AntiFeministMedia 2: Women should be replaced by better technology.
Our glorious future
The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
Women should be replaced by better technology.
Consider the many fine benefits of this plan:
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Tell me more about this brave new world of which you speak, in which men can live their lives free of bitches:
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
But some of his comments are so clearly and obviously correct, so pithy and wise, that they get upvotes. Like this one, suggesting that female demand for iPads and mobile phones is one of the central driving forces behind war:
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
Posted on August 12, 2011, in antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, reddit, sex, sexy robot ladies. Bookmark the permalink. 618 Comments.
The concept of Human rights really go right over these guys noggins.
Speaking of which: http://consumerist.com/2011/08/taco-bell-worker-handcuffs-self-to-coworker-he-likes-gets-arrested.html
Oh AntiFeministMedia….
Gah! Stop telling us you are superior when making the obvious mistake of there for their.
Also, someone disguise Lois McMasters Bujold’s name and give him Ethan of Athos. One key factor in this little fantasy? Raising children finally gets the recognition it deserves.
AntiFeministMedia’s last paragraph I would actually agree with if he replaced “women” with “people.” :/ Stop being a misogynist who’s actually right about something, dude, that’s not funny at all.
That picture reminds me of the chicken-wire-wrapped-in-fur “moms” they use to nurse orphan Rhesus monkeys.
Maybe that’s all the technology we need to keep MGTOW emotionally secure. It needs more padding on the lemon juicer breasts though. Ouch!
Joanna, how could we women have human rights? We’re actually animals, a totally different species than men. You see, in his world, all humans are not animals, only women. Magic is the only reason men and women can reproduce, since we are such vastly different species.
I also can’t tell if he likes new technology or not. On the one hand, he fantasizes about fembots with functional uteri. That sounds pretty advanced to me. On the other hand, Android phones are the cause of global conflict. It would be much easier to make a rebuttal to his arguments if he would stop contradicting himself.
I know there’s no approaching this rationally, but it makes me wonder just how much evil he thinks is on that second X chromosome.
I can sort of understand (in the same way I can “sort of understand” a lot of wrong things) the argument that women are socialized to be evil. But he seems to be an Evil Essentialist. How the fuck does that work?
Say that there’s an error in cloning one of these robo-sons, and it ends up with two X chromosomes. Is it now doomed to evil? Even if you raise it as a good upstanding citizen with every expectation you’d have of a male child? Still evil? Dang.
Also, he’s not accounting for the fact that unless you do commit some sort of atrocity, women are still going to have access to reproductive technology (and plain old-fashioned reproduction), and that might put a bit of a monkey wrench in your “the next generation will only be men” plan.
A typewriter? Bah! Real men use hammers, chisels and stone tablets. Or they would, if they weren’t so busy HUNTING THE MAMMOTH TO FEED US!
I don’t actually know how to embed Youtube videos, but I copied Steph’s code from above. Let’s see if this works….
I don’t think the ‘cybernetic women’ idea will work out so well for AntiFeministMedia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3wGQQbVXzg
Nope didn’t work. Oh well.
Actual calls for female genocide. Lovely. But these guys don’t hate women, oh no!
Gold in their semi-conductors? Is AFM living in the 50’s? Hasn’t his superior male brain absorbed the fact that semiconductors barely use copper, let alone gold?
Or does he not understand the actual meaning of the work “precious”?
Poopie. I signed up with wordpress & gravitar and still get an orange box. :(
Yeah, it’s not gold, it’s tantalum: http://techgenie.com/latest/iphone-4-and-the-congo-connection/
I’m pretty sure that “even feminists” (or is it FYMYNYSTS) can agree the exploitation of the African contenent by developed nations is an ongoing blemish on humanity.
The DeBiers consortium is bad enough without adding tantalum exploitation to the list.
I actually have no idea how to embed videos either; I just copy-pasted the URL into the reply and that’s how it came out. I was expecting it to be a link, but the embed works just as well.
(I also wanted to post the whole filmstrip leading up to that, but couldn’t find it on Youtube.)
Ha! That’s hilarious!
I mean, it’s misandry! This blog software embedded a video because the person posting it has a [unisex, that tends to skew] female name! That’s why it happened!
How can he expect to end global war when his fembots and artificial wombs are going to use even more conflict materials? Among all the other things that are wrongheaded about his statements.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I would be totally on board with an artificial womb. Fear of pregnancy is the only thing standing between me and a family. I want daughters, though, so I guess our Future MGTOW Masters probably wouldn’t let me use the womb, huh?
Nothing like the smell of genocide in the morning…
Andrea Vaughn… No, we had one explain how letting one sex die out isn’t gendercide… no blood you see.
Yeah, I want an artificial womb! :( Adoption is often extremely unethical, I probably won’t be able to afford a surrogate and the idea of pregnancy terrifies me. When I am in a committed relationship and want children, an artificial womb would be right up my alley.
That’s stupid. If you had all women strangled, there wouldn’t be any blood either.
spearhafoc: It was Marc, he was trying to fool us into showing our true colors and agree to wiping out men.
He was disappointed, even angry, that we called it a horrible idea, morally wrong, and plainly repugnant.
This seemed to confuse him. It certainly seemed to be the primary catalyst for his meltdown.
What will they do when their AI robot sex slaves refuse to have sex with them, too?
Yeah… it was as if Marc intended to play devil’s advocate, and ended up playing the devil instead. :D
I think he really did expect at least some of us to agree that “men” are so inherently bad that the world would be better off without them.
More from him…
Again with this crap. I wonder how many of the men who make this claim even know farmers? I would bet the rent that he isn’t one himself. I’d also like to know how much of the food he eats comes from the developing world where often the majority of farm work (at least 70% in Africa – http://youthink.worldbank.org/issues/gender ) is done by women.
Frankly most people in the developed world would have a tough time feeding ourselves without supermarkets, regardless of sex, because we lack the knowledge that there is currently no need for us to possess. Personally I know it’s important to rotate your crops, but I’ve never even planted a garden. And I would bet he’s never done as much either.
Normally I would let something like this slide, but I’ve read a few of his comments now and someone should get a grip on his apostrophe problem before he starts calling other people “ignorant and stupid”.
Not to mention his you’re/your problem.
Come the Zombie Apocalypse, this is my biggest fear. Trying to figure out how to harness a plow horse and figure out which crops to rotate.
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall (Tepper’s version, not the doorstop actually written by Gibbon) is not supposed to be a manual, folks!
If all the men in the world vanished, I imagine civilisation as we know it would fall apart to some extent. But you know what? The same would happen without the women.
I sometimes wonder if women should hold a worldwide stay-in-bed day just to prove that we do actually contribute to society. Other than shoring up the bonbon industry.
Unless all the libraries of the world vanished with men, I think we could figure out how to farm using the vast array of manuals to help us.
Plus, a lot of women already garden so they know how to grow food now.
Yeah, I don’t know how it is in the US but here in the UK farming is a difficult way to make a living (with cheaper produce coming in from the 3rd world), and farming is generally a family enterprise, not just the man’s career.
What I was saying is, obv. any civilisation would suffer if half of its population suddenly wasn’t there anymore.
This may be the belief behind the dreaded Double Period (or Truncated Ellipses). They remind MRAs of the Golden Age to come.
I am somewhat encouraged that even other Mens’ Right reddit guys found AntiFeministMedia to be too extreme. He probably would do better spouting his garbage at The Spearhead where he could get 100 upvotes with his nonsensical rants about “the female problem”.
While I can enjoy the occasional mocking of sexist bigots as much as anyone, I think in fairness one should point out that at least AntiFeministMedia has not (as far as we know) been invited to speak at over 10% of North America’s colleges and universities … unlike a certain feminist whose views about men mirrored AFM’s views about women in some important ways.
Dworkin and Daly continue to haunt people who never agreed with them in the first place from beyond the grave…
ballgame: Even if we just limit that to private schools, you are alleging that something on the order of 500 school have invited her to speak.
Then you are backdooring the idea they did it because they agree with her.
I know for a fact that UCLA has invited David Horowitz to speak there, and his opinions on UCLA, and the general nature of post-secondary education mean that he was there not because he was someone the college supported, but because he was someone notable.
There’s a lovely Science Fiction novel by Lois McMaster Bujold called Ethan of Athos, about an obstetrician on an all-male planet.
Uterine replicators had been invented 200 years before, and a group of women-hating pioneers take a bunch and populate a planet. No Girls Allowed. The story takes place when the planet’s stock of viable ovarian tissue is becoming dangerously unviable.
I loved the story, I love everything Bujold writes. I really think that her vision of this Male-Only Paradise isn’t quite what the MRAs are envisioning. The part that really sticks in my memory: almost all of the planet’s resources are consumed by the process of continuing humanity. Turns out, when women’s work isn’t done for free, and you have to calculate it into your GDP, it’s big.
This is a little incoherent, sorry about that.
And yes, I know invited isn’t the same as accepted, but I also know that most schools don’t announce people they asked who declined, so the implication is those are schools which she actually did speak to.
@Holly does that mean I’m one of the few naturally “good” women in the world? xD
Ami – I know that was kind of reductive, but I’m following along with his own reductive reasoning and augh.
God only knows what happens when he finds out that you can clone XY babies and still end up with women in your perfect society.
@Comet
Here it’s a business. Mostly dominated by Monsanto. We use up a significant amount of fuel to pull water from out deep aquifers and make fertilizers so we can undercut most 3rd world markets and force them to buy Monsanto seed grain.
Then we use illegal immigrants to harvest the non-grain crops at pennies on the dollar.
Most of this is subsidized by the US governement to further reduce proces.
“unlike a certain feminist whose views about men mirrored AFM’s views about women in some important ways.”
ATTENTION MRA NINJA ASSASSINS. BALLGAME HAS MET HIS FALSE EQUIVALENCE QUOTA FOR THE DAY. PLEASE SPARE HIM.
Mary Daly actually got some pretty important shit correct. That her conclusions afterwards were harmful does not change that she at least had some useful academic insight before that. I’d agree that she shouldn’t be invited because of those harmful conclusions, but it doesn’t actually make these idiots equivalent.
@Holly: Yeah, I know he’s really just mada bout Dworkin and Daly’s horrible conclusions about men, not their academic contributions. But the false equivalence to begin with is hilarious and stupid.
Pecunium, Daly’s website claimed she spoke at 300 colleges and universities. According to Hugh, “To get some perspective, the wikipedia College article cites information claiming that there are 2,474 colleges in the U.S., which presumably includes universities, and Canada has 92 accredited universities according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.”
Perhaps that isn’t right somehow, but I don’t really think it’s all that significant whether she spoke at 1 out of every 10 North American college or 1 out of 15. The fact is, she spoke at a helluva lot of them.
If by “they,” you mean “the institution itself,” then, no, I’m not pushing that idea at all. I do think it implausible to believe that she was invited to speak at places where she was universally reviled. At a minimum, her speaking invitations suggested that she was considered worthy of listening to and very likely that she had at least a coterie of fans (i.e. not unlike Horowitz).
Holly, I’m not sure I quite grasp the relevance of your observation here, but FTR I’m not “haunted” by Mary Daly (nor — as I hope is clear — am I defending the noxious views of AntiFeministMedia).
I am, however, bothered by the one-sided vilification of groups of people. I think it’s inarguable that there are MRAs who say hateful, bigoted things, as this website has clearly demonstrated. However, a reader of Man Boobz would never know that there are also MRAs who say thoughtful, insightful things, and feminists who say hateful, bigoted things … sometimes things that mirror the hateful, bigoted things that some MRAs say (as shown by the Mary Daly example). And I think that’s an important thing to keep in mind.
Okay, which MRAs are those? We have kind of a challenge going…
Seriously, if you have examples of MRAs who don’t say hateful, bigoted things, we’re all ears.
Oh, and the relevance of my observation is that most of the people quoted as “evil feminists” are dead. The number of feminists who are even slightly offensive to men is so low that you’re reduced to going through the feminist back catalogue for the same couple of suspects, while David finds a new–as in, just posted–MRA offense every day.
