Women oppress men by “playing” at having a career
Silly woman! You probably don't even know how to work that computer.
Well, here’s a new twist. We all know, from reading the endless tirades on the subject scattered all over the manosphere, that women are evil, selfish and ungrateful creatures whose primary goal in life is to leech off of men and make them miserable.
In a recent post titled Playing Career Woman, manosphere blogger Dalrock takes on some of the most evil and selfish ladies of the whole lot of them: upper middle class ladies who insist on going to college and getting jobs, then later leave the workforce to raise their children.
You might think that these ladies would deserve some props from traditional-minded manosphere dudes for supporting themselves instead of leeching off of men during their twenties, then settling into a more traditional housewifely role once they have children.
Oh, but you don’t realize just how evil and disruptive and oppressive their phony careers are to the men of the world. After all, these aren’t women who need to work to support themselves. No, according to Dalrock, these are “women who use their education and career as a way to check off the box to prove their feminist credentials before settling down into an entirely traditional role.”
According to Escoffier, a commenter on Dalrock’s site whom he quotes with approval, in the good old pre-feminist days:
Women who pursued careers (apart from traditional female roles such as teaching … ) were considered at best sort of harmlessly odd … but we know that family life is superior and more important.
Then came feminism:
Now it’s “You MUST do this for own sake, not to do it is to not realize your potential.” …
The way the [upper middle class] has “solved” this problem is to send girls to college, let them launch their careers–whether in soggy girly stuff like PR or crunchy stuff like business and law–and then they marry late (~30), have kids a few years later and drop out of working at least until the kids are grown.
This answers a couple of needs, not least the need for two incomes to accumulate assets so that the couple can eventually buy into a UMC school district.
Oh, but these women aren’t really earning money because they need it to, you know, pay bills and shit:
[T]he real importance of this solution is to her psyche. Getting the education and career are a way of telegraphing “I am a complete person, not some drone like June Cleaver. I am just as smart and capable as any man. In my altruistic concern for my children, I choose not to use my talent in the marketplace but to devote myself to them.” In other words, she needs that education and early career to mark her as better than a mere housewife, even though she will eventually choose to become a housewife.
According to Dalrock, such women are far more evil than the feminist women who get jobs and stick with them. (Emphasis added.)
Men and women who work hard to support themselves understand that they are in it for the duration. There is a determined realism to them. … These aren’t the women we are talking about. The women Escoffier described see having a career as a badge of status to be collected on their way to their ultimate goal of stay at home housewife. They aren’t really career women, they are playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.
In the comments, someone calling himself Carnivore explains just how unfair this all is to the poor innocent working men of the world:
When men get a degree or go through a vocational program and then land a job, they’ve normally got 40+ years to contribute to increasing the wealth of society. Women “playing” career damage society:
1. They displace men for positions in college or vocational school.
2. Upon landing a job, they displace other men for the job position.
3. The increase in the labor pool drives down wages (supply & demand).
4. While in the labor pool, women are less effective and less productive than men.
5. Because they are in the labor pool and cannot compete with men, women support labor laws to enforce “equality” which burden businesses and can cause men to get fired due to some infringement or just to meet quotas.
6. When they leave the labor pool after becoming bored, there is now a hole than can be difficult to fill because the men who would normally fill it have been displaced for all the reasons above.
Carnivore places part of the blame on the feminism-infected parents who taught these women the wrong things:
Women do NOT know what they want. They have to be guided. Most parents have so bought into feminism that they don’t see any other way. It’s a riot – or sad – talking to parents when they go into all the detail about choosing a college, going on campus visits, making sure she gets into the best school, etc., etc. You would think these parents would spend their time and energy on prepping their daughters for the most important life decision – choosing a man for marriage, how to make a husband happy and how to raise healthy children.
The commenter called Ray takes it one step further:
i was in the workplaces during feminism 1.0, and it had nothing to do with fairness, equity, egalitarianism, or any other positive attribute
in fact, it was a slaughter, resulting in the vast disenfranchisement and destruction of millions of american men — there were dozens of ways men could be hassled, RIFd, and forced from employment, and they were (all to chants of Equality and Empowerment)
this resulted in the massive unemployment of the very men needed to create, invent, and revitalize the culture. and to be fathers to sons . …
no female should be employed, or educated, if it means a qualified male must be excluded
Women, stop leeching off men by paying your own way!
NOTE: This post contains SARCASM.
Posted on November 27, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, life before feminism, misogyny, oppressed men, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 1,774 Comments.
He never paid the $4.99, he really has no cause for complaining Hellkell did not answer his so called question.
You get no more good faith answers, Brandon.
@Hellkell: Ok, then you don’t get to tell me how to judge that behavior.
So…no on the question? Can’t think of what makes hetero men attracted to women?
Seriously, and with the time he’s been here, I’d say he owes me about 600 bucks.
@Hellkell: Nice cop-out.
Brandon, with guys like you, it’s a pulse, a hole, a rack, and a willingness to put up with unending bullshit. Pretty sure with you the pulse is optional.
@Elizabeth: I might pay $4.99 if hellkell actually gave an answer.
Brandon: In the nicest possible way: Quit being an asshole.
@hellkell: This must be what MRA’s call shaming language. Can’t answer my question but you can resort to personal attacks.
Brandon wrote, “It isn’t about spending money, it is about showcasing your most attractive attributes.”
Brandon: next time you’re playing video games with your buddies, ask them these questions:
Would they date a woman with severe acne, who made no effort to treat it or cover it up?
Would they date a woman with an obvious over or underbite?
Would they date someone who was fat? (Not as in “slightly larger than the average model” but with rolls, thighs that touch, a double chin, hanging breasts, etc.)
Saying that no one judges anyone outside of work for these attributes is simplifying things way, way too much– and saying that these things don’t take money to fix is absurd.
Now, do I *personally* follow all these appearance rules? Nope–I’ve chosen to ignore the last bit for my own reasons, but if people really didn’t care as much as you say they did, there wouldn’t be (just for an example) fat acceptance or a diet industry. The point I’m not trying to make is how sensible YOU find these physical appearance rules, it’s the cultural messages most women WILL get about how they look and the cultural messages most men get about how women SHOULD look.
@KathleenB: I am not, I am just asking for hellkell to answer a question. But hellkell can’t seem to do that, so I get personal attacks instead.
No you would not, and not only that, there is no other reason for zie to answer you because you offer nothing in exchange except varying types of lies.
Kind of sad really. Not quite as sad as the fact that your family does not care about you and the fact your father abused you by plying you with alcohol and porn. Or your relationship with Ashley.
I did answer your question, such as it was, you disingenuous toad.
If it feels like shaming language, maybe you should be ashamed.
@Molly:At least that is sort of an answer. So you are saying physical appearance is the main force behind male to female attraction? Correct? But that you try not to be swayed by it?
Also, I will answer your questions (also I have a few friends that have overweight girlfriends):
1) A woman with severe acne who isn’t trying to get rid of it (proactive, seeing a dermatologist, etc..) shows me that she doesn’t care about her body or her appearance. Some things are a pain to fix but she should at least attempt to correct them. If it doesn’t work after she tries, that is a different story.
Also, I have dated a few girls that had moderate acne on their face. One of the girls personality was positive and she moved through life as if they didn’t care that they had acne. Which means she didn’t draw attention to it. Also, she wasn’t angry or resentful about it. This made her far more attractive to me.
2) I have never dated a girl with a severe over, under-bite. I can’t say that I would or wouldn’t. I would have to take it on a case by case basis.
3) I have dated an overweight woman that at least fell into 3 categories you mentioned. She was very self-conscious about her weight and it made me very uncomfortable. Especially when we were having sex.
@hellkell: So your makeup comment was the actual answer? Pretty flimsy, I must say.
@hellkell: Why should I be ashamed?
Actually, I can almost believe Ashley being a real woman and having said this, because the one thing we know about Brandon is his disingenuousness in representing the ideas of other people, so it is possible Ashley’s knowledge of Manboobz is limited solely to what Brandon has told her about it.
Brandon: @Cassandra: Ok, and in what way does he want women to become dolls? Cause while I get the “I want to fuck dolls” vibe from his writing, I don’t get the “women must become dolls” vibe.
That’s because you are ignoring his staement that women need to become subservient to men, and enjoy being property.
And that if they don’t, men will have to kill them, after their are sexbots who can replace them.
Meller: Your kink for plushies, is fine. Enjoy yourself.
But since there are plenty of healthy human males (like myself) who enjoy the company of feminists, there really is nothing for them to feel bothered by.
I, for one, am not at all bothered when people who hate me choose to spend time with other people, rather than force themselves into my presence.
Yes, of course you would. You’re focusing on the makeup, my larger point was that men are not all the same. Therefore there is no one answer to “what men are attracted to.”
Brandon, do you realize why there’s no good reason to give you answers? Also, you stomping around demanding answers and then giving head-pats for the ones you think pass muster is HI-larious.
Hellkell, even Brandon’s reply to Molly’s question missed the point: she asked what Brandon’s dudebro friends would think of dating certain women based on their physical appearance – Brandon’s reply is all about Brandon. Someone, please change the channel… I think Elizabeth left the remote on the sofa.
@hellkell: Well, can you give me a few things you think men are attracted to?
BTW, I never asked you to give me the “all encompassing thing that makes all men flock to a particular woman”. I asked what your insights on male to female attraction were. That can contain more than one thing.
We have makeup, which by no means is a meaningful variable. Men will date, marry or otherwise associate with women regardless of if or how much makeup they wear.
Brandon wrote, “I have dated an overweight woman that at least fell into 3 categories you mentioned. She was very self-conscious about her weight and it made me very uncomfortable. Especially when we were having sex.”
Now, ask yourself *why* she felt self-conscious and you might be a little closer to getting my point.
@Xanthe: Yes, let me just gather up all my friends right now to answer that. I didn’t answer it because “it was all about me”. I answered her because one answer is better than no answer. You really need to stop being so cynical and stop thinking the worst of people.
No, see above as to why.
Xanthe, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell him, but he’s approaching singularity and it’s impossible.
@Molly: Actually, I spent considerable time telling her that I thought she was attractive (which I did, otherwise I wouldn’t be with her). I thought she was attractive, she thought she wasn’t. No amount of me telling her otherwise was going to change that.
@Hellkell: Fine. Can you at least answer why you think there are no good reasons to give me those answers?
Are you on drugs? You cannot be asking me that with a straight face.
1.) You do not say what you mean
2.) You read selectively
3.) You move goalposts
4.) You are not honest
5.) You do not see past your entitlement
6.) Lather, rinse, repeat
Yeah, okay… but *why* did she feel that way? Was it messages that she’d gotten from the people around her? From TV? From her family? From her former partners? From herself?
You seem to be trying to get us to say things like, “No way, culture is meaningless and doesn’t tell us anything!” or “Culture only matters around work!” But I’ve had people tell me I was too fat to have sex with. I’ve had family members insinuate that the reason I didn’t get a job was that I was too fat. I can maybe think of only one or two instances where a woman in a movie or a TV show has been my size and it hasn’t been a comedy.
Even if you think it’s bullshit, and I try to fight it, that doesn’t mean culture has *no influence*. Shit’s everywhere, or I wouldn’t have been told these things and the fat girl you tried to have sex with probably wouldn’t have felt so ashamed of her body.
“You really need to stop being so cynical and stop thinking the worst of people.”
Ha, thinking the cynical worst would normally be something I save up for special snowflakes like you — not all people. But actually I was just making the singular observation that in the absence of thinking about the attitudes of your friends, you chose to go with your own to answer Molly. Fits the pattern.
@Molly: I don’t know. She never really told me nor am I psychic. I tried to tell her that I thought she was beautiful and sexy but after a while repeating the same thing over and over gets exhausting. She didn’t want to open up and my telling her what I think wasn’t helping either.
I am not trying to get you to say anything. However, my issue was that the term “culture” is far too broad a term. It’s like saying I traveled to Asia and people asked me what it was like. It is just to big of a land mass to give a meaningful answer on how Asia was. Sure, I can talk about vague generalities, but nothing really specific.
@hellkell:
1.) You do not say what you mean…according to you
2.) You read selectively…according to you
3.) You move goalposts…according to you
4.) You are not honest…according to you
5.) You do not see past your entitlement…according to you
6.) Lather, rinse, repeat…according to you
Re: reassuring someone that they are attractive to you.
When mum had her mastectomy, dad said to her “Don’t worry, I won’t leave you even though you have only one breast.” Until he said that, it had never occurred to her that he might leave due to her having surgery for cancer. Yeah, very reassuring!
HAHAHAHA OH BOY YOU SURE SHOWED ME.
Yeah, well, the lurkers agree with me.
Cute coming from someone who thinks “because I said so” is good arguing.
@Magpie: Well, enlighten all the men that lurk here. If you have a girlfriend that doesn’t think highly of herself…what is a boyfriend to do?
Fixed that for you.
The word is irrelevant. What is important is the provoked emotions the person is communicating when using the word.
This from, “words mean what I say they mean, unless they don’t”.
@hellkell: Actually, I am more curious in knowing how YOU think it works
This from the guy who (like NWO) refuses to share how he thinks; won’t even say what he means when he uses a word: though he admits he uses them more to provoke then to communicate.
Brandon: Still no defintion of slut?
Mind you, “@KathleenB: I am not, I am just asking for hellkell to answer a question. But hellkell can’t seem to do that, so I get personal attacks instead.
Is pretty much what you did to me, so your mewling about how she’s not treating you the way you want to be treated… you’ve shown people how you treat people, and really… why should they reward your bad behavior.
Show a little respect if you want to get any.
Brandon: For a discussion about beauty standards, we don’t NEED to get super specific. So far we don’t even seem to agree that there are “vague generalities” in *American* culture about beauty… and yet there are quite a few movie starlets that share the same physical qualities. >.>
As do Faux News anchors.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/lactate-intolerance?xrs=share_twitter
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/lactate-intolerance?xrs=share_twitter
@Pecunium: I was under the assumption that I was using the words that everyone else was using.
Ok…I have given you my position on sluts multiple times. I am sorry that it isn’t up to your standards, but I don’t live to satisfy your standards. Most people can read what I have written and come to the conclusion that I take more than just how many partners a woman has to determine if I *personally* think she is a slut. Each woman is judged differently.
In response to the issue with hellkell. I can either discuss a topic in a fairly civilized way or we can hurl personal attacks at one another. I am perfectly capable of doing both. If you want to have a debate, then the personal attacks should be as close to non-existent as possible. But since I asked hellkell for further clarification (by asking a more specific question), she went into “you are debating in bad faith” mode. So if asking questions is “in bad faith” then what is “in good faith”? Do I just have to blindly accept hellkell’s answer as fact?
Once the personal attacks start, the debate is pretty much over. So I figured I might as well hurl them right back at hellkell. As the old saying goes “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”. The commenters here seem to have no problem throwing insults at me and other “non-agreers”, but as soon as one of us strikes a nerve it’s “You are being disrespectful”. One should learn to take their own advice. Respect begets respect. Hostility begets hostility.
While I might talk about sluts, whores, prostitutes, etc.. Those are topics of discussion and ideas. I very rarely (if ever) have blatantly called one of the commenters here a slut or a whore. However, I have repeatedly been called a moron, idiot, loser and even Elizabeth went as far as calling my a necrophiliac just a little while ago.
And for a group of people to demand respect from me that have insulted my girlfriend is just ludicrous.
So on one hand, the commenters here have either 1) guessed correctly that I don’t have a girlfriend or 2) have spent countless posts denigrating an actual woman. And for a group that is supposed to value woman, one would think they would rather not insult a woman than to maybe be right in her non-existence.
So I could say to you if you want me to respect you, you should respect me also. I think for the most part, our discussions have been reasonably civil. However, most of the other commenters here think it is somehow mature to hurl insults at people for no other reason than they disagree with them.
@Molly: And why exactly can we not talk about specifics?
I can either discuss a topic in a fairly civilized way or we can hurl personal attacks at one another.
on the season finale of ‘brandon doesnt understand things': a stopped clock is right twice a day, thinks it is clever.
@Sharcules: And thank you for proving my point.
nobody believes you had a point
That’s a lot of words to say “It is so because I say it is.”
Not that we couldn’t sense it.
Do you seriously not understand what sarcasm is?
Anyway, considering that you haven’t brought it up again, I’m just going to go ahead and conclude that you admit that you were wrong when you said that, if my father didn’t pay his share of my tuition, I was the one at fault. Thanks for doing that! It was an awfully stupid position, as well as cruel. Catch you on the flip side.
You didn’t begin with respect for us, we returned the favor.
VoiP, as we know well, Brandon DEMANDS respect — the idea that respect might need to be earned simply does not apply to him!
The answer is almost certainly “no”, but claims that he’s a necrophile (or, in my version, a “child-torturing necrophile“) aren’t technically sarcasm – it’s more a case of lying about him directly.
And the reason is that we’re deliberately and indeed gleefully exploiting the fact that Brandon has given us unambiguous permission to make up what the hell we like about him, and present it as fact.
If you remember, back in the early days of this thread, when dinosaurs still roamed the land and the Roman Empire was a viable political entity, Brandon accused Lauralot of being “a man hating feminist“.
A number of people quite strongly objected to this, as it’s a serious accusation of unthinking bigotry towards half the population, and one that was apparently entirely unsupported by evidence – so Brandon was asked to produce some, or withdraw the slur.
He did neither.
Instead, gloriously, he replied:
If that isn’t an explicit green light for us to make things up about him, I don’t know what is.
And the great thing about him giving us this green light is that we can carry on making things up about him and presenting them as fact until he finally calls a halt by either providing the requested evidence that Lauralot is a man-hater, or finally admitting what has been obvious for days: that he made it up and that he’s full of shit.
why would you want to make up things about brandon, though, when the actual facts of his existence, based on what he’s posted here, already make him seem like a total tool.
i can’t see any worse insult than being the person brandon describes through his posts, the thoughtless, selfish, intellectually lazy dude who assumes any attempt to question the status quo is some sort of subterfuge.
Small words, please, Sharculese. It’s best not to use words like “subterfuge” around Brandon, in case he gets confused and goes off on another mystifying tangent about his father/Ashley/how the best way to protect yourself from false criminal allegations is to commit a different crime.
Okay, okay, I know we’re always giving Brandon crap about how we don’t believe Ashley is real, but now I’ve found photographic proof she exists!
Brandon and Ashley meeting for the first time: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lbiqpII-ifg/TiA_Rg9eaxI/AAAAAAAAAAA/8quZm4b0iEY/s1600/Pillow%2BPets%2B005-724967.jpg
falling in love: http://www.frogcitycheese.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Pillow-Pets.jpg
and curled up watching a movie together: http://whatmommiesneed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/wyatt-pillow-pet-300×225.jpg
Brandon: <i.@Pecunium: I was under the assumption that I was using the words that everyone else was using.
These would be the same words (like culture) you say have no specific meaning? Or is that like Slut, which you say everyone has a different meaning for (but which you use as if it has a specific meaning… which you won’t share).
Here is the conclusion I’ve come to about your position on slut. It means nothing. You use it, actually, just as you said you do; to get a reaction. You use it because you think it will be offensive. If you need it to shame those with whom you disagree, you whip it out.
A woman who is fun in bed (by your standards) is a good slut, and the word has (as you once said) no perjorative connotation. Anyone who disagrees with you on that is a prude, and a man-hating stick in the mud.
But, when you want to say a woman has poor judgement, is “promiscuous”, then she is a bad slut. Worth fucking (if she’ll have you), but otherwise to be looked down on, and she deserves to be thought ill of, because she has offended your sensibilities.
As to my “standards”, you are right, you don’t meet them. Which is because my standard is for honesty, and you aren’t. That, or you are in fact not educated enough to understand what I am asking for.
You admit that the definition of some words can be contextually different. I asked you (since you were the one who introduced the term) to give us (that is to say you and me) a common definition, which I would agree to use for this conversation. By doing that we could be talking about the same thing.
You, for whatever reason (I have, from your past behavior some ideas as to why that is), refuse to give us, not your personal definition; but any definition.
Which is part of the reason you are so poor at debate. You can’t treat it as a purel intellectual exercise. It’s all personal to you.
Now, to the issue of “personal attacks”. You like to make them, you can’t take them. You pretend you are being “above it all”, but you aren’t.
While I might talk about sluts, whores, prostitutes, etc.. Those are topics of discussion and ideas. I very rarely (if ever) have blatantly called one of the commenters here a slut or a whore.
Nope, not blatantly. You just imply it. You also make blanket statements about feminists; as if saying evil things about a group identity; shared by many (actually most) of the people to whom you are speaking isn’t an insult.
You made a big deal about respect, and not rewarding bad behavior, in the course of that you insulted anyone who didn’t agree with you that phrasing things in the ways you wanted them to be phrased (never, in the life of Brandon shall the needs of a child be phrased in way which implies he has any obligation to that child; even if the child is Brandons), and that anyone who was in such disagreement with you was a controlling asshole.
You called Lauralot a man-hater. You can’t back that up, but you insist it’s true; because Brandon says so.
You (as above) insult groups, as a whole, and make a pretense of having some sort of immunity from reaction because you didn’t name anyone in specific.
You are also pretty selective in what/whom you choose to “dish out the heat” to. I made a pretty intense assessment of your character. You ignored it. But hellkell makes a passing comment and you are suddenly Mr. Tough Guy. When people point out you aren’t actually on the moral high ground you think you are (about beauty standards) you change the topic; pretending this is about interpersonal interaction.
In a way it is. You are tone deaf to argument, and lack the sense to see when it’s tactically superior to let needling attacks slide past you. You dance to others tunes, and think you are calling the steps.
And (in the same way anyone can see how you use slut) it’s pretty obvious it stings. If you were the sort of person who really doesn’t care what others think, then someone making patently false claims about you would be as nothing as when one of your guy friends (the one’s you hang out with to make fun of “feminists”, and women who think “slut” is a word you use to insult women, as you go about your subtle means of making sure the women you chat up aren’t feminists; so you won’t have to deal with them calling you on your shit face to face) calls you a “fag”. or a dumbshit. You would shrug that off, because in that case you don’t care.
But here; when you are (as usual) losing a debate here, then it hurts, because you can’t really shrug it off. You are being moronic and idiotic; if for no other reason than you can’t admit you are getting your ass handed to you. That’s why you tend to drop subjects, and move onto other threads (but sometimes, you come back, a week or so later, and try to slip in the last word).
You want to impress people with your intelligence: while you might have smarts, and be tolerably clever in banter, you aren’t much of a thinker, and you are woefully inconsistent. There is no shame in the former, but the latter is a problem. That’s the thing which really hurts you here. If you were honest in debate you would get much less hostility. Hypocrisy is a moral failing.
I may be wrong on any number of things, but it’s really hard for someone to say I’m not engaging in good faith, because my arguments, from one topic to another, are the same. You, among others, have complained that I am too specific, and prone to pedantry in my use of words and definition. I’ve been called a “pseudo-intellectual” because I link to definitions. All of which is because I actually have meanings to the words I use, and making sure that the person I’m talking to knows what I mean by them (as opposed to your use of words to mean what you want them to mean, for the argument at hand), so that we can speak about things which exist.
You aren’t willing to do that. You say something, and when the context, connotation and implication of your words (there on the page for all to see) are pointed out, you say anyone with sense (see your argument supra re slut) will understand that you didn’t mean to say anyone who gets married is stupid, and every one who can’t see that is a moron.
Which is insulting even more people (i.e. those whom you called stupid in the first place, and those who saw that you called people stupid, and those who may not have seen it at first but agreed when you pointed it out).
But go on, keep fucking that chicken, and pretend you haven’t earned exactly the level of respect you get.
Could be, Bagelsan, but are you sure that’s not DKM? Because those look mighty fluffy and docile, and I don’t think Brandon specified fluffy.
Good point, amandajane5. Or, perhaps those photos are in fact of Brandon cuddling up with DKM, and Ashley and the dolls are just their respective beards? :D
DKM said@5.39pm:
“I believe that I asked a question somewhat like this before, but doesn’t it bother you, and other modern women that you are all SO unfeminine and unattractive that otherwise healthy human males would prefer fluffytoys or little lady lovelies collector dolls, seeing THEM as more attractive, sexy, and alluring, indeed as more altogether feminine than you and other FEMINISTS! I mean, you and the rest of the sisterhood from hell can hate on me, and men sort of in my situation, as much as youall like, but the fact remains that you “women” are second fiddle to fluffytoys and antique-style collector dolls! One way or another, I have my “sweet old-fashioned girls”.
Pitiful, isn’t it?”
Twenty seven years married, DKM, proves that you’re talking your usual bullshit. We aren’t the one talking to dolls and playing with plushies, indeed most of us are curled up right now with our various spouses and significant others while you are stuck with pieces of cloth and porcelain.
Pitiful, isn’t it?
@SaruGoku
see this is why I still have my doubts that Meller is serious sometimes…I mean, that above quote from him is so ludicrous and pathetic I can’t believe it’s for real.
I’VE GOT MY DOLLS AND STUFFED TOYS. TAKE THAT FEMINISTS!!!!!11
I just can’t believe there are adults that behave like this. Pitiful indeed -_-
By the way, being a bit of a geek I collect action figures and stuffed toys too, but the thought of saying to modern men “well I got my toys so hahaha” is just stupid.
I am honestly just pleased that other people ran with the pillow pet meme.
@Pecunium:
I never said that culture has no meaning. Just that it is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses many things. My debate about culture a while back wasn’t about “there is no culture”, it was “Not every part of our culture is useful and good”.
So it is dishonest to say that “slut” is subjective and not objective? That “slut” is interpreted by everyone differently?
I can’t think of one time where I called a commenter here a slut. Not just used the word but said “X you are a slut”. I don’t view the word as derogatory nor do I see anything shameful about being a slut.
Also, being a slut isn’t about poor judgement. It is about having a set of behavioral traits that aren’t necessarily compatible with marriage. It’s like trying to put a square peg into a round hole…it doesn’t work but that doesn’t mean the square peg is bad or immoral.
So now I am “uneducated”. Apparently, you as well have no problem throwing out personal attacks as well. If someone isn’t answering your question the way YOU want it to be answered, then it is on YOU to clarify your question.
You asked for my definition. I gave it to you. That apparently wasn’t what you wanted…so why don’t you clarify what exactly you want me to answer. Otherwise, don’t sit there and claim I am uneducated because you ask a broad question when you want a specific answer.
And seriously…WTF is with the “above it all” nonsense. Yet another vague, meaningless term. What exactly am I above? (metaphorically…I don’t want you to think I mean literally above something)
I never said that it was true that lauralot was a man-hater. Just that I personally think she is. Hey, I could be wrong…but based on all the information so far, I think I my odds of being right are higher than being wrong.
Also, I asked hellkell to describe male to female attraction. I didn’t mention anything about makeup, culture, beauty standards, etc… So right from the start, hellkell isn’t even answering my question. Unless talking about makeup is a roundabout way of saying men are attracted to physical appearances. I also brought up the fact that “makeup” wasn’t the major variable in male-to-female attraction since men will still be attracted to women if they wear makeup or don’t. So basically makeup is a pretty flimsy answer.
Losing what debate? In my opinion the debate never even happened. It went: my question, hellkell misinterpreting that question, another question asking to clarify, personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks, etc… You get the point.
The way I see it is I didn’t biindly accept hellkell’s answer and that made her mad. She didn’t like being questioned so she went into personal attacks. When I pushed her for an answer, I got “you are in bad faith and being disrespectful”.
So from my POV, no debate actually happened.
I tend to drop subjects because I come to the point that neither side is understanding each other and we are just banging our heads against the wall trying to get our points across.
I don’t have to come here to impress people with my intelligence.
Lastly, I am not demanding respect from anyone. I am however not going to show you respect if you have been disrespectful to me. It isn’t “you will give me respect” it is “If you want me to respect you, then you respect me. Otherwise I will treat you the same way you treat me”.
I am not demanding anything…only reciprocating.
You know, for someone who states that he doesn’t care what people think, you’re spending an awful lot of time justifying yourself.
@hellkell: Well, out of all the commenters here, Pecunium is by far one of the better ones. So I felt the need to give him a proper response.
If you would like to continue our debate, sans personal attacks, I am more than willing to do that. Otherwise, we can just go on insulting each other for no point.
Brandon: So it is dishonest to say that “slut” is subjective and not objective? That “slut” is interpreted by everyone differently?
It’s dishonest to say you won’t give your definition; in the interests of having a conversation with a shared definition. I didn’t ask for, “the” definition, I asked for your definition. You said, “It means what I want it to mean, but everyone knows what it means.”
Also, being a slut isn’t about poor judgement.
That’s not what you said earlier. You said the reason a “slut” is bad marriage material is that she (and you did limit it to women) had proven she had poor judgement, because she had slept with too many people. You pathologised it as being because she had a need for outside validation.
So now I am “uneducated”. Apparently, you as well have no problem throwing out personal attacks as well. If someone isn’t answering your question the way YOU want it to be answered, then it is on YOU to clarify your question.
Um… uneducated isn’t an attack. I’ve known lots of people who aren’t educated. As I said, it doesn’t mean they aren’t smart; it means there are things they don’t know. And, if you were paying attention, what I am complaining about is your refusal to admit I am making 1: a very simple request, and 2: have clarified it, more than once, when you failed to understand it, 3: that lack isn’t why I say you are uneducated. I say that because when people explain your logical failures (see in this thread re studies) you airily dismiss them as “unimportant.”
I never said that it was true that lauralot was a man-hater. Just that I personally think she is. Hey, I could be wrong…but based on all the information so far, I think I my odds of being right are higher than being wrong.
No, you back-pedaled when challenged. And you’ve not shown one iota of support for your position, i.e. you have yet to provide any reason for your, “opinion”.
Lastly, I am not demanding respect from anyone. I am however not going to show you respect if you have been disrespectful to me. It isn’t “you will give me respect” it is “If you want me to respect you, then you respect me. Otherwise I will treat you the same way you treat me”.
Bullshit. You have not shown anything approaching respect to anyone here. The most you have done is be a bit less dishonest about it than Meller when you go on a tear. You have insulted people, in general and in specific, and then deny it. You change your story, your positions, and pretend you never said things which are in print. That’s insulting our intelligence, and showing no respect for our ability to read, comprehend and remember.
Then you get bent out of shape when people point it out, complaining that you are being unfairly treated. Again, bullshit. You’ve been treated far more kindly than you deserve. It’s been months of you pulling this crap, and it’s only now that you are in the same pool at NWO. It’s a pretty sad commentary that DKM is a more reasonable participant than you are; not because he is reasonable, per se, but in at least some conversations he is consistent.
You may salve your ego by telling yourself that the tens of thousands of words you have spent time composing on subjects from marriage, to contracts, to legal defense, to how to run feminism, to how to hang out with lesbians to scope the ladies, and hang with your pals to make feminist heads explode with your brilliant destruction of 3rd wave feminism, and how to prevent false rape accusations and what makes a good slut, or what makes a bad slut, or how to be a parent etc. haven’t been debates.
But you are wrong. You have been trying to convince people of the rightness of your position. That’s debate. You’ve certainly failed to convince anyone here of the rightness of your positions (though it’s evident you have created a consensus about your attitudes and nature). It’s unknown what anyone lurking thinks about who is more correct, but anyone with any wit will see there was a debate, and you were an active (often an initiating) participant.
@Pecunium: Again, I have given my definition. You just don’t accept it. That is not my problem.
Well, then let me clarify. I have no hostility towards promiscuous, slutty people. They have the right to do whatever they want as long as it involves two consenting adults. However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.
Calling lauralot a man-hater is mainly because it aggravates her so much. She tries to post things that will get me riled up and I found something that annoyed her. So I milked it for a while. I only care enough about it because it annoys her. But now that I have blown my cover, I guess that joke is dead in the water.
I have insulted people? How? I am insulting you personally because what? I disagree with the majority of third wave feminism? That you have inferred that I called married people stupid even though I never did? That I use words that you don’t like? That the few *benefits* that I think marriage has can be handled with contracts instead?
I mean, I find it very hard to take feminists seriously when some of their most popular bloggers and figureheads are taking some of the most petty issues and blow them out of proportion. Jill at Feministe tends to do this a lot with posts like “The politics of hello” and her most recent “Siri: Total Misogynist”.
Brandon, re: culture, you claimed that because you don’t watch TV or pay attention to fashion that you are uninfluenced by culture. Which is patently absurd (see the actual definitions of ‘culture’ earlier in this thread).
“However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
“While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.”
Brandon’s not influenced by culture AT ALL here…
Brandon, I suggest you read your 4th paragraph and 5th paragraph over and over. You might learn something.
Brandon: @Pecunium: Again, I have given my definition. You just don’t accept it. That is not my problem.
You have not given a definition.
Well, then let me clarify. I have no hostility towards promiscuous, slutty people. They have the right to do whatever they want as long as it involves two consenting adults. However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.
That’s not a definition. That’s an explanation of how you claim you feel about them, but there is no way for me to use that description to predict your reactions.
There is also no support for the conclusions you draw. What is it that makes a “promiscuous” person disloyal, unable to delay gratification, look to the long term etc.?
I would, if there was some defintion; apart from, “Brandon says this person is a slut”, but there isn’t.
Calling lauralot a man-hater is mainly because it aggravates her so much.
Nonsense. You made specific allegations, and then said, “anyone can see it, so I don’t need to point to it, and you can’t make me.”
The last is true, but it’s not relevant. You made a claim of fact. Claims of fact require evidence.
How have you insulted me. I happen to think marriage is a useful institution. You said people who think that are stupid.
You shucked and jived your way through shifting explanations of why women aren’t fit to be combat soldiers. While you may have served, you’ve got zero experience about what makes someone fit for combat, and used bullshit to defend your position. I happen to know a number of female combat vets (as in spent a couple of days under seiege in Iraq, or were in firefights; not just the usual strain and drain of being at risk for all the time one is moving down roads). You said anyone who didn’t agree with your manly-opinion (as a 19D) was a fool.
That whole thing we keep telling you, that words have meanings, and you keep saying things without paying attention to the content, and subtext of your actual ideas… you’ve done it a lot. In ways that insult pretty much everyone who isn’t Brandon.
The thing is, you can’t claim to be debating honestly and then decide to say things that you don’t really think are true just to needle people, unless you make it obvious that you’re using sarcasm. This is part of what Pecunium means when he points out that you a. lack debating skills and b. aren’t arguing in good faith.
It occurs to me that Brandon may actually not realize that he keeps moving goalposts, changing his argument slightly, etc. Some people actually are that intellectually muddled. Not everyone is capable of thinking clearly and consistently.