Skip to content

Have You Been to Manly Mantown, Lately? They Have Their Own Education System and Everything!

April 4, 2010

image via

So.  The man pictured here would like you to refer to him as “Professor Plum.”  He is the “dean of beatdowns” over at a site that I still can’t quite believe exists:  On the one hand, I hate to even provide them links by pointing out their squalid existence.  On the other hand, I guess it’s important that we know people like “Professor Plum” are out there, walking our streets.  Because, after all, as ladeez it’s our JOB to keep ourselves SAFE or face the wrath of the victim blamers.  So I consider providing awareness about the dudez at to be a public service.  Stay out of their way.

Why?  Because, like our friends who practice Christian Domestic Discipline, the guys over at the School of Hard Nutz believe that a man has an obligation to beat his wife (or girlfriend, I’m assuming; these guys don’t seem to be quite as marriage oriented as the CDD peeps) just like the state has an obligation to punish law-breakers.  In their own words, the Manhood Manly Men of Mantown believe that:

As a citizen of any sovereign nation, you must submit to a governing authority designed to provide for your welfare. To accomplish this, your country passes laws meant to safeguard your interests. These laws must then be enforced to maintain order.

If you exceed the speed limit, you endanger the welfare of people whom the State is legally obligated to protect. To fulfill its responsibility, the State must use its authority to execute a punishment (e.g., fine, jail) against you. This causes you to fear violating the law. Since your submission is vital to maintaining order, the State requires you to submit to its governing authority.

Authority enforces the law and submission obeys it—both are equallynecessary to a properly functioning government or any healthy relationship. Without either, it is impossible to maintain order.

Obeying the laws of the State does not suppress your identity or remove all freedoms, but it is necessary protect your interests. In the same way, a woman submitting to her husband’s governing authority doesn’t remove her identity or mean she is no longer free. On the contrary, her submission places her in a proper position to receive her husband’s care and protection. The ‘freedom’ she loses is her ability to do things without restriction, just as citizens of a nation lose their ‘freedom’ to exceed the speed limit or steal from others.

When people vilify authority or submission, they are really speaking about their selfish interest in becoming wild anarchists who have the ‘freedom’ to hurt others without regard.

Sorry to put you through reading that.  I hope your eyes aren’t bleeding too badly.  It’s just that, if I’d tried to summarize it for you, you would’ve missed out on all the charm and loving kindness expressed by the menz!  For those of you who couldn’t quite make it through, though, what they’re essentially saying is that a marriage (or other heterosexual long-term relationship, I’m assuming) is the equivalent of a nation-state.  When we, as women, enter into a heterosexual ltr, we’re buying into some sort of social contract in which we are the submissives, the wild things prone to destruction and lawlessness, while our husbands/boyfriends are the reasonable, rational, selfless government.  They, as the state, will take good care of us… as long as we “behave.”

Don’t worry, though!  They won’t “suppress your identity or remove all freedoms.”  They just want to make sure that we tow the line and don’t hurt ourselves or others with our unabashed and uncontrollable lawlessness and selfishness.  They know that, without a firm hand applied to our bottoms, we’d all just run amock and destroy buildings and pillage and murder.  They’re just trying to save us from ourselves with their smart rational brains and their thinky thoughts!

The thing is, guys, I’ve already GOT a government to punish me if I break the law.  The cops will pull me over if I run a red light.  I will be jailed if I murder someone.  (Not if I rape someone, though!  For that, I get to live in a ski chalet!) I realize you believe that there are fancy new laws that have to be enforced once a woman enters into an ltr with a man.  You seem to think that a lady’s refusal to cook one night, or to clean her kitchen properly, is the equivalent of anarchists running free and bombing the government or something.  You think a relationship needs a disciplinarian to maintain order and prevent total chaos.  But the thing is, even if everything you said was true (hint: it isn’t), there would still be a problem with your argument.  And that problem is: there is no damn reason why you, as a man, have to be in charge.  I realize that accepting that fact might make your brain explode, but it’s true.  Systems like yours and the one practiced by CDD adherents make the constant mistake of presuming that only men can be in charge. Ever.  Period.  And frankly, I’m not sure where you got this idea.  At least when Focus on the Family types make this claim, they pretend to have the backing of scripture.  (hint: They’re still wrong.)  But I’m not really sure where you’re getting your claim that men have to be in charge.  You make a couple of claims that because men work all the dangerous jobs like law enforcement and firefighting (not true) and that because women aren’t capable of meeting the physical demands of those jobs (again: not true), men are obviously in charge.  But that argument just doesn’t work.  Because, even if your claim were true (reminder: it isn’t),  there is nothing about those jobs in particular that suggests you are the natural doms and women are the natural subs. (Also of note: there are plenty of policemen and firemen who are not so good at protecting the people they are supposed to protect.  There are plenty of people who pick and choose whom they wish to protect.)

When I first wrote about CDD, I presumed that the practice was an odd outlier – something important to study, but nonetheless not all that prevalent in society at large.  Manhood Academy proves otherwise.  Some secular men are just as violently and vehemently invested in proving their authority over women and maintaining their privilege via anger and violence.  I don’t know whether to cry or scream.

Towards the end of the ManhoodAcademy tirade, there is a warning to those who would disagree with the Menz:

“If you think we’re wrong, be direct–specifically point out our errors.

Don’t follow in the footsteps of most intellectual cowards who assume that grade school sarcasm, snide remarks, emotional “chick logic” and dismissive authoritative fallacies are a legitimate substitute for intelligent discussion. Abhor such cowardly methods employed by tyrannical women and emasculated men. Have the intellectual integrity to support your views just as we have done.”

I realize I haven’t followed their request here, as I’ve been completely sarcastic.  I didn’t bother to look up what “chick logic” is, but I assume they would say I’ve used some of it, being as I’m a “chick” and all.  But fuck it.  This is my blog, and I can be sarcastic if I want.  Because I’m one of those dangerous, anarchic single ladies who hasn’t entered into a social contract of beatdowns with a man.  (I am also a dangerous queer lady who occasionally forms relationships with other women, which I guess makes me doubly lawless.)  My freedom to do whatever the hell I please has not been restricted by a regimen of strict discipline, so I’m going to leave the sarcasm in.

The question we now face is: will ManhoodAcademy respond to me?  I haven’t bothered to post anything over at their site, because I know it would be pointless.  But will they notice they’ve been linked to and come over here to take me on?  If so, I do have a whole listful of points I can refute using regular old non-gendered logic (as opposed to “chick logic”).  But for now, ladies, please bask in the glory of the sarcasm directed at your friendly neighborhood asshats.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. April 4, 2010 5:49 pm

    Seriously. That’s the only thing I can even THINK to respond with. An ellipses.

  2. marybullstonecraft permalink*
    April 4, 2010 9:23 pm

    So, I was really confused about what “authoritative fallacies” were, so I am sorry to report that I actually read that page. I can verify that it is a long, long list of variations on the “ad hominem” fallacy (i.e., making charges against the person instead of the argument, including “you’re probably an abuser” and “you’re clearly a rapist.”)–though they have, for some reason, decided to color-code them. Does this make them easier to identify? Maybe ‘man’-logic is more complicated than ‘actual’ logic.

    At any rate, I’d suggest that when your ‘argument’ consists in the deployment of a weak analogy and repeated assertions of the truth of your conclusion in the premises of your argument (hint: there’s a name for THAT in logic, too, and it rhymes with “mircular freasoning”), your accusations of fallacious reasoning don’t stick as well. Additionally, while it WOULD be problematic to suggest that someone’s argument was wrong BECAUSE they were an abuser or a rapist, it’s not at all the same thing to claim that the implications of someone’s “argument” make that position untenable (i.e., because of its general support of rapiness, abuse, etc.). I’m going to guess, however, that the problem ISN’T actually that these dudes haven’t encountered any good feminist arguments. Just a hunch.

    • April 4, 2010 10:01 pm

      Can we give you some kind of logic-oriented superhero name?

      Also, lol @ “mircular freasoning.” I think I’m going to start accusing people of that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: