About these ads

Dinesh D’Souza’s backwards future wife on the evils of Women’s Suffrage

Dinesh D’Souza’s future wife?

So good old Dinesh D’Souza — the right-wing culture warrior who hit it big this year with the film 2016: Obama’s America — evidently has a new fiancee. This has caused a big kerfuffle amongst some of D’Souza’s pals on the Christian right, because it turns out that he’s not quite unmarried at the moment, having only just filed for divorce from his current wife of twenty years. Oh, and his new gal pal – 29-year-old Denise Odie Joseph II —  is apparently also married.

Yesterday, D’Souza resigned his lucrative job as president of The King’s College, a small evangelical school in Manhattan (where he was reportedly paid a cool million bucks a year). His explanation for the whole adultery thing?

I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.

Yeah, how could a family-values-loving, highly paid president of an evangelical Christian college possibly be expected to know that getting engaged to someone while you’re still married might not go over so well in evangelical circles?

As a result of all the controversy, D’Souza says he and his beloved are “suspending” their engagement.

But enough about Dinesh. Let’s talk about his (possible) future wife. Despite the whole adultery thing, Joseph seems to think of herself as a bit of a crusader for “family  values” against the evil forces of liberalism and feminism.

Indeed, in one blog post earlier this year on Smart Girl Politics, she argued, amongst other things, that women’s suffrage was a terrible mistake. Well, “argued” might be stretching it: the post is a long, barely coherent, free-associational rant laced not only with internalized misogyny but with racism and homophobia to boot. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Beginning with a highly ironic paean to Rick Santorum as the only Republican in the primaries “to acknowledge … that the family unit is the cornerstone of American society,” Joseph then launched into a confusing and confused attack on what she called RINO – that is, Republican In Name Only – men who in her view haven’t been doing enough to keep their wives and daughters in check:

RINO Republicans are analogous to fathers who proudly proclaim their conservativeness at dinner parties or perhaps during early afternoon phone calls to El Rusbo’s show, but let their “independently-minded” wives … pump their teenagers full of birth control and encourage their daughters to live the lives for which their bra-burning foremothers fought so valiantly. …

RINO Dads are those guys who will sheepishly to proudly, fill out Republican ballots on Election Day while their wives openly mark their support for things like, “freedom of choice” and “freedom from poverty.” What most people don’t realize, and indeed what I didn’t realize until I blocked out the “madding crowd,” is that these women and their RINO men are like a vast national living history museum, pictographically illustrating exactly why the 19th Amendment was never the best idea ever and in fact, more closely resembles the greatest show on Earth. Think Ringling Bros. …

When our men cannot even remember the principled widespread women’s opposition to women’s suffrage because they never even learned about it in the first place, but can instantly recall which American president freed the slaves without also recalling the importance of his most seminal quote—“A house divided cannot stand,” our society is in trouble.

She quotes anti-suffragette Madeline Dahlgren (1871):

We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist.

It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and husbands love us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field and the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial that it could possibly be were all women allowed to vote.

Evidently, while God doesn’t think women should vote, he has no problem with women writing barely coherent tirades about politics on a blog called Smart Girl Politics.

After a weird digression in which Joseph explains she will no longer shop at J Crew because one of the designers there paints her son’s fingernails pink, Joseph returns to her attack on the RINO dudes. She spices up her argument with some good old fashioned racism:

While RINO dads and men are often heard snickering about feminists around the water cooler, they do not realize that by virtue of being RINOs, they are complying with the same feminist/liberal system of social engineering they sneer at when manifested in more obvious forms like the black single-mother society. Believing themselves to be infinitely superior by virtue of being married and financially supporting their children, they do not realize that they are setting their own sons up to be the “playas” and their daughters up to be the “played.”

If they took a moment to actually listen to the music their children listened to, or a moment to look at the way their children dress, they would realize that they are going the way of black ghetto society. They would realize that by failing to do the job their foremothers cherished, their wives, who don’t even know enough to scoff at Madeline Dahlgren and who should be the proud, moral guardians of their homes, are leading their RINO (and real Republican civilization) to their inevitable demises.

This, for some reason, leads into an extended attack on the singer KeSha and the video for her song “Tik Tok,” after which she returns to the subject of RINO dads.

Apparently though her video father seems capable of amassing enough money to afford his family a comfortable lifestyle and manicured lawn, he is completely powerless against the will of his monstrous teenaged whore child. This video might as well be a Discovery Channel documentary on the behavior of that intriguing species known as the RINO Dad. Thank the Lord no man will ever expect Ke$ha to be the moral guardian of his home, seeing that her father’s generation seems to be the last marrying generation. And who can blame them? With Ke$has or watered-down versions to choose from, what man would want to voluntarily impregnate a woman? …

Perhaps Ke$ha’s father learned along the way that if he beat the hell out of Ke$ha like she deserves and then sent her to a convent, he would become a social pariah and end up in jail.

I guess “beating the hell” out of children is a family value?

After a bit more KeSha-inspired free association, Joseph returns to chronicling the coming apocalypse, and manages to produce this unholy muddle of a sentence:

From extreme vanity sizing to demands that magazine models (anorexic and unattractively thin models notwithstanding) look like the “real” (cuz I guess the rest of us don’t count) size 8 woman, who historically would measure in at a size 16 to 20, modern women of the West are on the apocalyptic “Wild Hunt” for the ideal and are leaving terrific characteristic destruction in its wake.

Then she follows up with this shorter but equally baffling sentence:

 As women spearhead the demise of the ideal, the alternative to hypocrisy, they spearhead the demise of social order as we know it and love it.

Then — perhaps unwisely, in light of her current situation with the still-married Mr. D’Souza — she returns to the importance of traditional family values, once again with a side order of racism:

Henceforth, all of us will be staring down the barrel of life in a hip hop video or government-funded project where no one makes pretenses about “what they be.” Where no one has to succumb to sin because sinning is the status quo and where no one need ridiculously pretend to be faithful because well, we would have wisely outgrown such primitive notions about nuclear families as individual economies. We would have outgrown capitalism itself because government entitlement spending would have to grow ten-fold to accommodate and assist the burgeoning hoards of single-mom children born of the scarred sons of divorce who accidentally inseminated their female sex partners, or couples who themselves participated in that modern American rite of passage we call divorce.

Huh. You mean that “rite of passage” that you and Mr. D’Souza will soon both be intimately familiar with?

After an extended  defense (I guess) of Sarah Palin, she winds up her attack on hypocritical “in name only” Republican dudes:

RINO Dads, the next time you see your daughter bounding (or sauntering) down the stairs in a pair of booty shorts with messages like “juicy” emblazoned on her backside, please stop her, turn her around, and force her to go upstairs and change.  As you march her room-ward, tell her why she can’t dress like this, school her on the consequences of her behavior.  Do it even if you were on your way to your man cave to watch x-rated content featuring teenaged-looking girls dancing around in booty shorts with messages like “juicy” emblazoned on their backsides. Do it for your daughter, yourself, society, the ideal, but most of all, do it because you now remember that hypocrisy has always been our last, best hope.

Apparently so.

Hat tip to Ed Brayton of Dispatches From the Culture Wars for unearthing this post from Ms. Joseph.

About these ads

Posted on October 19, 2012, in antifeminism, irony alert, ladies against women, misogyny, racism, reactionary bullshit, woman's suffrage and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 417 Comments.

  1. Opie, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to do here.

  2. I think this is another one like Mr Al who needs to be banned for his own good. Also because he’s boring.

  3. Did no one point out to Steele in his little ‘men who’s sexualities aren’t shamed by TEH VILE M-FEMINISTS but they TOTALLY SHOULD BE for not being the right sort of male sexuality’ hissy fit extraordinaire, one of his examples isn’t male?

    I mean jesus Buttpole, this is basic fucking research. Like researching the difference between slander and libel (and also what a defamatory statement is. Hint: it can’t be defamatory if it’s true).

