Category Archives: misogyny
Spearheader on Josh Powell: “What I don’t understand is why he didn’t take out a few judges instead of his innocent children.”
The murdered boys
Last September, WF Price of The Spearhead wrote a post about a Seattle area man named Josh Powell, widely suspected of murdering his missing wife. Price’s complaint? Powell’s two boys had been removed from his custody after his father (with whom he and the boys were living) was charged with voyeurism and possessing child porn. Price excoriated the authorities for what he saw as an abuse of their powers, and concluded his piece by saying that “[t]yranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”
In the comments, there was a lot more talk about tyranny. Natalia, meanwhile, worried about the children:
The kids are already dealing with the pain of missing their mom, and now they are taken away from their dad. How can anyone believe that’s better for the children?
On Sunday, as you are probably well aware, Powell killed these children, and himself. During a supervised visit, authorities say, Powell locked himself and his kids in his house, incapacitated them by chopping their heads and necks with a hatchet, then set the house (primed with gasoline as an accelerant) ablaze.
The regulars on the Spearhead don’t seem much interested in talking about Powell any more. But of the few comments that have been made, several have been rather telling. Responding to a feminist commenting on his original post, Price wrote:
Typical for a feminist to see this as a triumph. Josh Powell was hounded for years up to this point. If he didn’t kill his wife, and there’s still no evidence he did, does the court bear some responsibility for the outcome here?
That’s right. The court is to blame for trying to protect the children from the man who later murdered them.
And not a word of sympathy from him for the murdered children.
Meanwhile, another Spearheader seemed to suggest that the main problem was that Powell had picked the wrong people to kill:
Notice the upvotes. And the lack of a response; the regulars were too busy making jokes about domestic violence and the evils of the upcoming Valentines — sorry, Vagina — Day.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to Kendra, Cloudiah, and Crumbelievable for pointing me to Price’s post and these comments. I should also note that there were a couple of comments from others at The Spearhead expressing sorrow for the murdered children. And to my knowledge no one in the MRM has hailed him as a hero, so that’s something, I guess.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN:
Price digs his hole deeper. Responding to a critical comment by none other than Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant, he writes, among other things:
If the cops knew he was capable of real violence, and they must have if they suspected him for murder, they bear some responsibility for provoking this.
So if the cops knew he was capable of real violence (which they clearly did) … they should have let him keep the kids? That he ultimately killed?
I’ve heard this argument before from MRAs. Essentially, if a man in a custody dispute threatens violence, or is thought to be violent, the courts should simply hand the kids over to him. So he won’t get mad. That’s the logic of an abuser, or at the very least of an enabler.
“Women from around the world look better than anything back in the states, cost less unless you’re totally stupid, and are much more easily disposed of.”
Irony alert! The level of irony in this post is so extreme it might actually harm your computer.
So a couple of days ago, MGTOWer extraordinaire MarkyMark, continuing on with his post-retirement posting binge, shared with us an email he got from a fella who had skipped the country in order to avoid paying child support for his three kids.
I’m a deadbeat dad!!! (light your torches – gasoline in 89, 91, and 95 octane is available in your choice of containers). Yep, I’ve got three kids and I’m behind on my child kidnapping payments by probably 10 grand at present and considerably more behind on alimony and her lawyer fees. I skipped the country rather than be jailed for all of the above compounding my crimes. A runaway slave is the worst kind of slave – one that absolutely refuses to serve his massa.
Yep, that’s right. He compared the legal requirement that he provide financial assistance to his own children to … slavery.
In the rest of his letter, he encouraged other “slaves” to follow in his path.
My favorite bit is the quote I used as the headline:
Women from around the world look better than anything back in the states, cost less unless you’re totally stupid, and are much more easily disposed of.
Ooh. That last bit is rather unfortunately worded – unless he really is suggesting that outside the US it is easier to get rid of the bodies of murdered girlfriends and wives.
So anyway, MarkyMark’s post got linked to on the Men’s Rights subreddit. And this little discussion ensued. You may wish to activate your irony shields now.
Take note of the upvotes and downvotes for these three comments.
The Case for Chivalry (Note: It’s really, really rapey.)
Chivalry: Good for dudes too.
MRAs, by and large, aren’t big fans of chivalry, and complain bitterly about the terrible injustices forced upon them by this archaic concept, like having to hold doors open for ladies from time to time.
But perhaps they are not considering the many fine benefits of chivalry. In the comments section of Alcuin’s pro-patriarchy blog, our traditionalist friend fschmidt recently set forth the case for chivalry in a way that even the dullest misogynist could appreciate:
In early western culture around the time of the Renaissance, chivalry meant that ladies should be honored and sluts should be raped. This is a totally sound concept and encourages good behavior on the part of women. You cannot expect women to behave if they are not rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad behavior.
Fschmidt’s opinion inspired a lively discussion. Caeser’s Ghost argued that fschmidt had gone a bit too far with the whole rape thing:
Women who dress and behave like whores shouldn’t be raped. They should be prostitutes and treated as such.
Fschmidt replied:
Caesar’s Ghost, I have the greatest respect for prostitutes. Prostitutes provide a valuable service. But sluts provide no value and undermine morality. This is why sluts, identified as provocatively dressed women outside of areas of prostitution, were regularly raped around the time of the Renaissance.
CG argued that prostitutes deserve only the most limited sort of respect:
I respect prostitutes in so far as they fulfill a lowly but necessary function in society. Outside of that function, I have no respect or value for them.
Promiscuous women who are not prostitutes should be treated badly, but I don’t believe that they should be raped. I regard the Renaissance as a great era, but I would have to disagree with their way of handling the problem of sluts.
The mission of Alcuin’s site is, as he states at the top of every page, is to “Promot[e] the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Apparently you can’t have a real renaissance without sorting out whether or not sexually active women should be raped, or just treated like shit.
For those interested in exploring fschmidt’s opinions further, check out his not-terribly-popular CoAlpha Brotherhood discussion forums. Or this post, in which I examine his CoAlpha brother Drealm’s theory about how women oppress men by dressing like sluts and not covering up their evil sexy hair.
This post merits the famous blinking
tag.
When is a slut not a slut? When he’s a dude.
I did a search for PUA and this showed up. So, fuck it, I'm going with it.
When is a slut not a slut? When he’s a dude. So says the (He)artist(e) formerly known as Roissy, in yet another post of his trying to prove that his brand of Pick-Up Assholery is fully proven by SCIENCE!
His evidence in this case? A recent study of speed dating that showed that (straight) women, in addition to being attracted to attractive men (duh!), also seem to be attracted to men with high “sociosexuality” ratings. “Sociosexuality,” for those not fully immersed in the SCIENCE!! of dating, is basically someone’s propensity for casual sex.
In other words, the study found that guys who do a lot of casual dating tended to do better at casual dating.
Heartiste/Roissy puts it this way:
Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.
It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.
In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness.
If you strip out the PUA nonsense about the “alpha judging process,” all this seems fairly self-evident, if not simply tautological. Guys who’ve been with a lot of women will probably do better with women in the future than guys with no experience who view women as strange alien creatures. (Note: In all this, we’re only talking about straight people; PUAs don’t seem aware that gay people exist, outside of their own fantasies of hot bi girl threesomes.)
It’s at this point that Heartiste/Roissy amps up the assholery:
Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.
In other words, it’s bad to be a female slut, but great to be a male slut:
[T]he study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.
Not only can this SCIENCE!! of game help to get dudes laid – it can basically save the world from evil fat chicks.
It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.
Turning former nerds into wily lotharios will help to put those uppity female sluts in their place:
[A] moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.
And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.
Yep, he did slyly insert “voting” into all that. Sneaky!
So slut it up, fellas! It’s the only way to put those evil lady sluts in their place. And, thereby, save the world from sex-having, vote-casting slatterns.
MGTOWer: We don’t hate women. We just think they’re greedy sluts who need to be punished.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Judge Judy
You know those guys over on MGTOWforums.com, who spend so much of their time complaining about women and talking about how glad they are to not have anything to do with icky lady stuff? Well, it turns out they don’t hate women at all! They just think that women are all money-hungry narcissists who deserve to be punished for abusing their “rights.”
That may seem like a rather subtle distinction there, or possibly a giant heaping load of steaming bullshit. So I’ll let the eminently rational Spocksdisciple explain it all to you.
A Misogynist hates women because they’re women…
An MGHOW distrusts women for the powers they abuse…
Go on.
An MGHOW isn’t a misogynist and should never be, he’s a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life and doesn’t care what women think about him.
Evidently he means “a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life except for the hours he spends every day complaining about them online.”
He’s also a person who doesn’t actively hate women, but hate the things women do with their gov’t granted powers. The abuses and legal atrocities women commit is the fault of the gov’t and judicial system allowing these abuses.
Yes, those evil feminazi judges that run the country, headed up by that evil Chief Justice Judy on the Supreme Court.
Women will be women just as men will be men, their ingrained nature is no more different then how other animals behave.
Well, perhaps a bit different than how some animals behave. I mean, flatworms have swordfights with their penises in order to determine who gets to be the dude flatworm when they have sex, and I don’t know many people who do that.
I personally think women are hardwired to be hypergamous and self centered, they have to be in order to survive.
We don’t hate women! It’s just that they’re HARDWIRED to be selfish moneygrubbing bitches. It’s SCIENCE!!!
Just as men are hardwired to be analytical problem solvers as well as highly aggressive creatures when the need arises.
Don’t hate us because we’re so smart, ladies!
The trouble is that society today lets women get away with anything and everything, from getting harassed by random dudes on streetcorners to getting paid less than men for the same work.
Sorry, those were bad examples. Back to Spocksdisciple:
Today’s women may not be worthy of trust as has been proven over and over again in the news but in the past women were granted privileges their predecessors earned for them in blood and pain, privileges which were then turned in “inalienable” rights without the ability to suffer the consequences of abusing these “rights”.
Exactly! Now that women have the right to (for example) own property, they should be roundly punished each and every time they abuse these rights! Like, if they buy too much shit, they should have to pay money to rent storage units to keep it in.
NO MORE FREE STORAGE UNITS FOR LADIES!!! We’re on to you!
I’m not sure Spockdisciple has thought of that example. I’ll have to mention it at the next meeting.
But anyway, even though Spocksdisciple thinks women should suffer some sort of consequences for “abusing” their rights –oddly, he doesn’t actually mention what rights women are abusing or how they should be punished – he wants to make it clear that this doesn’t mean he hates the ladies.
Hating women for their innate nature is like them hating men for ours, nothing will come of it, men and women won’t change their innermost nature so why bother wasting the energy in the first place.
A true MGHOW doesn’t hate women, he hates the system which enables such bad behavior in women without them suffering the consequences of such behavior, if women suffered the consequences of their misbehavior you can bet many of them wouldn’t be so eager to abuse their “rights” with impunity.
So, again, MGTOWers don’t hate women. They just think women are inherently a bunch of greedy hoebags who are completely untrustworthy and deserve to be punished.
What on earth is hateful about that?
Naturally, most of the totally non-woman-hating dudes over on MGTOWforums.com found Spocksdisciple’s argument to be logical as shit. As cdub noted:
I don’t hate women. I hate that they are not held accountable for their actions. There are too many blue pillers out there to ever see thru this shit. I think the only thing that will change any of this is if there is complete collapse of the Western world and all those strong, independent women will have to rely on men just like nature intended.
AussieSteve, though, thought Spocksdisciple was being a bit too lenient on the ladies.
I hate the system and I hate what women are. I can hate both because both have earned my hatred. The system hasn’t made women loathsome it has merely created an environment that has exposed their true natures. If somebody lets a poisonous snake out of its cage am I not allowed to kill that snake because it isn’t its fault that it got out? The person that opened the cage should be held accountable as well, sure – but a snake is still a snake and if I have to kill it to protect myself then that snake is going to die.
All the system has done is allow women to do abhorrent things, it hasn’t made them do it. It just removed the restraints that our forefathers, in their wisdom, put in place to keep them under control. Women are poisonous snakes and we have stupidly let them out of their cages.
Huh. Women represented by evil snakes. Haven’t ever heard that one before.
MRA: Men can sometimes tell when women are on their periods. Therefore, feminism is exposed as a dirty lie!
From Susan Draws. (Click on the pic to go there.)
Watch out, ladies! And feminism! Because guys are totally onto you and your dirty periods. According to a study cited on the blog What Men Think of Women, men can tell when women are on their periods – just by listening to them talk! Well, some of the time, anyway. From a writeup of the research in the Times of India:
Men can actually tell from a woman’s voice when she is having her period, a new study has claimed.
For the study, conducted by Nathan Pipitone at Adams State College and Gordon Gallup from SUNY-Albany, the researchers asked three groups of men to listen to voice recordings of ten women who counted from one to five at four different points over their menstrual cycle.
According to Popular Science, all four recordings were played in a random order and then the first group of men were asked to guess which were made while the women were on their period. The tests revealed that the men were correct 35 per cent of the time, which was described as a ‘significant’ result.
That’s right, ladies! Men can tell whether or not you’re are on the rag – a third of the time!
I myself have developed a technique that can bring this success rate to well over 50 percent – just by listening to women talk!
All you have to do is to pay attention to subtle audio clues, like her saying:
“I just started my period.”
“My period came early this month.”
“Crap. I’ve got awful craps – because of my period.”
“Aunt Flo is paying her monthly visit.” (Note: this works only if she does not actually have an Aunt Flo.)
“It’s shark week! “ (Note: This works only if it is not actually Shark Week on the Discovery Channel.)
“It’s that time of month again. The time when I use tampons, in my vagina.”
“I have reached that point in my menstrual cycle during which blood leaks from my hoo-ha.”
So what does all this mean? According to Christian J at What Men Are Saying About Women, it means the jig is up, feminists! In a post titled How Men can Decode “Women’s” Menstrual Cycle.. , he writes:
This information is what feminist have been trying to hide, delete and deny for many a decade. They are of the opinion that the menstrual cycle is irrelevant and superfluous to their cause and one can understand why when one looks at the studies on how women are affected by it.
In the worst case scenarios, their behaviour are effected to such a degree as to make them totally dysfunctional and even bedridden for the period(intended) of the cycle. The other side of the argument is ofcourse that it is swept under the carpet and not discussed or taken seriously..
Just some added benefits from feminism, as they live in ignorant, self induced silence..
You might as well pack it in, ladies and manginas – because men know!
A third of the time.
NOTE: I have no idea why Christian J. put the word “women” in quotes in the title of his blog post. Like his now-legendary two-dot ellipses, this is a mystery that may forever remain unsolved. Or you could ask him, I guess.
EDITED TO ADD: This post has now inspired a completely disingenuous “Yahoo Answers” query from an antifeminist concern troll who seems to be pretending that this post was not DRIPPING IN SARCASM. Add your answers, if you want!
There’s an app for that! By “that” I mean “penis.” And by “app” I mean a doohickey to attach a Fleshlight to your iPad.
Maru the cat wants none of this.
Ladies, your time is up! The sexy robogals are here! Prepare for the end of feminism and the eventual elimination of all women, with the possible exception of some of the really hot ones, so long as they don’t have too many opinions of their own.
Now that I’ve got your attention I should point out that the sexy Robogals aren’t quite here yet. The not-quite-Robogals currently available, as we’ve seen, are a lot more scary than sexy.
But one dude has a much simpler and less horrifying solution: he’s invented a doohickey that will allow horny penis-having people to attach a Fleshlight to their iPads, so they can pretend to be having some sort of sexual relations with images of actual sexy ladies (or sexy anything else, for that matter) on their iPads.
Read more at The Register, which also has a photo of the doohickey at work. (Dude fucking it not pictured.) I really didn’t feel like having that picture here, hence the gif of Maru the cat with his head in a bag.
Skanks, Spongebob, and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex
Jenna Jameson on a Harley. (Chuck E. Cheese not pictured.)
Sure, Man Boobz 2011 Troll of the Year NWOslave may live in an alternate reality — but he at least seems well-grounded in that reality. What might happen if he were to suddenly ingest a tab or ten of LSD?
I think I have an answer to that question. Meet blogger and conspiracy theorist Jay Dyer, a self-described “controversialist, writer, comedian, debater, and philosopher/theologian.”
That’s a mouthful, and Jay more or less lives up to it, delivering stream of consciousness rants that range from Aleister Crowley (he’s not a fan) to the evils of women dressing like Hannah Montana. Plus he quotes the Bible from time to time.
Actually, that description doesn’t even begin to capture Jay’s peculiar charms. So, without further ado, I present to you some highlights from an essay titled The United Skanks of Amerika that Jay wrote with the assistance of someone identified only as M.B.
Amerika has become one, big, nasty, black metal mosh pit. Satan said to Adam and Eve “do what thou wilt,” Satanist Aleister Crowley said, “do what thou wilt” and the gospel of Amerika is “do what thou wilt.” … Churches are dominated by fat matriarchal women and homosexuals. Women open their purses and the priests of Ashtoreth bow and tell them whatever they want to hear. … Amerika is a play land – a bigger, gayer Disney world. It’s middle-aged moms on facebook, donning Montana garb. The nation is frozen in perpetual adolescence and arrested development.
After this dramatic opening, Jay offers up the strangest capsule version of American history I’ve ever seen:
Started by a bunch of tee-totaler puritan gnostics, this nation has jumped to the opposite extreme and become a cess pool of flesh. In fact, in the East Coast punk scene, kids are now eating chunks of each others’ flesh. Let that sink in. In the West Coast gay scene, it is now an honor to receive AIDS from trendy gays.
Then Jay gets around to the “skanks” of the essay’s title:
Women of this country, especially young women, are perpetual princesses stuck in a perpetual mirror glance, coated in chemicals and striving for the most unnatural goals – to be a manwoman. For a sensible male to get with one of these creatures is in serious danger. But watch out – before long, they’ve left you for another woman and taken your fake Federal Reserve notes. They get half of your all-seeing eyes. Whores with your Horus. Dressed like complete whores, will they soon be completely naked?
But young men don’t get off any easier in Jay’s critique:
The average twenty-something male is now a fat, gamer, feminized, emo freak, who spits every time he lisps, because he can’t form sentences.
Neither do middle-aged men:
Grown men – baby-boomer dads – collect comics and play Dungeons & Dragons. And if they don’t, they stare at pixelated football and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.
Yes, he really did just say “Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.”
Jay also has some issues with higher education:
The “wise men” of this culture are the Marxist, gay, feminist, druid college professors, who, if they have children, drive them to white horror core rap concerts. Just like the sociology professor mom involved with Pyscho Sam whom her daughter met over Myspace.
And lower education:
That any parent would put their children in public school is a sign of apparent hatred of their kids. Why would anyone put their kids in a government re-education camp? Public schools are prisons where the teachers screw students and students get doped up on pills become homosexual.
When they’re not shooting each other, that is:
[P]arents can’t understand why their children shoot each other at school. The[y] shoot one another at school because they are possessed by the demonic culture. And while you stupidly play golf and make scrapbooks, your kids are worshipping Lucifer, who, according to you, doesn’t exist.
Women working! Men raising kids! It’s all one big air-conditioned nightmare for Jay:
The family is now become stay-at-home dads that care for the 1.3 kids, while moms climb the skyscraper and has sex with the CEO for more fake fed notes. If it’s not this, it’s “my two dads.”
Preach it, Jay!
Amerika is just this – Chuck E. Cheese speeding at you on a Harley, holding Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice,with Jenna Jameson mounted on the back. …
Amerika is krunk. Amerika is funk. Amerika is junk. Amerika is Lil’ Jon having sex with Lady Liberty. …
Rationalism is what birthed this country, but it morphed into utter irrationality. Thomas Paine became Spongebob and Spongebob is Thomas Paine.
I think I’ll just leave it at that. Oh, there’s more — much, much more — in Jay’s little manifesto, but my poor brain can only take in so much in one sitting without exploding.
NOTE: I discovered Jay’s essay through a link on MGTOWforums.com; the dude posting the link described it as “one of the best essays about feminism and life in the US … By far one of the most accurate essays I have ever had the pleasure of reading.” It got a mixed reaction; the consensus seemed to be that while he made some good points, Jay might just be a little too obsessed with Aleister Crowley and the Masons.
EDITED TO ADD: Also, if middle-aged women want to wear some sort of “Montana garb,” I’d suggest they go with Patsy, not Hannah. Patsy Montana was awesome!
Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit
Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.
Quiz: How did Reddit’s atheist community respond to a woman’s account of rape?
Here’s a little one-question quiz to see how much you know about Reddit’s Atheism subreddit.
QUESTION ONE: A woman describes being raped by a “friend” while both were intoxicated (though she doesn’t call it rape). Do the r/atheism regulars:
a) Respond with sympathy and support
b) Attack her and furiously downvote her posts, with the assistance of one of the moderators of r/mensrights, then return to posting and upvoting rape jokes
BONUS QUESTION: True or False: Someone on r/menrights links to her comment as “an example of how and why many people believe that rape is everywhere… because their definition of rape includes every sexual misadventure.” The most heavily upvoted comment in the r/mensrights thread declares that the woman who was raped “sounds like a delusional sheltered teen.”
Yes, the correct answers here are the ones you assumed were correct.
Here’s the woman’s post describing what happened to her.
She gives more details on what happened in other, also-highly-downvoted comments.
One highly upvoted rape joke from elsewhere in the thread:
Hilarious!
Amazingly, despite all the jokes and the victim blaming/attacking going on, the thread also contains some highly upvoted comments lamenting the tendency of people to blame the victim in rape cases. Apparently, when a rape victim is drunk, it’s not rape, even when she repeatedly says “no” and gives in because she’s scared, so it’s fine to attack away, and even to accuse the victim of being a rapist too.
This enables Reddit Atheists not only to blame the victim of rape without feeling guilty, or admitting that this is what they’re doing, while simultaneously feeling self-righteous in their condemnation of religious people doing the exact same thing.
And because their rape jokes are also couched as jokes about religious people’s views on rape, they can feel self-righteous while making them too.
Sometimes the actions of Reddit Atheists cause me to begin to doubt just a teensy weensey bit that “atheists are a community that’s pre-selected for clear thinking and empiricism,” as one commenter in r/mensrights put it not that long ago.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks again to ShitRedditSays for highlighting this awful thread.
EDITED TO ADD 2: More SRS discussion, courtesy of Holly.