They always just disappear when we ask for examples of the rational ones. Funny that.
test
Ah, Ballgame has arrived with accusations of onesidedness and cherry picking. Ballgame, see what it says on th eheader of this site? Yeah, that.
And please, for the love of little green apples, find some other radfems to bring up. Dworkin and Daly are zombies at this point.*
*No offense to our resident zombie, ZRM.
Share your examples, ballgame! I am all agog!
Hah! You can’t get rid of me that easily, amandajane5! :))
Sometimes I just type very slowly.
(But seriously, Holly asked an interesting question, and I’m working on a thoughtful response.)
ballgame: Horowitz spoke, regularly, at schools where he was reviled. Controversial speakers are common at schools. Do I think she was reviled, no. But I also don’t think (as Rutee pointed out) that her entire body of work is entirely comprised of one single theme. If it were, then she’d not have been invited to speak so often.
And there is a big difference in rhetorical affect between, “Spoke at more than 10 percent of ‘Universities and colleges’ (your allegation), and “I don’t think it matters if it was 1 in 10 versus 1 in 15. If you can’t be arsed to look up how many colleges and univesities there are (per the US DoE it’s, 4861, and so are presenting what is both a false piece of information, and a fallacious impression of the actual number of invitations she has accepted.
That, absent actually checking, you chose to use the turn of phrase, “more than” vs. something like, “about/roughly/approximately” implies a certainty of knowledge you didn’t actually attempt to attain.
It’s not good faith argument, and is (for me) prejudicial to your other claims of fact, which is a direct result of your actions, not the positions you take.
That she had a large body of work, much of which is discounted out of hand by people who want to use a small portion of her writing to discount all of her other work, and use her as the straw-feminist that all the rest are supposed to worship, because of that narrow aspect of her career.
Which, I confess, I suspect you of doing; the moreso because of your, at best, sloppy work in your attack on her/feminists.
The thing is, the body of her work, as compared to the body of the work of the MRAs being discussed here, is quite different from the specific statements MRAs like to trot out (see again, sloppy work, with less than completely honest results).
However, a reader of Man Boobz would never know that there are also MRAs who say thoughtful, insightful things, and feminists who say hateful, bigoted things
Assuming you mean somebody who reads nothing but Man Boobz and has no knowledge of MRAs or Feminism outside of that, even then, if that was it, they’d prolly end up confused cuz there are TONS of ppl here constantly talking about how good the MRAs are (just look at Samuel) and how evil feminism is (just look at NWO), so if they had no other ideas, and MBZ was the only blog they read about gender issues, I dun think you have to worry that they’d come to that conclusion xD
Well, strictly speaking, Holly, what I said was “there are also MRAs who say thoughtful, insightful things,” which is a little bit different than saying there are MRAs who “don’t say hateful, bigoted things.” It’s a lot harder to ‘prove a negative’ and assert that someone has ‘never’ done something, particularly when we might not agree 100% on the terms we’re using.
However, to take a shot at your question, I’ll say that I haven’t seen Glenn Sacks, Francis Baumli, or John Franklin say (or write) something that I thought was hateful and bigoted (though I’ve certainly disagreed with them at times). Now a big caveat here is that I don’t honestly read them very often. In the case of Sacks and Franklin, I was reading them frequently a couple of years ago, and I still glance in on them once in a while, but it’s certainly possible they’ve written something ‘beyond the pale’ that I just haven’t seen. (It would surprise me, though, especially in the case of Glenn.) With Baumli, it was just the one book.
Now, I could go on, but there’s a big underlying issue with your comments: namely, who’s an MRA? Someone who self-identifies as an MRA, or someone that, say, the majority of people here view as MRAs? For example, I don’t identify as an MRA, I identify as a feminist. I went back to an old post at FC where we raised this question with our commenters, and most of them (who I think could fairly be characterized as ‘feminist critical’) did not identify as MRAs. However, I suspect in many cases people here would view them as MRAs (though I may very well be wrong about that).
Really, Holly?? I can assure you that there are men who find Amanda Marcotte and Twisty Faster to be, at times, a lot more than “slightly” offensive. I hesitate to say that Amanda crosses the line into ‘hateful and bigoted’, but I find some things she writes to be really toxic, and I say that while acknowledging that she’s an intelligent and extraordinarily talented blogger who I agree with at least 85% of the time when it comes to non-gender issues (and probably agree with her more than half the time even on gender issues).
You know, for how much Twisty FAster ‘offends’ men, Jill says very little that actually strengthens or calls for discrimination against them, to my knowledge. I think holly chose an unfortunate set of words with ‘offends’, because the majority is frequently offended by the minority’s calls for equality. Gandhi was offensive. MLK Jr. was offensive. The suffragettes were offensive. Fuck ‘offensive’.
I don’t read Marcotte; it’s a thing that doesn’t happen when people repeatedly racefail. What’s so toxic to men, exactly?
I do think it implausible to believe that she was invited to speak at places where she was universally reviled.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899332/posts
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_fc98efce-28b3-5e74-9300-37a707648ec9.html
I don’t read Marcotte; it’s a thing that doesn’t happen when people repeatedly racefail. What’s so toxic to men, exactly?
Inb4 Duke rape scandal, because reminding people that one of the players sent this email
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case#McFadyen_e-mail
hurts his feelings.
VoiP, Ahmadinejad is a head of state. And I don’t think he has been (or will be) invited to speak at 300 universities. (Has his total even reached double digits yet?)
As for Coulter, it greatly pains me to say this, because I think she’s vile, but there is a significant minority of students who actually like her.
First Clarence, now ballgame is here! And doing the stuff he does so well: avoiding the actual topic, obscuring the truth, moving the goalposts and pretending he is very very logical and noble.
ballgame: the subject under discussion is “an anti-feminist suggests that women should be replaced by technology”. Not “once Mary Daly went on a lecture tour.” Neither is it “have two feminist bloggers ever said anything you don’t like?” You’ve got FC to talk about that stuff, and you can misrepresent information to your heart’s content there. (Of course, you know that: you do it all the time!)
Thanks for the link, though: Daran explaining the difference between the MRM and anti-feminism brought back the memories of that golden day you confessed that at your site, you believe all feminism is gynocentric. I’m going to go have a look how all the fellas and Schala like NSWATM.
Pecunium pointed out that ballgame hasn’t been very honest in his presentation of his views. When discussing Feminism, ballgame starts at the premise that Women are Wrong, and then provides evidence to support that. Here is a post of mine from FC, pointing out he has treated an article by Jessica Valenti in the very same manner.
[quote]eilish says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm
ballgame: Valenti’s article is about getting rid of cultural myths that can alienate men from their children’s lives. You are misrepresenting her words and intent, suggesting she is complaining about men being given positive feedback.
Glen Sack’s movement is about enabling father’s to have extended contact with their ex-spouses and children after divorce. Valenti’s article is about the way parents can share parenting during an existing relationship. Two different issues.
Again, you predicate your piece on the assumption that women are privileged in society, and that feminism is not concerned with changing social roles for men. This is denial, not criticism.
These are probably the reasons the comments in reply to this piece seem confused as to the point they should address.
ETA on the moderation question?
[Daran will likely be having some interaction with you, eilish, but RL has prevented him from putting much energy into the blog of late. —ballgame][/quote]
VoiP, Ahmadinejad is a head of state.
Those are offlimits now? Why didn’t you tell me?
Like, could you give me your criteria for what makes a university appearance “relevant” before we start talking, or would that defeat your purpose? I’m going with Option 2, myself, but am open to refutation.
@Kendra, the bionic mommy
“Joanna, how could we women have human rights? We’re actually animals, a totally different species than men.”
We’re the same species we just have different laws. Women have the laws of the patriarchy they’ve built with the State. Men have the laws women and the State have built for them.
——————————–
@Holly Pervocracy
“I know there’s no approaching this rationally, but it makes me wonder just how much evil he thinks is on that second X chromosome.”
Men and women are most definitely born with different abilities and thought patterns. The misandry however is indoctrinated from birth. TV, movies, the MSM, the education system and politicians all join the party. By the time boys and girls are 15 years old they’ve already been thoroughly indoctrinated that girls are good and boys are bad. By that age every boy and girl also knows a woman can wield the violence of the State against men. Surely you can’t expect the State, MSM and education system, along with womens approval, silence and endorsement of laws that pile mountains of hatred on men/boys and not have those same men/boys percieve women as evil.
———————————
@cynickal
“I’m pretty sure that “even feminists” (or is it FYMYNYSTS) can agree the exploitation of the African contenent by developed nations is an ongoing blemish on humanity.”
And women could end the deaths of loads of black men by refusing to demand/purchase precious stone jewelry. But those sparkly rocks are worth more than a mans life.
———————————
@Tabby Lavalamp
“I’d also like to know how much of the food he eats comes from the developing world where often the majority of farm work (at least 70% in Africa”
A few years ago feminists told us 90% of the worlds food and 80% of all work was done by women. Really ladies, I must protest. How can you expect men to eternally oppress you as we’ve all become so accustomed to if you continue with your shameful slacking?
———————————-
@Comet
“I sometimes wonder if women should hold a worldwide stay-in-bed day just to prove that we do actually contribute to society.”
We should try that sometime, why not have a womans strike day. It’d be real interesting to see if the lights went out and transportation stopped. It’d be a real shocker if nothing really changed.
—————————
@Pecunium
“And there is a big difference in rhetorical affect between, “Spoke at more than 10 percent of ‘Universities and colleges’ (your allegation), and “I don’t think it matters if it was 1 in 10 versus 1 in 15.”
Yea but isn’t the real difference she spoke at a whole bunch of universities and was no doubt applauded for her views on killing 90% of men, as opposed to a backwater blog. I don’t see any man going to universities and preaching her rhetoric regendered and recieving a such warm welcome, do you? Equality, it cuts both ways.
—————————-
@Holly Pervocracy
“Seriously, if you have examples of MRAs who don’t say hateful, bigoted things, we’re all ears.”
That’d be me Holly. A bigot is someone intolerantly devoted to their own opinions. Which is what you are. And just because you don’t want to hear anything negative things that women/feminists do doesn’t make me hateful.
—————————-
@Ami Angelwings
“and how evil feminism is (just look at NWO), ”
Well it is evil. I mean c’mon, men recently tried for the teeniest bit of common decency when asking for anonymity for rape accusations. Feminists/women ran to the patriarchy they created and demanded Big Daddy allow any woman to slander a man while she remains anonymous. Her word, backed by the violence of Big Daddy prevailed.
And women could end the deaths of loads of black men by refusing to demand/purchase precious stone jewelry. But those sparkly rocks are worth more than a mans life.
OMG he cares about black people now. About time. So now you know why your recurrent mentions of life “in the ghetto” were incorrectly attributing bad conditions to individual depravity rather than systemic structural factors that work against minorities and the poor, right?
I thought Ballgame’s hatred of Marcotte sounded familiar xD
@Bostonian
“NWO, you are hateful in part because you want to rape children, as you have repeatedly said on this very site.”
This is just one more clear example of the hatred and outright lies feminists regurgitate regularly with impunity. Dave has moderated me a few times but never for wanting to rape children.
My guess is if I had done that Dave would’ve most certainly put me on moderation or more than likely banned me, Lets ask. Hey Dave, would me repeatedly stating I want to rape children get me banned?
@VoiP
“OMG he cares about black people now. About time. So now you know why your recurrent mentions of life “in the ghetto” were incorrectly attributing bad conditions to individual depravity rather than systemic structural factors that work against minorities and the poor, right?”
Being I was for many years, both growing up and into young adulthood, one of those poor people living in the ghetto I have always cared. Which is why I so strenuously abhor feminism for being the major systemic structural factor of the economic situation blacks face today.
NWOslave do you believe you (and all adults) should have the right to sleep with a 15 year old?
Bostonian, I think that was a bit over the line; I deleted the comment.
What NWOslave said in the comment you were indirectly referring to was creepy as fuck, but in most jurisdictions it wouldn’t be rape (that is, his stuff about wanting to have sex with 17-year-olds) . Here’s what he said:
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/18/men%E2%80%99s-rights-classix-the-age-of-consent-is-misandry/comment-page-4/#comment-28759