This comment didn’t get a ton of upvotes in r/mr, but it was just too idiotic to ignore:
Thanks, r/againstmensrights for pointing this one out!
Posted on September 26, 2011, in $MONEY$, evil women, idiocy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 366 Comments.
" ... a delirious and incisive page against misogyny." -- El Pais, via Google translate
WHTM, written and edited by David Futrelle, tracks and mocks the New Misogyny online, focusing especially on Men's Rights, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and Pickup Artist (PUA) sites.
Contact me by clicking my head, above, or at futrelle [at] WeHuntedTheMammoth.com
Click here to donate to We Hunted the Mammoth. You don't need a Pay Pal account. The Pay Pal page will say you're donating to Man Boobz; that's just the old name of the blog,
 | NickNameNick on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Kakanian on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Alex M on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
| NickNameNick on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Bogdan Cvetkovic on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Karalora on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Johanna Roberts on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | GrumpyOldMan on Woman-hating Internet losers a… |
| NickNameNick on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | SittieKitty on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | vaiyt on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
| vaiyt on Antifeminist DV guru Erin Pizz… |
 | acrannymint on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | Arctic Ape on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
 | jwegg on #GamerGate Manifesto Translate… |
I would love to see a fish pilot a speedboat. Just I would love to see Meller sprout a brain and a soul.
Funny you should be making the rather odd claim that men never would abandon women in the old days DKM. Or very very rarely.
I am currently reading Women Before the Bar: Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789‘s section on divorce. And the vast majority of the petitions (there were about a 1,000 considered and granted) were filed because of desertion by the husband.
So if men almost never deserted their wives, why were these men doing that? They had total and absolute control over their wives, they could kill her (one divorce was granted on grounds of cruelty from the founding of the colony to the 1780s and that was due to the extraordinary viciousness of the husband who not only beat her with a horsewhip, halter and ax-yes, ax-he also tried to strangle her numerous times, did a mock hanging, and threw her out of the house on multiple occasions and he vowed he would “be the Death” of her. He also freely admitted his behavior before the court) and the wife would have no recourse outside of hoping her parents or siblings would help her.
And yet, the men were still walking away. So explain that.
MrB’s parents hated each other. Like you would not believe. Before the aneurysm, his father was an abusive shit, after, his mother was an emotionally abusive and manipulative shit. But they stayed together for him – he was their surprise baby, born fifteen years after his closest sister – and made it perfectly clear that even though they hated each other and would rather be far, far away from each other, they were staying together for MrB’s sake. Yes, that kind of environment will warp the shit out a kid – I’m amazed MrB came out of it as functional as he is.
Yeah, no shit!! Some… possibly most…. women simply can’t get past committing the grievous sin of living beyond 20 years of age.
Can I second NullPointer’s question? Also childfree, also degreed, also not interested in femininity. Where’s my place in the Brave New Mellerverse?
Threads like this sadden me; I’ve never been on financial assistance myself, but vilification of the poor is my berzerk button. Just…why? What do you gain by picking on poor people?
I filed the paperwork for my divorce, but my husband and I both wanted to take that step. I wonder how many of the divorces ‘initiated by women’ are similar to my case.
And thank god for no fault divorce, because we were both utterly miserable and now we’re both quite happy. :-)
Also childfree, also degreed, also not interested in femininity. Where’s my place in the Brave New Mellerverse?
In the woods with the resistance.
Dunno about you guys, but as someone brought up in poverty with a very solid West of Scotland working class background, I get pretty fucking tired of MRAs presuming to be the voice of the working class (fallaciously assuming all feminists are upper middle class).
This working class feminist vigoriously asserts that you know no’ a fuck of which you speak!
Also I simply can’t take seriously a guy like DKM when his posts me make me picture the British MP David Mellor. Seriously, do an image search…
Ponkz
Followed your advice. I’m still giggling
PFKAE–27September 2011@ 8:03pm
A measly thousand divorces granted in Connecticut acccording to feminist tract: Women Before the Bar– ‘Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticutt 1639-1789…My, oh my, the more things change, the more they remain the same, don’t they?