  4. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Late to the party here, but am I right in suggesting that this might be Steelepole’s least lucid rant yet.

    “Male sexuality” is, in in purified form, I suppose, merely the expression of sexuality by a man. True. But if used in service of feminist dogma, in practice I would essentially consider it, as said, a synthetic “feminist sexuality” adapted and applied for men and used in service of promoting feminist hatred. No, I’m not going to respect that manifestation of “male sexuality”.

    Holy crap, Boomweasel, what did the English language ever do to you? Did it fire you even though it totally wasn’t your fault you didn’t show up for work that one time? Did it take a dump in your shoe? Did it gang up with Logic and Sense to murder your family, leaving you to become a Batman-like avenger devoted to fighting these forces wherever you find them? What’s the deal here?

  5. Opie is Pell. Bye, Pell.

  6. Wait, “Poofplush?”

    I did a google to figure out what that might mean. Apparently, this:

    http://californiafurs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=37

  7. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    What a bizarre name for a cute toy! It looks like my Hadji when he was a teenzy bub. Only not as cute.

    So, Opie was Pell, eh? What a let-down. I mean, it had ‘troll’ all over it, but really, boring video posts? Where is the Pell of old with frothing meltdowns and claims of being a lawyer/doctor/psychiatrist/archbishop/God? This year’s Troll of the Year field is really weak.

  8. @Bodsworth

    Apparently his English teacher was Ms Barch from Daria and there is NOT A SINGLE WAY to improve your writing once you have taken one class when you’re 14. Not one way.

  9. I’m still trying to figure out Steele’s logic here in terms of how feminism forces men to warp their sexuality into ways that men must hate. Again, let’s take Pecunium. Obviously nobody should be forced to be poly and/or have a colorful history full of many sex partners, but I’m having a hard time figuring out how Steele, with his particular perspective on life, would see that as something feminism would promote as the ideal for male sexual behavior, since in general he seems to be one of those guys who think that feminism is out to make sure that men never get laid.

  10. So why should any comment on a woman’s appearance be interpreted as indicative of the interlocutor’s inclination to engage in intercourse of an intimate nature with said woman and this interest originating from the erect form of his outer genitalia? Is this even so more when it’s non sequitur from prior discourse?
    JAQ..

  11. Holy alliteration Batman, if you’re going to ask obtuse questions that you know the answer to, could you ask them in a way that doesn’t take five times as long to read as it should?

    “How do you know Otis was talking about his boner when he commented to say that he found the woman attractive?” would be perfectly adequate.

  12. PEE ESS, the answer is ‘because he interjected into a conversation to let us know that he found the woman to be sexually attractive’. Honestly, it’s not rocket science.

  13. ” it’s not rocket science”
    Most rockets have phallic shape.

  14. OT, but there’s been a Pell sighting at sciencetopia. Now with extra incoherence.

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/ethicsandscience/2012/10/17/the-point-of-calling-out-bad-behavior/

  15. Wow. So sad that now the trolls are vying for booberz’ attention.

    Otis, it’s rather apparent you are intentionally poking the hornets’ nest. We don’t care about your boner.

  16. Most rockets have phallic shape.

    I said it’s not rocket science.

  17. I have to wonder at the increasing drumbeat from the Right about repealing the Nineteenth Amendment. Do they anticipate some type of regime where this would be easy?

  18. “We don’t care about your boner.”
    Not entirely true. Please, Oh mighty pullup man , tell us the true nature and foibles and inclinations of your mighty turgid masterpiece..

  19. I must say it was refreshing to to see 1: Pell admit his reason for being here was to get attention. 2: His having a sad that he didn’t get it.

    3: Varpole again reduced to dodging questions and quitting the fray.

  20. Aww. I missed a Varpole meltdown. Stupid headache.

    As soon as I read “poofplush” I thought “That sounds like a thing they would invent for a kids cartoon that would be totally adorable and cuddly and go on fun adventures.” I see I am not wrong. Stick a couple little paws on that thing and you’ve got a franchise. (And yes, those people in the forum are right, they look like the sweet and domesticated version of Fizzgig. )

  21. >Pretty much everything about visual kei would probably offend most MRAs (and other traditionalists),

    I always found Gack dry-humping his musicians on stage hilarious.

  22. PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

    I missed the Steele meltdown by being off in the desert looking at stars. Oh well. :D

    Saw a few meteors but not many.

  23. Does one need to be a libertarian to regard women, blacks and hispanics as inferior?

    No, but it helps.

  24. I missed Pell, Steele, and a meteor shower. Damn.

  25. I’m merely saying that male sexuality has been, essentially, socially criminalized. It cannot be discussed. It cannot be referred to.

    A single blog post on a single website on all the internet is not about men’s boners = socially criminalizing male sexuality.
    Seriously, Steele, do you understand the difference between “you shall not acknowledge your sexuality, ever” and “it is not socially appropriate for you to acknowledge your sexuality in public when it is unrelated to the topic of discussion”?

    Excuse me – and who might this be? King David “Poofplush” Futrelle? Cliff “Subsidize Women” Pervocracy? Pecunium the Smug?

    1. The poster’s name is deniseeliza, so probably not a guy.
    2. I demand henceforth that you only refer to me as “Moonzy the Atlantean Vagina”.

    However, men who tailor their sexuality toward serving feminists and thus promoting misandry, have lost the right to have said sexuality respected. Feminists often deny Sarah Palin the label – the logic is the same.

    Actually it’s not the same – the world is not split into men and feminists. You might say that David/Cliff/Pecunium is not an MRA, and mock him thoroughly if any of them were to identify as such. This would be valid.
    Saying “you disagree with my idea of sexuality, therefore yours does not deserve respect” is irrational. A decent reason to say someone’s sexuality does not need respect is if, say, they enjoyed raping children. Which is obviously wrong.

    men who tailor their sexuality toward serving feminists and thus promoting misandry, have lost the right to have said sexuality respected.

    Nor am I denying a sexuality.

    COME ON! YOU’RE NOT EVEN TRYING!

    I am saying that the male Boobzers essentially do not have a “male sexuality”, but are men who have adapted a sort of female/feminist sexuality

    If someone is a dude, his sexuality falls into the spectrum of male sexuality.

    But if used in service of feminist dogma, in practice I would essentially consider it, as said, a synthetic “feminist sexuality” adapted and applied for men and used in service of promoting feminist hatred.

    So if two dudes (one feminist, one MRA) like getting pegged, only the non-feminist man’s sexuality counts?

    healthy relationships with other females

    I would venture to say no.

    This thread was supposed to be about my taste in women. Steele totally derailed a promising discussion.

    This thread was never about your taste in women. Steele didn’t derail that, he just made us have to repeat it 500 times.
    I keep thinking that if I try harder, Steele will, too.

  26. thebewilderness

    I’m a little creeped out thinking about how he uses his male sexuality.
    At the same time completely confused as to how one could put it to work in service to feminism, cuz it’s not an objective thing, like a pry bar or a cape you lay over a mud puddle, yanno.

  27. Varpole’s meltodowns are getting less exciting. His set-ups are no less tedious, but then he just wanders off.

  28. @thebewilderness – I thought feminism was a sonic screwdriver!

  29. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Yeah, Steelyboy’s just lost his staying power.

    Maybe he’s off crying in his coffee cos David didn’t see fit to delete my MEAN MEAN MEAN comment where I used that terrible shaming word about him.

    Poor widdle Steele … ::sound of world’s smallest violin::

  30. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    I don’t know… I find his “waaah! I demand you delete all these libels and slanders!” makes an interesting counterpoint to the usual trollish “waah! you’re trying to suppress free speech!” stuff.

  31. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Good point, Sir Bodsworth!

    At least Soap-pad has one small* claim to being interesting.

    *’small’ as in ‘microscopic’

  32. Pecunium, all I know about you for certain is that you’re a smug, tedious douchebag. Indeed it may be true that you’re a Mensch in the real world, as it were; however, given the fact that’s not how we are acquainted, it is to me irrelevant.

  33. Steele. You are no longer entertaining. For fuck’s sake, bring something new to the conversation.

  34. Steele, would you tell us what you think the word “libel” means?

  35. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Aw damn it, I’m out of popcorn.

    Sorry, I got that wrong.

    Curses! Indeed, it is certainly the case that my once previously full popcorn container, however, is now empty, as it were, and I will in no sense be eating or, ingesting, masticating or otherwise mouthifying; any delicious cooked popcorn at any point in the immediately foreseeable future.

  36. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    And I was totally, however, at the supermarket just yesterday, the day before today! If only feminists hadn’t socially criminalised men’s’ shopping lists, as it were, leaving me with nothing but a feminist mangina list which does not in any sense include popcorn! What a jester’s fool’s accountant’s brother’s friend Stanley from Auckland I have become!

  37. “Pecunium, all I know about you for certain is that you’re a smug, tedious douchebag.”

    Pecunium, all I know about you for certain is that you’re not a mug, tedious douchebag.

    Opinions, how do they work?

  38. Bodsy, Excuse me? I’m not going to parse hairs upon you, be that as it may. By raising the vile spectre of popcorn, you are merely and obviously engaging in a typical feminist shaming tactic. While I make no judgments regarding the eating or, or not eating of, popcorn, as I have many friends who love popcorn as practiced in terms of actual human activity. I do, however, object to men who use their humanity to align politically with feminists; in the making of popcorn, as a tool, to oppress those who oppose their vile ways. This is what I refer to as a “political mangina” — synthetic, as he incorporates actual food preferences with political ends, to be sure. I demand that David delete every comment on his blog other than those left by me and my new best friend, Otis the Sweaty, who has shown up you churlish feminists and attendant manginas as nothing more than jester’s fools.

  39. You forgot to end with “Disgusting.”
    :P

  40. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Slander and lies and also possibly libel and sedition! The term ‘mangina’ is a male term, as it were, you are politically reparsing it as a feminist tool – a mangina’s mangina, if you will, n-est p’as. Truly vile, if you would be so kind, thank you. However, this is in no sense a meaningless run on sentence, as it were.

  41. No doubt somewhat late, but I saw Steele’s latest evisceration of the English language, and I could not resist:

    But if [male sexuality is] used in service of feminist dogma, in practice I would essentially consider it [male sexuality], as [I] said, [to be] a synthetic “feminist sexuality” adapted and applied for [to?] men and used in service of promoting feminist hatred [of men].

    FTFY

    The additions remove the more obvious errors and infelicities, but the sentence doesn’t make very much sense, even so.

    Let us consider it in context!

    “Male sexuality” is, in in purified form, I suppose, merely the expression of sexuality by a man.

    “Purified” implies there is an impure form.

    “Expression of sexuality” actually tiptoes close to a social constuctionist point of view (that gender and sexuality are performed, not essential/innate), but only a [non-feminist] [straight] [cis] [het] man.

    But if [male sexuality is] used in service of feminist dogma, in practice I would essentially consider it [male sexuality], as [I] said, [to be] a synthetic “feminist sexuality” adapted and applied for [to?] men and used in service of promoting feminist hatred [of men].

    Clause #1: But=contrast; in contrast to the purified expression/form of male sexuality if said male sexuality (pure? impure?) is used in service [pun intentional?] of feminist dogma [to support feminist dogma? which is what?],

    Clause #2: in practice I would essentially consider it [male sexuality? pure or impure?]

    to be a synthetic “feminist sexuality”

    Purified male sexuality is authentic. Presumably there is a feminist sexuality that is authentic, in order for there to be the contrasting synthetic–i.e. manufactured, artificial–feminist sexuality.
    This sexuality gets put in quotes, showing Steele’s disdain for the term–his disowning of it. Apparently feminists have made up this fake sexuality for men; I’m not sure if it’s an authentic feminist sexuality that has been adapted (by feminists?) and applied to (badly fitted I’m sure) men–though even that’s unclear with the “for men”). And this sexuality, and the men, presumably are servicing feminist dogma (but not feminists?)? Avoiding pun: these men who are wearing the adapted feminist sexuality in order to serve (prove?) feminist dogma (which is that men are not and need not be patriarchal, controlling, prickholes locked in an eternal struggle for dominance like Khan and Kirk were except now I’m thinking SLASH WOOT!).

    So, um, wrenching myself back to the grammatical analysis (*fans self*):

    No, I’m not going to respect that manifestation of “male sexuality”.

    So impure male sexuality is not really male sexuality (which automatically is respected except by all the feminists who are busy adapting and and applying for to men, no doubt for profit.

    So Steele doesn’t respect the sexualities of the men here.

    OTOH, I’d hazard a guess that most of the regulars here, on whatever area of the sex and gender spectrum they find themselves, do not respect Steele for many many many reasons.

    And, oh, yes, here we are!

    PURE MALE SEXUALITY:

    http://icanhas.cheezburger.com/tag/manly#6359498240

  42. Pecunium, all I know about you for certain is that you’re a smug, tedious douchebag.

  43. I love it when Ithiliana drops in for a grammar smackdown…

  44. Of course, it’s his words and not his looks that make Matt a disgusting human being. But in light of his words, his looks are hilarious.Steele: All you know about me is that I’m a smug, tedious, douchebag?

    Well then, I see you know nothing about my masculinity; about which you have pretended to be an expert.

    Now, what do I know of you?

    That you are pretentious, whiny, pathetic, overblown, undereducated, illogical, pompous, inarticulate, inneffective (I cite antimanboobz) duplicitous (I cite Torvous Butthorn), illogical (I cite your being offended that we took Dave’s outing of your sockpuppetry at face-value, and were upset about it, even after you admitted to having engaged in it).

    You are also a hypocrite. You said Tom Martin was as dead to you; becauese he was a blot on the escutcheon of, “THE MOVEMENT”. That lasted for a couple of weeks, until he said something suitably abusive of women. After that you were snuggling up to him like you wanted to have his babies.

    All things being equal, it matters not if I’m a mensch, or a shitbird; in the flesh (becaus this, my dear boy, is real life; it’s just a slice of it with very narrow bandwidth). What I am here, is a member of the community. I happen to be one in fairly decent standing (though there have been moments when I have been in less than pleasant odor).

    You, are a moderately amusing diversion. For all your verbiage the most useful contribution you made to this community was Anti-manboobz. That gave some people a chance to be creative.

    That, sad to say, is the only real merit I’ve managed to see in you; other people manage to get to be creative mocking you. It’s sad, but that’s what it is. You aren’t as loathesome as some (unlike, Nugganu, for example, you’ve not [to the best of my knowledge, sent wished that Dave be raped; though you have called him, “innocent”, in your whinging that you had every reason to be terrified for your safety; never mind that you weren’t smart enough to proxy your IP, which is how Torvus Butthorn was revealed to be you).

    You lack the meanest measure of the courage of your convictions. You are a hollow man, pretending to be tough, while spending your time railing against people who have the audacity to hold to opinions contrary to yours.

    So tell me, what it is you have to be smug about?

  45. Oops, I left out a phrase:

    but only a [non-feminist] [straight] [cis] [het] man CAN PERFORM THIS SEXUALITY PURELY.

    And, clearly, parentheses hate me tonight.

    Only excuse: two straight days grading grading grading grading….

  46. @Cloudiah: *blush* Thank you!

    I haz missed guyz, but work is……omg work is multiplying.

    We’re having our regional accreditation soon, and the place is abuzz to try to do all the stuff we should have spent the last eight years doing.

    And administrative heads are actually falling….or being demoted, heh.

  47. ithiliana: With all that grading the road must be in great shape.

  48. @Pecunium: *spits fizzy lime water all over monitor and keyboard*

  49. Pecunium, I’m giving that post a standing ovation.

  50. I always found Gack dry-humping his musicians on stage hilarious.

    Actually I’d say he’s at the more sedate end of the onstage fanservice curve (dry humping rather than making out/groping/simulated oral), but the thing he does with the giant dancing cats? That’s hilarious.

    Pecunium, all I know about you for certain is that you’re a smug, tedious douchebag. Indeed it may be true that you’re a Mensch in the real world, as it were; however, given the fact that’s not how we are acquainted, it is to me irrelevant.

    I’m curious – what does this have to do with his sexuality and why you’re not obliged to consider it authentic?

    @Everyone

    Clearly, as it were, you have, in a sense; captured the very soul of Steele’s rhetorical style. Vile and disgusting, the lot of you.

  51. Of course, it’s his words and not his looks that make Matt a disgusting human being. But in light of his words, his looks are hilarious.Steele: All you know about me is that I’m a smug, tedious, douchebag?

    Well then, I see you know nothing about my masculinity; about which you have pretended to be an expert.

    Now, what do I know of you?

    That you are pretentious, whiny, pathetic, overblown, undereducated, illogical, pompous, inarticulate, inneffective (I cite antimanboobz) duplicitous (I cite Torvous Butthorn), illogical (I cite your being offended that we took Dave’s outing of your sockpuppetry at face-value, and were upset about it, even after you admitted to having engaged in it).

    You are also a hypocrite. You said Tom Martin was as dead to you; becauese he was a blot on the escutcheon of, “THE MOVEMENT”. That lasted for a couple of weeks, until he said something suitably abusive of women. After that you were snuggling up to him like you wanted to have his babies.

    All things being equal, it matters not if I’m a mensch, or a shitbird; in the flesh (becaus this, my dear boy, is real life; it’s just a slice of it with very narrow bandwidth). What I am here, is a member of the community. I happen to be one in fairly decent standing (though there have been moments when I have been in less than pleasant odor).

    You, are a moderately amusing diversion. For all your verbiage the most useful contribution you made to this community was Anti-manboobz. That gave some people a chance to be creative.

    That, sad to say, is the only real merit I’ve managed to see in you; other people manage to get to be creative mocking you. It’s sad, but that’s what it is. You aren’t as loathesome as some (unlike, Nugganu, for example, you’ve not [to the best of my knowledge, sent wished that Dave be raped; though you have called him, “innocent”, in your whinging that you had every reason to be terrified for your safety; never mind that you weren’t smart enough to proxy your IP, which is how Torvus Butthorn was revealed to be you).

    You lack the meanest measure of the courage of your convictions. You are a hollow man, pretending to be tough, while spending your time railing against people who have the audacity to hold to opinions contrary to yours.

    So tell me, what it is you have to be smug about?

    You know, in point of fact, I quoted this, and I was going to read and respond here. But then I thought, life’s too short to spend arguing with a smug, arrogant blowhard on the internet. TL;DR.

  52. In point of fact, excuse me, I’m sorry, to be sure, vile, disgusting, typical feminists; too many commas, incorrectly used semicolons. Disgusting. Parsing hairs. Shaming language. Jester’s fool. Blah blah blah. Hi Steele.

  53. Says! Finally, a worthy opponent.

    I’m curious – what does this have to do with his sexuality and why you’re not obliged to consider it authentic?

    This was not in reference to that; I think we’ve all reached an impasse. It was a general response to Pecunium’s general animus, which I have quid pro quo let slide until now.

    But to open the can of worms once again – it’s not about “authenticity” per se. It’s about using a potent force, and a natural force (that is, male sexuality) for nefarious purposes. I’ll rephrase – I do respect all male sexuality. However, I am under no obligation to respect all of its possible applications. I do not respect the use of a gun to murder, though I bear no ill will toward the metal instrument itself. Kapiche?

  54. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    But then I thought, life’s too short to spend arguing with a smug, arrogant blowhard on the internet.

    Were you, perchance, looking in the mirror when you wrote that? You should have been.

  55. And Unpaid Help busts out another one from the Catalogue: Projection. In fact, that may be the second oldest one in the book, aside from, of course, the slur “misogynist”.

  56. Sorry, Steele, but your argument still doesn’t work. The reason it doesn’t work is that you have no way of knowing whether or not the sexual expression (what you’re referring to as application) of some random guy on the internet reflects his deepest inner longings, his social conditioning, or any other outside force. There’s just no way to tell what’s intrinsic to the person and what’s the product of outside forces when you don’t know them on a personal level at all. Given that, most people err on the side of assuming that what people say about themselves (in this case what they’re saying their sexual preferences are) is true, and truly what they prefer. Assuming that they’re either lying or deluded is disrespecting both them and their sexuality.

  57. Male sexuality doesn’t actually qualify as a force, d00d. You might want to get that checked.

  58. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Steele, that isnt’ what you said at all. You said (in condensed version) that you don’t respect the sexuality of men who are feminists. Squirm all you like, that’s what you said.

    Oh, and calling feminism a ‘nefarious purpose’ says enough about you: that you do not want human rights, that you reject the equality of half the human species. And that, sonny Jim, makes you a (careful, SHAMING LANGUAGE WARNING) misogynist.

  59. Unpaid Help, you know, you’ve exhausted the two most powerful tactics in the Catalogue, and it’s only been two days. Bringing out the “big guns”, I see. (Of course, since calling me a m***gynist merely makes me chortle, it’s a futile effort, but still – points for effort).

  60. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    LOL projection! Steele old son, you could reincarnate as a film projector, you’re that good at it. It’s one of the few things (along with mutilating the English language) that you are good at.

  61. And he busts out a quid pro quo, which should put you feminazis in your places.

  62. Sorry, Steele, but your argument still doesn’t work. The reason it doesn’t work is that you have no way of knowing whether or not the sexual expression (what you’re referring to as application) of some random guy on the internet reflects his deepest inner longings, his social conditioning, or any other outside force. There’s just no way to tell what’s intrinsic to the person and what’s the product of outside forces when you don’t know them on a personal level at all. Given that, most people err on the side of assuming that what people say about themselves (in this case what they’re saying their sexual preferences are) is true, and truly what they prefer. Assuming that they’re either lying or deluded is disrespecting both them and their sexuality.

    But this makes no sense! Sexuality used for purposes of advancing feminism is a logical fallacy; you can’t be “sexually attracted” to political purposes! Do you not understand??

  63. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Funny, you squealed about wanting David to blot out that SLANDER and LIBEL the other day. You might want to make up your mind about whether it’s amusing or terribly upsetting. Not that your reaction matters. Whether you understand the meaning of the word or not, the simple fact is you are a misogynist. Nobody who identifies with the MRM is anything but.

  64. But you have no way of knowing that they’re using their sexuality to advance feminism. That’s the point. Your initial assumption is flawed, so every other argument that you try to build on top of it is also flawed.

  65. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    First he burbles about sexuality harnessed to Nefarious Feminism, then he says it can’t be.

    Rustbucket – Make. Up. Your. Stupid. Mind.

  66. Excuse me. I’d like to stay and deconstruct the Boobzers’ positions, however I have a life to get back to; a girlfriend who just texted me and things to do, people to see. I don’t have all night, unlike you lickspittles.

  67. He always runs away when he realizes that he’s gotten himself into an argument that he can’t win.

  68. Sexuality used for purposes of advancing feminism is a logical fallacy; you can’t be “sexually attracted” to political purposes! Do you not understand??
    … Is he trying to be sarcastic, or did he just say the argument he was trying to make is a logical fallacy?

  69. As usual it’s hard to tell whether he just admitted to being a Poe or whether he’s the dumbest person on the internet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,455 other followers

%d bloggers like this: