Dec 232011
 

I have been busy, so I haven’t commented much on the latest Susan Walsh debacle at Dalrock’s where she says that divorce only happens because men cheat on their wives.  Everyone is saying what needs to be said, so I am not concerned about contributing.  If you want to find out what Susan Walsh is really all about then that post and all of the comments will provide you with an excellent education on the subject.  She really digs a hole for herself and shows her true colors.

I’m glad to see that more and more people are finally figuring out everything I have known about Susan Walsh for close to two years.  I knew eventually she would say something that would demonstrate her game 2.0/man up 2.0 attitudes.  If you want to know something before other people do, you should be reading this blog.

It’s clear to me that Susan Walsh is on the same path as Obsidian, who over time crashed and burned as the truth about him came out.  (I also figured out Obsidian long before most anyone else.)  Susan Walsh is really Obsidian 2.0.

  23 Responses to “Susan Walsh Is Becoming Obsidian 2.0”

  1. A few of the commenters want to ‘give Susan a break’. I saw how well that worked out with Obsidian. When he had his blog deleted and came back to the Spearhead with his tail between his legs, a lot of people were inclined to forgive him, myself included. Sometime later, he turned around and wrote an anti-white screed on IMF, which led to Ferdinand firing him from the blogroll. I realized then that he hadn’t changed and never would.

  2. Susan didn’t say that frivolous divorce was only the result of male cheating. She challenged a commenter’s assertion that it was primarily the result of female cheating or female desire to cheat. That said, she was wrong to cite an unsubstantiated statistic that strongly implied that frivolous divorce was primarily the result of male cheating. By doing that, Susan committed (or, at least, nearly committed) the same sin the commenter did. And she was foolish to double down so hard at Dalrock’s. Is that really a hanging offense among hobby bloggers? What’s more, I think the piling on at Dalrock’s was more of an embarrassment to the MRA community than a triumph. MRA’s came across looking like a bunch of whiners. Isn’t it so that the mangina victims of frivolous divorce married the bitches, and probably begged for the privilege on their hands and knees with a rock that cost two months salary although it’s intrinsically worthless? Yes, frivolous divorce is a plague on society. Yes, female irresponsibility and immaturity appear to be rich contributors to it. Even so, that’s no excuse for wallowing in self-pity and finger pointing when it’s the men who typically do the asking in our society. If you think there’s a chance a woman would frivolously divorce you, then don’t marry her! And as for the men who get fooled, well, I’m somewhat surprised that all the libertarians in the manosphere so eagerly leap to their defense. Caveat emptor! Or are the hazards of divorce a state secret? Since it will likely affect your interpretation of my comment, I feel compelled to add that am a man, and I don’t give a damn about pleasing women or feminism or any of their bullshit. All I give a damn about is self-respect, personal responsibility, and the few men and women left in our society who feel the same. Susan has encouraged women to abstain from the cock carousel, to marry young, and to refrain from getting divorced. She’s your natural ally, and you’re flogging her over a trifle.

    • ” Since it will likely affect your interpretation of my comment, I feel compelled to add that am a man”

      Highly doubt it.

    • mgambale wrote:
      Susan didn’t say that frivolous divorce was only the result of male cheating.

      Specifically, she said the issue of frivolous divorce was ‘overblown’ by the manosphere. In other words, it’s not a significant consideration to men thinking of married. She was quite rightly called on her BS.

      That said, she was wrong to cite an unsubstantiated statistic that strongly implied that frivolous divorce was primarily the result of male cheating.

      I looked at what she said. There was no retraction of her original statement.

      I think the piling on at Dalrock’s was more of an embarrassment to the MRA community than a triumph. MRA’s came across looking like a bunch of whiners.

      I agree that some have egg on their face, but that’s mostly because of their earlier lionization of her. Now they realize what a mistake that was. I say better late than never.

      MRA’s came across looking like a bunch of whiners. Isn’t it so that the mangina victims of frivolous divorce married the bitches, and probably begged for the privilege on their hands and knees with a rock that cost two months salary although it’s intrinsically worthless?

      Oh yes, somewhere, someway it’s always a man’s fault, no matter what. Any man who doesn’t agree must be a whiner.

      Even so, that’s no excuse for wallowing in self-pity and finger pointing when it’s the men who typically do the asking in our society.

      Hey, I’m all for men forgetting their self-pity, having nothing to do with those harridans, and letting them grow old alone and unloved. Then of course, they’ll be accused of not ‘manning up’.

      She’s your natural ally, and you’re flogging her over a trifle.

      You should read PMAFT’s entry where she kicked him off her blog. Natural ally my ass. With friends like her, men don’t need any enemies.

      • “Even so, that’s no excuse for wallowing in self-pity and finger pointing when it’s the men who typically do the asking in our society.”

        Wrong its the women who do the asking … ask Walsh’s bring a cup of coffee in bed everyday husband, BEFORE he goes to work

        Also women are simply to retarded to initiate a conversation or innovate anything, after centuries of staying at home, of domesticated bliss while the hubby slaves away in life threatening bs

        Women are now simply too dumbed down, & too inbred, for their centuries of never achieving anything, & their domestic privileges & other traditional puritan horsecrap such as virginal & purity

        Women are now praised for being irrational & ignorant modern day consumers of any media induced dr drew frenzy

        Walsh is simply more of the same, except for some reason Dalrock likes her …

        Without Dalrock walsh would NEVER get any mention in the manosphere

        No good deed goes unpunished … its about time men realised that basic fact with women…

      • You’ve apparently had it with Susan, and I think that’s a mistake. A lot of young, impressionable women read her blog. Convert her to your side a little crispy, rather than burnt to ashes, and you might make some progress. My impression was that PMAFT got kicked off Susan’s blog for disagreeing belligerently, not for disagreeing. But I didn’t come here to argue about that. It’s become personal between PMAFT and Susan, and that’s something that reason is unlikely to resolve.

        A few points regarding the above deconstruction of my comment. First, I didn’t suggest that men were at fault for frivolous divorce. I suggested they were at fault for getting married in the first place to women of unproven character (in many cases under mangina circumstances, to boot). The women who do the frivolous divorcing are obviously at fault for that part. Second, I didn’t say that the MRAs bashing Susan actually are a bunch of whiners. I said that’s what they looked like. To be clear, I don’t think it would be fair to call them whiners because many of their grievances are legitimate. I’m just disappointed that the appearance of things is hurting their cause (and mine).

        • “I didn’t say that the MRAs bashing Susan actually are a bunch of whiners. I said that’s what they looked like. ”

          Good God do you have an idea how stupid you sound?

          Sorry I’m not saying you are stupid, I just said that’s what you sound like.

        • You’ve apparently missed the point if you expect me to equate an accusation that I sound stupid with an accusation that I am stupid. If my comments sound stupid to you, then you don’t find them very persuasive, do you? So even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that I’m the smartest man in the room, I obviously should have said my piece differently. The same goes for the commenters who sounded whiny over at Dalrock’s. It’s no virtue in an argument to be right if you can’t convince your opponents of the fact. That’s what I hoped you would read into my comment about sounding whiny vs. being whiny. Sounding whiny is a tactical error that can be corrected, and should be, if you aim to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

        • mgambale wrote:
          I obviously should have said my piece differently. The same goes for the commenters who sounded whiny over at Dalrock’s.

          All I saw was Dalrock and quite a few others call her on her dishonesty and having a team woman agenda (she denies this of course). Dalrock is known for being a levelheaded poster. If you want to accuse him of sounding like a whiner you’ll have an uphill battle.

          I obviously should have said my piece differently.

          How about a simpler explanation as to why your argument has been rejected – it’s fundamentally wrong.

          The same goes for the commenters who sounded whiny over at Dalrock’s

          Again, I see no real evidence they sounded ‘whiny’. I do see fairly often commenters like you who hold men and women to different levels of accountability. Women can continually make demands on men but men who do anything similar or assert they have their own needs come off as ‘whiny’ to you. Boo-frickin-hoo.

  3. mgambale wrote:
    You’ve apparently had it with Susan,

    Can’t say I’ve ever thought that much of her. She basically sees men as utilities around for women’s convenience.

    and I think that’s a mistake

    That’s nice. I don’t.

    Convert her to your side a little crispy, rather than burnt to ashes, and you might make some progress.

    The manosphere doesn’t need her.

    A lot of young, impressionable women read her blog

    I’d say there’s a lot more not-so-young women who are on the tailspin of the cock carousel. So they come to Susan’s blog to get advice on nailing a sucker husband. It’s sort of like the born-again-virgins that attend church. They really don’t have anything to offer a man interested in a long-term relationship.

    Second, I didn’t say that the MRAs bashing Susan actually are a bunch of whiners. I said that’s what they looked like

    Well, who cares? They’ll get accused of being a bunch of whiners no matter what. I’m just glad some of them have seen the light about her.

    I suggested they were at fault for getting married in the first place to women of unproven character (in many cases under mangina circumstances, to boot)

    Nice sentiment, but these days I’d say that the group of “women of unproven character” now includes most Western women. Your statement also fails to address the moral hazard created by the current social climate and divorce laws that heavily favor women.

