GENERAL – New words, Part III


Some new expressions I have come across that I want to share:

SPINE UP – Typhonblue asked a while ago why there was no really suitable term for “man up”. “Man up” and it’s equally stupid variant “nut up” and useless for a couple of reasons. One is that they are misandrist, as part of the Real Man narrative. The other is that they are misogynist, since they imply that adulthood and fortitude are somehow something that only males have to do. So I am proposing the truly non-gendered term “spine up.”
(Yes, I am aware that the term is “specieist”, or rather “phylumist”. I’ll take the hit.)

CREEPY BITTER GIRL – This is a specific reference to a particular person, but I think it can be a useful general term. It really describes very well a subset of internet feminists who serve so well to discredit feminism. I know feminists must grind their teeth over this.
You have all run across these people – hateful, bigoted, able to distort anything to fit their worldview and unable to empathize with anyone who differs in the least from them. (This is hardly a female problem; this culture induces this kind of acquired narcissism in lots of people. It is horribly adaptive in a lot of modern-day settings.)
These are the self-styled “feminists” who pour bile on men, on trans people, on straight women, on MRAs, the list is endless and the sanctimonious ego inflation is addictive, apparently.
It has taken me more than five years to see past these people. Now I don’t have to react to these people or dismiss them as weird. I can just acknowledge their woundedness and put their hatred and bitterness in context.

LEGBEARD – I saw this one in a thread in Reddit MenRights. It apparently refers to the stereotypical hairy-legged radfem and is a comeback-by-analogy to “neckbeard” a disparaging redfem term for MRAs.

BIGOT FACTORY – This is a parent who makes bigots out of his or her kids, with an added semantic feature – this parent makes bigots who hate her or his demographic. This is the mother who makes a misogynist of her son or the father who makes a man-hater out of his daughter. Another keeper from Reddit MensRights

PRINCESS FEMINISM – Femdelusion coined this one.
This refers to the feminism of young privileged women on campuses. This is the feminism that privileges the interests of young women over old women, girls, men and basically anyone who is not part of the group. This is the feminism that splits into in-fighting factions busy excommunicating and anathematizing others as anti-feminist, and has turned feminism from a sisterhood into a series of sororities, complete with their own version of frat parties, busy defining terms and identifying oppressions and taking offense over the littlest pea they can find. It reeks of entitlement.

Jim Doyle
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Jim Doyle

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="3093">22 comments</span>

  • I’ve always found that “Butch up” produces delightful dissonance amongst both genders.

  • Great stuff! I especially like princess feminism. Very effective rethoric.

    Misandry bootcamp, misandry school, misandry 101, practical misandry 101, applied misandry 101 = Womens studies class

    Feminist ideology provides narcissistic supply, feminist victimhood provides narcisistic supply, feminist ideology provides an eternal source of narcissistic supply and feminists subconciously don`t want to reach the purported goals of feminism because they then would loose their narcissistic supply can also be used.

  • A flagellator = male feminist

    A professional flagellator = male feminist who works full time as a feminist activist or researcher.

  • Gentelmen, those are all great and you may see them again.

    “Butch up” is particularly subversive. That is the best response to date to all those demands to “man up”.

  • Princess feminists are interesting in a way. Remember they have grown up during the nineties and noughties, sucking up all those “empowering” messages from a feminism-saturated culture. No wonder their sense of self-importance and lack of ability to empathise or truly care about others who are not like them is so out-of-whack (beyond hippy-dippy things they are taught to believe they believe in to be a “good person” or spending thousands of pounds to go build a hovel for some african family while “finding themselves”).

    I find it difficult to get into their heads: To have a mindset where I can not only believe that I am awesome and amazing and special and better than everyone else not like me, but also believe that I’m this oppressed minority who is entitled, in the name of justice, to just be ‘given’ what I want by the system at the expense of everyone else. And to get it!

  • Adiabat, I am wroking on a couple or posts that deal with that paradox. this what i think is happening:

    On the oen hand we have what I call social neoteny as a feature of the feminine gender role. This provides for the demand fo caretaking.

    On the other hand you have what amounts to a gender calss system where women are ladies and men are peasants. it is pervasive in norms in clothing and behavior and in attiudes baout women being some kind of civilizing influence on men.

    How do these seemingly conflicting cultural memes meet? They meet in courtly love. Courtly love is really about what a man can do to deserve a woman. She is completeley passive and preferably not really interested. This is the instrumentalization of men that underlies these other two patterns, so that when it comes to actually performring them, it all amounts ot the same performance standard.

    Courtly love is actually the central paradigm for sexual relationships in the culture. it is hardly some strange little mideval meme.

  • I think I prefer feigning being extremely offended when I hear the term “neckbeard” as opposed to responding with an equivalent word.

  • “Courtly love is really about what a man can do to deserve a woman.”

    Courtly love = Beta love

  • “Courtly love = Beta love” – and celebrated as the masculine ideal. Probably a gesture of power, “I’m so big and bad I can afford to kneel.”

  • FIRE will rip them a new asshole in court. This is going to be bloody and a great show.

  • About the proposed new anti sexual harasment policy on campus:
    Wouldn’t such a policy make colleges hostile work and learn environments? Has anybody tried to sue on this ground?

    Regarding “Legbeard”:
    While I am more into smooth legs on women, there is a lot to like about women who don’t try to be pretty. It also shows a lot more spine to denounce beauty in real life, than to do everything women’s magazine say men find sexy and then complain about the opression of the male gaze on your blog.

  • Jupp, I realize “legbeard” can be plain old racialist. White women have body hair and that’s as much a good thing as the body hair on white men.Then again dethroning white women as the definition of beauty in a society like the US – it’s different in Europe of course – is probably a good thing.

    The point of the taunt is that it is not used against unshaven white women, but against unshaven white women who hurl the “neckbeard’ taunt at unshaven white men.

  • I don’t really like ‘legbeard,’ partly because I actually kind of like hairy legs (unless they put nylon stockings over them, in which case it looks like their legs are being eaten by maggots), but mostly because that isn’t the problem with ‘neckbeard.’

    The problem with ‘neckbeard’ is that they fucking stole it. It isn’t their word; it will never be their word; and it has no place in any gender debate ever. It is for making fun of irate Transformers fans and the people who try to insist that Robotech makes any kind of sense, and it is to be applied to those people regardless of sex or gender.

    I guess ‘butch up’ is alright, although in everyday conversation I prefer ‘get your shit together and grow a fucking spine’ (the degree of profanity can be adjusted to suit the situation).

  • Also, let’s be totally clear about something. ‘Neckbeard’ isn’t supposed to describe a guy who just has a beard, it’s supposed to describe a guy who doesn’t trim or maintain his beard. It’s basically saying that they’re fashion-unconscious and don’t take care of their appearance. Anyone using to describe bearded people in general is staggeringly ignorant of facial hair, and may on that account be a neckbeard themselves (as I said, women can be neckbeards; they just usually have neckbeards on their souls instead of their faces).

    What people are doing when they steal the term is attempting to invalidate the opinions of others by casting them as unattractive and sexually undesirable. I assume you are all used to the hypocrisy by now.

  • Ginko: About dethroning The White Woman as the definition of epitome of beauty – why is it so different in Europe? Are we less racist? Do we have insufficient coloured minorities to be racist or not about? Possibly something entirely different I suspect?

  • “Possibly something entirely different I suspect?”

    Yes. I don’t see any good in dethroning Chinese features as the standard of beauty in China, black features as the standard of beauty in Africa or white features in Europe. Indigenous people should be honored in their homelands.

    “Are we less racist?”

    No, on all three counts.

    “Do we have insufficient coloured minorities to be racist or not about?”

    You’ve mannaged ot be pretty racist wio the few you have. Black Americans report some pretty Jim Crow stuff from their stays in China.

    I am pretty much in favor of dethroning any particular rband of beauty as the stadard because their seesm ot eb a universal satndard across the world with broad simialrities. And then, too, I think there’s a lot of good in de-emphasizing human physical beauty anyway – I am a gardener at heart and there are lots of species I find a lot more physically beautiful than humans.

    Sorry for the weird little detour, but it’s Friday morning and I’m starting the weekeknd a little early, I guess.

  • I’ve been noticing the unspoken sumptuary laws that enforce the unspoken (in greater society at least) gender class system. Men’s clothing is work or sports clothing or evolved versions of past work or sports clothing, emphasizing that they are part of the working gender class and must also be ready at all times to physically defend any passing woman from any trouble she may find herself in. Women may wear anything men wear, but mostly they wear more delicate, fashionable, and impractical versions of men’s garments or other things so delicate, fashionable and impractical that men can’t be allowed to wear anything like them. It would be like decorating a sledgehammer with gold leaf.

  • Theodmann, that is exactly what I am talking about. There was a time when gentelmen were decked out as loudly as any lady. That all passed with the aristocracy.

  • @Theodmann and Ginkgo

    But they have the gall to call the fewer male options as male privilege.

    Because you see, he can’t be called a slut for dressing too sexy – he can’t even dress sexy. See how easy he has it? He has so fewer options he might as well be a clone, but that’s so practical and functional that’s women are oppressed with choices that actually allow them to express their personality.

    I don’t know how people manage to twist choice to people’s disadvantage.

  • re “Creepy Bitter Girl”
    There is a general problem with calling people “creepy”. The usage seems to be: Person A calls person B creepy, if A feels creeped out by B. So creepy is not an attribute of B, but of the image of B in the mind of A. Saying “B is creepy erases A’s role.

By Jim Doyle

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather