Jul 222013
 

Here is yesterday’s Dilbert:

Yesterday's Dilbert

Men are completely useless except:

  1. Her job only exists because men made it so (since women are dependent on government jobs and affirmative action)
  2. Any handyman, plumber, electrician, etc. she might call to fix something is a man
  3. Her fertility doctor will likely be a man and the process is dependent on men
  4. Her gardener is a man

In other words, she is completely dependent on men, but doesn’t realize it.  On the other hand Dilbert can replace her with a robot woman without any problems.  Maybe this is why a recent piece at AVfM asked if women are now obsolete.

 

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/

Mar 302011
 

I am starting a new award called the Dilbert Award, to recognize successful men who are stupid enough to marry (or get deeply involved with) single mothers.  This was originally proposed by Chainring at The Spearhead, but I will be taking it over.  I have added a page for submitting candidates for the Dilbert Awards that also goes into more detail about the nature of the Dilbert Awards. Normally, you will be able to vote for multiple candidates, but since this award was conceived because of Scott Adams, he is the winner for the first quarter of 2011.

The winner of the Dilbert Award for the first quarter of 2011 is Scott Adams (who is pictured to the right with his wife, Shelley Miles).  Without Adams, the Dilbert Awards would not exist.  He has a history of being negatively impacted by feminism where in at least two corporations he was denied advancement because women were promoted ahead of him for being women.  Adams learned nothing from those experiences believing that MRAs are pussies.  To top that off Adams married a divorced mother of two kids in 2006.  He describes himself as being “seventh in line of importance” behind his wife, her two kids, her two cats, and his cat. Adams has no children of his own and will not be getting any out of his marriage.

Because of what he’s done, Adams would lose at least half of his Dilbert mini-empire, his restaurants, his house, etc if his wife decides to divorce him.  Also, he would have to pay support for kids that are not his.  Adams decision to get married to a single mother is bad for him in every possible way.  With his success he could have easily gotten a woman without children who would have had his children if he wanted some.  Because of this and his anti mens rights stance, Adams is the first recipient of a Dilbert Award, an award he inspired.

Mar 112011
 

In my last post, Herbal Essence and I were talking about reasons why guys our age get married.  The reasons are really about oops pregnancies, desperation and loneliness, and pressure from their girlfriends and families.  I realized there’s another reason to add to the list, freaking out from minor health issues.  Imagine someone my age or a bit younger.  He’s been healthy all his life so he hasn’t had much in the way of health problems.  Then the first health problem happens.  It’s not worse than say appendicitis.  However, this is this man’s first experience with surgery.  While it’s not a big deal as health problems go, but it’s the first health problem for this man.  It’s a shock.  It makes him feel his age and his eventual mortality.  He might start thinking about what happens to him when he’s older and the thought of having dementia in a nursing home with no one to check up on him scares him.  Out of fear he rushes to find a wife so he can have some kids who will look after him when he’s older.

Of course this can and does happen a lot to older men as well, but Herbal Essence were talking about guys our age.  Whether we’re talking about guys my age or older guys, the problem is the same.  A man feels his age for whatever reason and starts getting worried what will happen when he gets old.  Invariably the answer involves kids to take care of you or keeps tabs on you.  Because he wants to raise the kids right he has to get married (places like the Rotunda clinic in India notwithstanding).  Will this work?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Nursing homes are filled with people who were dumped there by their kids who never check up on them.  If you get divorced you will be right back where you started if you don’t have kids.  If you do good luck since your now ex-wife is guaranteed to get full custody of them.  If you try marrying a single mother later in life do you really think her kids are going to care about you when you get older?  They will be gone. (Scott Adams is going to learn this the hard way.)

Knowing this it becomes clear that kids are no guarantee of help when you get old.  Since most actions of “I’m getting old so I need to get married and have kids” are based on fear, a logical argument like the one I wrote in the paragraph above will do little good for most men.  This is why anti-aging technology is important.  When I talk about anti-aging technology, I’m talking about real technology, not snake oil nor stuff that makes you look younger but doesn’t stop aging (like plastic surgery).  I’m talking about technology that could potentially let you live for centuries or even indefinitely with the body of a 30 year old (although I’m sure there are limits to what it can do).  (Some good websites for learning for about anti-aging technology research are the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Foundation.)

How many men are getting married now because they’re worried what will happen to them when they’re old? Quite a few I bet and that includes men who know marriage is a bad idea. Anti-aging technology removes this problem because when you get old, you’re body won’t be old. Even if it does nothing but keep you in the body of a 30 year old until you drop dead at 120, it removes the problem since you no longer have to worry about being old, frail, and having dementia.

When anti-aging technology arrives, it’s going to kill one of the last remaining reasons men have for getting married.

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.

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.

Translate »