons whose lives you advocate ruining.

Amanda, the ends do not justify the means.

Well? What's wrong with you fuckheads? Don't you care about freedom? Or pleasure?

Sex should be about intimacy and giving and receiving pleasure.

I thought you fuckheads claimed to be sex positive?

What the fuck are you doing letting culture get between you and intimacy? I thought you had more guts and brains than that.

Speaking of guts and brains, my new fan really admires Amanda's:

I’ve listened to Johnny Cash Lady, and you ain’t no Johnny Cash. Hell, you ain’t even CarrotTop.

Sides which Cash has said he wore black to differentiate himself at the Opry. In other words, all these purty words aside, he did it for money.

Is that what you’re saying? You wear anger as a bullshit facade to differentiate yourself?

Amanda, you come off as very shallow, insecure, and ignorant, and bullying your way through life.

But for real guts and brains, you just can't beat Glenn Sacks:

I actually believe that if people at this site were to read Glenn Sacks’ readings (or his postings at his blog) you would honestly find Glenn Sacks to be a progressive liberal and in many ways a feminist.

You would certainly find him an intellectually honest “opponent” that you could work with.

Good to know! Any closing thoughts, anon?

. . . when good, honest, progressive, open liberals say that Amanda Marcotte and Pandagon have more in common with the Free Republic, and Little Green Footballs, and Red State, and Patterico, and Protein Wisdom, and the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler than they do with good honest progressive open liberals it means that we prefer dialogue, and conversation, and an exchange of ideas, and we dislike echo chambers and circle jerks.

[applause]

So there you go. It being a crime not to provide proper context nowadays, I hope I've fulfilled my obligations in that regard.