JAIMAS READS A TERRIBLE BOOK: How to Destroy A Man Now - The Rum Isn't Sufficient

Jaimas

Come With Me if You Want to Live
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Earlier today, @damian was nice enough to bring this one to the weeb wars thread. The second I looked at it, I realized: I needed to @Randall Fragg this thing. It's that worthy of derision and scorn. I've covered some badly-written shit in my day, often loaded with factual inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations, like Zoe Quinn's Autobiography, and the UN's CVAWG report, but this is something else entirely.


Part the First - A Train Wreck At the Sound of the Gun:
The first thing I noticed with this book, before we even start reading the fucking thing, was that the formatting was weird. Really weird. It's formatted like a paperback novel, in fact, but with a major difference: The book's text is slightly oversized. I then noticed something altogether funnier: That the book wasn't especially big in my PDF viewer. Scrolling down, I then proceeded to run into the first thing that made me laugh my ass off. The book isn't exactly long. In fact, it's hilariously short: Only fifty-seven pages. I own content-light D&D splatbooks twice as long as this. Some of the 3rd edition Warhammer 40K Codexes are longer than this. I speak no hyperbole when I say I could fit this entire book in a pair of Lolcow Wiki articles in much the same way I did Wu's literary magnum opus.

The second thing I decided to do is check the end of the book real quick for citations. A running theme with Social Justice, Intersectional Feminist, and similar works is that many times their citations, if they have them at all, are often a hilarious shit-show, visible as such without even reading the written work they're fore. Prior to this book, the aforementioned UN CVAWG report, for example, cites sources that don't exist, has blank citations, citations that reference the report itself, and in one example, citations that list a hard drive location. In this regard, How To Destroy A Man Now actually manages to break new ground in failing at citations: It has all of two cited works, and the works it cites are on 56 during the closing three paragraphs.

Without further ado, let's hop ahead.


Part the Second- The Introduction:
The introduction to this fucking book is amazing:

As women, we have been oppressed by men's physical advantages over us since the beginning of humankind. But now, in today's modern societies, the tables are finally turning. Especially with the advent of the Internet and social media, and the economy's transition from manufacturing to information, women are leveraging their natural advantages (e.g., social skills, emotional intelligence, and communication) to gain power. You've probably utilized these advantages to some degree already, in one form or another. F or example, as a child in school, I recall the boys using physical strength and aggression (e.g., punching) to bully girls. That was their power. Girls, on the other hand, used communication and accusation (e.g., spreading rumors) to undermine boys. This is our power!

The purpose of this handbook is to be a resource: a collection of tools and techniques that have proven powerful in women's struggle against patriarchy. I did not invent these methods; I only describe them. Be advised, however, that the methods outlined in this handbook were chosen for their utility, or their ability to achieve results, rather than for their legal or ethical merit. In other words, the information presented herein does not purport to be legally or ethically sound. What is considered to be "right" or "legal" often changes with time, the prevailing culture, and the evolution of law. This handbook is a work of free speech. How the content is used, misused, or not used is at the sole discretion of the reader, and I (as the author) retain no responsibility. Similarly, I'm publishing this book und er the pseudonym of Angela Confidential to protect from backlash.

Enjoy!
Now, it's worth noting that the author here attempts to use the same defense claimed by several other works well-known for controversy, like the Anarchist's Cookbook, which is the "I'm not telling you to do this, I'm just making this resource available to you" defense, with the main difference being that that book (A) warns you why not to do that shit, (B) has faced attempts to outlaw it for fucking decades, (C) and no one is going to remember this fucking book beyond it being a point of reference in three months. The secondary diffference, obviously, is that whoever has very bravely hidden their identity to avoid culpability. While the author hasn't been doxed yet, the identity of the company they put this fucking thing out under has:

CSC Business Consulting
251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808

....But I digress. It's the third trait of this intro, I feel, that's the most interesting: While the author claims that this is purely a reference work, you're going to see, as we read further. that this simply isn't the case, as the author will repeatedly declare that it's totally the best idea ever to embrace these techniques. And while that's an indication that the author is a terrible human being, we'll get to that.


Part the Third - The DAMN Fundamentals:
All right, people, grab your Johnny Walker (Blue Label, of course) and brace yourselves, because we're off to the races with a brick on the accelerator and a hose on the tailpipe.

:cans::cans::bluelabel::cans::cans::woo:

This is one of only two chapters I'm going to cover in extensive detail, since its the longest chapter and most of information isn't really wrong. This could almost be used as a preparatory guide for what to expect from unsourced arguments and how they intend to leverage outrage du jour, but a few things immediately jump out at you as you read this. For one, the way this is worded seems almost intentionally aimed at collegiates, if not teenagers, trying to put the tactic into really simple terms that any idiot could use. These fucking names are hilariously patronizing, too. The author starts to let some pasta drip from their pockets at this point, but we're not at full spaghetti yet.

Let's begin with some introductions. We have three key friends, or fundamentals, that make it possible to destroy a man now (DAMN). To DAMN well, it's important to know them well. Our first ally is Allison Allegation. Allegation can be so simple, effective, and easy to employ that it's elegant. An allegation is a claim, usually without proof, that someone has done something illegal or wrong. A claim, at minimum, requires nothing more than an assertion. For example, if I yell from a rooftop that the world is flat, I have successfully made a claim. Similarly, identifying wrongdoing requires only observation, recollection, or a minimal amount of imagination. From lying to murder, any behavior that you've heard of, seen, experienced, or can think of that violates an ethical or a legal standard can suffice for an allegation. However, it's the last part of what constitutes an allegation that makes it uniquely useful: no evidence is required. This independence from proof allows you to make an allegation about any man doing anything without being encumbered by a need for facts.

But how can something as intangible as the spoken word, without evidence, have enough merit or power to DAMN? Admittedly, if left completely on her own, Allison Allegation has relatively little power. That's where our other two friends, Mary Media and Arthur Authority, assist.

Mary Media, our second ally, encompasses just about any means of communication. Media can be as elementary as whispers of gossip, although nowadays the term most often refers to mass communication platforms such as television, the Internet, or mainstream media networks. Of course, it also includes social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, which you will soon see are especially well suited to DAMN.

So how does Mary Media help Allison Allegation? WeIl, interestingly, they help each other. You've probably heard the philosophical question, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, did it make asound?" Although the answer to that question is still debated, it's certain that if an allegation is made and no one knows about it, it has no power. Fortunately, however, the opposite is also true: the more people who know about an allegation, the more powerful it becomes. Thankfully for Allison Allegation and for our purposes, the modern mainstream media excel at spreading information far and wide. They do it to make money-Iots of money-from advertisers. Yet advertisers need more than just a way to reach people; they also need a way to get people to pay attention to their advertisements (and ultimately buy products). This is where media content comes in. Media content can be videos, website posts, "breaking news," and so onanything that garners interest. And it's no secret that scandal attracts people's interest especially well. "Sex seIls," as the saying goes, and so does violence, injustice, misconduct, and anything else outrageous. That's why scandalous content in mainstream media has increased over the years. That's also why Mary Media helps Allison Allegation: scandalous allegations attract people's interest, interested people watch advertisements, advertisements sell products, and it all makes Mary Media money.

However, fascinatingly, while the mainstream media profit from proliferating allegations, they bear little responsibility for doing it! Apparently, as long as the media mention that the scandal is an "allegation," they are relatively safe from legal repercussions. This is because, in free-speech societies, people can voice opinions and unsubstantiated claims. Further, the media can always attest that they are not making the allegation; rather, they are just reparting it.

But, in truth, the media actually do help "make" the allegation by how they report it. You probably know that haw you say something can convey greater meaning than what you say. For example, I could say, "I'm happy," but if I scream it angrily, people are much more likely to believe I'm upset. With that in mind, try listening carefully to how mainstream media say the word "allegation" when reporting a story. Either they say it in a positive tone, as though it's something good, or they say it quickly, as though it's insignificant. They also use the word "allegation" or "alleged" instead of using terms such as "unsubstantiated claim" or "accusation without proof" to deemphasize that evidence is lacking. Even more cleverly, after the media make an allegation popular by broadcasting it far and wide, they then circle back later and broadcast how "so many" people are talking about it. Further, they support people who make allegations by prornoting them as courageous for "coming forward." These tactics get even more people interested and encourage others to make similar claims. Finally, the media then cite the increasing number of allegations and growing public outrage (that they helped create) as being "too numerous to be ignored" or as "evidence" of truth. In a court of law, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty, but in the court of media-managed public opinion, a man "serially accused" of a scandal is guilty until proven innocent. In this way, an allegation does not require evidence to DAMN because, through media manipulation, it becomes its own evidence. Thousands-even millions-of people can become organized against one man.

Likewise, the "evidence" and public perception of guilt created by Allison Allegation and Mary Media's synergy can become so prominent and powerful that our third ally, Arthur Authority, has a duty to step in. And it's authority that really helps us put the "destroy" in DAMN!

Authority is defined as any person or organization that has the power to control, direct, punish, and so on, which is exactly the kind of power we need to DAMN. Examples include police, judges, bosses, human resource departments, boards of directors, teachers, professors, university councils, licensing and regulatory agencies, and so on. Ultimately, it's authority that plays the final role in condemning a man.

So what do we need to know about authority to DAMN? Well, to begin, it's important to understand that Arthur Authority is an artifact of patriarchy and chivalry. As "Daddy Knight," he takes pride in his role as guardian and savior, especially of the weak, mistreated, violated, and so on. He strives to be the hero who saves the damsel in distress. In other words, authority caters to victims, and nothing gets Arthur Authority's attention more than a call to action to save victims.

To be considered a victim, or a damsel in distress, authority first needs to perceive you as weak. Surprisingly, a great illustration of this is how authorities usually relate to men in distress. Can you imagine what typically happens when a man walks into a police precinct and requests arestraining order against a woman? Officers roll their eyes, and immediate disbelief ensues. This is because they simply do not perceive a man to be weaker than a woman, and for that reason, they are unwilling to provide assistance. In contrast, in patriarchal societies, women are perceived as weak by default, and therefore deserving of help and protection in the eyes of authorities.

Second, for the weak to attain victim status, authorities also need to perceive them as harmed or violated. In other words, authorities require a credible claim that a legal or an ethical standard has been broken in order to take action (because it's their duty to enforce standards). As we now know, we can look to Allison Allegation to make the claim and to Mary Media to make it credible. Nevertheless, it's still important to emphasize that authority is most likely to help us DAMN in instances that entail an apparent violation of specific laws or codes of conduct-the more egregious, the better. Examples are numerous, including rape, sexual harassment, discrimination, physical assault, child abuse, substance abuse, and dishonesty in its many forms (e.g., lying, cheating, fraud, etc.).

Also-and this works surprisingly weIl-keep in mind that with the media's help, allegations against authorities can be used to motivate authority to take action! Just about any widespread allegation about an authority being remiss, ineffectual, or negligent in its "guardian and savior" role will suffice. For instance, a televised allegation about a company ignoring sexual harassment in the workplace is enough to motivate the company's human resources department to hunt the accused man and anyone who failed to report his scandalous behavior to HR!

Once authorities decree that there is a victim of a violation, they can take punitive actions against the perpetrator Ci.e., "destroy" a man). Punitive actions usually entail substantial loss, such as termination of employment loss of income, loss of education or certification (e.g., dismissal from school or revocation of credentials), loss of social status or good reputation
(e.g., public shame and humiliation), loss of financial savings (e.g., payment for legal settlements), and loss of freedom (e.g., imprisonment). In addition, the combined actions of Allison Allegation, Mary Media, and Arthur Authority generally result in angaing loss or the loss of future opportunities. In this way, a man is truly damned. With a smeared reputation or re cord of alleged misconduct, no one will want to be associated with hirn, no one will want to employ hirn, no one will want to help hirn, and no one will even believe hirn.Further, the subsequent long-term stress frequently results in loss of physical and mental health. When I say these methods can destroy a man, I genuinely mean it.
You can play a drinking game with this book!
Every time this book makes you think Social Media was a mistake, take a shot. If you're successful, the results should look something like this:

683730


Levity aside, if you've survived reading to this point without succumbing to the urge to drink yourself into death (or near death), and still have at least some the sobreity you presumably came into this thread with, you'll probably be walking away from this chapter with one of three viewpoints:

  1. You know what? Maybe those MRAs have a point after all.
  2. The terrifying realization that the rest of the book is like this. Fuck this gay earth. Bring on the meteors.
  3. Curiousity as to how far down this rabbit hole the author's willing to go.

I feel a little hope is in order at this stage: The tactics outlined by this methodology are finally starting to lose their effectiveness and die off. They're going kicking and screaming, of course, but as one can see from the Weeb War thread and recent Kavanaugh allegations, increasingly people are responding to shit like this by lawyering up hard and forcing the opposition to prove it.

Even better, starting only a few months ago, an enormous number of layoffs happened in a number of major media outlets, including HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Vice, and more. Many of the editorial departments that used to be responsible for shoring up the kind of media offensives required by this kind of tactic have been, more-or-less, eviscerated, and gradually the companies are becoming wise to the fact that, contrary to what is said by the author, scandalmongering and screaming about feminist victimhood isn't bringing in traffic and isn't bringing in cash. If it was, these companies wouldn't have slashed and burned the workforce responsible for these fucking articles in the fucking first place.

Regardless, the rest of the chapter is devoted to the various men #MeToo'd over the last few years.

Grab another drink, because we're going into the next chapter.


Part the Fourth - The DAMN Online Method:
The next segment I have decided to lovingly nickname "why this author, once their identity is exposed, will have their asshole doing an impression of Zinnia Jones," because the author basically goes on to advocate pulling an Autistic Legion of Doom on the targets of your ire, and setting up the same kind of offensives that Oliver and Vordy did with their fucking retarded operations against Null and his family - accusing them of everything under the sun using complaint sites and blogging sites and putting as much personal information that you can about them before accusing them of rape, child molestation, and so on:

Although formats vary somewhat, most of the websites you'll be leveraging will require your allegation post to have a title and content. Above all, both title and content need to name the "AM" in DAMN; in other words, they should clearly identify (in multiple ways) the man you seek to destroy. If the man has a relatively unique name, that's great-the search results Google returns willlikely refer to hirn. But if the man has a common name, such as "Joe Smith," search engines may return some results you didn't craft, which could get in the way. In either case, it's best to make the post title and content as specific as possible by including a man's full name and any titles he has (e.g., doctor, pilot, or president), credentials (e.g., MD, MBA, or PhD), and affiliations (e.g., a company, business, or organization), along with other identifying information such as his address, phone number(s), and age. For instance, "Dr.JoeAlan Smith, MD, ENT specialist, forty years old, at Buffalo General Hospital, 585-555-8585, 321 Sweethorne Rd., Amherst, NY" is far better than just "Joe Smith." The more identifying information you include, the easier it is for Google to serve up allegations about the specific man you're targeting. And let's not forget about the power of pictures! Pietures are worth a thousand words, as the saying goes, and Google appears to agree since it provides images related to search queries near the top of their search results. Thankfully, many of the websites you'll be using allow you to include pietures with your posted allegations. To maintain your anonymity, you can use pictures of the man that are already public, like ones posted on his social media profiles orother places online (e.g., copy and paste them from Facebook, Linkedln, and other sites).

Next, in order to attract the proper attention, the post title and content you craft need to include scandalous allegations about the man victimizing others by violating legal or ethical standards. Anything shocking can work, but crimes of a sexual and violent nature against women and/or children seem to work best. A few examples include rape or sexual assault, physical assault (e.g., beating women), and pedophilia. Other vices, such as alcoholism and drug abuse, can also work but appear less effective (perhaps because victims are less apparent). Either way, both approaches are even more effective when phrased as helpful warnings to the public, most likely because they appeal to authorities' "guardian and savior" role by implying that "weak" people are presendy at risk. For example, a post title could read as follows: "Warning! All women beware of rapist Dr. Joe A. Smith, MD, ENT specialist..." Further, while the post content requires more detail, it needs to be only about a paragraph in length for search engines to detect it, index it, and rank it highly in SERPs. Nevertheless, longer content is typically better in the eyes of search engines. As always, it's helpful to keep the fundamentals in mind and ask yourself, "What will get the attention of Mary Media and Arthur Authority?" As you can probably guess, crafting stories or sharing anecdotes with allegations chock-full of scandalous details, sex, violence, victims, and potential victims works well. While most people won't actually dick on the listings (seeing the post title and snippet is enough), search engines appear to rank listings linked to voluminous content higher in search results, and that's important because we want the public, media, and authorities to notice them.

Also, it's obviously best to make the allegations anonymously if you want to protect yourself from any negative repercussions. You can refer to yourself simply as "a victim" or "a friend of a victim" in your posts. You can also help maintain anonymity by using a public Internet connection, like at a cafe or a hotel lobby, or a virtual private network (VPN) connection if you're familiar with how that works to mask your horne IP address. Further, some of the websites you'll be leveraging may ask you to register with a username and/or e-mail address. You can still guard your anonymity, however, by creating a generic username (e.g., "karma princess") and a throwaway e-mail account through Yahoo, Guerrillamail, Hotmail, and the like (e.g., karmaprincess321@hotmail.com). Frankly, the websites do not seem to care who is actually posting.
There's further details provided, and the author then goes on about how to make claims credible and shore up the accusation with similar accusations in an effort to drive up the potential to have your target labelled a rapist when their name is searched. The author then encourages would-be readers to use sites that can charge hundreds of dollars to take the post down to effectively digitally blackmail your target in order to make their self-defense less tenable.

I'm at worst moderately sure that doing so violates some law or another, especially since several of those sites are fucking powderkegs of legal troubles waiting to happen. Nonetheless, the Author is openly detailing this process from beginning to end and telling someone exactly how to maximize their damage using it, while framing this as a valid tactic. You're going to find out why a bit later, but for now, the author is simply leaving anyone dumb enough to follow this guide to face their fate.

:story:
Which is fucking great news for us, because someone stupid enough to use this guide and then get butt-fucked over it legally will generate ample content for us to laugh at. Just look at this fucking thread.

The rest of the chapter focuses on why it's important to maintain anonymity when making allegations, specifically as a way to protect yourself from legal ramifications. Let's press on.


Part the Fifth - The DAMN At Work Method:
I'm gonna keep this one short and sweet. By Jaimas standards at least, so I'll try to sum this up in 3 paragraphs as opposed to 12.

This chapter entirely covers various ways to fuck over male co-workers in a business setting, entirely through fraudlent sexual harassment or racism allegations. As is the case with the last chapter, this one then goes on to specifically inform the reader every single step of the process, for maximum effect, to maximize the credibility of bullshit claims. It even goes on to tell you to make friends with people in specific positions so you can abuse that relationship later like a fucking sociopath. It then goes on to tell the reader how to force their allegations into the press, use mentoring programs to get additional leverage, and basically try to weaponize HR against the target of your ire to make removing or restricting them easier. The only warning in this entire book is listed here, specifically that you shouldn't make your claims too strong:

Finally, it's typically better to leverage internal company authorities before appealing to external authorities. Unless your allegations qualify as violent crimes (e.g., rape), the claims you've crafted and spread through your workplace network (e.g., sex discrimination) will likely matter more to a company's authorities than to external authorities. Moreover, once they are brought into the picture, external authorities tend to coordinate with a company's internal authorities, which can backfire if you haven't already done your groundwork with internal authorities (e.g. HR may not vouch for you).
It's at this point I noticed a logic hole. The DAMN method at work involves putting through a false claim to HR, and counting on HR to railroad the intended victim into not being able to do a fucking thing about their accuser.

....Except that's not the way it works in practice. At least not anymore in the States. As was the case with the aforementioned Vic and Kavanaugh siuations mentioned above, the response to false accusations is rapidly becoming "make them prove it." Companies that had their HR people overreach can wind up getting the fuck sued out of them. There are dozens of fucking Law Firms now that specializes in overturning illegal dismissals due to bogus sexual harassment claims and many have a disturbingly good track-record to boot. Several won't even charge unless you collect money. The sanctioned employee just wants their job and the charges dropped, they'll happily let the legal team take the cash. Guess who that makes HR more likely to listen to? Spoiler alert, it's the one that can't sue the shit out of the company and win. The days of HR simply making a hasty decision based on pressure from social media is closing, simply because it's now more cost-effective to not risk the lawsuit. Hell, just the other day, Nick Rekieta was talking about how there's increasingly interest in creating a legal fund dedicated solely to fighting off false allegations put out using social media.

Meanwhile, if someone is destroyed in this fashion by say, claiming they're a sexual predator, pray tell, what the fuck do you think the result is going to be? Do you think the accused is just going to sit there and take that? If all avenues close, and the accuser does fully destroy their lives, as the Author says, the accused is going to react the way fucking anyone does when the whole fucking world's against them. They have nothing left to lose at that point.


Part the Sixth (and Final) - Why the DAMN Method Works:
We're finally here: The last chapter. If you're still alive, hat's off to you, booze is on me.

683774


Earlier, a few times, I hinted that the Author was clearly on-board with this particular book being used to make knowingly fake claims despite a statement in the intro that they are in no way responsible and a vehement insistence that this book is only a reference resource. That argument, in this chapter, gets left in a ditch with three bullet holes in its head and evidence that it may or may not have been involved in a pornography ring run by the Yakuza (I can tell I've been writing this too long, my metaphors are getting more ridiculous). Emphasis, as ever, mine and in orange:

Having reviewed the DAMN fundamentals, how to DAMN online, and how to DAMN at work, I'm sure you've gotten the gist of how to destroy a man now and can figure out how to apply the same principles in other contexts (like school, divorce, and child-custody battles). With that in mind, 1'11 finish this handbook on a positive note with a word about why these methods work. In a word, these DAMN methods work because women are winning! Moreover, we're doing it by turning male oppressors' own patriarchy against them. Women have gained more power than men while society still operates like we are powerless victims. In this way, women benefit from both the virtues of victimhood and the power of the oppressor. We also do it openly, hidden in plain sight by patriarchy's selective blindness to women. It's patriarchal society that forever views us as damsels in distress. It's patriarchal society that laughs at the thought of a man being a victim of a woman. It's patriarchal society that defines violence as physical, in terms of beatings and broken bones, but never in terms of allegations and broken lives. Even when studies show that women are just as violent as men when "violence" includes things such as verbal abuse, reputation ravaging, and emotional abuse, patriarchal society still cannot perceive women as aggressors. Despite men being far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crimes like homicide, men are still perceived as less deserving of protection. Even present-day federal law still requires men, but not women, to register for selective service-the military draft. In other words, with women gaining power in politics, we can send men to die for us in war without ever having to go ourselves!

Patriarchy's persistent perception of women as weak is so deeply ingrained in society that it's embedded in law. So, rather than trying to change patriarchy, women have mastered "societal judo" by leveraging the principles of patriarchy against men. We're defeating our oppressors by turning the captain's command of "women and children first" into "men last" while we sink their ship. In 2017 alone, the number of men we've dethroned from high-level jobs in the entertainment industry, politics, and other positions of power is testimony to how well we're winning. Moreover, we're destroying men's reputations as men so they can never regain power. The word men has become synonymous with rapists, pedophiles, predators, harassers, and the like.

Women are also winning because certain aspects of modem society have evolved in our favor. Especially with the emergence of information technology, typical female advantages such as communication, social networking, and emotional intelligence have become more important than typical male advantages such as physical strength, size, and emotional detachment. As Richard Whitmire (2010,28) states in Why Boys Fail, "The world has gotten more verbal; boys haven't." Similarly, education is now key to financial success and power, and it's apparent that school is better suited for women. According to The End of Men and the Rise of Women, by Hanna Rosin (2013), thousands more women than men graduate from college each year, with women eaming about 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees. Likewise, women earn 60 percent of master's degrees and earn more PhDs than men (Rosin 2013). Even more uplifting, trends like these are continuing, and nothing is being done to stop them.

Along with patriarchal society tuming a blind eye, Mary Media ensures public condemnation for anyone who even tries to advocate for "men's rights"-even women! And why? Because destroying a man now is profitable. As we've discussed, mainstream media profits mightily from scandalous allegations against men. Complaint websites make untold sums of money from the "legal extortion" they levy. Lawyers siphon ridiculous amounts of money from men who are trying to defend themselves against allegations. And women profit from scandalous allegations against men in the form of legal settlements, career advancement opportunities, and the like. Clearly, women's power to destroy a man is stronger than ever, and our time is now!
From a brief glance, this could almost be construed, in the first few lines, as being somewhat sympathetic towards the plight of men in general and how from a social standpoint, they are now being victimized by a society that openly shows preferential treatment to women. They maintain the veneer of this viewpoint for only a moment before they begin gloating about it and establishing that they are fully on-board with this development. For the moment, we'll ignore that many of the points the Author brings up in the above are points are things that the Author's own ideology is responsible for in the first place, and how the Author openly acknowledges how fucked-up that is before encouraging it further. All pretense is dropped, and the Author finally reveals that this is a fate they feel men deserve: To have their lives destroyed by false allegations for the sake of getting in the way, to have their livelihoods destroyed for daring to be who they are, to be removed from all power because Patriarchy. And lest you think I exaggerate, I give you the back cover of this book:

683728


Someone got paid to publish this. That fascinates me and terrifies me.

In Conclusion: This book is a fucking tire fire of the most amazing kind. Shit like this doesn't squeak past most conventional publishers, so if it turns out this wasn't either self-published or shit out as part of a paid-for print run, then @BOLDYSPICY! can have my entire stockpile of Girl Scout Cookies. Its value is as a time capsule of the fucking most despicable behavior conducted by the assholes we tend to mock openly on this very site. I'm still not entirely convinced that this book is real, and by that I meant that it's not some elaborate trolling attempt by some mad genius trying to draw attention to the whole fucking thing.

Either way, I've got a hangover to sleep off and I hope to god you guys found this at least marginally entertaining.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
Are we sure this isn't a modern Modest Proposal? Some of the parts (especially that last one) seem too... self-aware for any proper kool-aid drinking feminist to have written. I could see this having been written by Karen Straughn or Janet Bloomfield (or someone similar) more than I could see it being written by an actual womyn's studies prof.

I dunno. Just seems a little too on the nose.
683840
 
Last edited:

Slick Willy

My wife has been legally dead since 1997.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I concur, @Krokodil Overdose.

The sentence that screams out to me that this is the same as, "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for the landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children", is:
Women have gained more power than men while society still operates like we are powerless victims.
No feminist would ever say this; they make a point of not saying this, and it's only ever their critics that point this out.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
I concur, @Krokodil Overdose.

The sentence that screams out to me that this is the same as, "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for the landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children", is: "Women have gained more power than men while society still operates like we are powerless victims."

No feminist would ever say this; they make a point of not saying this, and it's only ever their critics that point this out.
This was the part that did it for me:
OP said:
Even when studies show that women are just as violent as men when "violence" includes things such as verbal abuse, reputation ravaging, and emotional abuse, patriarchal society still cannot perceive women as aggressors.
I've seen lots of people say this, but none of them have been feminists; feminists (IME) tend to avoid this topic like the plague, for obvious reasons.
 

NOT Sword Fighter Super

I swear, I'm a different guy!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This book is strange to say the least. From spelling errors to skipping back and fourth from first-person narrative it seems rather poorly written.

Maybe it's part of the joke, though.

A couple examples:

Further, the media can always attest that they are not making the allegation; rather, they are just reparting it.
You probably know that haw you say something can convey greater meaning than what you say.
 

Jaimas

Come With Me if You Want to Live
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This book is strange to say the least. From spelling errors to skipping back and fourth from first-person narrative it seems rather poorly written.

Maybe it's part of the joke, though.

A couple examples:
That's not the book's fault, it's the text parser attempting to translate the text from PDF format. It read just about every m as an "rn" for the bulk of it.
 

Jaimas

Come With Me if You Want to Live
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Are we sure this isn't a modern Modest Proposal? Some of the parts (especially that last one) seem too... self-aware for any proper kool-aid drinking feminist to have written. I could see this having been written by Karen Straughn or Janet Bloomfield (or someone similar) more than I could see it being written by an actual womyn's studies prof.

I dunno. Just seems a little too on the nose.
View attachment 683840
I am like 90% sure you are right about this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LN 910

Sketti Land

Where magical autism awaits
kiwifarms.net
I’m all for free speech, but this book has to fall under inciting violence somehow, right? Satire or not, its mere existence is giving dangerhairs a methodical approach for destroying an innocent man’s life through false allegations, which is a crime in itself. How the hell is that even legal?
 

GethN7

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I’m all for free speech, but this book has to fall under inciting violence somehow, right? Satire or not, its mere existence is giving dangerhairs a methodical approach for destroying an innocent man’s life through false allegations, which is a crime in itself. How the hell is that even legal?
Likely under the same logic a book about picking locks would be legal.

Picking a lock to rob a house is a crime. Picking a lock to your own house if you accidentally locked yourself out is not.

In this case, one could argue the same knowledge used to destroy an innocent person reputation can also be used to suss out an attempt by someone to do that to you and this book provides a window into that mindset.

I'd still say this leans a lot closer to having no legal defense, but if the Turner Diaries could squeak by if only by the slimmest of margins as a legal work to distribute (though most of the time the book is sold online with a legal warning not to emulate it's contents), then this passes muster too.
 
Last edited:

The 8 of Spades

Pay No Attention To The ♂ Behind The Glassy Smirk
kiwifarms.net
I really want to subject myself to reading this now, anyone have a link to this book?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: LN 910

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
Likely under the same logic a book about picking locks would be legal.

Picking a lock to rob a house is a crime. Picking a lock to your own house if you accidentally locked yourself out is not.

In this case, one could argue the same knowledge used to destroy an innocent person reputation can also be used to suss out an attempt by someone to do that to you and this book provides a window into that mindset.

I'd still say this leans a lot closer to having no legal defense, but if the Turner Diaries could squeak by if only by the slimmest of margins as a legal work to distribute (though most of the time the book is sold online with a legal warning not to emulate it's contents), then this passes muster too.
Yeah, this book is definitely protected speech even if it's written completely unironically (which I frankly doubt; if it's social satire, as I believe, it should be extra-protected.)

Though if someone will satisfy my curiousity about the Turner Diaries: I thought that was generic spergfuhrer lit. What does it have in it that would even get close to bannable?
 

GethN7

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Yeah, this book is definitely protected speech even if it's written completely unironically (which I frankly doubt; if it's social satire, as I believe, it should be extra-protected.)

Though if someone will satisfy my curiousity about the Turner Diaries: I thought that was generic spergfuhrer lit. What does it have in it that would even get close to bannable?
The instructions for how to build a bomb in the book were so good it inspired Timothy McVeigh's IRL bomb, among other acts of terror which inspired various other terrorist groups of neo-nazi leanings.
 

HTTP Error 404

kiwifarms.net
I just read the introduction and my jaw is already on the floor. This has to be satire. Nobody is this blatantly evil.
Oh, if you talk to them, they'll insist they aren't evil. They're fighting evil. And thus, nothing they do can be evil, and they can never go too far.

It's just that what they consider evil is men. Half the planet.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino