Feb 092013
 

By now I’m sure all of you have heard about Chris Dorner, the former LA cop who went on a killing spree.  He produced a manifesto against the LAPD, but there is a small part of it that we should know about:

Those lesbian officers in supervising positions who go to work, day in day out, with the sole intent of attempting to prove your misandrist authority (not feminism) to degrade male officers. You are a high value target.

Since Chris Dorner is trying to defend feminism here, he is a feminist despite his complaints against misandrist lesbians.  Misandry is feminism so trying to separate the two is a useless exercise in cognitive dissonance.  It’s likely that Chris Dorner’s cognitive dissonance about feminism contributed to driving him insane and going on this killing spree.  Chris Dorner would have been better off if he became an anti-feminist.

May 252012
 

We hear a lot about how the Catholic Church is supposedly anti-feminist.  Except for a few minor matters like abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, the Catholic Church agrees with feminism completely.  Anyone who tries to claim that the Catholic Church is anti-feminist will typically say point out how much feminists hate the Catholic Church.

In the case of feminists hating the Catholic Church, why do feminists hate the Catholic Church since they agree on most of feminism?  Justinian at The Spearhead figured out the answer:

The left’s hatred of the Catholic church mirrors the way women look down on male feminists.

This is what it comes down to.  The Catholic Church is the organization equivalent to male feminists.  Just how male feminists are hated by feminists despite the fact that they agree with each other, so is the Catholic Church hated by feminists.

Feb 092012
 

The reason why there is so much written in the manosphere about socons, conservatives, etc. is because it is recognized that feminism is not purely a left wing ideology.  It has infected both the left AND the right, and TDOM explains this and how feminism transcends both the left and the right:

That’s an interesting way of framing the discussion. I’ve often viewed feminism as neither left nor right by nature. Instead it is as many feminists freely admit, a gender issue and there are members of both genders on either side of the political spectrum.

I think early feminists adopted the leftist view as a matter of strategy and for recruitment purposes. The Marxist approach to economics was easily adaptable to cultural practices. All it took to draw in membership was to convince people that women are disadvantaged. With societal structures predominantly populated with men, this was easy enough to do. The term “patriarchy” was redefined and used for this purpose. first wave feminists laid the groundwork and second wave feminists became the footsoldiers.

Aligning themselves with cultural Marxist idealism served another purpose as well. The communist witch hunts of the McCarthy era resulted in a popularization of Marxism during which time, it became chic to be openly Marxist and difficult, if not destructive, for opponents of Marxism to speak out against them. the fear of being identified as a “hatemonger” keeping opponents in line.

At first, feminism was only a part of the liberal movement of the 60s but by the mid-80s it had eclipsed the movement itself and liberalism had become more or less synonymous with feminism to the point that one could not be leftist and not be feminist.

On the right, the movement was more subtle. Women were already being pedastalized by white knight chivalry as standard practice. The leftist acceptance of the women as victim model was simmply transferred to the right. One did not have to adopt the value system to accept the model. In fact, on the right women were already seen as helpless. all that was needed was to turn “helpless” into “victim.”

The second wave feminist could fight the battles and the conservative feminist would move out of the way and then reap the rewards.

The chivalrist ideal was prevalent on the left as well. For more liberal chivalrists it was easy to accept feminists because of their Marxist position. They simply incorporated feminism into their own leftist idealism and became collaborationists (manginas as they are sometimes called). The right wing chivalrist (the white knight) picked up on the woman as victim mantra and rushed to her rescue.

Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege.

Dec 172011
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage.  They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”.  For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0.  Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0).  How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism?  The answer is the expat test.

In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married.  This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage.  There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:

  1. Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country
  2. Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)
  3. Don’t get married whether you expat or not

Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2.  They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county.  It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens.  This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.

If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be?  Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage.  They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations.  In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies.  Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.

If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.

Dec 122011
 

I found this comment on Alucin’s blog (that wasn’t from Alcuin himself):

Please, would you and the others in the manosphere quit using the Jew analogy! The whole holocaust fairytale is complete bullshit. I believed it for most of my life, just like you, how couldn’t we? It is all we are taught, or better said, it is all we are told, thousands upon thousands of times, everyday, everywhere we turn, pretty much from the age we learn to speak. But you’re obviously a bright guy that thinks for himself, so look into. We have the net now, you can educate yourself on so many things, like I am sure you did about the feminist lie. There is a ton of information out there. The Holohaux scam is falling apart, and fast, just like so many of the other scams. Get on the wave so as not to lose credibility. You’re a good writer.

And no, I am not a Neo-Nazi, or a “Jew-hater”, or any of the like…..just someone with a passion for the truth……..

I say keep using Jew analogies.  Not only did the holocaust happen, but what happened to the Jews is an apt metaphor for is happening to men.  I also like how it pisses off white nationalists.

Dec 082011
 

This was written a long time ago, and I wasn’t aware of it until yesterday when I read about it on another blog:

The Jews in charge see the MRM as benign and non-threatening and useful too. Some time ago I looked at some MRM websites, and they all had one thing in common. If you did what they said, you would be contributing to the end of the white race.

There’s an MRM blog called “Citizen Renegade” where the author who is a Jew tells white men how to “game” women for one night stands. White men who listen to Mr. Renegade will not have relationships with white women or form families meaning that the next generation of whites will be smaller. There’s another MRM blog called “Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology”. It should be called Pro-Jew/Anti-White Technology. The author there encourages men to only have children with Indian surrogate mothers in India. I also found a guy there who is a Hindu Indian, who brags about how he tricked women into miscegenation by donating sperm to a sperm bank and claiming he was white on their paperwork. There’s also a blog called “Omega Virgin Revolt” that is about nothing but generating hate among white men for white women.

The MRM is Jew run movement for preventing white men from forming families with white women and killing off white children before they’re even conceived. If you aren’t convinced the MRM is a Jew run movement go to any MRM blog and you will find them defending the Jew Strauss-Kahn and saying that Jew is a victim.

This is just another example of how white nationalism is really white knight nationalism.

Nov 172011
 

If you thought what no more mr nice guy said yesterday was nuts, read his latest nutty rantings:

I don’t believe that MRAs tell the truth about their experience with women. Some of them say they have a girlfriend/wife while it’s obviously false – guys that brags their girlfriend is a virgin supermodel member of MENSA. Some say they have submissive girlfriend/wife and they lie (Dalrock say that he’s a happily married Christian man and it’s obvious from what he writes that he’s not happy and very frustrated).

All right, I admit it.  All the women I talked about banging and being my girlfriends are completely made up.  Who else is making up girlfriends, wives, and sex partners?  Come on admit it.

Seriously?  WTF?  I could post a video of myself in 1080p in 3D having sex with a woman or the time I had a threesome or have sex with a woman right in front of him, and this guy will still claim that I’m not getting laid.  This is how wedded our our enemies are to the idea that all of us are losers who can’t get laid.  First, it doesn’t matter if any of us are having sex or not.  Second, even though most of us are getting laid and/or have girlfriends, our enemies just say this over and over again (if they don’t go the code magenta route of accusing us of preying on defenseless women).

The argument against code purple shaming language is usually about that whether a man is getting laid or not is not relevant to his ideas.  That is correct of course, and the principle we need to defend.  However, that doesn’t mean we can’t fight code purple shaming language in other ways.  Pointing out that code purple shaming language is used against men who get laid regularly really knocks out the legs from under it.  It’s the ultimate way of showing the principle that mens rights ideas aren’t based on whether he is getting laid or not.  Plus, it makes our enemies look like the absurd morons they are.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to have sex with a virgin supermodel MENSA member.

Oct 312011
 

Henry Makow, the guy who spends time thinking about Dick Cheney’s genitalia, has really gone off the deep end.  He posted an article from some lunatic who claims that circumcision is a conspiracy to keep men from masturbating and having sex.  It’s a really stupid idea because obviously that has not happened.  This is what Henry Makow had to say about it:

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction.  I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of taking a libido inhibitor would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself.  (But that’s another story.)

This is disturbing enough.  However, Henry Makow edited what he originally said.  I found this at another website that is recording Henry Makow’s articles and thus captured Makow’s original comment:

Clifford Shack sees a nefarious motive behind male circumcision, which has recently been protected BY LAW in California. He thinks men are being deprived of sexual satisfaction.  I think that anything that diminishes the over-sized role played by the penis in a man’s life is positive. In fact, the option of chemical castration would be a blessing for youths, reversible after a young man has matured and established himself. (But that’s another story.)

I added the bold.  I have also saved a screen shot of this in case it disappears.  If thinking about Dick Cheney’s penis was bizarre enough, Henry Makow believes that castration would be a “blessing” for young men.  I’m almost surprised he chose to cover his tracks on this because he never tried to hide his fixation on Dick Cheney’s penis.

Makow also posted an article from a woman running the born again virgin con showing his support for it.  Here are some of the things the born again virgin woman had to say:

Feminism has really been the Men’s Liberation Movement.

My most serious relationship was with a musician. He ended up moving to NYC to pursue music and I didn’t think I could keep up with his lifestyle or the city. He also drank quite a bit. I have tended to attract addicted men — something I have had to watch out for.

I am currently not working because of nervous burnout and I can’t believe the guilt that’s been thrown at me, for trying to stop and take care of myself.

I am under a lot of pressure and criticism from others. For instance, when I go to a singles event and a guy is talking to me and finds out I don’t have a job right now, and then walks away or looks at me weird. In that case–I may know that he’s looking for someone to take care of him.

Add these things to Makow’s attempts to obliquely shame MGTOW, his socon like attacks on video games using conspiracy theory, his support of the false abuse industry, his support of the false rape industry, and his calling divorced women “wholesome”, there is no reason to trust anything that comes out of his mouth, EVER.

Oct 232011
 

I find most of the “alt right” to be completely useless.  They are very similar to the white (knight) nationalists who are nothing but manginas.  Here is a good example.  Some of you might be familiar with Brett Stevens.  For those of you who aren’t, he’s one of the “alt right” types, and he writes at amerika.org.

Over at IMF, Human Stupidity listed ten examples of powerful men such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn who had their lives destroyed by false rape accusations.  What did Brett Stevens have to say about this?

I can’t ride with you here. Most of these people should have had their lives destroyed.

In other words, Brett Stevens is saying that if you are of the “wrong” race, ethnic group, religion, job, or politics, you deserve a false rape accusation.  One reason that the false rape industry is as big as it is because too many people think that false rape accusations are acceptable in certain cases.  Brett Stevens’s support of the false rape industry isn’t limited to that comment:

What else has sexual liberation brought us?

An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian

Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape. Unless a dozen people saw the woman screaming “stop rape” after she was assaulted by a random person, there’s no real evidence. Semen or a condom? Also used for consensual sex. Evidence of roughness? Also happens during “normal” sex. He will say she said she wanted to have sex; she’ll say she didn’t. Did she change her mind? Did he misread the signals? It’s not as serious a crime anymore, because with so many women chucking the goods out the door without a second thought, it’s hard to prove they were unlikely to have said yes. No one wants to start another million-dollar court case where the evidence will never be strong enough to satisfy many critical observers.

Here, Brett Stevens takes feminist statistics on rape as gospel.  Rather than admitting the false rape industry exists, Stevens says that DSK, the Duke Lacrosse players, Julian Assange, and many other men we don’t know the names of are all guilty of rape, but it couldn’t be proven.  This is verbatim what feminists say about false rape accusations, that the accused men are all guilty but got off scot free.  The fact is that these women lied.  There is no confusion or lack of evidence.  The facts are these women lied, but Stevens defends them like a feminist.

Brett Stevens supports the false rape industry just like a feminist.  And like feminists, he is perfectly fine with false rape accusations being used against those he perceives as political enemies.

Oct 222011
 

I found this at the (Not) Thinking Housewife’s blog from Jesse Powell:

The last thing I will add, withdrawing chivalry from women as a means to punish the woman is never legitimate and is something I would characterize as being abusive towards women

I bolded that last part.  Here we have an example of tradcons using code tangerine shaming language.  The false abuse industry isn’t limited to leftist feminists.

The funniest part of this is if you scroll up to where the (Not) Thinking Housewife has to remind everyone that Jesse Powell is a man.  He’s such a big mangina and white knight that it’s easy to think he’s a woman.

 

Aug 132011
 

There is no better way for a man to announce that he’s a mangina than by saying, “I apologize for the misogynist website” right before linking to this blog (scroll down on that link to find the comment):

lolz. I think Scott Adams nailed it in that controversial blog post. I apologize for the misogynist website, it’s the first one I found that preserved his post. I do not believe Mr. Adams was in any way being misogynist or anti-feminist.

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2011/03/scott-adams-deletes-post-where-he-calls-mras-pussies/

Jul 182011
 

Amanda Marcotte wrote this on her twitter:

Female infidelity is worse than rape, according to panicked MRAs.http://j.mp/pZSJHi

What this is in reference to as you can tell from the link is how male feminist (mangina), Hugo Schwyzer, had sex with a woman he called “Jill” years ago.  “Jill” was seeing a man called “Ted” and had sex with “Ted” and Hugo in a short window of time.  “Jill” ended up pregnant, but never told “Ted” that she was having sex with another man.  “Ted” and “Jill” get married because of the baby, but “Ted” could be raising and paying for a kid that isn’t his.

Amanda Marcotte is acting like the only people who have a problem with Hugo’s behavior are “panicked MRAs” who can’t deal with “female infidelity”.  She has lied about what really happened here.  Yes, there was infidelity, but what (potentially) happened here was FRAUD, specifically paternity fraud.  Amanda Marcotte is trying to hide the real issue of FRAUD by claiming MRAs just want to control female sexuality.  At some level she knows that she has to defend Hugo’s behavior in those terms because otherwise what Hugo did looks like any other type of fraud that is illegal (assuming the kid is Hugo’s).

No one should let Amanda Marcotte get away with pretending that FRAUD isn’t the real issue here.

 

Jul 152011
 

13:23 said about Norge:

You haven’t defeat anyone or anything. All you’ve done is scribbled some psychotic and delusional garbage about the evil coin crabbing Jews who are out to get you.

From your writing its pretty clear that you’re an older white male with at least one daughter. And its pretty obvious that this daughter has come of age and due to the culture she lives in (feminism) she’s started to behave like a typical western woman. And rather then accepting the fact that your daughter is slut and a whore, you’ve conjured up this fucked up ridiculous conspiracy about the satanist Jews who’ve brainwashed you’re daughter or what ever. Just face the facts so we don’t have to read you inane writings anymore.

While I wanted to stop talking about Norge, I wanted to comment on what 13:23 said.  While I tend to think that Norge has at least one daughter, he may also have at least one son.  Not only is he incapable of accepting that any daughters he might have are sluts, he is also incapable of accepting why any sons he might have are having trouble getting women or have decided to use women and never get married.  (Or perhaps any sons he has might have gone ghost.)

Rather than admit feminism is really FEMININE-ISM as Zed puts it, Norge concocted some silly grandiose conspiracy theory so he doesn’t have to blame women like any daughters he may have for their behavior.  Norge has gone to great lengths to not admit that his daughter(s) are a part of the problem.  By saying that his daughter(s) (or women in general) are brainwashed by some covert organization, he doesn’t have to hold women responsible for their actions.

Norge will blame the Jews, Freemasons, homosexuals, blacks, satanists, (non-existent) reptile aliens, anybody with the letter Q in their name, and/or many other groups I can’t think of.  He will blame anyone but a Western woman.  He won’t even blame non-Western women either as we have seen with his constant refusal to admit the reality of the false rape industry in the case of DSK.  (Since DSK is “the enemy” to Norge, he can never admit that DSK is a victim of feminism.)

A good question to ask is why is Norge here?  Why does he think spending time here is important?  Why is he spending all of his time accusing MRAs of misogyny and “gang stalking” and not accusing feminists of misandry and “gang stalking”?  If he thinks that feminism is a NWO scheme like the MRM is, then why isn’t he spending at least half his time arguing against feminists on feminist blogs, especially given the fact that feminists are the ones with real political power?  Why is he accusing me and other MRAs of being members of the NWO and not any feminists?  The reason it that he’s white knighting for women, and that he can’t deal with the fact that any daughters he has (if he has them) have chosen of their own free will to be sluts.  In each one of these cases, he attacks men only, never women.

I wish I could say this would end with Norge, but it won’t.  As I have predicted before we will see more of this in the future because there are various sections of the conspiracy theory community that are outright misandrist.

 

 

Jun 252011
 

(I have started a new category for these posts called Amanda Marcotte’s Misandry.)

My last post on Amanda Marcotte has generated a lot of hits.  First Snark sent it to the mens rights reddit.  Then it got sent to Instapundit/Glenn Reynolds.  My thanks to the both of you.  Since then that post has been linked at Dr. Helen, American Power, and elsewhere.  The daily hitcount for yesterday and especially today has been far beyond anything I have ever had.  That being said there have been some interesting reactions.

The first is from Mara who commented here on the blog.  (There was some question whether Mara was Maura from this post who was obsessed with my genitalia.    I checked the IP addresses and they are clearly two different people.)  She tried to use the fact that Mr. Ball once slapped his daughter as an excuse to justify the feminist totalitarianism used against him in anti-family court. Here is what Mr. Ball had to say about that:

When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

This site I pulled that quote from is thomasjamesball.com, a website recording all of the facts about what happened to Mr. Ball.  If this was as simple as Mr. Ball being a violent man, then why is there an attempt to erase all knowledge about him at places like wikipedia?

Worse than Mara, we have a conservative who responded to Glenn Reynolds defending the anti-family court system:

Assistant Village Idiot here. People who have a hair across their ass in general about the family court system are trying to keep the Thomas Ball story alive as if he is some kind of victim. In his efforts to have unsupervised visits with his daughter, he was told to have his visits supervised by Monadnock Family Services. He refused because he blames them for his problems.

I deal with that agency all the time, though not the children’s services – I have for 30 years. They are entirely reasonable people who make adjustments and accommodations for people who don’t like them or are suspicious of them all the time. Hell, they are a mental health center, so most of their clients are difficult and suspicious. They are not some Orwellian controlling agency. Ball decided that being pissy and proving that he was right about one incident ten years ago was more important than seeing his daughter. He’s no victim.

Family courts may indeed be prejudiced against fathers – I hear that, but I don’t know. I’ve certainly dealt with many cases of NH courts ruling in favor of fathers in custody disputes, though, and I don’t see a massive trend here. It pays to remember that MFS cannot tell its side of the story because of confidentiality, and that some pathological people hide by trying to tie themselves to legitimate causes. Wolves hide in sheep’s clothing, because it doesn’t do any good to hide in wolves’ clothing, does it?

Here is the blog of the guy that wrote that.

Again, the question has to be asked, if it’s this simple then why is there an attempt to hide what Mr. Ball did from places like wikipedia?  This guy says he has had no dealings with children’s services and really doesn’t know if anti-family courts are prejudiced against fathers.  Those of us who do know, know that anti-family courts are prejudiced against men.  We have decades of evidence proving that fact.

Amanda Marcotte has finally responded to this on her twitter:

@AmPowerBlog Yep. It’s not uncommon for abusers to turn to self-harm to continue exerting control over their victims. http://chzb.gr/lLvaEz

Glenn Reyonds asked (most likely rhetorically) if Amanda Marcotte said the original quote from manboobz.  Since she is now defending it, there should be no question it was Amanda Marcotte.

Take a look at her link.  It’s about a criminal who barricaded himself in a hotel room with a woman.  At the end of the standoff, the man decided to shoot himself in the chest in an attempt to not be arrested by police.  The woman he was with was completely unharmed.  In Amanda Marcotte’s deluded mind, this man was shooting himself to screw a woman over.  What Amanda Marcotte said makes about as much sense as saying that UFOs were involved in this incident.

When it comes to committing suicide what group is doing it the most?  Men.  Divorce radically increases the chances that a man will commit suicide. Rather than recognize this as the tragedy it is and recognize the part that anti-family courts are playing in ending these men’s lives, Amanda Marcotte is claiming that men who commit suicide are doing it to screw over a woman.  The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Amanda Marcotte does not think men are human beings.

Mar 082011
 

Picard Double FacepalmI haven’t given out a Captain Picard Double Facepalm Award in a long time.  (I need to start doing it on a regular basis.)  This award goes to Scott Adams who I just talked about in my last post.  It’s not for simply agreeing with feminism or being a mangina.  It takes a lot more than that to get a Capt. Picard Double Facepalm Award.  Read what Peter told us about Scott Adams:

Adams went through two jobs at two different corporations, and got put on the management “fast track” at both because he was pretty smart. Both times, he got told he’s not getting promoted because there are already too many men in management at these companies and that they’re saving space for women.

He left the second company after starting Dilbert, and eventually grew that into the modest empire that it is. At the end of it all, the best woman this accomplished man could get, after 40+ years of getting screwed by feminism and getting no help towards his accomplishments, the best he could get is a single mom with three kids. That’s the real joke.

Likely, he’s accepted his lot in life and is pretty satisfied with getting the calved-out bajingo of his wife and building her a new house. If he’s really lucky, then the kids will be grown up by the time Shelley (I think her name is) divorces him. If not, he’ll lose half of Dilbert, half his restaurants, his house, and pay her support for his troubles. We’ll see then what his thoughts about men’s rights are.

I bolded a part of Peter’s comment because it deserves special attention.  I would say that “the best he BELIEVED he could get is a single mom with three kids.”  Scott Adams probably could have done better.  If nothing else he could have stayed single rather than get together with a single mother with kids.  Scott Adams has been negatively impacted by feminism yet he still supports it, not just with words but by playing Captain Save A Ho to a single mother.  It’s almost like he’s suffering from a feminist Stockholm Syndrome.

Scott Adams didn’t just shoot himself in the foot.  He shot himself in the foot over and over again and for good measure dropped a nuclear bomb on his leg.  Scott Adams is acting against his own best interests at an extreme level, and that level of stupidity and insanity is what earns him a Captain Picard Double Facepalm Award.

Mar 072011
 

Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert, wrote a post today about men’s rights where among other things he calls MRAs pussies.  After he wrote it, Adams decided to delete the post.  Here is what he wrote:

The topic my readers most want me to address is something called men’s rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It’s dangerous. It’s relevant. It isn’t overdone. And apparently you care.

Let’s start with the laundry list.

According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.

You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.

Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.

Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.

If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around.  It makes dying look like a bargain.

I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That’s the team I want to be on.

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.  A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.

I just did a little test to see if I knew what pajama bottoms I was wearing without looking. I failed.

There’s so much I could say about it but what Adams wrote speaks for itself.

Dec 152010
 

I was thinking about my last post and what causes my haters to say such things about me.  Putting the conspiracy theorists aside since they hate me for separate reasons, there are three things I came up with.  First, they’re afraid of authentic male sexuality.  Second, I’m not neutered.  That may not explain all my non-conspiracy theorist haters but it does explain the Gaping Hole Gang and Susan Walsh.

Take a look at what Ferdinand had to say about Escapistart comparing me to a serial killer:

See Escapist’s comments about you. Only someone with a serious learning disability would compare you to a serial killer, considering that you’ve only expressed normal sexual desires for men (wanting a threesome, wanting to pork other girls, not wanting to get married).

Ferdinand is correct.  I have normal male sexual desires.  Escapistart and Susan Walsh can’t deal with that.  They can’t deal with authentic male sexuality.  That’s why Escapistart compared me to a serial killer, and Susan Walsh called my behavior disgusting.  I also express my desires like a man.  Susan Walsh loves Obama and his relationship with Michelle. Perhaps that is because Obama is a mangina and has been effectively neutered as a man by Michelle.  What else can you say about a man who runs away from a press conference and his job as President of the United States so Michelle won’t be mad?  He’s the President of the United States but still under his wife’s thumb.  I’m sure this is what Susan Walsh wants from men.  However, there is no authentic masculinity in such a man.

The third reason and possibly the most important is that I’m the bear from Dalrock’s bear and salmon analogy.  The salmon (at least the ones vaguely aware of it like Susan Walsh and the Gaping Hole Gang) are pissed that they can’t catch me.  I know exactly where the Salmon are, how to catch them, and I am free.

Take a look at the picture to the left.  (It’s a picture of a kermode or spirit bear.  I picked it out because it’s a rare form of black bear with white fur.  It seemed appropriate to pick the most alien looking bear with all of the reptile alien jokes around here.)  Notice how the bear has a salmon in its mouth, but the bear is looking for more.  It can get more salmon without trouble.  The bear is an efficient salmon hunting and eating machine.  It fits Dalrock’s analogy well.

Susan Walsh and the Gaping Hole Gang are pissed that some woman won’t be able to entrap me as a beta provider for her.  Snark pointed out how surprising it is that I get so much abuse since I’m mild compared to a lot of MRAs and don’t do much wrong. The reason why I attract such abuse (conspiracy theorists aside) is because I’m the bear.  I represent a real threat to what women want.  This is why they hate me.  I’m not the only one either.  Over at Dalrock’s blog, Marcos got a lot of abuse for similar reasons. It’s not unique to me.

Dec 152010
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism but really aren’t.  One way of figuring out if someone is seriously against feminism is asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys.  Instead if they are engaging in an academic discussion mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help to reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about being against feminism.  Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism.  This is even more true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.

Look at this post from the Oz Conservative blog.  There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”.  This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM.  Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for context they’re used in.  They’re supposed to be “bad” because they’re “bad”.  There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”.  What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either.  Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground.  MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc.  If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (as much as a 7 year old boy reasonably can), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy is wants to be “liberated from masculinity”?  (The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher so he may actually believe that.)

Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog).  Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:

And so what  is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman  in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.

The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.

The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its  liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final  liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.

To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.

Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.

It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.

What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined.  What is “autonomy” in this context?  What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context?  What is the “externally imposed sexual order”?  It can not be figured out except that it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason.  Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes.  The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.

What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about?  They sound like aliens on another planet.  That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism.  If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about.  The problems of feminism are all around men on this planet.  A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke”.  It’s a heterosexual woman.  An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place.  When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems.  It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too.  To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men.  Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves.  This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children.  These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used.  Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground.  They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail.  Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology?  No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.

Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:

“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.

Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.

What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women?  Why does it exist?  These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer.  Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?”  The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away.  Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail?  Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.

All the people in these examples do the same thing, avoid dealing with the reality on the ground men are facing.  They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are facing these problems in the face.  They refuse to admit these problems even exist and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created.  Instead they waste their time on mental masturbation inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way.  This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts.  Take game, for example.  It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing.  This is one reason why it’s effective.  The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and usable solutions to them.  Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism and is not really against feminism.

Sep 212010
 

At least according to this mangina who responded to yesterday’s Spearhead post that I wrote on masturbation.  (He did forget to say that I had a small dick.)

This is how repetitive shaming language is.  The mangina linked to my blog.  He has seen it, and all of you know that I’m getting laid so he couldn’t have missed it.  It doesn’t matter.  I could have a threesome with two chicks with model quality looks on national television, and I still would be accused of being a loser who can’t get laid.

What the mangina said is pretty funny, but I’m disappointed that I’m not on his enemies list.  The comments so far have been pretty good like:

Wow that is new. Being called a misogynist for not fucking everything that looks remotely like a woman. Some people have standards. What about women who prefer their dildo over a warm, living, flesh-and-blood man? Misandrists? Or just objectionable to any sane man?

Even more funny than the youtube-video is the fact, that self-proclaimed feminists like you have more in common with christian wackos like O’Donnell than you realise

And:

As for your essay, you kindof prove his point. In one paragraph you exalt women for being ashamed to masturbate, complete with useless statistics. If they are so ashamed, perhaps they’re not admitting that they masturbate, SFB. Then you follow it with cliche feminist insults about creepy unattractive men who can’t/won’t fuck a real woman, which incidentally, are the standard replies to any man’s argument about anything. You left out the small penis charge though.

Aug 092010
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

As men realize how shaming language is repetitive, it loses its effectiveness. What female supremacists and their manginas and white knights do is simply produce more shaming language. Another method they use is the expansion of shaming language itself through redefining various terms, such as homosexual, to buttress their poor arguments.

Over at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (where a mangina said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to protect women), one of the resident manginas, Josh, tries to claim that anything regarding men’s rights is homosexual. We know this makes no sense, so he tries to redefine what the word “homosexual” means, despite it having a specific definition about being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Take a look at what Josh had to say:

At root of both the “feminist” movement and its modern mirror, the men’s rights movements, is radical homosexuality (devout dykism), i.e., radical sexual autonomy. Radical sexual autonomy is the biological “goal” of liberalism and the easiest way for a “default elite” to stay in power after convincing a populace to deny Supremacy. A populace in a state of anti-Supremacy and willing to embrace homosexuality is a self-annihilating populace.

The core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids and that Christianity is the liberal juggernaut. This is de facto homo-ism and anti-Supremacy.

The MRM is at root a liberationist movement. Like all liberationist movements, it seeks to dissolve all relations and destroy all impediments to its autonomy. In short, all liberationist movements seek a radical autonomy. But this existence must manifest in the physical world. The two most primitive liberal manifestations are atheism and homosexualism

The MRM is merely a MALE liberationist movement largely driven by atheists and homosexuals. It is “feminism” (euphemism for devout dykism) for males.

I think our common understanding of homosexuality is a false one and it is easy to see why. Homosexuality is, first and foremost, sexual aversion with the “same-sex attraction” merely filling the void. More specifically, male homosexuality and devout dykism are sexual aversions to female and male, respectively. With this aversion and before the “attraction” is homo-sexuality, i.e., self-sexualization, a radical form of autonomy. A homosexual is one that is averse to the Other and attracted to self. He is a radical autonomist and ultimately a self-annihilator.

Putting aside the fact that Josh is guilty of triangulation for trying to equate feminism with men’s rights, he is not only trying to redefine the word homosexual, but uses other terms such as supremacy in a manner that differs from their actual meaning. And why does he capitalize the word “supremacy?” Why doesn’t Josh use words as they are defined in the English language? Because he is white knighting for women and has no real argument against us. Calling us all homosexuals makes no sense. While there are homosexual men as part of the MRM, most of us are not homosexual nor do we have any sort of “homosexual agenda”. What Josh is doing is trying to expand shaming language by redefining words like homosexual so that he can call us all fags. The lack of logic in such a process is clear.

Josh’s real agenda is made clear when he says, “the core message of the men’s rights movement (MRM) is to avoid marriage and kids”. What he is really worried about is that men are leaving the plantation and refusing to be slaves to women. Josh is incapable of admitting that actions like the marriage strike and refusing to have children are rational and sensible responses by men to the fallout caused by feminism. The clear answer to such a problem if you want men to get married and have kids is to fix problems like the family court system, the child custody system, other unjust laws and socialism. This would increase incentives and decrease disincentives for men to get married and have kids. While this seems simple, a white knight like Josh can’t understand this exactly because he is a white knight. Instead, he tries to redefine words like homosexual in a pathetic attempt to tar us with the sodomite brush.

To see how absurd white knights like Josh are being, compare what Josh is doing to what he would be saying if he tried it with other shaming language. Another form of shaming language that gets used against men is, “you have a small penis”. If Josh was trying to redefine that in the same way he is trying to redefine homosexual, he would be claiming that he can say that we all have small penises because our penises are less than 15 inches long.

This is not the first time that someone has tried to redefine the term homosexual beyond sexual attraction to the same sex. Extreme conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, claims that all porn is gay, even that porn that has only heterosexual sex, and that sex is for procreation and that we are supposed to “outgrow” sex afterwards, with any further sexuality being gay. Josh is a conspiracy theorist because he believes that the MRM, the marriage strike, male refusal to have children, etc. are tools of the “elite” as opposed to a rational and sensible response by men.

We will see more attempts to redefine homosexuality so our opponents can call us “gay” and hope we will obey them for fear of this childish slur. As shaming language loses its effectiveness over time this will have little effect, because the argument is so poorly reasoned that any man with an ounce of common sense could see through it.

Jul 292010
 

For those of you who are interested in watching the downfall of civilization as it happens, season 2 of MTV’s Jersey Shore starts tonight.  Watch the trailer for season 2 below:

I’m really curious to see what Sabrina has to say about all this since she’s Italian and from that part of the world.  I’m surprised she hasn’t declared war on the guidos and guidettes of this show yet.

There’s already a season 3 in the works but that’s not the most interesting thing I found.  Snooki’s dad is a total white knight. He defends his daughters behavior.  When it comes to how Snooki interacts with men, all her dad has to say “I hope they respect her”.  There is no way he can be watching the same show as the rest of us.

Jul 112010
 

I am still blocking Susan Walsh from commenting here.  However, she still acts like she can write comments normally despite her comments ending up right in my moderation queue.  Here is what she wrote in response to my last post:

Two clarifications:
1. When I read comments at the Spearhead I often feel uncomfortable, even violated. This is why the mugging analogy works. There is a sense that many men there actively wish women harm. I am not the first to make this observation, nor am I the only woman. Several male commenters on my own blog have complained about the general tenor of conversation there. From what I have read, it sounds like Welmer himself has concerns around this issue.

FWIW, I agreed with the comment Tweell made – Obsidian’s post was really about peacocking, which is a key feature of MM.

2. I laughingly agreed (on my own blog) that white folks are pretty neurotic, though I did not single out men. I was actually speaking for myself – as you undoubtedly saw just above that comment, I described myself as a mildly neurotic white woman and took offense at a remark by Obsidian. Therapy is totally SWPL, and I recommend it highly, having gone for a while myself a few years back.

We all know Susan Walsh in neurotic.  There is no need to tell us that but that’s beside the point.  Let’s ask a simple question.  If The Spearhead really is filled with men who want to do women harm then why is it anyone who speaks out on the issue either has no credibility on the subject or destroys their credibility in the process like Obsidian did? Telling us that multiple women feel this way is meaningless since we have seen this exact method used over and over again to shut men up.  Saying that there are men who agree is meaningless since there are plenty of white knights and manginas out there.

Take note of what Susan Walsh said, “I often feel uncomfortable, even violated.  This is why the mugging analogy works.  There is a sense that many men there actively wish women harm.”  Notice the words, “feel”, and “there is a sense”.  This is the hallmark of code orange shaming language, that the target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner.  Where is the hard evidence?  Instead the men of The Spearhead are some sort of threat based on women’s “feelings”.  In fact the idea that the men of The Spearhead are some sort of dangerous menace is a steaming pile of turds and there are three reasons why:

  1. Has anyone seen any man from The Spearhead actually acted on these supposed “wishes for women to be harmed”?  Obviously not.  There is not a single example.  Speaking more in general you would have to go back 21 years ago to find an actual act of violence that was even had a motivation that was slightly relevant to the views of the men of The Spearhead, Marc Lepine.  Marc Lepine has no real similarity to the men of The Spearhead or MRAs in general.  His real name was Gamil Gharbi and his actions were based on views derived from his Arab-Muslim background.  If you take a look at them they have no real relation to anything any MRA has ever said.  Even if you disagree the fact that you have to go back 21 years for an example is pretty telling.
  2. There is no real MRM.  If more men were acting in a violent and harm inducing manner towards women we would see more action from men about men’s issues in general beyond that.  Men aren’t doing anything about men’s issues so far but they are supposed to be an unspecified dangerous threat.  There is a lack of action of all kinds.
  3. Anyone who claims that the men of The Spearhead or MRAs in general are some sort of threat wishing to do women harm does not really believe this because they don’t act like these men are a threat. Take the case of criticism of Islam.  Many people are afraid to criticize Islam because of threats of violence.  Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert, refuses to mock Islam because he fears for his life. Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller refuses to do an episode of their Bullshit! show on Islam because “they have families”. These are the actions that people take when there is an actual threat.  Too many people are willing to claim that the men of The Spearhead or MRAs in general are violent threats to women for it to be true because if it was true, most of them would be too scared to speak about it.

Anyone who claims that the men of The Spearhead or MRAs in general is a threat to women has no credibility.  In addition strawmen get created that destroy credibility.  During this we saw Obsidian create strawmen like claiming that all these men had an “irrational hatred” of Michelle Obama and needed therapy.  The only person who was talking about Michelle Obama in all this was Obsidian, and calls for therapy are code white shaming language.  He has also created strawmen about how the men of The Spearhead “can’t get laid”, with some vague connection to being virgins with the HBDers being “evidence” despite the fact that the overlap between MRAs/The Spearhead and HBD is minimal to nonexistent.  (Since Susan Walsh’s comment is what inspired this post, it’s also worth pointing out that she fed this strawman by seeming to claim that the HBD virgins were typical male virgins.)  This is code tan shaming language.  As we know MRAs come from all different places.  Some are celibate.  Some are married.  Some are PUAs.  Some of us have girlfriends.  This means that many of those criticizing Obsidian are married, have girlfriends, or are otherwise getting laid.

The strawman that I’m really surprised that gets repeated over and over again is that the men of The Spearhead were against basic hygiene.  Obsidian claims that we refuse to “wash our asses and wear some halfway presentable clothes”. This is really gone beyond a strawman to outright fabrication.  No one has claimed men should not take showers or wear crappy clothes.  I can’t even see how Obsidian or anyone else making that claim really believes this.  The mancession isn’t total yet.  Most of us still have jobs and those jobs have a de-facto requirement of daily “washing of our asses”.  I’m sure Obsidian would respond with his tired refrain of how we’re all “whitebreads who got the world handed to them on a platter”.

In addition to the strawmen, another part of the credibility problem is the holes this argument has.  On The Spearhead someone asked, “What about Roosh?” since he has the attitude that Obsidian claims the men of The Spearhead have yet is obviously not a MRA virgin bitter about not getting laid. Someone else asked, “What about Globalman?” since he may be one of the few cases where Obsidian is correct yet he is ignored and “What about Hestia?” since if The Spearhead was filled with angry MRAs bitter about not getting laid then we should have lynched her already.

The last claim we have here is that Welmer has some concerns about this.  The problem is that Welmer has not spoken directly about this issue so we really don’t know what he thinks.  I did find this which might be close:

One of the things about comments is that a lot of them are as much about blowing off steam as anything else. These are frustrating times, so I’m pretty liberal about letting people do that (I also find policing people distasteful), even though I tend to get a lot of grief for it. Seems to me that Vitamin is blowing off a bit of steam as well, so I’m not going to hold that against him. Also, until I see proof otherwise, I’m going to assume Vitamin is a man.

Whatever the case, I suppose I should just say cool it here. Vitamin, if you think most guys here are out to ravish women without taking responsibility for it, you’ve got an inaccurate view of the readership — in fact, many of us are more upset over losing our children or the prospect for a normal life than we are over whether or not we’re getting laid. Does that sound like a bunch of “skanks” who simply want to screw around without any repercussions?

As for guys who are slamming Vitamin, take a moment to think about the fact that there are a lot of men out there who are close to the women in their lives, and they will not react well to blanket statements about women, because they will imagine their daughters, wives or whoever. For them, it’s quite personal.

This is a lot different than “the readership of The Spearhead is all angry and bitter (and can’t get laid)”.  Welmer is free to clarify this if he so chooses but I question just how much that will happen with people claiming the same thing about Welmer like this guy who says that Welmer has “anger issues” over his divorce/custody of his children/child support as if you are not supposed to be angry at an injustice because a woman was responsible for it.

If The Spearhead is filled with angry and bitter men why is it so hard to find someone with credibility on the subject to speak about it and not destroy their credibility in the process?  Where is the sound and reasonable argument for that point of view?  Why can’t an argument be made that doesn’t involve shaming language, strawmen about Michelle Obama, strawmen about virgins and/or “not getting laid”, strawmen about hygiene, racially based attacks claiming that we’re all “whitebreads who have the world handed to them on a platter”, and claims that because a woman “feels” afraid it must be true?  This should not be difficult yet it is.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »