Feb 172012
 

There are several blogs that claim to be feminist and support men.  Even Hooking Up Smart would fall into this category because it’s AFINO (anti-feminist in name only) and gynocentric to the core.  Telling the truth at these blogs gets you banned.  Hollenhund and Clarence discovered this.

Hollenhund was banned from Hooking Up Smart for posting this inconvenient truth:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place. Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition, for the reasons I mentioned above. Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

And the notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly. If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP, they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males, plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless. I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

That was too much truth for Susan Walsh to handle so Hollenhund got banned.  I’m sure he will get added to Susan Walsh’s list of MRAs and MGTOW that are working for the Rockefeller-Illuminati-Reptile Alien Cabal.

Clarence got banned for No Seriously What About The Menz? for positing this truth:

I recently got banned from No Seriously What About the Men apparently for a SINGLE COMMENT (about Rosie O, comparing her to a whale) that I made in the comments section in response to comments by women about how unattractive a certain feminist was (and I actually said that particular feminist -not Rosie O – was ok looking) and..get this..ON A WHOLLY DIFFERENT BLOG.

I will admit that I have a problem with comparing Rosie O’Donnell to whales because it’s an insult to whales.  That still isn’t a reason to ban someone from a blog.

These are just two examples of how feminist/gynocentric blogs that claim to support men in reality don’t.

  50 Responses to “Telling The Truth On Feminist Sites That Supposedly Support Men Gets You Banned”

  1. I remember when I first read about HUS on Ferdinand’s blog. It was obvious from the start that Ms. Walsh is uninformed about the reality of the SMP and easily falls for feminist nonsense. If you search ’wygant’ in her archives you’ll find that she had a post in 2010 that could’ve been written by Kay Hymowitz or William Bennett today. I didn’t think much about it but nevertheless decided to join the minuscule group of men who occasionally hanged out there to try debunk all the BS posted in the comments section, normally by women, of course. Now I realize it’s pretty much a hopeless task. As far as she’s concerned, it seemed to me she’s a slow learner but nevertheless internalizes some of the male wisdom she’s exposed to, but I’m no longer sure of the direction her site. It has obviously become another purveyor of gynocentrism, an echo chamber of gynonormativity as more and more male commenters are driven away and the hostess is getting increasingly hostile to the obvious Manosphere truths. She says her goal is for beta males and average women to meet halfway, but we all know it’ll never happen. What will happen is that aging sluts will utilize her advice to pimp themselves as worthy mates to clueless betas, and young average women will try find advice on her blog to snag alphas. I certainly want nothing to do with such intentions in any way. I remember older and more experiences MRAs saying that debating women on these issues, or even permitting them to join a discussion among men, is utterly pointless. I think they’re right. Maybe it’s a generational thing, as they seem to be more Western women under the age of 40 that show willingness to honestly discuss these issues.

    • As far as she’s concerned, it seemed to me she’s a slow learner but nevertheless internalizes some of the male wisdom she’s exposed to, but I’m no longer sure of the direction her site. It has obviously become another purveyor of gynocentrism, an echo chamber of gynonormativity as more and more male commenters are driven away and the hostess is getting increasingly hostile to the obvious Manosphere truths. She says her goal is for beta males and average women to meet halfway, but we all know it’ll never happen.

      The goal of her blog is man up 2.0/game 2.0. Susan Walsh became “pro-game” as soon as she realized she could use game to club men over the head. What she’s trying to do essentially is keep all the benefits of feminism, but get men to plug the holes of any of the places where feminism has sprung a leak. It’s an attempt to use the language of the manosphere to create a situation where women still benefit from feminism, but all of the negative repercussions of feminism are only experienced by men. That’s what her agenda is.

      Too many men in the manosphere still don’t get the problem of man up 2.0/game 2.0. While its probably true that 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never understand game, that understanding isn’t necessary to promote man up 2.0/game 2.0. All that is needed is to be a parrot when it comes to manosphere ideas and almost anyone (like Susan Walsh) is capable of that. It’s because of this that I want to less game and more mens rights going forward. It’s a lot easier to lie about being pro-game than it is to lie about being pro-mens rights.

  2. Superb topic and post! You can add Amy Alkon (“Advice Goddess”…seriously, what is with women’s fetish over thinking themselves goddesses??!! How many men’s blogs are titled “The Whatever God?”) and Dr. Helen. I used to frequent her blog, but she’s too tight with Alkon, who even links The Good Mangina Project on her blog. Alkon is a female privilege supporter to the core.

    I honestly think, at least in Alkon’s case, that there are feminist women bloggers who pretend to care about men by singing pro-male lyrics without even knowing what the song is about. It’s pure cover and smokescreen. Dr. Helen, I believe, has her heart in the right place, but is wildly out of touch with what truly constitutes men’s issues. Were she to exchange emails with Paul Elam or Angry Harry, they would either set her straight or she’d drop the whole “Let’s help the men” tapdance. I think she’s just another Mommy blogger who likes to link up with other bloggers to see her numbers increase, or she’d realize Alkon is no friend to men whatsoever.

    And Susan Walsh is absolutely a joke as far as the MRM is concerned. Gynocentric and solipsistic to the very core of her being.

    • One more detail about Susan Walsh: Recently she posted a question re “What is the most valuable (or cherished) female characteristic that men desire” or something to that effect. I wrote in that I believed submission was most cherished by men.

      Then she replied with something like “Well, I’m not submissive at all, so I don’t think your opinion is universal.”

      100% solipsism. She asked what men valued most, but because she does not possess that characteristic, my opinion is invalid. It’s ALL about HER.

      • 100% solipsism. She asked what men valued most, but because she does not possess that characteristic, my opinion is invalid. It’s ALL about HER.

        This is a big problem with women in the manosphere or in the MRM. While there are women who support the MRM, most women who have shown up here are doing nothing but looking for attention and want to make everything about them. Susan Walsh is no different in that respect.

        I used to think that the men who said that no women should be in the manosphere or MRM were going too far. I still disagree, but I understand their position now because there are too many women who are here for reasons other than supporting men.

        • “I used to think that the men who said that no women should be in the manosphere or MRM were going too far.”

          When you consider that Western men used to have male-only places and organizations, it doesn’t seem that extremist.

  3. Susan is smart but she is very solipsistic, yes.

    As well she doesn’t really welcome open debate. I was banned for supposedly trolling or derailing. Which is absurd. No other blog has ever accused me of those things. Not what I do.

    What I did was disagree with Susan’s message too much. I kept insisting that alpha males are a lot more sexually attractive to young girls, including girls in the 5-7 range (which is basically her target demographic), even if they aren’t necessarily the wise choice for marriage minded girls (this later fully agreeing with her marriage).

    As well she got mondo irritated and then pissed with my insistence that the marriage laws their their interpretation by family courts in the US have gotten so unfair to men that none should marry without a prenup that pretty much imitates living together in the even of a divorce.

    Behind all of this her real greatest point of anger towards me is that 1) I said on her blog that I have an open relationship with my live together girlfriend, but really only one way open by my gf’s choice since she didn’t want to take any other male lovers, but that when we only occasionally do outside play it’s usually a mfm threesome (Susan is mondo jealous and as well thought this unfair and my gf obviously has self esteem issues and other assorted feminist crap); and 2) I also said I thought that American women were nuts to divorce over mere male adultery, when they have kids, if their husband hasn’t neglected them sexually or emotionally and is otherwise a good husband, and discreet about it.

    So she got herself worked up into a tizzy over me defending myself against some accusations as being “off topic” and trolling, and banned me.

    That’s typical of female bloggers actually. Especially those in any way feminist at all.

    • I guess after the big Dalrock to-do SW decided to throw in the towel on pretending to do anything other than play for Team Woman, specifically on the rope-Beta-suckers-into-chillimony special teams unit.

      • I guess after the big Dalrock to-do SW decided to throw in the towel on pretending to do anything other than play for Team Woman, specifically on the rope-Beta-suckers-into-chillimony special teams unit.

        That and the fact that she started slipping up in pretending to not be on team woman.

    • Susan is smart, and she certainly understands the SMP better than most female bloggers (though she just lifted all of those insights from the Roissysphere). But she has two big blind spots:

      1. She grossly underestimates the number of girls who enjoy riding the carousel. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and it’s their choices that drive the sexual marketplace. If most young women were truly unhappy with riding the carousel, there wouldn’t be a carousel in the first place.

      2. She refuses to acknowledge how female hypergamy and the temptation for them to trade up, coupled with anti-male family and divorce laws, make marriage a huge sucker bet for Western men.

      • Not to quibble, but…

        1. Susan is smart(er than a dead raccoon, but that’s all), and
        2. 99.8% of female bloggers are dumber than a dead raccoon.

        Let’s remain adults here: ANYONE can have a blog. Ex-cons, retards, perverts, people who watch HEE-HAW on DVD. ANYONE. So saying “he/she’s better than most” is no different than saying “he/she is better than most knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, living in Mom’s basement square-skulled conspiracy theorist with a bachelor’s degree in gender/queer studies.

        There are good bloggers. I can name both of them.

      • 1. She grossly underestimates the number of girls who enjoy riding the carousel. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and it’s their choices that drive the sexual marketplace. If most young women were truly unhappy with riding the carousel, there wouldn’t be a carousel in the first place.

        This also has a corollary that Susan Walsh can’t deal with. More and more, men know that women want to be on the carousel. When they come crawling to men they previously ignored because their biological clocks are ticking, men are going to realize more and more exactly what is going on. Susan Walsh has a blind spot here. If you ask her about it, she can’t understand why men would hold “a couple of mistakes” against a woman. She just doesn’t get it.

        • “she can’t understand why men would hold a couple mistakes against a woman”–

          If I remember correctly, Susan has admitted to sleeping with 20 men before she got married. Susan rode the carousel herself, then got herself a quality man. That’s probably why she won’t come out against the carousel. I feel sorry for her husband. Imagine knowing that about your wife.

        • I don’t remember the exact number, but Susan Walsh rode the carousel before settling down with a chump who didn’t know better. It used to be that men didn’t know better, but now we do. Susan Walsh blames this on third wave feminists and is trying to put the humpty dumpty of second wave feminism where men were ignorant of this reality back together again.

        • If I’m wrong about the number of guys Susan slept with, please correct me. One of the commentators at her site mentioned the number, and told Susan that she was lucky that her husband married her.

        • Indeed, Phil. She pretty much stated she was a carousel rider. She had ONSs in college and had casual sex in various locations throughout the campus. She also stated that her main motivation for starting her blog was her concern for her daughter’s relationship prospects i.e. her daughter not being able to go her mother’s route (ride the carousel and then snag a beta husband).

        • Aww, Hollenhund.. Hell hath no fury like a hound scorned.. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..

          It’s just a bwog diddums.. 😉

        • Someone who brags on blogs about the size of her tits in her youth and her teenage daughter being hot is hardly qualified to judge what is proper online behavior and what isn’t. F*ck off and take your typical female BS elsewhere.

        • It is sad that Kathy goes around trolling for gina tingles from single dudes while her husband is out working to support her, but she would not allow the poor man to even look at porn.

          Yeah, marriage is a good deal for men. Where can I sign up??

        • Woot! There’s one born every minute. 😉

        • Wait, so Kathy actually goes around bragging about how her breasts used to be large (on account of her being overweight).

          Is she trying THAT hard to attract male attention around here, that she has to whip out her pendulums?

    • I should have included you in this post.

      Behind all of this her real greatest point of anger towards me is that 1) I said on her blog that I have an open relationship with my live together girlfriend, but really only one way open by my gf’s choice since she didn’t want to take any other male lovers, but that when we only occasionally do outside play it’s usually a mfm threesome (Susan is mondo jealous and as well thought this unfair and my gf obviously has self esteem issues and other assorted feminist crap)

      This is why she hates me even more. While I have multiple girlfriends, my women aren’t interested in other men. We don’t even do mfm threesomes. It’s me and two women or nothing. The thing Susan Walsh won’t admit about this is that the reason why my women go along with this in part has to do with entrapment in the future. I’m sure my women are trying to trick me into thinking that they will be a “cool wife”. I’m wise to this which Susan Walsh also hates given her stated goals.

    • I mean fMf threesomes, which should be obvious in context.

      Just rereading more of this thread after seeing a recent link to it.

  4. Maybe this is a generational issue. Most Western women over 50 internalized feminist dogma and took it for granted, plus they lived in a completely different SMP/MMP where it was considered self-evident that all women can find reliable and financially stable husbands when they want to. Not necessarily alpha ones, of course, but still. They know nothing about the current SMP besides the stuff their daughters and young women tell them, all of which, of course, is a skewed depiction of reality due to hamstervision. As a result, it’s pretty much impossible for the younger men in the Manosphere to communicate with them. They get angry and defensive, plus they simply don’t understand.

    It seems the female bloggers who do have a realistic picture of current male-female relations are always much younger than old women like Susan Walsh. They have neither traditionalist nor feminist illusions, plus they have personal experience with the messed-up SMP/MMP.

    I wonder if male-female relations will actually become more harmonious in some twisted way in the decades to come. When young men won’t even develop illusions about women in the first place, plus young women won’t even develop illusions about beta providers always being available, there will be fewer possible sources of conflict.

    • Late but I think you’re really on to something here. The sense I get from both Dalrock and Walsh (who used to be on the same side but now SW hates Dalrock and calls him puerile names like Lackrod) is a vain hope for a rollback to earlier mating mores, to a time when women wanted to marry earlier and thus spent less time trying out the merchandise and didn’t demand super-douchebags, and men held long-term monogamy as a personal goal and employed primary strategies to lock women down into committed relationships.

      I just get the underlying sense of “I don’t get it, it wasn’t like this when I was that age” from SW.

  5. I feel like I want to say something, but y’all have already so eloquently said what I would have said… specifically:

    1. She REALLY underestimates how many young girls (especially in the 5-7 range as Doug1 has pointed out) are riding the carousel.
    2. She heavily censors her blog comments and bans people for no real reason… just because they disagreed with her.
    3. She really don’t give a rat’s ass about what’s fair. She’s deaf to the argument that unrestrained female hypergamy is rotting out western civilization. She’s entirely amoral. Like most women, if it feels right to her than it must be moral.

  6. “Hamstervision”…… : )

    Susan is defensive because Dalrock effectively put her into the carousel rider (+ 5 partners) category with his ‘serial monogamy’ post. So according to the law of Solipsism, anything that invalidates her personally is deemed offensive generally.

  7. Sigh.
    Susan’s number was less than ten.
    I know you all hate Susan (and I sympathize with some of your reasons and even consider a few legitimate though I think not legitimate enough to justify the amount of endless bashing you do) but can’t we stick to the facts here?
    And the fact is Susan is a happily married woman with kids she loves very much and a husband she almost certainly respects based on how she talks/brags about him when he is brought up. She’s willing to occasionally post on men’s issues, she doesn’t shame men for NOT getting married (at least not anymore, I didn’t read her blog at all prior to 2009, so if she did in the past I don’t know it) and she advises that one should get a prenup and will even admit family laws need to be reformed to make them more man friendly.
    What more do you guys want from her? Should she try to shame/blame every one of her female readers and thus drive them away? Should she rename her blog “Hooking Up (With a Woman) is stupid? What do you want her to do given the stated mission of her blog? Why is she public female enemy number one to some of you? Or do you just like to pick on her cuz you think she’s cute *for a fifty some year old* when she’s mad? Whatever you think of her bans she is apparently pretty patient before handing them out.

    Now before I go I will state: Susan Walsh is not a Goddess, she is not perfect, even if one follows her advice upon hooking up one can not be totally safe, and she has apparently been a bit unfair to some of her commenters, usually of the male variety. But she’s not the Great Feminist Satan, ok?

    • I know you all hate Susan (and I sympathize with some of your reasons and even consider a few legitimate though I think not legitimate enough to justify the amount of endless bashing you do) but can’t we stick to the facts here?

      Sure, let’s stick to the facts like Susan Walsh’s association with conspiracy theory complete with accusations that I and other MRAs work for the “elite”.

      And the fact is Susan is a happily married woman with kids

      Marriage and kids don’t erase past actions even though women seem to think so.

      What more do you guys want from her?

      For starters, I would like it if she stopped trying to manipulate MRM and game ideas into something their not for her own purposes (AKA game 2.0/man up 2.0) like the time she tried to convince people that the 20/80 rule meant that 20% of men were having 80% of total amount of sex with 20% of women instead of the truth that 20% of men were having sex with 80% of women. One of the problems I have with her is one of the same problem I have with white nationalists. They’re here because they’re looking to turn the MRM and greater manosphere into their personal army.

      I would also like it if she would stop pretending second wave and first wave feminism wasn’t really feminism to cover up the fact that she’s a (second wave) feminist.

      I don’t have time to go through the entire list of reasons, but suffice it to say there’s a reason why over time more and more men are coming to the same conclusion about her.

      Should she try to shame/blame every one of her female readers and thus drive them away?

      That would be an improvement over feeding their rationalization hamsters like she’s doing now.

    • I’ve never seen her advise men to get a prenup or advise women that they should be willing to sign ones that do a little better for the woman than what happens in living together breakup, in the event of a divorce. I’ve seen her say that she understands why some men might want one but that’s about it.

      So far as family law being made fairer towards men, yes in vague ways she’s said that. She’s said that lifetime alimony is often unfair (I think it always is, or in fact any alimony at all). She got very sarcastic and nasty when I suggest that if all states adopted Texas’s child support=also stealth alimony in other states formula it would be a lot fairer. 20% for one kid, 25% for two kids, but assessed on the man’s AFTER all taxes earnings, not his pretax ones as in other states. This is after I spent some time showing that in the case of high earning me in high tax states the existing formulas can mean he’s paying a fifty percent or larger rate of after tax earnings in CS=also stealth alimony.

      So color me unimpressed.

      There’s also the fact that she bans people who too much disagree with her in too effective a fashion, despite claiming to want open and full debate.

      • Doug, that’s a good point. I don’t read hooking up smart enough to know Susan Walsh’s opinion on prenups. (Even if she’s pro-prenup, it doesn’t matter because the courts routinely throw out prenups.) This indicates that people who think Susan Walsh has pro-male views are making an assumption and not actually analyzing her actual words.

    • Why is this debate about whether Susan Walsh is a ‘Great Feminist Satan’ or ‘on board in the war on Misandry’?

      She is neither. She is merely a woman pursuing women’s interests. She is not a raving feminist, but, like most women, she does not care about the well–being of men, and prefers that women benefit over men, if given a choice.

      In other words, she is unremarkable. So why spend energy talking about this non-entity?

  8. Sigh.
    Susan’s number was less than ten.
    I know you all hate Susan (and I sympathize with some of your reasons and even consider a few legitimate though I think not legitimate enough to justify the amount of endless bashing you do) but can’t we stick to the facts here?
    And the fact is Susan is a happily married woman with kids she loves very much and a husband she almost certainly respects based on how she talks/brags about him when he is brought up. She’s willing to occasionally post on men’s issues, she doesn’t shame men for NOT getting married (at least not anymore, I didn’t read her blog at all prior to 2009, so if she did in the past I don’t know it) and she advises that one should get a prenup and will even admit family laws need to be reformed to make them more man friendly.
    What more do you guys want from her? Should she try to shame/blame every one of her female readers and thus drive them away? Should she rename her blog “Hooking Up (With a Woman) is stupid? What do you want her to do given the stated mission of her blog? Why is she public female enemy number one to some of you? Or do you just like to pick on her cuz you think she’s cute *for a fifty some year old* when she’s mad? Whatever you think of her bans she is apparently pretty patient before handing them out.

    Now before I go I will state: Susan Walsh is not a Goddess, she is not perfect, even if one follows her advice upon hooking up one can not be totally safe, and she has apparently been a bit unfair to some of her commenters, usually of the male variety. But she’s not the Great Feminist Satan, ok?

    Abridged version: “My name is Clarence, and I’m a mangina white knight.

  9. Hi, my name is GREENLANDER and I use SHAMING LANGUAGE.

    How old are you, three?

  10. Seriously, PMAFT , GreenLander is an “MRA” who is supposed to represent the “movement”? Hell, if I believed in CONSPIRACY THEORIES I’d probably say he was secretly sent by feminists to make the MRM look bad.

    Oh well, your blog. At least YOU have interesting thoughts that bring people here. It’s too bad that some of your commenters make Mr. Futrelle’s job easier.

    • Seriously, PMAFT , GreenLander is an “MRA” who is supposed to represent the “movement”? Hell, if I believed in CONSPIRACY THEORIES I’d probably say he was secretly sent by feminists to make the MRM look bad.

      Oh well, your blog. At least YOU have interesting thoughts that bring people here. It’s too bad that some of your commenters make Mr. Futrelle’s job easier.

      If you’re worried about this, then it makes more sense to be worried about someone like Henry Makow.

  11. To be fair, HUS does have some good advice for women now and then. My main gripe is that they treat women with the kid gloves in most articles and never really delve into the raw nasty truth that is the modern dating landscape and how SMV plays into it.

  12. I was banned from NSWATM for even less on that same very thread.
    The reason for my banning was “victim blaming”. The “victim” was Rebecca Watson. She’s a victim of having been offered coffee and given a compliment. Beyond that she got masses of traffic, support and potential sources of income. That poor “victim”. While the person who offered her coffee got publicly shamed and mocked by an army of feminist supporters who will jump at any opportunity to show how obedient they are.
    I only regret giving NSWATM so many chances to prove itself. Waste of time and effort but I know better now.

  13. PMAFT
    I urge you to look at Feminist Critics policies. They would never pull the bullshit that NSWATM do. You must not be familiar with them at all. I hate to have to inform you, but “traitors of men” classified them as a fence sitter blog, and that’s what they are. They have a very fair moderation policy, and it’s rather hard to get banned if you don’t make an effort to personally insult other people.

    • Whenever I take a look at Feminist Critics, there are always lots of comments with text crossed out. There’s also the separate “no hostility” threads which seem to me should be called “no truth” threads. What are they so afraid of?

      I agree with Traitors Of Men. I have called it triangulation. Triangulating like that pretends that the Feminism and the MRM are on equal footing which is not the case so triangulation is really a defense of feminism.

      • That was a very good article on “triangulation”. I don’t often learn something on gender sites so thanks.

  14. Why is it only complete & utter retards like Clarence, come out to defend Walsh

    We saw the exact same thing at Dalrocks, myself & literally the rest of the commentators, ripped walsh a new one

    & all that turned up were a couple of autistic, barely able to put together a couple of sentences, morons …

    Also like a raging mangina, Clarence gets banned by walsh, & like a complete inbred still turns up & talks crap …

    Get your balls out of your ass, & put them where they belong … with your penis, you raging fuckwit

  15. I will never understand why women will curse at us very serious straight men that are looking for a good woman to meet when we will try to start a conversation with them.

  16. a gal “moderator” did that to me on my Disqus acct. over at another sight… yaup… all I did was r/e:veal what I had experienced and commented that everything is always a choice and that women know exactly what bullshit they’re gaming and playing and hiding behind double standards like some play the race cards, etc… she went ballistic emotionally reacting… which means I struck a chord… and pierced her veils, self imposed and envisioned also… WHAT THE FUCK IS A BROAD DOING ON A MEN’S SIGHT ANYWAY?

    Time to start men’s only clubs again and just keep moving… but remember how women tore them all down ruining with their purported equality bs campaigns… I can’t wait to see them all running to men to save them her really soon… and what will most barter with first? SSDD.

  17. After the span of two years I just want to come back on this thread (I’m sure it will show up when you view blog activity, AFT) and say you were right about Susan Walsh. With her it’s been all down hill for nearly two years and it is obvious that she is running her blog for reasons other than what is best for men or even most women.

  18. I have checked out hooking up smart recently, the blog author is basically 100% grade feminist now.

    “To many students, the word rape conjures up violent men with weapons in dark alleyways. They don’t know that a guy holding a drunk girl down and penetrating her is rape.”

    This gem come from Susan! lolol She is a radical feminist in practice and belief.

  19. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Hollenhund. If you have a website by a woman, for women, whose entire topic is “how to be a slut and get away with it” (a fair translation of the womanspeke “Hooking up smart”), you can’t make a three-paragraph post whose entire point is “women are horrible poopy-heads and there’s nothing anyone can do about it” and expect not to be banned.

    This is “duh” territory, peoples. Solipsism is the key. If you want to make general statements like this, then always include the caveat “with the exception of wonderful people like Susan Walsh”. Don’t fear for an instant that she’ll recognise it as outrageous flattery to forestall a ban; she won’t, because she knows it is completely true.

  20. And most of the good old fashioned women of years ago really did put these women to real shame altogether as well which is real fact.

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

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: