May 162012
 

Rollo Tomassi said this at Dalrock’s:

OT, but nevertheless hilariously entertaining,..

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/07/relationshipstrategies/can-a-manwhore-ever-really-settle-down-even-if-he-wants-to/comment-page-3/#comments
Hey Dal, I’m honored,..

Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.

I don’t even have to post on her comment threads anymore to enjoy the irony. Heheheh,..she loves me.

[D: That is pretty funny. Did anyone even mention either of us, or was it entirely unprompted?]

If you check the link, it was entirely unprompted.  One by one Susan Walsh is declaring her hate for everyone in the androsphere.  Is there anyone in the androsphere she doesn’t hate yet?  If there is, just wait a month and that will change.  Next Susan Walsh will call it a “compelling idea” that Dalrock and Rollo have been recruited by the Illuminati to destroy male/female relationships like she did with me.

I have to say that deleting comments that just mention the names of various androsphere personalities regardless of their actual content is a new low for Susan Walsh.  Umslopogaas called this increasingly fascist for good reason.

No one should be surprised by this turn of events.  No one in the androsphere wants to go along with Susan Walsh’s game 2.0/man up 2.0.

  54 Responses to “One By One”

  1. As a priestess of the Western Slut Reformation Movement, Susan Walsh needs men (accomplished and handsome men, of course) willing to Man Up 2.0. Many prominent voices in the manosphere are focused on bursting that bubble.

    What has been seen cannot be unseen. We have seen the horrors that women have inflicted on the “good men.” And we’re not going to be the provider at the end of the rainbow for Walsh’s reformed sluts.

  2. and dalrock is one of the most civil and polite bloggers ever. maybe susan is advancing into the later stages of dementia or something.

  3. Susan is a dumb cunt who can’t defend her own arguments with logical discourse.

    The only way she can win is to shift the battlefield of the debate, which is why she is so aggressive with censoring her blog and getting out the ban hammer.

    Her own blog is a just a circle-jerk of hamster-driven female logic.

    I don’t know why anyone pays attention to her.

  4. Falling afoul with Dalrock is the equivalent of knocking out a blind WWII veteran serving at a soup kitchen.

    Aunt Sue started out looking for the truth and found it unpalatable and is now hoping to get a foot into the Media door but she must jettison the truth while doing it. I understand her prerogatives (heck she’s a womyn) but why is Vox Day still in her camp?

  5. I was going to recommend you add Christian Men’s Defense Network to your blogroll, but you already did.

    good stuff.

  6. Susan walsh is a bitch.

    I have been meaning to get back to blogging, I have even set up some domains with wordpress, but alas life gets in the way. It is difficult to even type this cause I broke a couple of fingers, the worst is my thumb. Combine that with unexpected things in life and I haven’t gotten around to it yet but hopefully soon.

    One post I have building in the back of my mind is a post on the top 10 most dangerous people or bloggers to men and boys and our lives.

    Susan Walsh and her blog will definately be towards the top.

    She has completely appropriated and colonized the ideas of the MRM for the benefit of young sluts so they can ramp up their campaign of destruction against young men.

    The most sickening thing about her is that she claims she is on young mens side.

    The more I find out about her the more disgusted I become, she is a hypergamous and misandric sociopath.

    I remember, when I first found her blog, reading a post about how she embarrassed and mindfucked her son.

    Now I just found this post:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/21/relationshipstrategies/why-we-shit-test/

    She talks about being 14 and having a crush on a boy in HS whos dad died the year before. They hang out and he talks about the funeral and breaks down crying.

    She feels repulsed by this so she sets up a cruel game, a shit test, and he falls for it and she breaks up with him a few days later.

    Think about that for a moment. Also, realize that she is likely giving us the sanitized version of the story. She doesn’t go into detail with how she broke up with him, she simply says she did.

    Did she humiliate him infront of others? Was she cruel during the break up process? Did she spread rumors about him? I wouldn’t be surprised if such a sociopathic bitch did all that and more.

    She says she fest repulsed by him showing emotion…..EMOTION OVER HIS FUCKING FATHER DYING!!!!1!

    Let that sink in for a moment…..

    She is the “good” type of western woman who is trying to reform the bad types of today.

    I remember reading another post of hers where she talked about how she was sluttying it up in grad school, basically fucking all the men in her classes, and eventually wanted to date her now husband but he thought she wasn’t into him because of her sluttiness. So she decided to be exclusive with him instead of dating him (beta alert) while also sluttying around.

    I guess he passed that shit test. He got to put a ring on what she gave away for free to his collegues. WHat a chump.

    Her mission statement is to allow sluts to slut it up and then do the same thing she did, find a beta to pay for what was given away for free, and the only reason she started the blog, in her words, was because she realized that the SMP had changed and girls risked not being able to find a husband if they sluttied it up too much.

    I hope her daughters get pumped and dumped and end up as old cat ladies so susan ends up without any grandchildren.

  7. @PMAFT & Trollking etc.

    Vox Day, Yohami, Badger like Dalrock, LOVES Walsh …

    There was a time, when Dalrock actively asked ppl not to criticise Walsh on his blog …

    All that changed after I arrived on his blog … & Dalrocks still not too happy about it to this day … lol

    Men always go ape shit over chicks who get involved in their interests, ie men going apeshit over chicks who’re into sports or mechanics ….

    You have to remember Yohami, Badger etc., dont really know how to criticise chicks … they preach their own twisted versions of game, where the PUA’s are the bad guys

    & white knights with their vagina worshipping version of game are the good guys …

    So what does this say about Badger, Yohami & the rest of the fake game crowd who post over at Walsh …

    It begs the question, why the fuck are they still posting there?

    Whats even more hilarious Walsh banned Badger & Yohami & most of the gaming crowd over at Walsh & they still came back like fly’s to shit …

    Im guessing Badger & Yohami etc., cant get over worshipping Walshs hole … or the rest of the retards at her slut reform camp…

    Im just glad the manginas & the rest of the male hating retards are concentrated in one place …

    Theres nothing like a 1000 manginas concentrated in Walsh’s hole, to prove how fucked up & batshit crazy she really is … lol

  8. Guys,

    I read the post that TK linked to (i.e. the 8th grade post SW wrote), and she didn’t say she was proud of what she’d done or anything like that. She said that she was ashamed of what she did to the football player back then. Finally, she said that it was instructive as to her core nature as a woman, and that it was insightful as to women’s core natures in general.

    MarkyMark

  9. @Markymark

    TK’s making a point here, SW admitted she felt repulsed by a guy grieving for his father … TK correctly points out this is how sociopaths operate in general …

    Whats even worse, Walsh tries to pass her sociopathic behaviour, as women hating beta behaviour ….

    As TK correctly points out, this is the behaviour of a sociopath

    Walsh banning & censoring anyone, even to the point of deleting their ENTIRE posting history for everyone she bans, confirms her sociopathic deranged behaviour …

    Walsh is pretty much equal to an extremist radical feminist, her extreme deleting her readers posting history right down to banning ppl for comments ON OTHER BLOGS …

    These are the actions of a complete & utter deranged social moron …

  10. Rmaxd,

    I caught the part of where she was banning people. I read her reasoning behind it, and believe it or not, I can understand it to a point. SW’s mission is to bring men & women back together, and to help them have good relationships. One of the guys she banned, shall we say, does not work for harmony between the sexes. If someone is working contrary to your goals; if someone is derailing threads; then I can understand the ban.

    A few of the female posters there, to be fair, took issue with what SW did at 14; Aldonza comes to mind. As far as I’m concerned, Aldonza has a better attitude toward’s men crying and showing emotion, an attitude that is more inline with that of my SIL, who’s an awesome woman. Aldonza, my SIL, my old GF, and other healthy women see no problem with men showing emotion. After all, we’re human, we have feelings, and we need to let them out. My old GF thought that, if a man could cry in front of her, then he was STRONGER than if he kept his feelings bottled up; this was because he was confident and comfortable enough to let his hair down, as it were. Even when my GF was young, she felt this way.

    Overall, my feelings on SW are mixed. I like what she’s trying to do; I like her purported aim of getting men & women back together. How can anyone have a problem with that? That said, I take issue with HOW she does it. She promotes game, which, as far as I’m concerned, gives an excuse for male and female bad behavior. I’ll be posting about this soon, so keep your eyes peeled… :)

    MarkyMark

  11. @Markymark

    I love your blog, so yea you’re take on Walsh should be interesting …

    But before you whitekight for walsh … lol

    From your above reply, it seems as if you havent been keeping up with Walsh’s descent into extreme feminist radicalism

    She no longer promotes or mentions game, if she ever did to begin with, & she constantly bans anyone mentioning game or the MRA

    If you read TK’s response & the other comments, Walsh has nothing whatsoever to do with bringing anyone together …

    Her main concern is white-washing sluts, & promoting idiotic radical feminist idioms …

    Check out her forum & her recent posts … they’re all out feminist boilerplate literature

  12. @PMAFT

    Got an exclusive for you here …

    Walsh gets slammed by PsychologyToday … Ive mentioned hundreds of times before, even the feminists hate Walsh, heres Walsh getting chewed out & screwed over by PsychologyToday …

    Walsh obviously needs to ass lick feminists alot harder …

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201202/hooking-smart-and-nasty

    “I’m tempted to say that Walsh’s attitudes toward single women are about as enlightened as the worldview that sees aspirin as a cheap and effective form of birth control.

    (Santorum’s billionaire Super-PAC funder said that women should put the aspirin between their knees.) But that wouldn’t be fair.”

    • And Psychology Today – which is simply Cosmo for the over-20s – as much as it rants about being “single and victorious” or whatever can’t help but reinforce that fucking is *still* the Most Important Thing In The World. You might define yourself by doing it, or buy not doing it, but sex is still the topic.

      That’s the mark of women’s media – it’s *always* about sex, even when the title of the publication is “Psychology Today”. Could you imagine a shitty little column on Susan Walsh in Scientific American?

  13. Rmaxd,

    No, I haven’t kept up with much of anything in recent weeks since my mother died. Even before my mom’s death, I didn’t read Walsh regularly. Even when I read something of hers that caught my eye, I’d often skim through it, because I don’t have time to read what amount to short, online books. I damn sure didn’t follow the comment threads; WTF has time to read 500-1000 comments?! I surely don’t!

    As for saying she wants to bring men & women together, I was going by her blog’s mission statement. In the top paragraph, she says plain as day that this is what she seeks to do. I have no problem with that. Who really likes how fucked up things are between the sexes?

    Having said that, I haven’t watched her transition to feminism or anything like that. Again, I don’t read everything she writes, because I don’t have the TIME. I have not read everything she writes. Ergo, I cannot see for myself whether she has or has not ‘gone feminist’.

    MarkyMark

    • I meant to say that I have not read everything she has written; I have not read all of her past writings either, so I cannot see what, if any, changes took place in her positions.

      • @markymark

        I haven’t read all he stuff either.

        I have been in the MRM for about three years I guess, damn has it been that long?

        I found her blog right before I started lurking and commenting in the MRM.

        It was shortly after she set it up, maybe a month or two. There were hardly any men on the blog and she didn’t know about Roissy or the MRM at that point I don’t believe.

        I made some comments under a different name and I got jumped on by Susan and all her female commenters.

        Originally her mission statement wasn’t to bring the sexes together but was to “help young women navigate the hook up scene with better success” or something along those lines, that isn’t verbatim.

        Since then she has changed a bit because she got so many male commenters.

        Now, to be fair, I haven’t followed her blog extensively either. I find a post every couple of months and follow her for a week or two and then I forget about her and move on and rinse and repeat.

        I will say that I have seen her make some good points. Ironically while she is trying to help women and women first her blog might be better for men. I fail to see how a blue pill guy cold find her blog and not have his eyes opened with respect to female nature.

        I think one of the things that bugs me about Susan the most is that she seem kinda creepy. Her writing has a feel of voyerism and living vicariously through young womens hook up experiences. I don’t know, I just find a lof of her writing creepy.

        I wouldn’t say she is feminist though, not in the traditional sense.

        She is more of a socon or tradcon, but still female supremacist.

        And to be fair, you are correct that she claims she felt bad about shit testing the football player.

        But did you read the comments? In the comment section she talks about shit testing her husband and the way she wrote about it made her sound like your typical ball busting wife.

        IDK, part of me wants to simply see her as a sociopath and not representative of female nature. But she claims she is representative of female nature and saying that is worse than anything I have ever said about women while stringing along words like cunt and bitch.

        I look forward to reading what you write about her.

        • @TK MM

          TK, you’re initial post on her being a sociopath is correct …

          A womans natural instinct to a man loosing his father is not revulsion …

          Btw on HUS, heres a quote by Walsh on what ppl now call DalrockGate …

          ” I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is. ”

          To catch you guys upto speed on Walsh …

          My take on Walsh is here …

          http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/#comment-26066

          Sadly, it seems Susan Walsh, who in-between showed much promise, has exhibited a number of themes Dalrock has described in detail :

          1) Demanding that hookups be ‘fair’ to women, even if unfairness to men result.
          2) Demanding that men ‘commit’ while women do not reciprocate commitment.
          3) Seeing no trouble with renegotiating the social contract to be very lopsided in favor of women.
          4) Insisting that women who divorce always have a good reason.

          And Susan ought to know better than most women. She has a son. She also has a Wharton MBA, the receipt of which should bestow the holder with the ability to judge cause and effect, through rigorous application of the case study method.

          But alas, Susan is one seeking to suppress information flow. This never works for long. One of my premier maxims is :

          The side that seeks to suppress information flow always loses to the side that strengthens from the free flow of information. It is only a question of time.

    • Sorry about your Mom,bro.

    • As for saying she wants to bring men & women together, I was going by her blog’s mission statement. In the top paragraph, she says plain as day that this is what she seeks to do. I have no problem with that. Who really likes how fucked up things are between the sexes?

      You’re making several wrong assumptions here. Just because someone has a mission statement that says X doesn’t mean that is what they are actually doing X. It could be an outright lie, or their definition of something like “bringing men and women together” is different from yours and the dictionary definition. Susan Walsh is definitely the latter and possibly the former. Here are some other examples throughout history that will help prove the point:

      “The Nazis mission statement is about helping Germany and Germans get back on their feet after the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. I have no problem with that. Who really likes the fucked up way Germans were treated after WWI?”
      “The Communists mission statement is about improving the lives of workers who are laboring under harsh conditions. I have no problem with that. Who really likes workers being forced to earn meager pay under harsh conditions?”
      “The Feminists mission statement is about gaining rights for women. I have no problem with that. Who really likes women being treated as second class citizens?”

      There’s many more examples you could use from “do gooders” who just want to “help children” to many others. The point is clear. Just because someone has a good mission statement doesn’t mean they aren’t doing evil or that they were even honest about what their actual mission statement is. Most people seem to get the concept of “what what someone does and not just what they say”. When you do that, it’s clear that Susan Walsh is just another female supremacist who doesn’t like the 1% of feminism that accidentally hurts SOME women.

      Having said that, I haven’t watched her transition to feminism or anything like that. Again, I don’t read everything she writes, because I don’t have the TIME. I have not read everything she writes. Ergo, I cannot see for myself whether she has or has not ‘gone feminist’.

      Mark, you have been around and around with this on other androsphere blogs where they have produced comments and posts filled with documentation and links proving that Susan Walsh is effectively a feminist. Walsh is now deleting comments just for mentioning the names of individuals like Dalrock and Rollo. She is willing to endorse conspiracy theories about men and other androsphere bloggers that we are working for the CIA and/or the super-rich to destroy relationships between men and women. The facts about Susan Walsh are being placed right in front of you, yet you keep refusing to take a few minutes to read them. You don’t have to read blog posts with a thousand comments. We have done that for you so why do you keep playing this game?

      • Maybe I don’t want to believe that SW is that bad? In any case, I am not playing a game.

        • So your argument about Susan Walsh is meaningless. We’re dealing with the reality of what she is. You’re living in a fantasy world, and that’s why multiple men in the androsphere/manosphere are getting very frustrated with and tired of your defense of Susan Walsh. We keep presenting facts about Susan Walsh, and you do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you”.

        • Not meaning to pile on MM … his blogs pretty awesome …

          Beliefs are meaningless unless theyre backed by evidence …

          Markymarks position on Walsh is typical of alot of guys in the MRA movement …

          & men in general …

          Theyre more then happy to talk about mens rights, but when it comes to specifics & uncomfortable truths, they always fold like cheap paper plate …

          The infighting in the MRA is pretty hilarious … Keyster & his cohorts on the spearhead being a prime example

          Then theres the anti-gamers & manginas on Dalrocks & an unlimited supply over at Walsh …

          Im guessing its a symptom of the times …

        • I don’t want to believe it either,MM,and the truth is that she is not “that bad”. I have posted numerous comments to HUS that are extremely incendiary. I don’t know if she eventually deleted them but they stood for at least a day on multiple occasions,because I checked back in.

          However,she IS a woman. In that respect,she is not any fairer to men than any other woman.She wants what’s good for women FIRST,and if there’s anything left over,she’s more than happy to toss us some crumbs.
          I think that’s what most of the men here are objecting to and it’s a fair point.

  14. The thing that women like Susan Walsh make clear is this: the change we want to see in society is going to have to be driven by men, and men alone.

    Women are just too incapable of reasoning to help us, even the ones that actually agree there is a problem. They’re just not wired for logic and deductive reasoning.

    The real enemies are the White Knights. As long as White Knights keep throwing one another under the bus we won’t make any progress.

    • Very true Greenlander.

      Men are definitely more logical and reasoning.. Women more emotive.

      This is why men are the providers and protectors. The builders of civilizations.. The inventors , the deep thinkers, the discoverers,the problem solvers. .. The poets.. The artists..

      Women are the child bearers, the nurturers,. They are there to support their husbands.. To soothe after a hard days work.. To feed them , to f**k them and to look after them.

      The natural order has been greatly disturbed.

      Women NEED men to take control.. They NEED them to lead.

      Even if they will not admit it.. Silly bints!

    • Greenlander,

      Women like Thinking Housewife would agree with you. We, as men, are the natural leaders of this world, so it’s up to US to step up and act like it…

      MarkyMark

      • The NOT Thinking Housewife does not agree with us. What Greenlander was saying is that we can’t depend on women to help us establish rights for men. What The NOT Thinking Housewife is doing is attempting to shift responsibility of feminism from women who do feminist actions to men. The NOT Thinking Housewife is simply trying to avoid holding women accountable.

        Mark, you really seem to have a blind spot when it comes to AFINO (anti-feminist in name only) women like The NOT Thinking Housewife and Susan Walsh.

        • It’s a blind spot I share with Marky,I’m afraid. I realize it’s a weakness and that hateful bitches can and will use it to get me to drop my guard so they can stab me in the back. I depend on you guys who refuse any conciliation with any of these broads until they go above and beyond to demonstrate their friendliness to the MRM. I thank you for the constant service you provide me and others like me in that regard.

          I am struggling daily to overcome this weakness so that I don’t have to lean on your good judgment all the time.

  15. PMAFT,

    How can you say that TH is a AFINO?! Did you know that she has advocated discrimination in hiring that FAVORS men? Did you know that she says that giving women the right to vote was a big mistake? Oh, and did you also know that it was MEN who did that? Did it escape your notice that MEN enabled and supported feminism? Do you think feminism would have gotten anywhere if it weren’t for MEN helping it along?!

    MarkyMark

    • Did you know that she has advocated discrimination in hiring that FAVORS men?

      This is a misandrist trick to get men to slave for women all day while women do no work. The “mommy wars” which this is a part of are feminist on both sides. Feminists say, “Men are trying to force us against our will to stay home.” AFINOs like the NOT Thinking Housewife say, “Men are trying to force us against our will to work outside of the home.” Both sides are anti-male and feminist.

      Did you know that she says that giving women the right to vote was a big mistake?

      This is another AFINO trick since they think they can control the way men vote.

      Oh, and did you also know that it was MEN who did that? Did it escape your notice that MEN enabled and supported feminism? Do you think feminism would have gotten anywhere if it weren’t for MEN helping it along?!

      This is just a trick to avoid holding women responsible for feminism. Yes, men’s innate sense of fairness was used against us by women. That doesn’t make some conspiracy theorist explanation of feminist correct.

      • A woman who really loved her husband would either take up half of the work so that she can feel justifiably proud of having contributed to the household expenses,
        or accept living frugally on a single salary, since love is not about money.
        Until women marry men less successful than them, shorter than them, less educated than them and earning less than them …
        all* (99.9% is close enough to 100%) women, even the traditional ones, are after men who kill themselves to keep them in the style they are accustomed.
        A man alone taking on all the stresses of relational aggression in the workplace against diversity harpies and manginas …
        deserves a woman who can walk the hard yards with him and contribute to the family.
        Otherwise it’s simply
        “I will let you lead provided you accept that by being a leader you get worked to death”.
        Such a deal.
        P.S. I’d have more belief in the traditional women if they are willing to accept living frugally.

      • PMAFT,

        I wasn’t mentioning anything about conspiracies. Yes, women bought into feminism en masse. However, it was MEN who gave them the right to vote, enabled feminsm, etc. Who do you think held power when women were given the right to vote? Who caved into the suffragettes’ demands? Who is it that not only elevated women to positions of power (both public & private sectors), but said that we need to give women a chance? It was our fellow MEN who did that, my friend! All that is a matter of record. If men had only put their feet down earlier, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

        MarkyMark

        • PMAFT is correct about The All men are a slave for the benefit to society Thinking Housewife

          She’s made it quite clear on her blog, men have a duty to serve society AND women … for the sake of society of course …

          She’s a traditionalist, which is what all traditionalists basically say about men …

          Traditionalism was a hundred times worse then feminism …

          At least theres no duty & honor to brainwash men into marrying hags & sluts, for the benefit of society …

        • P Ray sums up The all men are Slaves Thinking Housing wife, above quite well …

        • Rmaxd,

          Yeah, right, Zenpriest said it best: thanks to feminism, a man could no longer provide for a family; thanks also to feminism, he no longer HAS to…

          MarkyMark

        • However, it was MEN who gave them the right to vote, enabled feminsm, etc. Who do you think held power when women were given the right to vote? Who caved into the suffragettes’ demands? Who is it that not only elevated women to positions of power (both public & private sectors), but said that we need to give women a chance? It was our fellow MEN who did that, my friend! All that is a matter of record. If men had only put their feet down earlier, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

          I fail to see why we should blame men who had no experience to draw on regarding women voting for following their sense of fairness. Previous expansions of the voting franchise to black men, for example, worked so it would seem reasonable to expand the franchise more.

          You entire argument is nothing but an attempt to prevent women from being held accountable for their actions. The refusal by tradcons to hold women accountable knows no bounds. Anytime a woman does something wrong, they blame a man or men in general just like the feminists.

        • What about drawing upon the wisdom of the ancients? Cato the Elder, in Livy’s History of Rome, said that woman is ‘a violent and uncontrolled animal, and that they cannot be trusted with power. Didn’t Rome, Sparta, and other great civilizations DIE because they gave women power? Sure, we didn’t have experience with women voting, but what about the experiences of past civilizations? What about-gasp-LEARNING from history?

          I’m not trying to absolve women of any responsibility. Having said that, if women are glorified children (and I believe that they are), how much responsibility can we, as men, give them? Shouldn’t we, as men, have put our collective feet down when women started agitating for the vote, equal rights, etc.? I think so.

        • Given that the tradcon way is just to use men as frontmen and have men be responsible for everything with no authority, then what the NOT Thinking Housewife and the rest of the tradcons are doing is having women vote by using men as frontmen. It’s just as bad and hides the reality of the situation.

          The problem is that you’re only concentrating on the outside appearance of what the tradcons do, instead on throughly investigating it.

        • I certainly would like to know how many of the men in charge who made it possible for equality to happen (thus magically making things twice as expensive in terms of real labour) …
          were MARRIED.

          Women like to talk about the “oppressive patriarchy”,
          which always happens to be by “men in leadership positions who are married”.
          Because other than, as whiskey says “women HATE HATE HATE beta men”, women also “HATE HATE HATE unmarried male political leaders”

          Wanna know why?
          It’s because when the married man in charge passes a law and it works out, the feminists and women will claim credit for it,
          and when it fails “Stupid oppressive patriarchy ruining things for all of us. Men start all the wars”.
          See how it works?
          I would bet to you that many of these men in leadership positions are merely cats’ paws for some very oppressive and manipulative women. I’m not saying they had no way to resist. I am saying they know the deal “make the wife unhappy and no sex for you!”

          The women who do nothing AGAINST feminism … are to my mind women who SUPPORT feminism.
          ‘Cause they’re certainly taking all the benefits, while at the same time denying complicity.

        • That’s another part of this whole issue. When tradcons say that they want to limit voting to men, they mean married men. In some cases the tradcons admit this. In others they hide this to get unmarried men to support them.

        • @MarkyMark

          I think its safe to say, most men are complete & utter fucking retards when it comes to women …

          Which is WHY men saw the need to develop game … & the MRA

          If men had a clue on how women REALLY behave in front of their thugs & low-lifes, literally throwing their saggy skid-mark pussies at them, there would never be a need for PUA’s & game bootcamps & MRA movements …

          Of course thanks to the destruction of traditionalism, I no longer have to work to the bone, just to avoid becoming a social pariah …

          The MRA, thanks to the feminazi radicals, will let men have their cake & eat it …

          Swimming in pussy, & the eradication of man hating, victimless laws …

          Oh yea & the massive proliferation of game in society … which is causing a revolution on its own …

  16. I read this Zed quote the other day and it reminded me of the HUS girls:

    Nothing is so ironic as listening to a woman, who never even took high school psychology, make bitter and scathing authoritative pronouncements about men, their nature, their motivations, and particularly their sexuality; then wonder morosely why none of these exploitive creatures approach her in order to force their unwanted attentions upon her.

    Thank you feminism.

  17. […] thought this quote was a classic.  HT Retrenched. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

  18. Oh boy. Did she go crazy, or was she crazy all along?

  19. […] this point it should be clear to anyone what Susan Walsh really is although guys like MarkyMark will still defend her. Share this:EmailPrintFacebookRedditDiggStumbleUpon  Posted by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech […]

  20. Wow, she deleted the WHOLE THING! I don’t know what to say…

    • How about… “I may have been wrong, and need to review all the evidence and carefully reconsider my position”?

      • lol I’d love to see MarkyMark grill walsh …

        She’s prime fodder, for one of MarkyMarks reviews

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

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: