People, I have a confession to make: weirdos turn me on. I cannot wait until my retirement when I will while away many a happy hour hanging out with the local UFO Society, or camping in cornfields awaiting crop messages from the fairies. It was thus with a certain amount of perverse glee that I discovered the existence of one Bernard Chapin, writer and oddball extraordinaire. One of our readers alerted me to his existence after he published a scathing review of her modern fairytale book, where he mocks flight attendants for being stupid, and advises women to find a husband whilst they’re still young and good-looking because no man wants an old, shrivelled-up career woman with defunct ovaries. Smelling an oddball, I googled and, oh boy, did I strike gold. Bernard’s vitriolic outpourings on the horrors of today’s women are truly a joy to behold. Take, for instance, this little gem, where Bernard considers whether a man nowadays should get married. His answer is that, although marriage can sometimes be a good thing, the presumption in this day and age should be ‘no’. Why? Well for a whole heap of reasons actually. Marry a woman and most likely she will (not necessarily in this order): spend all your money (some women have jobs these days, Bernard); get divorced and take all your money (oh but hang on, I thought there were all those, you know, facts about how divorce leaves women impoverished?…); make you pay for her college education (won’t that be her parents? or even, dare I suggest it, her? – see previous comment); make friends with evil, carpet-munching feminists (college is swarming with ’em, donchya know?); make you go shopping (what, like for food and stuff?); abort all your wonderful children (no doubt egged on by all those evil carpet-munching feminists she met at college); and – oh, the horror – make you visit her family and friends. Moreover, unlike the good old days, when a man knew what he was getting for his money – a cook, a cleaner, and a sexy temptress who didn’t talk too much – all he’ll get nowadays is a stupid fat slob, who’ll boss him around, and try to make him do pointless chores like cleaning. Chances are, she’ll have been around the block a few times too, and let’s face it, who wants to put his precious pink soldier in a previously-filled hole? Yes, my friends, Bernard will remain a self-confirmed toxic bachelor. Leering at attractive young women in the street as ‘a political statement’, (especially if their waists are about seven tenths the size of their hips), and castigating single mothers as the source of all society’s evils. Inside every blogger is a small, amateur Freud, begging to be let out. Mine is currently whispering things about how a six-year old Bernard probably had to sit next to a little girl at school who was better than him at maths. But I’ll ignore him. You can read more by Bernard here.
32 thoughts on “Bernard Chapin”
Comments are closed.
Feminist Philosophers 
Weirdos don’t do it for me, but perfection does, as long as it can be contemplated from a distance. Such perfection in misogyny is worth bringing to our attention.
Shorter Bernard: “I was once engaged to a woman who had the commonsense to treat me like the massive shithead that I am, and so now I hate all the stupid bitches. And who the fuck told them they could sleep with someone other than me?”
A few more points:
1. I have a theory that every time someone uses the phrase “nowadays,” particularly in an introductory thesis, they’re about to say something massively stupid.
2. There is absolutely no way that his reference to “Tyrone” is anything other than a veiled way of saying “I don’t want a woman who let a black guy fuck her” (because women don’t do the fucking themselves, of course)
3. We’re absolutely sure that this guy is for real? I know that I should know better than to ask by now, but it still astonishes me every time that people this openly hateful of women could actually exist.
Cara,
Nice summary!
1. You may be right.
2. Good point. Very good point.
3. I originally wondered if this was a spoof, or the work of a high level troll. But I think not. There are just too many articles, and two books as well. I suppose it may be a persona for the purposes of generating cash and courting controversy. Still odious, though.
OMG! I must remember to do this to my friends. I can’t believe I forgot to use the phrase ‘play kitty’ as a term for such friends.
“3. Your intuition is right as your experiment with paying for her college education ends in her befriending evil radical feminists who call the house and scream “rapist” at you as a greeting. They then follow up this pleasantry with asking if their “play kitty” is home.”
We started a blog after reading your article to look out for this guy as a flight attendant group. What a sad, sad man. But, Princess Bubble is getting lots of attention and it really is a great book about finding happiness from within and helping others.
Bernard Chapin is a sexist asshole. He and I have had words.
See, Chapin is a poker player or a wannbe poker player. And he’s a fan of my husband, who is a poker professor who has written four books on poker.
Well, my husband and I met while he was writing his second book, a book for beginners. He asked me to read it and critique it. One of my suggestions was to change the pronouns and vary it up a bit to make it more gender neutral. Well, Chapin and a select group of misogynists in poker made a big stink about it and gave my husband’s book poor reviews as a result.
Even a year later, Chapin wrote an article ( http://www.americandaily.com/article/17262 ) about my husband called “So I Married A Radical Feminist” (not knowing I’m more postmodern than radical, but whatever) where he bashes feminism and also displays quite a bit of homophobia. In the article he refers to me as Mrs. Miller, which is NOT my name. I kept my last name and Chapin knows it, but just refuses to call me by my name.
He’s a real tool.
(I wrote about him here: http://www.elainevigneault.com/response-to-bernard-chapin-and-letter-to-mens-news-daily-regarding-choice-for-men.html and here: http://www.elainevigneault.com/no-clappin-for-chapin.html )
Elaine V, thanks so much for coming by and telling us about this. You inspire hope.
monkey – you can read Bernard’s ‘reply’ to your post here, if you can be bothered…
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/21/feminista-wars-part-34324/
I had the pleasure of working with one Bernard Chapin. Call me, we’ll talk.
Sorry, I forgot to cut and paste my response to this in and just saw it online. Laurie, I’ll give you a call. I have no idea who you are but whatever.
“Let us turn now to this website called Feminist Philosophers [hit the link, I’m not kidding that’s what they call themselves. It’s as cacophonous as Shakespeare reading mollusks] along with the entry concerning your amiable Uncle Bern. We find, “it was thus with a certain amount of perverse glee that I discovered the existence of one Bernard Chapin, writer and oddball extraordinaire. One of our readers alerted me to his existence after he published a scathing review of her modern fairytale book…Smelling an oddball, I googled and, oh boy, did I strike gold. Bernard’s vitriolic outpourings on the horrors of today’s women are truly a joy to behold.”
Before we begin, let me identify for the reader in advance that what we have here are logical fallacies for the most part. They vary from being ad hominem’s to straw men to red herrings. No matter what they say about me though it doesn’t ultimately matter because tearing me down leaves my positions untouched. Furthermore, notice how corrupted by PC these minds are. All they can do is think within the parameters of race, class, and sex. If they don’t force their opponents into a straw man box then they have nothing. One last thing, I’ve heard people try to say that I make use of ad hominem argumentation but I do not. An ad hominem fallacy is when a person attempts to refute their opponent by insulting them but I never do that. I do insult people but always take seriously the burden of rejoinder and never fail to refute their positions.
As for me being “an oddball extraordinaire,” this is doubtful. I come off as being a pretty normal person but I suppose it’s too subjective an insult to say one way or another. Who cares? She can think what she wants and I’ll respect her diversity. With the mocking of flight attendants, here we have a class link which sounds believable on its face; yet the claim is totally out of context. Whatever someone does for work is fine with me but if you make a point of using your vocational status as a means to justify yourself as an expert—as these two ladies did—then you’re asking for it.
Here’s the PR release again:
“With wisdom gleaned from their careers as single, globe-trotting flight attendants, first-time authors [person A] and [person B] have crafted a modern-day book that celebrates singleness.”
QED: my point remains valid. The release makes it sound as if being a flight attendant adds weight to their voice which is just as absurd now as it was when I first said so.
The next claim that my “vitriolic outpourings on the horrors of today’s women are truly a joy to behold.” Now we get to the sexism link. I don’t think modern women are horrific at all, but, generally given the change in their essence, one should have a presumption against marriage. If this person wanted to persuade then she would be wise to explain why this is not the case and why modern women make better wives than their predecessors. Of course, that would be too generative and productive a stance to take I suppose.
Concerning an old article of mine she asserts that divorce leaves women broke which it doesn’t and this would only be possible if there were no disparity between bride and groom income (and even then!). Then a point I made about student loans and debt comes next. Actually, most parents don’t pay off their child’s debts. There’s a whole lot of literature out there about loans breaking a generation which she can read if she wants. If this person’s parents paid for her then I congratulate her. Again though, there’s nothing which explains, or even ventures to guess, why marrying a modern woman is advantageous for men.
She mocks female promiscuity as a concern for men, but if she thinks it isn’t then it is not me who is the oddball. Potential promiscuity on the part of a mate is a concern ubiquitous among men. My oeuvre contains a serious amount of advice that would be helpful to women along these lines because I think a serious factor which plagues them is the failure to acknowledge the nature of male sexuality. Making fun of it, minimalizing it, or pretending that we’ve just been brainwashed is disastrous and puts young girls on the path to misery and resentment.
If these women really cared about children they would try to make certain that they do not make the same mistakes they did. Youth and beauty are integral to male desire. If I were them I’d just admit this and move on. Why lie to yourself? And promiscuity? Battling over that is preposterous. Should they doubt this then I recommend Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition to see its influence on male behavior throughout the animal kingdom.
More calumny follows: “Bernard will remain a self-confirmed toxic bachelor.” There’s nothing toxic about me. I get along with people and greet those I don’t know with the hand of friendship. I wonder how they greet strangers? I don’t subdivide the general population into ideological constructs and treat them in a disparate manner though…no matter who they are. I try to treat everyone fairly. Even these radicals, should I ever meet one them would find me courteous and polite. Life is too short to hate others. Besides, some of them may come around eventually (who knows?). As for getting married, I would not rule it out but maintain a presumption against it.
The sentence: “Leering at attractive young women in the street as ‘a political statement’, (especially if their waists are about seven tenths the size of their hips)…” refers to an old article of mine and is correct. I won’t avoid looking at those who dress provocatively. If they don’t want to be leered at then they should wear baggy clothes. Of course, the best thing about getting older is that there are more and more women out there who are younger than you. I used to think 30 was old, but now I think they’re smoking babes! So, life is pretty good.
As for, “…castigating single mothers as the source of all society’s evils.” They certainly aren’t. The federocracy is the cause of most of our social evils in society and they’ve set up single mothers to fail. It’s easy to say you’d reject the dole when you’re a grown adult but not when you’re an adolescent. No, it’s certainly not their fault. It’s the leftist mindset which views taxes as charity and holds every government program to be effective.
Lastly, I enjoyed some of the Freud I read but my knowledge of humanity is a product of reading history and literature for the most part. I highly recommend history for those who desire knowledge of the human mind. The discipline is a gigantic compendium of case studies. It’s sublime.
Concerning comment one:
“Such perfection in misogyny is worth bringing to our attention.” I am not a misogynist in the least. Questioning a woman or battling radical feminists does not make one a misogynist. I treat the people I meet with respect and hate no one. They should just learn how to argue.
Concerning comment two:
“…now I hate all the stupid b***hes.” I don’t hate anyone. My recommendation is to discontinue the practice of attacking the person because even if you’re right it does not disprove what they say.
“I have a theory that every time someone uses the phrase “nowadays,” particularly in an introductory thesis, they’re about to say something massively stupid.” Well, I disagree and see no reason why that would be true. It’s a perfectly good word but you do what you want and I’ll respect your diversity.
Next we come to racism (which was inevitable). She argues that my use of the name “Tyrone” refers to black men. Nope, it didn’t. I happen to know the guy that wrote that and that wasn’t what he was thinking. Yet this is how radical feminism poisons minds. They hold men to be ants who have no thoughts that are not evil and hateful. In fact, while I have met a few black guys named Tyrone I also knew two white guys with that name as well. It is no longer a popular name at this point though…among anyone. It’s actually an Irish name—County Tyrone in Ulster— and there was a very famous (and white) actor named Tyrone Power of whom my father very much admired. Nice try though. You folks basically follow a preset script right? “Racist…sexist…classist…homophobe…” Why not just think instead?
“We’re absolutely sure that this guy is for real? I know that I should know better than to ask by now, but it still astonishes me every time that people this openly hateful of women could actually exist.”
I’m for real but it’s an indelible sign of privilege to believe that those who disagree with you do not exist. You are the world! I guess you don’t have to associate with the general population much, but you may one day realize that arguing with a radical feminist has no correlation with hating women. Women are my equals. I have a right to point out that you’re not oppressed although if you totalitarians took over the country I’m sure that I would lose that right.
Comment 3:
“I originally wondered if this was a spoof, or the work of a high level troll. But I think not. There are just too many articles, and two books as well. I suppose it may be a persona for the purposes of generating cash and courting controversy. Still odious, though.” If what I say is so “out there” then they should have no trouble refuting it…but they can’t.
Here’s some angles for them to develop: “How could it be that women oppressed? Why should embrace modern women for long-term relationships? How is marriage advantageous to males in the present environment? Why should there be affirmative action? Isn’t discrimination against one discrimination against all?”
These folks may be surprised to discover how many fellows agree with my perspective.
Comment 4:
There is nothing to refute.
Comment 5:
“We started a blog after reading your article to look out for this guy as a flight attendant group. What a sad, sad man. But, [their book] is getting lots of attention and it really is a great book about finding happiness from within and helping others.”
Is it? Then why fear me so?
And “look out for this guy”? What does that mean? This is from the author of the children’s book. What a totalitarian nature. Agree with me or I’ll get you! Why doesn’t she just learn how to argue instead of plot revenge? If she’s right then verbal defense would be quite easy for her. If she’s wrong, well then I guess she would do what she did here. Run around posting on blogs and threatening the heretic. My recommendation is to simply study and grow.
Further, if a group of stewardesses were so unprofessional as to discriminate against and mistreat a customer then isn’t what I said about them in the article true by default? What a blunder to post this. I was more right than I knew. I’ll be happy to argue with any flight attendant about the fact that their job does not make them a relationship expert. How could it?
This is really about ego. Writers write for an audience and one can’t expect everyone to love them. That’s the business. As somebody currently in it, I think this lady better thicken her skin because people who read her stuff have every right to denigrate it. This person actually told me at great length of how she was a Christian but what kind of Christian wants to do something bad to a person who criticizes her? That’s sick. Some Christian, I have another recommendation: repent. Yikes.
Comment 6:
Ah, an old friend. I am dubbed a “sexist a**hole.” Yawn. No, I’m not but her husband is a noted poker authority. That’s a lie about my reviews though. I have given her husband’s books high ratings at every opportunity (never below a 4 on amazon).
Finally we get to homophobia. I thought they forgot it! No, I’m not a homophobe but I sometimes disagree with gay rights activists. I neither fear them nor hate them. “He’s a real tool.” Nice!
Well friends I hope that was helpful to you should you ever have to run across these types on your own.”
“Your daddy”?!? Not exactly subtle, is it? Still, a robust identication with the traditionally termed patriarchy is hardly news, how ever unwelcome it might be to all our highly regarded male correspondents.
Why can’t any of you address his arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks, etc.? You really are a pathetic bunch.
“Truth,” normally I’d remove comments like yours; they violate our standards. However, yours is a very nice example of someone exhorting people to give argument while not himself/herself doing that at all. I have no idea why you think you are exempt and we are not, but let me point out that the comments here do address his arguments.
Well, for what it’s worth, Truth doesn’t claim that the comments in this thread don’t address Chapin’s arguments. The claim is that this is not done without “ad hominem attacks,” which is true.
Ryan, yes, I realized in a few minutes I wasn’t entirely accurate. Thanks. I should have looked at who was engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Me, for starters. But some people require mocking.
Mr. Chapin is entirely correct – a fact that offends women no end.
Marriage can be explained very simply. The man divorces the women, takes her house, her car and all her cash. Then he walks away with her children and forces him to pay child support and alimony. The man gets the gold mine; the woman gets the shaft.
To this simple description women have no answer – because it is all true.
Bernard Chapin is a lot more honest and truthful than all of you feminists who promote discrimination, misandry, and bigotry towards men and young boys.
2 resurrected posts from months ago in the same hour on the same day? What are the odds that “Steve” and “A Man” are the same troll?
How does Mr. Epistemologically Privileged arrive at “truth by default” anyway?
I’ve been subscribed to Bernard Chapin’s YouTube channel for four months until I realised today that he isn’t doing this for fun – he’s a male right activist. I ordered one of his books from Amazon and wanted to tell him about it when I realised that he had blocked me. I’m not sure why.
Although Mr. Chapin claims to be against American feminist radicals I never realised that from his videos (I thought he was exaggerating and making fun of women for the sake of entertainment) until I read it today in some article that I found through a link on one of his YouTube posts. All the men commenting underneath seem to be angry and to think that all Western women are money hungry feminist whores and all the Western men are their victims.
I come from an Eastern European country and I have seen and experienced physical, verbal and emotional abuse from my father, male relatives, boyfriends, employers or just random men whose sexual advances have been rejected. In fact a couple of Americans I met in Amsterdam and a few Dutch guys became extremely nasty and vile after being rejected and I’m talking about highly educated professionals; apparently some Western men feel that an Eastern European woman should be extremely grateful and quickly count her blessings if a mighty arrogant Western God decides to give her his divine attention. He disagrees with women having more social (or legal) rights or power than men (and so do I!!) but you have no idea what a lot of men are capable of, if they’re given the chance!
I’m not qualified to say whether American feminists are what he says they are, but if the suffering of the modern American men as presented by Mr. Chapin is the ONLY alternative to what I have been through, I say guys, you don’t know what pain is.