  4. Guys,

    I stand corrected on Susan Walsh. While I may not be willing (at present anyway) to say that she’s MALEVOLENTLY trying to hurt men, she is clearly pursuing a ‘Team Woman’ agenda; she seems to be trying to help other young women (her daughter included) ride the carousel, have their fun, then bail in time to snag a beta like she did. It’s rather telling that she always talks of helping her daughter, while seldom mentioning her ‘beta son’.

    For me, what changed my mind was the exchange over @ Dalrock’s place. Dalrock is a pretty measured and pretty thorough guy, and even HE said that she was twisting words, denying things she plainly said (while providing examples, BTW!), and being duplicitous. And this was AFTER being a supporter of hers and her stated aims! The fact that he’s having second thoughts gave me pause.

    PMAFT also backed up what he said, including the part where SW called him a dick. I would have expected more from a woman of her background and education. I spent a good part of yesterday reading the post in question (Haters:BANNED), following the links, etc. PMAFT backed up what he said about SW; he provided the proof of who she is.

    Finally, as I think about it, the name Susan Walsh chose for her site is rather telling: Hooking Up Smart. Isn’t hooking up, as another pointed out, transitory in nature? From the woman’s perspective, isn’t hooking up all about riding the carousel? Isn’t it about having multiple sexual encounters? I think so. So, wouldn’t “hooking up smart” mean that she’s trying to help women do so without imperiling their chances to snag a beta when done riding the carousel? Wouldn’t hooking up smart entail having fun, then bailing out in time to snag a sucker before being used up? I think so. Her agenda reflects this aim, as does her site name. She doesn’t want to stop women from hooking up; she just doesn’t want them to pay the price for doing so. Those are my thoughts.

    MarkyMark

  5. Walsh is on Team Woman, and very obviously always was. She does “get” game, and she does see many of the ways that feminism is a shit deal for women. She understands that hating men doesn’t help women. She could be a lot more out of touch with reality than she is.

    But, bottom line, she was always obviously on Team Woman. Game 2.0, as you say. Her method is, “how can we improve this game thing by making it just a bit more hamster-friendly and gender-equal?”

    She doesn’t get it. Fine. She’s writing for women, not us. We have Roosh. She’s probably better than anything else her girl readers will read. They DON’T read Roosh. Walsh bores me to death. She writes for girls raised by feminists, and as far as that goes, it’s okayish. I’m a grown man. She has nothing for me but watery feminized versions of stuff I can get at full strength elsewhere.

    • I’d say that that’s a fair assessment. In that respect, at least she’s giving SOME truth to women-more than they’re likely to find elsewhere…

  6. I have been at this a very long time. Around 45 years or so. As long as feminism had clout. It is a waste of time ever to debate any woman, period.

    It is also a mistake to allow women to enter male debate, period.

    In part, because women, especially American women, have the capacity to sound rational while not being rational.

    And, in part because when women participate in debate with men, the minute they start losing the debate, all the White Knights rush to their aid, making true debate impossible.

    Over that 45 years, a very few times, probably single digits, I could tell a woman realized I was right and she was wrong. The very next words out of her mouth were always, “Yes, but…”

    “Yes, but…” are strictly feminine words. We have outed women on men’s boards, who were lying, presenting themselves as men as a debating tool, when they said, “Yes, but…”

    • You are correct, Anonymous Age 69. I find it telling than of Susan Walsh’s few remaining defenders, none of them can provide an adequate answer of what she actually provides that is useful to us. She’s nothing but a trojan horse.

  7. Walsh has been an obvious enemy for, like, forever. Roissy apparently redacted the evidence, but even two years ago I was (facetiously) accusing her of being Feministx.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/november-2009-beta-of-the-month/

  8. Rmaxd,

    Here is evidence that AlekNovy specifically agrees with Lady Raine’s goal to get Roissy shut down :

    http://ladyraine.wordpress.com/the-unedited-roissy-exposed-series/#comment-23672

    Quote :

    “I think we have a duty to destroy the PUA cult.”

    That sounds like an appeal to join forces, as well as agreement with Lady Raine’s attack on Roissy’s real life. How much more proof do we need?

    Why does anyone think AlekNovy is an MRA? What does AlekNovy do to support MRA goals?

  9. […] ago that referenced me.  I haven’t read her blog for a long time except for cases like last month’s debacle where her real attitudes got revealed.  That is the reason why.  Regardless I wish I had known about this sooner because it’s […]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: