Dec 202013
 

While Code Bronze shaming language covers personal calamities, it doesn’t cover related shaming language that exists at a larger level.   For example, one piece of shaming language I have seen used is “if you don’t have kids, medicare and social security will collapse”.  That shaming language isn’t about a failure to have a legacy, but a failure to do a (supposed) duty which can be about more than just having children.  It’s the charge of being a leech on society.  This I’m calling Code Olive since leeches can be the color of olive.

Charge Of Being A Leech On Society (Code Olive)

Discussion: The target is accused of failing to do his duty to society or is accused of being a leech on society.  Examples:

  • If you don’t have children, medicare and social security will collapse.
  • We all have to contribute to society.
  • Women are weaker than men so men must lead women.
  • How dare you choose to work as little as possible?  You’re no different than a welfare bum.
  • You’re a leech on society and/or the government.

Response: Men have to freedom to choose how they live their lives.  Men are not required to work just to produce maximum tax revenue for the government or to ensure the stability of government programs.  Since society has become hostile to men, there is no reason for a man to support such a society.  If society wants men to do things for it, then society has a reciprocal duty to men. Duty can not be one sided. It is a logical choice for a man to remove his productive capacity for a society that doesn’t value him and is hostile to him.

Dec 142013
 

Here’s some shaming language that we see semi-regularly:

Mule, all Driscoll is asking is that young men learn a trade, put down the porn, and find a girl to marry–what responsible men have done since Creation, really. If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.

Or, put in terms the actuaries might use for us, if you don’t marry and father some children, good luck having someone to change your bedpan when you’re too old to work and Medicare and Social Security have collapsed. Yes, getting married risks divorce in the next decade. Not getting married risks dying in misery a few more decades hence.

Choose wisely.

Shaming language about not having children and no one to take care of you when your old isn’t quite covered by the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics so it needs an entry I’m calling code bronze.

Threat of No Legacy (Code Bronze)

Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage.  In most cases, this will correspond with never having children.  The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children.  Examples:

  • While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.
  • You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.
  • You will die alone.
  • There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.
  • Your family will die out with you.

Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death.  After death a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him.  Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that.  Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long term care, not “dying alone”.  This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents.  There is no guarantee of this.  In rare cases, children may die before their parents.  It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves.  Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men.  A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother.  In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely to not care about long term care of an elderly man with who not related to them.  Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.

Apr 052012
 

One of the most common forms of shaming language is “You have a small penis” and all of its derivatives.  Yet, it is missing from the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.  While it might technically be covered by other categories, it deserves its own category because of how often it gets used.  (This is adapted from Eumanios’s blog post about this.) I have also generalized the category of shaming language to cover other attempts at shaming language via attacking a man’s penis.

Charge of Abnormal Genitalia (Code Pearl)

Discussion: While screaming, “You have a small penis!” is arguably covered by other categories of shaming language, it is used so much that it deserves its own category.  In addition, other aspects of the target’s genitalia may be attacked such as whether he is circumcised or not.  Examples:

  • You have a small penis.
  • Your penis is circumcised/not circumcised so there is no reason to listen to you since you obviously have issues from your circumcision/lack of circumcision.

Response: Whatever the issue being debated the state or size of the target’s genitalia is not relevant.  It does not affect the ideas being put forward.  The accuser has (most likely) never seen the target’s genitalia to be able to accurately comment on it.  More than anything else a code pearl shaming tactic exposes the accuser of having no real argument.

Mar 212012
 

Since I wrote about Code Ivory shaming language yesterday, I thought I would write up an entry for the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics for the opposite form of shaming language, being accused of being a racist.

Charge of racism (Code Ebony)

Discussion: The target is accused of being a racist in some manner.  Examples:

  • You’re a racist.
  • You hate black people.
  • You’re insecure that minorities may have a large penis size than you.
  • You are using anti-feminism to promote white supremacism.

Response: Feminists do not care about non-white men.  “Women and minorities” is nothing but a trick to gain the support of non-white men to hide the fact that feminism hurts non-white men as much as white men.  Some of the biggest victims of feminism have been non-white men (mainly due to poverty).  The first false rape industry was the KKK that lynched black men on the word of a white woman who lied about being raped by a black man.  These facts make it clear than cries of “racism!” are often just a cover for misandry.

Mar 202012
 

I read this from OneSTDV, and it gave me an idea:

The Manosphere, which I believe is primarily comprised of black and South Asian men, seeks the destruction of the family, and by proxy or deliberate motivation, traditional white society. What the Manosphere seeks as their utopic vision, a societal-level sausage fest, will accomplish nothing and furthermore directly contradicts the biological imperative of every single animal that has ever lived. By focusing on the gender war, their occasionally noble pursuit implicitly ignores the far more fundamental aspect of liberalism – hatred of Western civilization and whites. While not in a full-length post, I’ve argued before that a large portion of the Manosphere is primarily concerned with exonerating NAM men for their crimes and instead placing the blame at white feminists for society’s ills; with white women also being a group that has largely rejected them sexually. The fact that the Manosphere aggressively opposes racial discussion, both on their blogs’ front pages and within their comment sections, implies that such a characterization has merit.

This gives me an idea for an addition to the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, code ivory shaming language.

Charge of being anti-white (Code Ivory)

Discussion: The target is accused of declaring war on the white race or hating white people in some way.  Typically, this is used by white nationalists, but it also used sometimes by various reactionaries and conservatives who want to paint the target as a believer in multiculturalism.  Examples:

  • You hate the white race.
  • You are just angry that white women have rejected you.
  • You want to destroy Western civilization.
  • You are blaming white women for the crimes of non-white men.
  • You are failing in your duty to produce white children.
  • You are trying to destroy the white race via miscegenation.

Response: Feminists who use the tactic of “women and minorities” do not care about non-white men.  Non-white men are victims of feminism just like white men.  The damage feminism does affects poor men to a greater degree than other men, and poor men are made up of a higher percentage of non-white men.  The first victims of the false rape industry were black men who were lynched by the KKK because a white woman lied about being raped.  White nationalism is nothing but a goddess cult that worships white women so they are as feminists as self described feminists.

Sep 252010
 

These are not new categories of shaming language, just newly defined.  Regardless they should be added the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Language.  You can thank manboobz for inspiring this post since he used them both.

Charge of Preying On Weak/Damaged/Insecure Women (Code Magenta)

Discussion: Often the target is accused of being unable to get laid or get a girlfriend/wife (code tan & code purple).  However, these forms of shaming language fail when it turns out the target is able to get laid and/or get girlfriends/wives.  The women in the target’s life will be attacked as being weak, damaged, insecure, or otherwise dependent on the target.  The accusation is that the original shaming language of not being able to get a woman/get laid is correct except that the target can get (and only get) women who are weak, damaged, insecure, have low self-esteem, etc.  It’s a way of saying that a “real woman” would want nothing to do with the target.  Examples:

  • I feel sorry for your girlfriend/wife.
  • Your girlfriend/wife has low self-esteem/psychological problems.
  • The only reason you can get a woman is because the patriarchy produces anti-woman propaganda to make them desperate to have a man, any man, in their lives.

Response: The one pressing the charge is doing nothing digging a deeper hole for themselves.  The original shaming tactic failed.  Since the one pressing the charge is trying to claim women are the arbiter of a man’s worth, the evidence of the target’s relationship with a woman directly proves the accuser wrong.  The accuser must claim that the target’s woman is not a “real woman” in some manner.  However, the accuser has already failed since the evidence is against the accuser.  It integrates the logical fallacy of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women).

Charge of Non-Specific “Shameful Behavior” (Code Beige)

Discussion: As shaming language tends to fail, the target will be accused of “shameful behavior”.  What this “shameful behavior” is will be poorly defined or not defined at all.  Typically this accusation will come after the accuser’s attempt(s) at shaming language has been exposed, but it could be used against the target at any time.  Examples:

  • Your behavior is shameful.

Response: The accuser is now incapable of producing specific examples of what the target’s shameful behavior is.  This means that the accuser is being emotional and has run out of arguments for their position.

Translate »