Call me bullheaded, but I stand by my original assertion that women in prefeminist days knew something (probably a lot of somethings) that you modern women have forgotten, or perhaps never even learned, in the feminine arts of maintaining a home and family. ONE THOUSAND divorces, of which, in your words, “the vast majority were granted on grounds of the husband running away”. ONE THOUSAND divorces, over an entire State (Okay crown colony) in 160 years!! One thousand deserted and abandoned wives out of how many thousands, if not millions of marriages which took place over seven or eight generations? One thousand wives who couldn’t–or wouldn’t–accept marriage to men during the more than a century and a half (!) when countless other thousands of women WERE indeed nurturing and growing families with husbands and fathers (often of their parents’ choosing, no less). A measly little “thousand marriages” ending in desertion or abandonment when families in Connecticutt were faced with, for starters, plagues, periodic famines, Indian attacks, brigandage and robbery, both from outlaw colonists driven off their farms and homes by land pirates (real estate and mortgage speculators protected by the Birtish Crown–sound familiar??) who turn to looting and theft for bare survival, and also from homeless, recently discharged British soldiers and sailors, all too frequent crop failures, and fires which sometimes consumed entire villages–just like colonists, and other people around the world, experienced during those times everywhere else!
How many divorces take place today in the Nutmeg State ANNUALLY? How many are initiated by women whose only so-called justification is “I must find myself” and “marriage doesn’t do it for me anymore”? How many such women divorce for no other reason(?) that they feel entitled to their husbands support anyhow? How many such vile, spoiled, pampered, entitled, man-hating, modern women divorce just to resume the “career” she supposedly left only to get married and spawn a few children (in much the same way that she would grow a few potted plants…) Aren’t such women at least as much “deserters” or “abandoners” of their spouses and “marriages” as were those men, some three centuries ago, who may have been, for all we know, running for their lives?
PFKAE-I don’t know what you had in mind by citing a tract showing that women in prefeminist times exceedingly rarely–compared with today’s modern women–had a problem with abandonment or desertion, as contrasted with modern women, but those women faced difficulties and challenges, so much greater than the paradise that you modern over-educated, feminist-brainwashed, pampered, overindulged, and let’s face it. even parasitical, man-hating shrews face, that I am not even sure that the words “abandonment” or “divorce” could, or should, even have the same legal meaning for the two sets of women!
Once again–SOFG (Sweet, Old-fashioned girls) 100
Modern women– 0
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
PS–Mark me as a “male chauvinist pig” but I dare say that 99%+ of all of the benefits and inventions, the prosperity and security that has blessed our lives (especiallly the women’s) is due to the risks borne, efforts undertaken, and technology and medicine discovered and created by MEN in the past three or four centuries! You women don’t have to be grateful or anything–lacking as you do any sort of gratitude gene–but you don’t have to hate us or call attention only to our shortcomings either! DKM
You are a bullheaded chauvinist pig who hunted the mammoth for us ungrateful bitches. Now go back to your cave.
DKM, can I still criticize you individually, since you as an individual didn’t develop technology or medicine? Or are you just automatically exempt on account of your gender? If you are, can I also be exempt from criticism based on the fact that I’m tall, and presumably some tall people developed some technology or medicine somewhere? I also have brown eyes if that helps.
DKM, in 1700 the total population of Connecticut was 30,000.
Which wasn’t even the point of what PFKAE was saying.
But you’re bloviation is so far from reality it isn’t even wrong.
PEEANCE AND FREEANCE!
Hey, velociraptors were totally real. The only reason there aren’t any around anymore is that they evolved into superdogs.
Ah, one of those 99% male achievements must’ve been the discovery of a sex-linked gratitude gene. Sure it was a woman who discovered real genes like transposons, but that imaginary gratitude should totally be counted in the dude column. :D
Hmm, if he’s a pig then did he hunt the prehistoric truffle? Somehow I think that perfectly stationary fungi are more his speed than large mammals.
ZombieRottenMcDonald-28 September2011@9:11pm
Read Posts, and their replies before you comment on them!
PFKAE was citing a book that she was reading purporting to show that desertion and abandonment were not strictly contemporary problems with married couples. She was discussing a period of approx. 8 or 9 generations, to wit, 1639-1789, NOT Connecticut’s population in the year 1700.
Even with a 30,000 population, one may assume safely that there were c.14,500 males to c. 15,500 females, and that approximately 25-30% were recently married or of marriagable ages–15-25. There were somewhat more young people then and somewhat fewer old people than there are today.Perhaps 2500-3000 married couples in that one year would be a sound guesstimate of the field with which to apply the former Elizabeth’s demographics.
Let’s see what we come up with, shall we? 1000 divorces over a 160 year period amounts to almost 7 divorces per year. Using your population figure of 30,000 as a baseline, this suggests 7 divorces–actually slightly more than six, but I am a generous fellow–for (desertion or abandonment) out of some 3000 marriages in 1700–your date!
Your data suggests a marital breakup rate in British Connecticutt of FAR LESS THAN 1%. I don’t have the latest divorce stats from Conn. at my fingertips–and no–at <1%, I am NOT going to waste time looking them up–but I am willing to guess that divorce figures today are in the 45-55% range.
I dunno, ZRMcD, by my "bloviation" seems to be a pretty good match to reality, much to the shame of modern women (and I kind of made you look like a darned fool also. LOL)!
You'll have to do a little better than that!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Yes, but its discovery then activated the sex-linked self-trumpeting gene.
Maybe so, but a man would have discovered them eventually, so it’s no big deal. Funny how the reverse is never posited for discoveries made by men.
You’re a male chauvinist pig.
And call me whatever the fuck you want, but I’d like to remind you that 100% of the humans who have ever existed on this planet came out of uteri, so it would behoove you to be a little less annoying to the uterus-havers you come across.
I mean, if having a penis gets you credit for penicillin, space travel, and the viola, surely having a uterus gets you credit for EVERY HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT EVAR.
You must be KIDDING!!
It’s part of the prosperity gospel
I have some thoughts on this, but they’re gut truthiness and I’d probably be wildly off base. And there are lots of people here who would correct me.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
~Abraham Lincoln
So no, you cannot explain why these men were abandoning their families even though these men had absolute power-they could do anything they wanted to their wives and those wives could do little about it-and yet, the men were still abandoning their wives.
If they were not, there would have been no divorces now would there have been?
“If they were not, there would have been no divorces now would there have been?”
If we follow DKM’s theory, the only reason these men would have left was because, pre-feminism, women were even WORSE! XD
I noticed he failed to answer NullPointer’s question, which is also mine.
No PFKAE–and Molly Ren,
I haven’t a time machine. I can’t explain WHY those few men chose to abandon their wives even though they could do anything they wanted to their wives and the wives could do little about it. I offered a suggestion that given the unsettled nature of the time and place, the men could have been forced to flee in fear of their lives, but it is only a guess (though a plausible one). First bona-fide time machine I get, I travel back to Connecticut in the periods you indicated, I will ask the men why they were leaving the women who were supposed to be their nearest and dearest, take note of their replies, and be the first to let you know!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
johnnykaje, you’re not real in the DKMverse, so you don’t exist. You’d have to form a secret underground society and then bust out and demand rights. XD
A couple of DKM comments got held in moderation; everyone is required to scroll up and read them.
PEAS and FREE DRUMS!
So what happens to the queers, Meller?
So wait, you are saying that the reason that these men were leaving their wives was due to their being cowards? Really?
“So wait, you are saying that the reason that these men were leaving their wives was due to their being cowards? Really?”
Well, so much for the “collective strength” of his sex, which he is so eager to grab onto when he realizes he’s getting owned.
FREE DRUMS?! That sounds a lot like communism, David. XD
@johnnykaje: I guess we’re not cool enough to have a place in DKM’s universe. Oh well, I’ll try to save up money so that I can help fund the resistance When The Revolution Comes.
I dunno, ZRMcD, by my “bloviation” seems to be a pretty good match to reality, much to the shame of modern women (and I kind of made you look like a darned fool also. LOL)!
No, you really didn’t David. (I also quite like the ‘darned’ fool bit. Who are you, Donald Rumsfeld? We’re adults here, you can say ‘damned’. The LOL was out of bounds though XD)
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, in 1700 women were chattel. Divorces were uncommon, which PFKAE’s comment made plain, to those who “read the comments before commenting.” AND STILL men abandoned wives, which you claim is not possible when women know their place and duty. If women were not subservient enough for you in 1700, when were they?
Your reality is much more like a pre-psychotic hallucination.
I offered a suggestion that given the unsettled nature of the time and place, the men could have been forced to flee in fear of their lives, but it is only a guess (though a plausible one).
It’s not plausible, it’s ideologically blinkered rationalization pulled straight out of your ass. Perhaps you might want to refer to that book PFKAE mentioned.
PEEANCE AND FREEANCE!
DKM: You do know that one of the people who made modern computer programming possible, who pioneered uses of the difference engine, was a woman, yes? You would arguably not be vomiting your hateful shit all over my computer screen if it weren’t for Ada Lovelace. We might not have a clue as to the real structure of DNA without Rosalind Franklin’s work, which Watson has quite openly admitted to stealing. Men invented a lot of things, but so have women. Read a fucking book. For once.
BTW, Ada Lovelace Day is coming up! Oct 7, a day to recognize the contributions of women to STEM fields.
This thread is gonna send DKM’s rationalization hamster into overdrive!
DKM, kristinmh did in fact appear to be kidding. I doubt she feels that she deserves credit for every human achievement ever. Perhaps I can help you to understand her point. Since she did not invented the steam engine, she does not feel like she deserves the credit for it even though James Watt was created in a uterus. She also does not feel that you deserve the credit for inventing the steam engine, even though you and James Watt are both male. Does that help you to understand?
Meller: I offered a suggestion that given the unsettled nature of the time and place, the men could have been forced to flee in fear of their lives, but it is only a guess (though a plausible one).
Plausible? Hardly. Attacked her with an axe. Tried, more than once, to strangle her to death. Testified in court that he intended to be, “the death of her.”
That’s a far cry from fleeing in terror. Given how hard divorce was to obtain (and how much you would like to make it that hard again) that so many as 1,000 women were able to plead a case and get one is pretty damned telling.
How many lesser cases of abuse, not rising to the level of repeated attempts at murder, failed to get a divorce?
That is the world you posit as paradise?
And you think women are stupid.
There were, for all intents and practical “no” divorces! One thousand desertions over some seven or eight generations (160 YEARS!!) in a society whose people faced infintely greater hardship than the pampered, self-absorbed, entitled, and “empowered” feminist princesses of today, who divorce for any reason–or no real reason at all–and frankly, in comparison with today, any instances of individual men who wouldn’t take care of their wives then just don’t count.
I admit to not knowing why those few men behaved as they did. YOUALL also have no clue and no idea! They certainly couldn’t be cowards–cowards could not maintain their sanity in seventeenth century British North America–and the only thing that I could think of was once I get a time machine, I’ll go back and ask them. Men and women in those days, and long afterward, realized that life was an undertaking best done TOGETHER, and few deliberately destroyed their marriages!
Yes, women were quite subserivient enough for me around 1700, in answer to the (largely irrelevant question). It is contemporary narcisstic, self-absorbed, frigid, man-hating, and worthless, and often over-educated women, i.e. feminists, of today–and the past few decades–who are the problems!
All that means is that modern women are defective by historic standards, and all the bragging about this one discovering(?) some aspect of computer programmiing or that one discovering(?) some aspect of the genetic code or some detail of protein sequencing doesn’t change anything. I once trained my dog to “count”–“one plus one make”–two barks, five plus three make–eight barks, and so on, but while he was smart, I wouldn’t get on this blog, or any other, and argue for canine mathematicians! I would rather know that the women in question were able to cook a tasty dinner, or to sew on a loose button, or heal a child’s sore throat, then all the self-important, over-educated, frigid, and unisex neurotic she-creatures infesting schools, workplaces, government offices, and even police departments and the armed forces today!! I know that there are mutant females of unusually high IQ already, You can’t read a magazine, watch the idiot box, listen to the radio, or go to the movies for the past threee decades without being reminded, so drop it!
Molly, I have NO idea what happens to queers! I have more than enough trouble understanding normal everyday heterosexuality, without going into that!! I think that their interest in “gay marriage’ is a bit over-the-top, given the bloody mess most regular marraiges are, and have been nowadays, and for quite a while, but if it makes them happy…divorce lawyers, family court “judges” and marital counselors gotta make a living too! Gays could hardly make a worse mess of marriage than normal people–with the help of feminists–have done in the past two generations or so!
PEACE AND FREEDOM
David K. Meller
The thing that is not countable is the number of “unofficial” divorces that occurred where couples split up.
Also your numbers are off DKM-the average age for a woman to marry was 23 and the average age of males was 26. You also have to look at the sex ratio (which was much better then the South however it still somewhat skewed.)
The interesting thing about a later part of this chapter is that most men were denied divorces, even if the wife was the deserting party.
The least interesting thing was the men who whined the same way DKM is about the women in those days.
@KathleenB: DKM: You do know that one of the people who made modern computer programming possible, who pioneered uses of the difference engine, was a woman, yes?
wow, is that really true?
Thanks, Fatman, that is indeed what I meant. Yes, to spell it out for you, David, as I do not feel that my having a uterus lets me take credit for the entire human race, I do not feel that you having a penis lets you take credit for the Large Hadron Collider.
KathleenB and Simon, I once wrote a libretto for short opera about Ada Lovelace for soprano and two singing robots. It’s never been set, though, because the composer and I disagreed about some stuff and he basically said “I’m taking my robots and going home!” Maybe someday.
I have more than enough trouble understanding normal everyday heterosexuality,
You’re telling us.
Yes. It’s Ada Lovelace, from one line down in KathleenB’s post. Horse, water.
“Yes. It’s Ada Lovelace, from one line down in KathleenB’s post. Horse, water.”
Also, Cracked mentioned her in an article once about technological advances.
Also, Cracked mentioned her in an article once about technological advances.
That’s where I get all my news.
What did Ada Lovelace do?
simon: This is called doing your own fucking research. She’s easily accessible on wiki.
Naah, he’s probably setting us up, like if we say anything he’ll go THAT WAS ACTUALLY INSIGNIFICANT
DKM: I’m going to make a polite request here. Would you please, for your sake and the sake of my sanity, read a book about… well, about anything? For history: Founding Mothers, Salt and The Battle Cry of Freedom are all excellent. Fiction: I like sf/fantasy, so any of the Vorkosigan books, the Nightside series, or the Dresden files. Please, please, try to figure out if your asshattery is ignorance (which can be cured) or stupidity. You’d be doing the world a favor.
Are you always that suspicious and angry?
VoiP: that may be why he’s focusing on lovelace, as it’s kind of hard to claim that the discovery of the double helix had no impact on modern life. It still really pisses me off that Watson and Crick admitted to cribbing from Franklin and never faced any consequences. Nor did she ever really get any recognition until after her death.
Are you always that suspicious and angry?
It’s the MO of a lot of people who argue in bad faith, such as yourself, and you’ve already demonstrated that you’re crap at argument when you said that “bad people”, once designated as “bad,” should never be praised for anything, ever, so any feminist who does anything besides spit on Daly’s grave must hate trans* people. Or something.
i figured I’d just save myself the trouble.
simon: I am not your research librarian. There are people who are paid to look shit up. If you’re too lazy to type Ada Lovelace into google or wiki, I fail to see how that’s my problem.
“That’s where I get all my news.”
Hahahaha. Yeah, that place brings out the Library/Bookstore Kid in me.
VoiP: that may be why he’s focusing on lovelace, as it’s kind of hard to claim that the discovery of the double helix had no impact on modern life. It still really pisses me off that Watson and Crick admitted to cribbing from Franklin and never faced any consequences. Nor did she ever really get any recognition until after her death.
See, the thing about marginalizing the accomplishments of women is that this process can be repeated basically at will. Transposons? Not really important! Noether? A dude must have done something that was better than that!
VoiP: The waste of half of the great minds the world has had over the years just gobsmacks me sometimes. The complete and utter waste, all the discoveries, the music and sculpture and literature… All because they had ovaries (and thus the much more important jobs of pushing out kid after kid).
You’re extremely suspicious, bordering on paranoid, sorry.
I’m just expressing my amazement that really if it weren’t for Ada Lovelace we wouldn’t have computers and the only thing you do is hating me for that. I’m focusing on her, because as you said, we wouldn’t sit here and talk to each other.
And praising people who are so much full of hate against innocent people like Mary Daly is wrong, sorry, that’s not arguing in bad faith. You argue in bad faith, I never said anything like ‘feminists need to spit on Mary Daly’s grave’.
So now we get to argue about word choice instead of about your intent! AWESOME
Me:
Simon:
Called it.
I’m sorry, but… WHAT?!?
Zombie Jesus on a pogo stick. I never said the computer wouldn’t have been invented – it already had been, by Babbage. Lovelace saw further possibilities for the difference engine than simple number crunching and began the early work in the direction of programming.
So, ARGUABLY, the computer in it’s present form (with all the attendant fun and games) would not exist without her work. I said none of this to diminish or disparage Babbage’s work – he was a fucking genius who invented something amazing. But Lovelace saw the possibilities the Babbage didn’t.
And yes, I’m bitchy when people who are competent enough to use a web browser and post comments on a blog can’t work up the 1337 skillz to use wiki. Or any of the other ten billion resources out there – Ada Lovelace Day is coming up, as I said, and I’m sure the project page will tell you everything you need to know. Google is your friend.
Simon: It would be nice if you could tag your replies so the peanut gallery knows who you’re talking to.
Not hating, irritated. You’ll know when my switch is flipped, because I get a lot nastier when I’m pissed off. I haven’t even called you a fuckwit yet!
Why are we babbling about Ada Lovelace so much? Even if she made some contribution to what is now called software engineering, I freely, even happily acknowledged that occasional women of genius exist! That should make everyone happy! I even think that it was worth it that Ms. Lovelace’s husband to go without home cooked supper while little wifey was busy developing computer programming,,,
Let me say that KathleenB–you ain’t no Ada Lovelace! Even if some exceptions are due to a mutant female with an ionospheric IQ, it says nothing about what is proper for ordinary women! For the good of everybody, kinder, kirche, kuche is very sound fare for the fair sex!
‘Nuff said!!
Now let us look at the other hundred or so MAJOR developers of what later became computers and go on from there. I haven’t counted yet, but I think we will find a LOT of Y chromosomes herein.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Who will feel awesome if Ada Lovelace Day is a Google Doodle? Then Simon won’t even have to type her name to look her up!
How the fuck would you know? I could be a super genius with patents and blockbuster programs to my name. (I”m not, only on the border between high average and genius on the IQ scale, no ability to invent, and an obscure, never-published program to help my husband run our Deadlands game, but that’s not really the point.)
DKM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Timeline_of_women_in_computing
Katz: They don’t normally? I seem to recall one a couple of years ago…
It seems DKM is not familiar with history and construction of social roles. Not that DKM is even familiar with reality, so this comes as no surprise.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/07/28/normalizing-female-computer-programmers-in-the-1960s/
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~nathan/files/ensmenger-gender.pdf
DKM: Given that Ada was both the daughter of Byron (the poet, in case you’re the total fuckwit I think you are) and a Duchess, I’m pretty sure she didn’t do much of her own cooking.