Daniela, I’d just like to know what it was that gave you your oh-so-powerful insight into the male psyche. Have you ever been a man? Women control the mating game. When you reject us, it really hurts. We go through college, work grueling hours that women don’t seem to be willing to work, and for what? So we can have you just turn us away because we’re a tad less rich than you’d like us to be.
Oh wait, I forgot: men don’t have feelings. Whoops! Silly me!
JJ. I like how you threaten to delete Truth’s comment. I notice that with most feminists. Any comment they cannot refute or they find to be offensive, they will delete. They get too emotional about it and the only way to get over it is to pretend the post never happened. :)
Male: notice that you equate threatening to delete with actually doing so. That probably allows you to remain confirmed in your beliefs. It also means that you do not see things for what they are; rather, you are viewing feminists, and no doubt many others, in terms of what you already believe.
This blog is very civil, and we work to keep it that way. We have stated policies, which we enforce by deleting remarks that are uncivil.
For all of you who can think of nothing but empty character attacks on Mr. Chapin you’re fortunate that he doesn’t bother coming here to refute your senseless animosity that has been directed towards him, he would quickly and easily debate you into the ground, and then he’d ridicule you, and rightly so, nothing he says in unsubstantiated when it comes to facts, when it come to his opinion, anyone that doesn’t have blinders on to reality would agree with most, if not all, of what he says. To all of his detractors, you’re only confirming your complete indoctrination with the lies about western civilization and men that you’ve been taught to reflexively explode in indignant rage about, which, naturally, precludes any possibility of your ever thinking to question what you believe so heartily. Narrowmindedness is not the answer, sense and reason are. Quick fact for you: June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office conducted a study of the wage gap, an issue that is a favorite of women’s right’s activists and angry feminists to froth at the mouth about and look for the nearest man to condemn for, she found, after controlling for experience, education and number of hours or years on the job, that women earned 98% of what men earn. If you don’t believe it check it out:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392/
Don’t believe the lies anymore, it’s got to end, period.
Dose28, we stress a level of respect & civility that your comment does not meet.
I am also sorry to tell you that we are not easily bested in argument. You have entered an area where some of the samsuri of debate are to be found. We might choose not to debate BC, but if we do, he will be severly challenged.
Yes, yes, Dose28. The claim from the right is a familiar one: real pay inequity cannot exist under capitalism, because those iron laws of the marketplace would severely punish any employer who failed to pay the market wage for quality labor. Seemed open and shut, but still it was reassuring to read the study that claimed to show wage inequity not only COULD NOT exist, but that it actually DID NOT exist. Then along came Lilly Ledbetter . . . and embarrassed not at all, the capitalists simply begged their brothers on the Supreme Court to help them out of their pickle. Doze on, buddy.
This is funny. I am a woman and I like Mr Chapin. I think he pretty much rocks. But you know what’s really funny? The following statement….
“Leering at attractive young women in the street as ‘a political statement’, (especially if their waists are about seven tenths the size of their hips)”
Well duh! Men like women with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 or so – this is news to you? Where exactly did he say that anyway? I didn’t see it or anything like it in the article you linked to nor have I seen it anywhere else.
And this: “oh, the horror – make you visit her family and friends”
He actually said: “You spend all your free time with her at the mall or, far worse, with her family and friends.”
Spot the difference, if you can see through the fog of your dogmatic ideology.
And Elaine Vigneault, you are also funny. Thanks for the lulz.
Mr. Chapin is a man who appears to view all of life as a contest. Gamey, endless engagements, win/lose, top/bottom, one skirmish to the next, never admit defeat. He is pretty taken by the age old battle of the sexes. Battle is his idea of relating. Leave him to it. He can find many willing to do it with him. Those of us, men and women, who do not find this interesting, let alone compelling, will do better to put our attention elsewhere.
Boo hoo, Phil. Those awful Eastern European women whining about rape, assault, gulags, totalitarianism and war! When we on this side of the pond have real problems, like nobody will give us a 6 digit income and a Porsche! How dare they!
Xena the Soviet Union fell a long ago
I do want to give this blogger credit for 1) identifying herself as a leftist / feminist and 2) not censoring comments that support Bern. But she isn’t making an argument against him. She’s putting words in his mouth, arguing with things he didn’t say, and literally making fun of him over things that didn’t happen.
Why not watch some of his videos? Learn more about the weak & dying US economy. Learn about cultural Marxism. Arm yourself with the truth so that you can prosper admit the decay caused by increasingly desperate Socialists. Your enemy isn’t the patriarchy. Its the Federal Reserve.
The enemy can be both of those things, Johnny.