Category Archives: evil women
A Voice for Men: Christianity is all about hating on dudes
Tools of the matriarchal feminazarchy?
If you want even more proof that the denizens of A Voice for Men live in Imaginary Backwards Land, let me draw your attention to a recent posting from FeMRA TyphonBlue and JohnTheOther. The post’s bland title, Men, and patriarchy in the church, belies the loopiness of this particular bit of theological argument, the aim of which is to prove that Christianity is and always has been about hating dudes.
Oh, sure, TB and JTO note, it might look like Christianity in its various forms has been a tad dude-centric. I mean, it’s based on the teachings of a dude. And there’s that whole “God the Father” thing. Oh, and Christian religious institutions have been almost always headed up by dudes. There has yet to be a Popette.
But apparently to assume that the people running something actually run that something is to indulge in what MRAs like to call “the frontman fallacy,” by which they mean that even though it looks like men run most things in the world it’s really the sneaky ladies who call the shots, somehow. TB/JTO, citing the aforementioned faux “fallacy,” ask:
Because Christianity has a male priesthood, is headed by a man and uses masculine language to refer to the God and humanity’s savior, does it necessarily follow that Christianity is male favoring?
Bravely, the two decide not to go with the correct answer here, which is of course “yes.” Instead, they say no. And why is this? Because Jesus didn’t go around boning the ladies.
Seriously. That’s their main argument:
[Christ] had no sexual life. This absence leaves no spiritual connection between the masculine body and the divine.
The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body. …
The implicit stricture of making the female body the vessel of Holy Spirit while offering no corresponding connection between the divine and the male body creates a spiritual caste system with women on top and men on the bottom.
Also: Joseph didn’t bone Mary, at least not before she gave birth to Jesus.
The birth of Christ is without sin because, quite simply, it did not involve a penis. The entire mythology around the birth of Christ implicitly indicts male sexuality as the vector of original sin from generation to generation.
Uh, I sort of thought that the notion of Original Sin had something or other to do with Eve and an apple in the Garden of Eden. But apparently not:
Forget Eve. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Serpent. If all human women, tomorrow, conceived and gestated and gave birth without ever coming into contact with a penis, our race would be purged of original sin.
Pretty impressive theological revisionism from a couple of blabby video bloggers who apparently don’t know how to spell “canon.” (ProTip: “Cannon” refers to one of those tubey metal things you shoot “cannonballs” from.)
The two conclude:
Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one. That war arguably began as we adopted a faith which marginalizes the role of men in procreation, idolizing a story that removes them completely from the process. The exemplar of male virtue in this theology is a man who had no natural sexual expression, although his character is designated as male. And his primary purpose was to be flogged, literally tortured for the “crimes” of others, and then bound and nailed through his limbs, still alive to an erected cruciform scaffold, to die from shock and exposure on a hilltop. And we somehow manage to claim that this religion elevates men over women?
Well, yeah.
Rather than supremacy, Christianity provides to men the role of asexual stewards of women’s benefit, and sacrificial penitent, preaching the gospel of a female-deifying, male-demonizing faith. It is true that women have not historically been allowed to front this farce, but mostly because that would make the message too obvious.
What?
While some kinds of Christianity get rather worked up about the evils of premarital sex and/or birth control, I’m pretty sure married and/or procreative sex is a-ok with all Christians this side of the mother in the movie Carrie. Even — well, especially — if it involves dudes. (I’m pretty sure the church fathers were never big proponents of lesbianism.)
And if women really run the show, despite men “fronting” the church, could you perhaps spell out just who these all-powerful women are? Like, some names perhaps? Who’s the lady puppeteer behind the pope?
They of course don’t offer any real-world evidence for this secret supposed matriarchy. Instead, they ramp up for a sarcastic ending:
But we continue to ignore all of this, and we entertain the farce that our religious institutions constitute a male-elevating, female oppressing patriarchy.
Yeah, tell us another one.
No point in telling you guys anything any more. Clearly you can twist any and all facts about the world to fit your increasingly weird and baroque fictions about men always being the most oppressed, past, present and future.
A Voice for Men is slowly but surely disappearing up its own ass.
“Twats wear heels in order to elongate the appearance of their legs,” and other insights from MGTOWforums.com
Woman oppressing man with evil lying makeup
Some things I learned on MGTOWforums today. (Each headline links to the comment’s source.)
women gain a sexual satisfaction from lying. the bigger the lie, the greater the thrill.
Don’t fall for that old “lipstick” ploy. Her lips aren’t really that red!
EVERYTHING relating to female appearance in based on deception. Women put blush on their face and lipstick to suggest that they’re sexually aroused thereby causing men to get stupid and malleable in their presence. Twats wear heels in order to not only appear taller but also to elongate the appearance of their legs. They wear spanx to conceal their flab. They shoot botox into their face to appear to have that last vestige of fertility. They put hideous silicone filled sacs onto their chest to create a more alluring figure (although as any man who’s actually ever felt these knows it’s like playing with a skin wrapped basketball). They paint their nails to create the illusion they’re always clean. They shave and wax and pluck to show off as much bare skin as possible – to conceal the fact that they’re hairy beasts.
DO NOT fall for it when marriage legislation is once more made rational. It’s simply a trap to lure men back in, and when there’s enough suckers in the Ponzi scheme, those at the top will abscond with it all once more.
Hunting the mammoth prepared men to be CEOs, but women?
most women simply can’t hack it at that high of a professional level. Their minds and bodies are simply not designed for that. Not surprising given how nature has clearly designed them to bear and raise children.
Vaginas are doin’ it for themselves:
They are organized into cunt coalitions. we are fucked.
Too many women spoil the everything:
It has already been said in several posts in this thread but it bears repeating since it is the simple quintessential truth: Women. Ruin. Everything.
Ha, ha, you’ll get yours, pretty lady who some day won’t be so pretty:
Mother nature is the ultimate bitch to all aging females. Most women don’t have her slim body type(easier to trap a man), so what’s a girl to do? What’s the ‘moral of the story’ for the average LADY with ‘high’ expectations but not much to really give a man in return??? Easy, find a clueless blue pill sucker(who has never been to this site)….er husband material as soon as possible before your looks really start to take a dive. You ladies can call me an asshole all you want but I’m only speaking the truth.
Let’s spread some racism on this misogyny sandwich:
How about you get your expanding ass off your chair and go visit the ghettos where there are no men. Hey, at least they are ‘matriarchies’ where women are ‘free,’ boys grow up to be feral animals, and emotions run high without logic!
Also, I learned that the new go-to derogatory term for women is “ankle.” Why? Because, according to the Online Slang Dictionary, “[a]n ankle is two feet beneath a cunt.” Here’s an example of the term in use, courtesy of MGTOWforums:
Dealing with an ankle that don’t understand the phrase “Not my child not my problem, ‘ya ankle bitch”?
It pays to increase your word power!
EDITED TO ADD: If you have trouble visualizing the “twats wearing shoes” mentioned in the second quote, regular Man Boobz commenter Polliwog has helpfully provided this [NSFW] picture.
Spearheader: Women get jobs out of spite
Evil women oppressing men and destroying the economy.
JeremiahMRA’s call for lady murder wasn’t the only highlight (by which I mean lowlight) of that Fathers’ Day thread on The Spearhead. Towgunner also posted a rambling wall-of-text in which he offered some most intriguing thoughts on Fathers’ Day, economics, feminism, and ladies in general. Here’s are some excerpts, which I have taken the liberty of breaking into separate paragraphs:
Happy Oppressor’s day. I really like passive aggressive ruse by feminists who claim that housework is beneath them and thus oppressive. And yet, in honor of men and fathers, we have posts and articles discussing how fatherhood has “evolved”? …
Like everything from feminism it contradicts itself. If equality is to “liberate” women (from staying at home, oh the humanity!) and that staying at home is something pathetic, then why doesn’t that apply to all people? Under this new understanding, no one should be subjected to the indignity of staying at home. So why are women throwing temper tantrums yet nothing is said of men?
Uh, maybe the issue is that men and women should be able to decide if they want to stay at home, rather than being compelled to either work or stay home based on their gender. Not that this choice is really a choice for most people, as most mothers, like most fathers, have to work.
Worse, if there is a trend of men staying at home, then it is a disturbing trend indicative of the major structural perversions created by government intervention.
Watch out, you’re spilling conspiracy theory all over your misogyny.
Today, thanks to our “smarter” and “faster” women, we’re to believe that fulfillment is an internship at goldman sachs…and, oh by the way, all these longer hours “they” are paying you less…and less and less.
Because … feminists are responsible for long hours and stagnating wages?
And then women write books on how their disadvantaged from “asking for more money”, because they were brought up with dolls? Never once do they acknowledge that everyone is being paid less because since the government gave them “their chance” it created incredible amounts of malinvestment, which effectively bankrupted the US and the West.
Ah yes, “allowing” women to enter into the workforce – never mind that they’ve always been in the workforce in large numbers – somehow caused the financial crisis that led to our current malaise? Towgunner, please show your work here.
This is all to show that women can be a part of human progress. It pains them to no end when they flip through a history book and its one man after the next. I say that they did have their chance and look at the results – we will go through another crisis, likely a huge global reset and the US is, right now, a vastly different country (not for the better)…look at our culture we celebrate death and killing people…we hold the most decadent and immoral on high.
You do realize that men still basically run the economy, right? That as of 2011 there were only 12 female CEOs in the Fortune 500? That the overwhelming majority of economic movers and shakers, in governments and in the private sector, are men?
The women’s world is here, they do things not out of practical necessity but out of spite, Mother’s Day comes and they bemoan house wives, Father’s day comes and they point out that some men are staying home. There is nothing practical here, there is spite, there is insult, and there is hubris.
Women get jobs out of spite?
I don’t admire women, I don’t ever want to be one either, there is nothing noble about them. In fact I find it an insult to be called “equal” to them at all.
And a happy belated Fathers’ Day to you too, Towgunner!
This comment got me thinking about the old Martha and the Muffins song “Women Around the World at Work.” So here it is:
BREAKING: Paul Elam of A Voice for Men is pig-biting mad at a dude who doesn’t hate Katherine Heigl
Over on A Voice for Men, noted human rights advocate Paul Elam has responded to criticism from a fellow antifeminist internet warrior in his typically logical, understated manner. Some highlights:
He’s whining, about jack shit, on behalf of a misandric cunt. …
Matt Forney just jerked off all over his bed sheets. And now it appears he is standing there like a virtual ‘tard, grinning about it and drooling.
At issue? Mr. Forney wrote a post some months back critical of the faux “offenders registry” called Register-Her, a pet project of A Voice for Men’s JohnTheOther in which female “bigots” – that is, feminists – are “registered” as “offenders” alongside female criminals. (Forney’s post originally appeared on the thankfully now-defunct blog In Mala Fide, but Elam only discovered it after Forney posted it on his own blog.)
In particular, Forney disagreed with Elam’s decision to “register” actress Katherine Heigl as a “bigot” after she made a Funny or Die PSA about spaying dogs and cats. The problem, for Elam and crew? That in the video she pretended to be a crazed testicle-hater obsessed with cutting off all balls, including those of human males. The AVFM crowd whipped themselves into a frenzy over this one, with Elam’s Number One Stooge JohnTheOther writing, in all seriousness:
Katherine Heigl’s supposedly humorous claim; that her advocacy of neutering pets is an outlet for her desire to chop human male’s balls off shouldn’t be taken out of context. The context being that she’s a creature of hollywood who lives in california – the same state which earlier this year saw Katherine Becker cut her husband’s penis off for the “offense” of wanting a divorce. …
We know it’s a joke. That’s the point. It’s both shocking, and plausibly deniable. It also wouldn’t be funny to most people if there was not an element of truth in it. Heigl’s “joke” included the word “yet”. This is an obvious nod to her awareness of increasing cultural acceptance of male-targeted violence and mutilation.
No, I have no fucking clue what on earth he means by that bit about the word “yet.” He goes on:
Male targeting violence persists and escalates because in the unconscious reptile corner of men’s minds, they think nodding along with whatever vile , violent, murderous shit the nearest vacuous barbie utters in her you-go-girl bubble of social enablement might get him approved for access to the magic vagina.
Like Elam, JohnTheOther apparently writes all his posts for AVFM with steam literally coming out of his ears.
Here’s the video in question. (Sorry, it won’t embed.) As you can see, the real butt of the joke is Heigl herself, and more generally narcissistic celebs who glom onto fashionable causes for all the wrong reasons. It’s not really a castration joke; it’s an actress making fun of her own reputation for narcissism. (And the video is also a serious attempt to raise awareness about the need to spay and neuter pets.)
Katherine Heigl, attempting to lull a dog into a false sense of security so she can remove its balls.
Forney, in the blog post that roused Elam’s incredibly easy-to-rouse fury, suggested that AVFM’s claimed outrage about Heigl’s video was both silly and a bit unconvincing:
Were you honestly offended? Did that video get you mad? It didn’t get me mad. I thought it was stupid and unfunny, but aside from that, I don’t care about it. After watching it, I just shrugged my shoulders and closed the tab.
Forney went on to suggest that any MRAs who were offended by the video were, well, basically a bunch of “phony pussies,” a virtual mirror-image of the Politically Correct:
In trying to gin up indignation over Heigl’s ball-cutting comments, Register-Her.com and the MRM are seeking to perpetuate our politically correct regime, not burn it to the ground and piss on its ashes. …
The men’s rights movement wants men to keep picking at their scabs, to wallow in self-pity for all eternity. That’s not a satisfying goal for me, or countless other men who want to rise out of the mud. Until MRAs address this issue, their movement will be stuck in neutral, regardless of their occasional victories.
Yes, that’s right. A dude posting on In Mala Fide — which was known for its blatant misogyny and its proud racism, among other terrible things — is the closest we’ve got to a “voice of reason” in this particular debate.
Elam, an MRA scab-picker extraordinaire, lashed out in barely coherent rage to Forney’s charges:
[T]his kind of chicken-shit nit picking by a supposed sympathizer is far more pathetic that the Heigl video could have ever hoped to be.
Why would the Heigl video hope to be pathetic? Also, how exactly can a video hope?
I write people like you off all the time. But then you have the gumption to parrot a bunch of keyboard courage about crushing your enemies? And you make fun of guys who get fucked over by the system? What a laugh. I don’t mean what you said, but you, personally.
You may be every bit as brave as your words. I doubt it, but I don’t know. What I do know is that your article is a misandric piece of shit. Based on your rhetoric, though, I would lay dollars to doughnuts you have never crushed so much as a Dixie Cup at a water cooler. Your kind of man never does.
Says the man whose entire life is devoted to bashing out angry internet screeds, and whose only known attempt at real-world organizing collapsed before it really even began.
You just shit on those out there taking the hits and doing the work, likely because you lack the conviction to stick your neck out for anything really important to anyone but yourself.
Personally, I would not talk to MRA’s about picking scabs until you quit being one.
I’m not sure if Elam is calling Forney a “scab” as a sort of random insult referring back to his mention of scabs, or if Elam thinks that Forney is a “scab” violating some imaginary MRA “sex strike” – or “cock blockade” – by not hating on the ladies every second of every day. I’m guessing it’s the latter, because Elam really is that delusional.
–
EDITED TO ADD: Matt Forney has responded to Elam’s little tantrum here. At the end, he says this:
And since I can’t end this post without mentioning that David Futrelle has (reluctantly) defended me on this issue, mainly because Elam’s neckbeard fans are going to brandish Futrelle’s article as proof that I’m an evil crypto-feminist racist mangina, let me just say that Futrelle is an even more pathetic bitch than Elam, and I don’t want his support.
Don’t worry, lil dude. I don’t actually support you. I simply agree with you on a couple of points: that Elam is a total drama king, and that anyone who believes (or purports to believe) that Heigl’s video is something to get ENRAGED about is a twit.
It’s a Tsunami! It’s a Coiled Spring! It’s a Mixed Metaphor MGTOW MANPOCALYPSE!
The Apocalypse: Zombies Going Their Own Way
It’s time for another mixed-metaphor MANPOCALYPSE over on MGTOWforums.com! This time the Nostradamus Going His Own Way is a fellow calling himself Swetnam. Here are his dire predictions:
I like to talk of men’s rights as a tsunami crashing against the shore..but men’s rights are just the cresting wave. Just behind that are a vast array of other things generated by the cultural earthquake that hit the western world in the late half of the twentieth century.
Huh. So everything since the 1950s sucks? No television, no internet, no video games, no microwaved Hot Pockets? Do you really want to go back to listening to Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters? (Actually, the Andrews Sisters sort of kick ass, but never mind.)
If I may coin another metaphor…the anglosphere is like a coiled spring. That spring is coiling ever more tightly, and someday it’s going to break. When it does, all hell will break loose. It wont be pretty. In fact, I think there is going to be terrible violence ahead, as decades of suppressed anger and frustration finally break free. Blood and Iron. And some of us now will be around to see it. What will emerge from the other side? I honestly cannot say I know.
Ah, he’s dancing that old dance, the dance called “you ladies better shut up or angry dudes will beat the shit out of you. Oh, but not me. I’m not threatening anything. I’m just predicting. I don’t not-so-secretly relish these violent fantasies.”
Speaking of dancing:
I have a good somali friend. He used to say to me that his worst nightmare would be the day that white men learn to dance. I asked him why? He said that if white men are learning to dance, that means they cannot find other ways to attract women or show status. if that happens, then white males will become the new gangsters, but vastly more numerous, organised and with an institutional memory of happier times. They will look at the people who now stand above them, and see them in alliance with the people who once stood below them but are now equal to them, and hate them both with a rage that can scarcely be imagined. And they will act on that rage.
I can’t say i disagree.
Of course you can’t.
Elsewhere in the same thread, Womanhater offered some equally dire “predictions,” with a side order of blatant racism.
In my opinion, the veneer of mystery and respect that once adorned womanhood is gone forever. Some men will engage with them long enough to fuck them. Some men may find a tolerable one or two of them to procreate with – on his terms when the laws are changes (and they will eventually be changed). Many men will simply not see any point to it.
But I am speaking of the generations of men who have yet to date or perhaps to even have been born.
Those of us in the 15-45 age bracket who’ve had to grow up and endure the bullshit of the past 2 or 3 generations of twats will either ghost or pump n’ dump. Only those men born after the gender war is concluded will even consider something more.
The women aged 35 and up are irrelevant since they’re past the biological point of no return anyway.
Well, hey, at least Womanhater grants women ten more years of non-irrelevance than does W.F. Price on The Spearhead.
Those 35 and under will likely be the ones who will bear the brunt of what I’ll call the Male Awakening. They’re most likely to end up single and childless in mind numbing drone jobs.
Those women under the age of 20 who actually pay attention and see how this lifestyle will leave them a few decades down the line however, they’re the ones who have a chance at some form of successful relationship and children, but a LOT will have to change between now and then.
Translation: You ladies better date me OR ELSE!
Most likely, truth be told, the West and its founding race will simply die off due to the advanced stage of the feminist cancer. Who and what replaces it I guess will be unveiled as the decades pass.
“Its founding RACE!?” Did we just take a detour into Klanland?
Oh, but there’s more. Legacy – possibly a Brony? — offers this awkward metaphor:
Like air, society doesn’t notice male slavery until the workhorses start missing from the stables.
TheManWithThePlan offers this sort-of plan:
If by swing the pendulum violently back you mean men having their own gender roles revolution (which could very likely fuck women over big time without taking away any of their rights), then yes that’s probably going to happen. I don’t see anyone “forgiving” people for the BS that’s been happening. Hell half of men out there have been fucked over by their wives, I doubt they’ll just say “it’s okay women 100+ years ago had it bad as well, so I deserved it” and move on.
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and these guys can’t wait.
EDITED TO ADD: The fellows at MGTOWforums have offered a rebuttal, of sorts, to this post.
Argumentum ad Kittypicturem: A Rebuttal
Manosphere doofuses have a wide assortment of excuses for dismissing this blog without actually having to deal with anything I’ve ever actually said. There’s the old “you’re a misandrist bigot so I don’t have to read anything of yours to know what you think” argument; no evidence of the alleged misandry is ever given. There’s the old “you call yourself Man Boobz and that’s a silly name so I can pretend that nothing you say counts” excuse; actually, I call you guys the “man boobz,” but never mind. Then there’s the old “he’s fat” chestnut. (See the next-to-last pic here.)
My favorite excuse, though, is a little logical fallacy you might call “argumentum ad kittypicturem.” That is, the claim that I can’t be taken seriously because sometimes I post pictures of adorable kitties. I’m not sure why these pictures confuse and infuriate misogynists to the extent that they do, but I’m sort of happy this is the case, because every time I run across it, it gives me an excuse to POST MORE KITTY PICTURES.
This time the kitty picture hater is the lying liar Dalrock, whom we’ve met several times before—most recently when he complained about women taking jobs from men by “playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.”
In a post with the ponderous yet somehow also very silly title “We need worthy adversaries,” Dalrock dismisses my blog as one of the unworthy ones, the only example of said unworthiness being this post I made featuring pictures of several adorable kittens.
Here is my rebuttal:
Yes, that’s a hedgehog. Let’s see how they deal with THAT!
Redditor: Do Your Bit for Gender Equality by Telling Women They’re Terrible
Hey fellas, do you ever find yourself wondering: why are women so terrible? Well, over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fella named osaap has a partial answer: because dudes don’t criticize them enough!
So, fellas, the next time you see a woman, tell her she’s a mean, thoughtless, selfish, lazy little bitch, and that you won’t be giving her a “pussy pass” any longer. You’ll be doing your part for real gender equality. Pay it forward, by putting her down.
Judging from the dozens of upvotes osaap’s post got, and the almost-100% positive response it received from commenters there, it sounds like a lot of Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers are on board with this ingenious new form of activism.
–
This post is mostly
Scented Candles Oppress Men: The Spearhead at its self-proclaimed best.
Woman oppressing men and destroying civilization with a SCENTED MOTHERFUCKING CANDLE!!
Men’s Rights Activists and manosphere misogynists love to complain that I “cherry pick” quotes in an attempt to make them look bad. Which makes it especially ironic that all too often when I call them out on some particular bit of bullshit, they more or less double down on that bullshit, reiterating and in many cases amplifying the terrible things they originally said.
Several days ago, I wrote about a Spearhead post from W.F. Price with the priceless title “After 25, Women Are Just Wasting Time.” It was appalling even by Spearhead standards. Price used the untimely death of a talented young writer named Marina Keegan as an opportunity to rehash the belief, widely held in the manosphere, that women over the age of 25 who haven’t managed to snag themselves a “good husband” are “just wasting time,” growing older and uglier and less appealing to men. (Evidently, women’s appeal to men is the only thing that really matters about them.)
Price’s article inspired numerous comments from Spearheaders that were even more grotesquely misogynistic and cruel than his own post; Price at least pretended to care about the dead girl, even though his post was a crass and opportunistic insult to her memory.
And it inspired one regular Man Boobz commenter, a 26-year-old woman, to wade into the muck that is the Spearhead’s comments section to point out that Price’s grand narrative of female decline after age 25 has no relation whatsoever to her own life story:
I’m 26 years old. 27 terrifyingly soon. I am nothing like the person I was when I graduated college.
After originally getting a film degree, I’ve just started nursing school.
I’m living on the other side of the country and loving the different culture here.
I’m dating a wonderful guy who mysteriously didn’t dump me on my 25th birthday.
I’m doing difficult, not always fun, but ultimately socially useful work, work I couldn’t imagine myself doing when I graduated college.Since I graduated college, I’ve read more books, worked on more movies, learned more skills, lifted more weight, traveled more places, marched in more protests, gotten published more times, saved more lives than I thought I ever would.
And I’m still only 26.
You think I’m going to stop protesting and writing and working the wild Saturday midnight shift in the ER before I’m 30? Before I’m 60?
Or do you think it doesn’t matter because I might not be as fuckable then?
Well then fuck you. I’m 26 and I got miles to go.
–
(Oh, and I’m way better at sex now. Guys who thought I hit my “expiration date” just around the time I was first learning what a Kegel was, you are missing out.)
The Spearheaders responded, predictably enough, with downvotes and insults and a lot of mainsplainy comments suggesting that she’s regret it forever if she doesn’t get married ASAP and start popping out children.
The strangest comment of the bunch came from a Spearhead “Shieldmaiden” (that’s what they call female commenters on The Spearhead, for reals) by the name of Andie, who launched into a barely coherent tirade that somehow revolved around, er, SCENTED CANDLES!
Price, after seeing Andie’s rant mocked by the commenters here, decided to feature it today as the Spearhead “Comment of the Week.” So without further ado, here is what Price considers to be the Spearhead community at its best:
@26 year old woman
Let’s see how you feel when you’re 29 and the end of everything possible is right at your doorstep. Hell, lots of women are infertile at 26. Done. You won’t do everything. You won’t be a mother.
And if that doesn’t bother you, darlin’, you ain’t a woman.
And if your plans are to actually BE a mother (as in do the damn work), you are already in very deep water.
Your resume will never put his chubby little arms around you and tell you he loves you, like a child will. Your resume will never give you grandchildren, like your children might. Your resume will never share in all your joys, all your sorrows, all your triumphs, all your tragedies, like your husband will.
But you WILL be able to rape that resume of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS over your lifetime. Yay!
The fastest growing consumer product category: scented candles. SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES.
Yes, 26 year old woman, all your education and opportunity and rights have resulted in millions of children raised without fathers, the total destruction of the family, the rise of GIANT ASS government to give all those wymyns a place to work (doing utterly useless shit) and what was it for? What did we gain?
SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES!!
Nicely done, ladies. Really good job.
Fuck you, bitch. My daughters are coming for you. And millions of daughters just like mine. We see you, you superficial piece of trash. You have cost us our lives. For patchouli candles.
You will pay.
Go back and read @26 year old woman’s comment, then read Andie’s again. Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
I should note that when Price first posted the quote, he evidently left out the last few paragraphs; perhaps even he realized they were a tad over the line as a response to a woman whose only real “crime” was telling the Spearheaders that her life was interesting and fulfilling to her, and that she wasn’t planning on having any babies in the foreseeable future. (And if they didn’t approve of her life, too fucking bad for them.)
In the comments to Price’s “Comment of the Week” post, HL offers this thought:
Every time something like this comes up, it becomes ever more apparent that the ignorance, hate mongering, bigotry and fallacies rests so much more heavily on the side of the feminists.
To paraphrase Rick James, lack of self-awareness is a hell of a drug.
The Spearhead’s W.F. Price uses the death of 22-year-old Marina Keegan to argue that “after 25, women are just wasting time.”
Marina Keegan
A talented journalist, playwright and activist died last weekend in a car crash shortly after graduating from Yale. Marina Keegan was 22. Before she died, she wrote an essay for the Yale Daily News urging her classmates to keep alive the sense of possibility they brought with them when they first arrived at college:
We’re so young. We’re so young. We’re twenty-two years old. We have so much time. There’s this sentiment I sometimes sense, creeping in our collective conscious as we lay alone after a party, or pack up our books when we give in and go out – that it is somehow too late. That others are somehow ahead. More accomplished, more specialized. More on the path to somehow saving the world, somehow creating or inventing or improving. …
What we have to remember is that we can still do anything. We can change our minds. We can start over. Get a post-bac or try writing for the first time. … We’re so young. We can’t, we MUST not lose this sense of possibility because in the end, it’s all we have.
Over on the Spearhead, W.F. Price notes her death, and quotes these words, and more, from her essay. His point? That she was wrong.
By the time you hit 25 or so – just three years out of college – your life is pretty much set, he argues, and “your future can be fairly well predicted by your life at that point.” And this apparently goes double for women. Price titles his post: “After 25, Women Are Just Wasting Time.”
And why is that? Because if they’re not married to a good earner by then, or at least with the guy they plan to settle down with, they’re fucked. While an “average girl,” as Price puts it, should have snagged her future husband by age 21, non-average college girls buy themselves only a few more years.
As Price explains it:
Four years of college buys women precious little time in the mating market. … I’d guess … about exactly as much time as it takes for them to complete it, because their pool of future mates tends to go through the same process … That’s to say that she has her best shot to land a good match up to perhaps 25.
There are a few, well, let’s just call them plot holes in Price’s story here, but let’s hear him out:
The problem with young women today is that they internalize this “anything is possible” attitude and don’t lose it until it really is too late for many of them. They think they can do better at 30 than at 22, which, in most cases, is simply wrong. Some might say that family and men are not a priority for these girls, but women for whom this is really true throughout life are an insignificant minority. In fact, most women are holding out precisely because they think they can get a better man later, perhaps when they have a better job and work with more powerful men.
But these girls are not going to change fundamentally, and in their early 20s are at the peak of their beauty while still retaining an innocent charm. Nothing about their looks or personality is going to make them more appealing at 30 than at 22, and the men available to them are not going to get any better, either….
The point is that neither men nor women change fundamentally past a certain point, and the same guys young women have available in their early 20s are generally the same guys that will be available at 30, only they will be older and, due to marriage, there will be far fewer of them.
Yep, we’re back to the hoary old story of the bad boy cock carousel once again. Better grab hold of a good hearted beta while the getting is good, ladies – because by the time you finish off your slutty dalliances with the bad boy alphas your looks will be gone and no man (alpha or beta) will want to have anything to do with you.
Price continues, cranking the melodrama up to eleven:
Time tends to accelerate past a certain age, and the 25-year old woman soon finds herself 30, and then 35, and at that point she’s got precious little of it left. Perhaps at 22 she was laughing about the “comical” notion that it could ever be too late, but after a certain point it is no longer comedy, but tragedy, and her laughter turns to tears.
Now, none of this is original, and none of it is true. What’s interesting is just how badly misogynistic manospherians want it to be true. They must, because they tell this same story to themselves over and over and over, like small children requesting their parents to read their favorite bedtime story “again!” They (the misogynists, not the children) love the idea that the women who turned them down – or who, at the very least, rejected their brand of patronizing patriarchy – will get their comeuppance in the end, the more humiliating, the better.
Price at least pretends to care about the women he’s trying to scare straight (into marriage). But some of the commenters on his site can’t be bothered to contain their glee at the notion of spurned thirtysomething women collapsing into tears.
The Contrarian Expatriate turns on the sarcasm:
But why shouldn’t women feel this way? Women “can have it all.” They are “fabulous.” Women rule. Women first. Women are 20 when they’re 30, and 30 when their 40. Women, women, women.
Screech, crash, halt! (Then comes reality when the cuteness wears off and the pounds set in….).
Eximio shares a “shit that never happened” story of a high school reunion he went to:
[M]en do age better than women. I looked around at the women and they all just looked old to me. I could not imagine myself with any of them. They had lost whatever charm they had and I found attractive the last time I had seen them. Almost all of the men that were there with their spouses were with younger women. …
As for the women specifically, while they all seemed old, I noted that the happiest of the lot talked about their family. Some of them were married, some of them divorced, but in both cases they talked about their kids. They were clearly the most fulfilled. Many of the other women than I knew had pursued consuming careers were not at the reunion. Those that were, and who did not have children, had a whiff of pain on their faces. They seemed to be looking around and suddenly forced to face the consequences of their choices.
Or maybe they noticed that a patronizing douche was giving them the once-over, and shot him a dirty look.
Ode apparently finds it all so hilarious he is unable to maintain his balance:
The problem with college today is that it teaches a woman that she has an IQ of 115 so naturally she spends her time chasing after men who she perceives to be her “equal”, the top 15% of the men within society. Or to put it another way, a college educated woman thinks she’s better than 85% of everybody else.
Sorry honey the only thing your degree in liberal arts or communications tells me is that you have IQ above 100. Which means you’re better than the bottom 50% of society. No other conclusions can be made. Of course most women will never understand this. They will spend the rest of their bitter lives believing the reason why they couldn’t get Mr. Right is because men are afraid of a strong and smart women.
Falls over laughing!
Rmaxd offers a somewhat different explanation for Marina Keegan’s optimism; I’m not quite sure I even understand it.
What Mira [sic] is expressing, her not needing a man, that precisely because she doesnt need a man she can get everything she wants, well into her 50′s …
She’s accepted her feminist brainwashed idiocy & tried to turn it into a social norm
Her fantasy entails her getting an education, & competing in cut-throat environments designed for men … which require a male intolerance for anything not rational or logic
All the while her fantasy involves a child as an accessory & strong alpha thug, who’ll rescue her instead of pumping & dumping her to kingdom come …
Her vagina also gives her magical powers to screw over sex hungry beta’s without game, as a backup plan, if the jamaican thugs from her sex tourism never get round to playing captain save-a hoe, when she hits 30 …
Beta’s, a deranged feminists insurance policy, for when her vagina no longer cashes cheques she cant write …
Our old pal JeremiahMRA (a.k.a. Things Are Bad) suggests, in a series of comments, that we should push the whole timetable up a few years, forcing girls to get married to whomever their fathers say shortly after puberty. No, really, that’s his actual argument:
Honestly women shouldn’t be going to college at all. It’s a complete waste and takes away from people who can actually get something from education: men. The only reason they do it is to inflate their egos….
[I]t’s more accurate that after puberty, women are just wasting time. Wasting time slutting around, going to school, working, when they should be getting married to whomever their fathers say and having children, which is really all women are good at.
Today women choose mates based solely on lust and greed. Women don’t love, the only thing they love is getting fucked hard and being provided for by a man or the government. This is why in any sane (patriarchal) society a girl’s father decides who she is to marry.
Lovely.
Most of these comments got dozens of upvotes, with only a handful of downvotes. Jeremiah’s comments, a bit reactionary even for The Spearhead, got more than a few downvotes, but still only a fraction as many as the upvotes they got. Only Rmaxd got more downvotes than up, perhaps because his comments made no fucking sense.
So nice that The Spearheaders have taken the time from their day to honor the memory of a promising writer whose life was cut short.
–
This post contains some:
Immodesty Daze: The Thinking Housewife thinks “immodest dress” is a form of violence towards men
From Liberty University’s dress code for women (and, evidently, mannikins). Click on the picture for more details.
We’ve heard before from numerous MRAs and MGTOWers and other backwards dudes that women who dress like “sluts” deserve to be raped. You may remember my post about the patriarchy-loving MGTOWer who calls himself Drealm, who thinks that immodest dress is an assault on men, because it excites them without giving them the opportunity to, well, rape the women who so cruelly give them boners. In Drealm’s mind, almost any form of clothing on a woman that in any way shows her shape is suspect – as does uncovered female hair.
Obviously, I think all of us will agree that certain kinds of clothes are inappropriate in certain settings – no one of any gender should be teaching kindergarteners wearing nothing but a thong – but invariably those who complain the most about women wearing “immodest clothing” have a much broader notion of “immodesty,” which includes things that most of us just consider “clothing” – shorts, short skirts, any top that shows even the tiniest amount of cleavage. (Click on the picture above to see more about Liberty University’s dress code for women.)
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not confined to religious fundamentalists and weird dudes lurking in the dark corners of internet. Recently, Laura Wood, the self-identified Thinking Housewife behind the blog of the same name, has declared that “immodest dress is a form of aggression.” The heart of her post is a reposted comment from a reader posting under the name of Arete, arguing that immodest dress is a form of violence towards men similar to and in some ways even worse than actual violence from men towards women.
Immodest dress is analogous to male violence. Men who flaunt their muscles and crush beer can’s with their fists (not that I have seen much of that lately) are telling the weaker world around them, “I could crush you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.We’ll see. Depends how much you annoy me.” Women are stronger than men in this one way – the sight of their women’s bodies is overpowering to men. Immodest women are saying to men, “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.”
Both behaviors are flaunting the power that one has over another weaker being and both behaviors used to be considered uncouth.
But as the myth goes: only men have ever been violent towards women not the other way around (women have no power over men whatsoever – don’t you know!) and so now that we have entered the great age of woman – when she will get her revenge for all the injustices against her by men through the ages – both real and imagined — she has decided to take her “pound of flesh.” But instead of a swift cut right above the heart like Shylock she wants to get men where it really hurts– tease and taunt with the sight of her own body, forever reminding men of their weakness before female power.
So apparently a woman giving a man a boner by wearing an outfit less modest than a nun’s is worse than a dude literally punching a woman.
Laura’s comments make clear she agrees with this basic assessment, though (in a moment of generosity towards her own gender) she acknowledges that some women may not be conscious of the enormous power they wield over men every time they put on a tank top.
In the comments, Fitgerald expresses his enthusiasm for Arete’s thesis:
This is sooooo true… as a male I can ABSOLUTELY attest to this. …
As a celibate male I must actively work at constraining sexual response to females flaunting their wares.. “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.”.. yeah right. If I was an alpha male – strong, thin, tall, tanned.. definitely — I’ll also have to be honest and say it does piss me off, but suppressing ordinary human responses is part and parcel of not only being a civilized human being, but a Christian which constrains me further. …
Women are the sexual power brokers. They can and do decide with whom they pair and mate with. Men are essentially powerless save those few well endowed “alphas” (rich, physical specimens, powerful) who are like kryptonite to many women. Any male that is half-aware knows the look: “Yes.. look at me.. I’m sexually desirable. See my power. Feel my power..” Oh, then the look away: “But you aren’t worthy of me.” Happens EVERY day.
Yep, another misogynist furious that women get to choose who they have sex with. Dude, SO DO GUYS. If two people are having sex, both of them have to agree to it. Otherwise it is rape. Everyone is their own “sexual gatekeeper.”
Robin offers a mild dissent, noting that some of the “immodest” dressers may be victims of sexual abuse. But they still deserve “righteous judgement,” at least when this judgement is ostensibly tempered by “love.”
I was once one of these women: a female friend was loving enough to take me bra shopping as a thirty-three year old adult and teach me about covering my body so as not to invite further abuse. Other people waited patiently and said nothing; this was a disservice to me as I could have transformed more quickly if people would have had the confidence to open their mouths and teach me the truth. Others condemned me without knowing my story, and I withdrew in offense.
While it is true that immodest dress is a form of aggression in feminist women, I want to bring to light that sexual abuse of young girls has become so prevalent that many women we see walking around today dressed as prostitutes may still be ensnared and imprisoned by their victim mentality brought about through no fault of their own due to horrendous acts of abuse against their bodies as children. I believe it is important that these women do not experience condemnation, but rather righteous judgment in love so as to bring about repentance from this behavior so that they may be healed and be examples to others.
Laura feels the need to reiterate that some women and girls really have no excuse for being slutty sluts:
I know teenage girls who are sweet and innocent, and have never been abused, who dress like tarts. It’s everywhere. They see it and they imitate it.
I’m interested how Laura knows that these girls haven’t been abused. Does she know the intimate details of all of these girls’ lives? Or does she just have powerful Abuse-dar?
Mary, meanwhile, argues that the real villains here aren’t women – but evil feministy feminists.
I have too many female friends who have had their hopes dashed/hearts broken/been humiliated at the hands of average-looking, low status guys to buy that women have all the power. These average young women were doing what they thought they were supposed to do, what they were told everyone was doing – having premarital sex, that is. They were told by feminists that it was as fun for them as it was for the men if only they would get into the spirit of it, that it would lead to ultimate happiness, that it would benefit them. Many girls of average attractiveness are giving themselves away, sometimes over and over again, to unworthy men and to their own heartbreak, while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background. I don’t call that sexual power. That men are more vulnerable to visual cues doesn’t make all men innocent, just as some women’s extreme immodesty doesn’t make all women sexual power brokers. …
That’s what’s so diabolical about today’s extreme immodesty: many of these women are just trying to be relevant.
Apparently the readers of The Thinking Housewife, like many MRAs and other manosphere dudes, seem to have forgotten almost entirely the old stereotype of the hairy-legged, man-hating feminist; these days, they seem to assume that any woman who wears skirts above the knee and doesn’t hate sex is a feminist.
Setting aside the ridiculousness of the “sexy clothes are an assault on men” argument generally, I can’t help but wonder how many men out there – beyond Drealm and Franklin and assorted religious fundamentalists – actually, honestly feel “assaulted” when they see a woman they find attractive wearing something that shows off her figure. Somehow I suspect that most straight guys who are interested in sex – including most of those railing endlessly about evil sluts online — actually find this sort of thing … pleasant. Most of those guys complaining about immodest dress would, I think, feel rather disappointed if women actually decided to cover up – and not just because it would rob them of yet another excuse to demonize the ladies.
