Search Results for spearhead
Thank You, Hater: An utterly charming response to Internet trolls, in song and dance!
Here’s an utterly charming response to internet trolls – in song and dance! Thanks, Clever Pie and Isabel Fay! And thanks, Jill Filipovic of Feministe, for passing on the link.
Unlike the videos from Armageddon1115 I posted earlier today, this one is really worth watching.
You can find the full lyrics on YouTube; here are some of my favorite bits:
Well hello friend Mister Insightful
Thank you for your comment on my little Youtube clip!
Most people say you’re cruel and spiteful,
But you’re right, how do I sleep at night? I am a massive prick. …
Some might say you are a…
Sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
Cowardly, illitterate, waste of human skin,
Sexually aggressive, racist, homophobe, misogynistic,
Cowardly, iliterat, waste of human skin,
But I say: thank you beautiful stranger. …
I’m really sure that if I met you
You probably wouldn’t rape me like you promised that you would
We are like “that”; I really get you
You’re right about that laughing kid, he is a total “cnut”.
You wished me cancer and misspelled “cancer”
But I know that it’s a metaphor. You hope that I will grow,
Just like the tumour you hoped would kill me
Inside the tits on which you said you’d also like a go.
Pure joy.
And let me offer my own personal thanks to all the Man Boobz haters! Hey, “guy who posts on The Spearhead and elsewhere as Nugganu,” every time you tell me you hope I “get … anally raped one day. for real, yeah,” in comments from this IP address, and this one, it gives me yet more reason to continue on, mocking and exposing you complete douchewaffles.
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.
Video Tuesday: PBS on Reddit’s sexism, and a dramatic reading of “SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES.”
Can you find the woman in this picture of Reddit’s admins? (Screencap from PBS Off Book video about Reddit.)
I’m not big on posting videos here on Man Boobz – aside, of course, from those involving kitties and/or other adorable furry animals, and, obviously, my own – but here are a couple you all may enjoy.
The first is a short PBS “Off Book” feature on Reddit. Most of it is fairly glowing, but at about 3 minutes in there’s a segment about the rampant sexism on Reddit, which includes interviews with several mods from Shit Reddit Says – who are the only women interviewed for the feature, and who elected to appear anonymously due to the very real threat of harassment from angry Redditors.
Naturally, plenty of Redditors were pissed that SRS got any airtime at all, and some were shocked and stunned to hear that anyone could possibly think there was a lot of misogyny on Reddit. (SRSers responded to it here.)
SRS also regularly deals with the rampant racism, homophobia and transphobia on Reddit, but there was no mention of that in the PBS piece.
The second video is a dramatic reading from YouTuber and regular Man Boobz commenter Jessay of that SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES rant I wrote about the other day.
Oh, the questions they ask!
Here are a couple of, well, let’s just call them very intriguing questions asked of me by a Men’s Rights Redditor. Since I can’t respond to them on the Men’s Rights subreddit — I’m banned – I thought I’d respond here:
Mr. Levelate, allow me to answer your serious questions with some equally serious questions of my own:
I’ve wondered for a long time how people like you react to the men’s rights mantra of ‘all women are wombats’, when you see a woman who isn’t a wombat, how do you explain this?
Also, many MRAs advocate turning all squirrels into bologna, what makes you think squirrel bologna would taste better than regular bologna, and what would the world do with all those extra uneaten nuts, were it ever to come to that?
Here’s the thing, Mr. Levelate: those things you think feminists believe? FEMINISTS DON’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.
That “all men are rapists” quote from Marilyn French you guys like to pass around? That was from a character in a novel.
The number of radical feminists who seriously want to get rid of men, or a significant number of them, you could probably count on your fingers. I’m not sure how many MRAs want to make squirrel bologna, but the numbers are probably similar. And, fyi, there are actually more than a few MRAs who fantasize about breeding certain types of women out of existence, like this dude on The Spearhead, and a small army of MRAs and MGTOWers who pine for the imaginary future where babies are gestated in artificial wombs and women are all replaced by sexy sexbots.
Listening to MRAs talking about feminism is a bit like sitting in on a book club in which no one has read the book.
Banned in the MRA!
Well, I have been banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, evidently for mentioning The Spearhead too often. And also, apparently, because of Lorena Bobbit? Honesty, I’m not sure I fully understand why I’m banned; I am pretty sure I haven’t breached any of the tenets of Reddiquette in any of my comments in r/mr. See if you can figure it out:
I’m also banned from A Voice for Men. And Toysoldier. Not sure about The Spearhead. I don’t think so, but there’s not really much point posting somewhere where all dissenting commenters (and most women) are downvoted so thoroughly that you have to click a special link to even see them. I might or might not be able to comment on other MRA blogs, I don’t know.
But honestly, the only Men’s Rights forum I really have (or had) any reason or desire to comment in is the Men’s Rights subreddit, because for all of its faults it’s really the only MRA forum of any size that’s not completely overrun with misogynists and fanatics. The only one where there is even a chance of holding any kind of substantive discussions with MRAs online. And Ig has shut that door, at least for me.
(There are of course many other places to discuss things with MRAs online, like, you know, here, and NSWATM, and so on, but these places aren’t run by MRAs.)
I asked Ig if he would also ban the guy who wished me liver cancer earlier today. I have not heard back from him yet.
EDITED TO ADD: Ig has gotten back to me. He recommends that I “go to hell.” Meanwhile, the liver-cancer wisher has reaffirmed his desire that I “catch” cancer.
Elsewhere in r/mr, another fellow describes me as “an accumulation of grunge far worse than any of the quotes you mine.” Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, but at least has a spark of originality to it.
The New Statesman publishes an excellent précis of the Men’s Rights movement; MRAs are, naturally, outraged. [UPDATED]
The Rationalization Hamster meme is now under Man Boobz control. Click the pic for more!
So the New Statesman — a rough UK equivalent of The Nation here in the US — has published an awesomely snarky yet utterly accurate piece on the Men’s Rights movement, such as it is, including references to Man Boobz favorites Tom Martin and A Voice for Men. Read it! Some excerpts:
Like your arse, men’s rights are massive right now. Of course, this has been “a thing” since the Fathers4Justice superheroes first scaled a public building, reiterating in one fell swoop that irresponsible, life-endangering behaviour and silly costumes are not only newspaper-friendly, but are also not qualities many women look for in a potential birthing partner. Then we had Tom Martin suing the London School of Economics’ gender studies programme for sexism, one of his complaints being that the chairs they sat on were too hard and not suitable for the comfortable positioning of his goolies. Poor Tom.
…
A Voice for Men is essentially the EDL [that is, the Islamophobic English Defence League --DF] of the mens’ rights movement, positing as it does such statements as “a single mother is a woman who in most cases chose to have, or to raise a child without a father. This demonstrates terrible, selfish values”, and “fake boobs are a sexual advertisement. If your wife or GF wants them that means she’s seeking to attract heightened male attention.” It’s extremist, bitter, and encourages men to “not get fucked” by taping every conversation that they have with a woman, like a troop of paranoid angry, ninja spies.
Naturally, MRAs are up in arms about this horribly unfair completely accurate (and if anything rather understated) description of their “movement.” I added some thoughts of my own to the discussion on Reddit here. Here’s one of the responses:
Keep digging that hole!
EDITED TO ADD: The New Statesmen is going to have a whole week of stuff on Men’s issues. So stay tuned!
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: On the Men’s Rights subreddit, the battle rages on, but alas I can contribute no more, having just been banned from there, apparently for mentioning The Spearhead too many times, or something. Separate post on that in a second. But in the meantime, here’s my favorite comment from the whole thread, from someone who apparently didn’t enjoy the New Statesman piece as much as I did:
If anyone knows of any sorority newsletter that reads like that New Statesman piece, please let me know, as I would like to subscribe to that newsletter and/or join that sorority, if my status as a mangina qualifies me for membership.
In the meantime, I have added The Vagenda, the online home of Rhiannon and Holly, the authors of the NS piece, to the “Antidotes to Boobery” sidebar.
Women’s Suffrage: Still controversial, apparently
The face of evil, apparently.
Quiz: Who said the following?
I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should’ve never turned this over to women. … And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.
And this probably was the reason that they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen. …
Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Was it:
Some dude on The Spearhead?
A regular guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News?
Well, yeah, you guessed it: it’s door number three. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Tea Party activist and founder of the group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), said all of the above, and quite a lot of other outrageously misogynistic things, in a talk this March, and which is available on YouTube. Yet Hannity, who serves on the board of Peterson’s group, had him back on his show earlier this month, for an appearance during which Peterson described “liberal Democrat women” as “whores.” Raw Story, which discovered Peterson’s unlisted video on YouTube, offers many more delightful misogyny nuggets from Peterson.
Here’s the video of Peterson’s talk. The stuff about women and voting starts at about 8:30 in. But I suggest you watch the whole thing from the start; it’s a virtual smorgasbord of misogyny, seasoned with a bunch of stuff he simply made up about Sandra Fluke’s famous congressional testimony on birth control.
It would be nice if this sort of stuff was confined to the fringes of the manosphere, but alas, it’s everywhere.
Not All Misogynists Are Like That
Typical woman at home. (Artist’s rendition.) YOU CAN BUY THIS! Click on the pic for its Etsy listing.
After hearing a misogynist make some rancid generalization about women based on the terrible behavior of one particular woman, it’s hard not to respond by saying “not all women are like that.” Misogynists hear this so often, and evidently see it as so hilarious, that they’ve invented their own little acronym for the phrase: NAWALT. You’ll find this all the time on MRA sites, along with its sister acronym NAFALT, with “feminists” in the place of “women.”
Many MRAs seem to believe that simply repeating one or another of these acronyms is an effective, and highly witty, rebuttal to their critics. Because to them it is self-evident: All women, all feminists, ARE like that.
So imagine the pleasure I felt when I finally ran across an MRA-ish fellow challenging this conventional wisdom. On his blog la prensa, the regular Spearhead commenter known as Boxer makes this controversial claim:
It is a popular misconception which men hold on to which suggests all women are the same. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, my pleasure lasted only as long as it took to read these two sentences. Because then Boxer went on to explain just what he meant by this:
For example: Some women are whores, and others are even trashier than whores. Some women live in houses where the litter boxes overflow and the pungent aroma of catshit lingers lovingly in the air. Other women are allergic to cats, and their houses carry the stench of human feces, rotting food and the cheap perfumes they douse themselves in.
Apparently Boxer has never been invited into any woman’s house, and bases most of his opinions of the fair sex on reruns of Hoarders.
Men will center themselves upon these notable differences, and mistakenly assume that the diversity of individual women points to differences in the way individual women behave. Such high-minded fools usually learn the hard way, when the woman decides to “cash out” with the help of the state and its family law courts, who are always eager to liquidate a lifetime of male planning and work, dividing it between themselves and the cunt which the fool so stupidly married.
See yesterday’s post for more on women and their apparently insatiable hunger for D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
The foolish man, confronted by a mountain of inescapable evidence that every woman, from his mother and sister down to the bitch who empties the trashcan in his office, is a trashy slut, will immediately construct an intricate conspiracy theory between his ears. ‘Yes,’ the dumbass tells himself, ‘all the women I have ever known were and are trashy skanks, but that’s just because western society has brainwashed all the women in my own vicinity with its toxic headpoison.”
I am actually pretty sure my mom is not a slut. (Though I have heard that Las Vegas is full of them.)
This mangina will be aided along in his misconception by other manginas and white knights, often falling in with a disgruntled lot on various loser’s hangouts, in real life or on the internet. Often these men get “yellow fever”, and fly off to some third world shitheap to marry (again) in an effort to find that one precious snowflake who is not a third rate whore among the billions and billions of cunts on planet earth who prove their utter worthlessness on a daily basis.
Oh dear. I think Boxer is about to add a heaping helping of racism on top of his misogyny sundae.
It is true that Asian bitches tend to be slimmer and more intelligent than those in the white and black camps, but that just means they are more cunning, and better able to exploit the chumps who delude themselves into thinking that marrying and serving an oriental master is somehow “better” than being the slave of a homegrown American cunt.
Huh. Honestly, that wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting. Though after nearly two years of intense study of the manosphere, I have some pretty high standards for offensiveness.
For all their variety, bitches’ behavior is uniformly lousy, and in that regard, all women are indeed like that. Yes, all of them, all around the world. This is not a war, it is something more analogous to an organized deer hunt, and you are the prey. For god’s fuck’n sake, quit marrying these slits already.
And so we circle back around to “all women ARE like that.”
Still, I have to say I agree with Boxer’s final sentence. Dudes, if you believe any of this crap, please do not marry women. Or, really, have any contact with them whatsoever. Frankly, I’d suggest that you find yourself a nice uninhabited island – like, say, this one – and move there posthaste. You’ll be much happier, and so will the rest of us.
All Women Are Whores, Part XIV: Cat on a Roomba Edition
Cats and Roombas unite in service to the forces of whoredom.
Men of America! You face a grave threat today: Evil feminist slutwalkers are working tirelessly to enslave men by conning them into marrying secret porn-star whores! Over on The Spearhead, an unnamed “Featured Guest” explains the whole dastardly scheme in a post with the intriguing title “Whore is just a label.”
With slutwalkers working hard to remove the stigma of sex for women, you see,
young women in porn face far less stigma than they ever have. So much so that for that young women the leap from wanton behavior at a drunken college party to getting double teamed followed by a full facial in a porn shoot may not be a far leap at all.
Exactly. Because if you’re going to be having sex anyway, why not do it on camera with strangers?
The dollars and cents is that you have a huge growth porn industry demanding a huge number of sex workers who blend invisibly into the population because there is no longer any stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession.
Wait, I thought that prostitution was the world’s oldest profession. I guess porn and prostitution are the same thing now?
Not that it matters, because if you’re a man the evil ladies will keep their sordid whoring from you:
Unlike men women know how to keep a secret. Women don’t brag to their girlfriends, in fact they’ll lie even to themselves. You really have NO IDEA where even that conservative and very virginal girl you’ve proposed to has been until the night she thought she forgot shows up on Youtube.com. Where does that leave an increasing number of American men?
So YouTube is a porn distribution hub now? Or is he suggesting that any woman who has sex is by definition a whore?
Evidently he is, as Mr. Featured Guest then goes on to warn of the dangers of those who are:
Trying to turn a whore into a housewife.
Yes, there are terrific women out there. But single women are angling for a man to pay for their lives, and given that incentive there’s a huge temptation for a woman to present herself falsely, to tell a lot of lies and to make a lot of “stay at home, cook and raise kids” promises she has no intention of keeping. Under US and ESPECIALLY Canadian divorce laws, women are almost never accountable for bad behavior or broken promises. For all the men who thought their betrothed was only slutty the night she met you and who are steaming mad that you’ve been sold a bill of goods, does the marriage contract needs a “false advertisement” clause?
Or do women who have sex with men other than their betrothed – possibly on video, possibly on YouTube — simply need to have the word “whore” tattooed on their foreheads?
The regulars at The Spearhead respond to this sophisticated analysis of contemporary marriage with their usual good sense.
Quentin, in a comment that got 50 upvotes, notes with some alarm that
A lot of women don’t feel bad abut their sexual escapades. In fact, they take pride in them. “Ladies” are an endangered species, and are on the verge of going extinct. All this slutty behavior has really made me lose interest in women. I don’t want to be with a woman who has had sex with a lot of men. If she is easy to get into the sack, then she is a liability in a relationship. I have lost a lot of respect for women over the past several years. Sex, along with marriage, is something most women view as a get-rich-quick scheme. It is disheartening to think I live in a world where being a whore is considered empowering, while being a supportive wife is frowned upon. This world is upside down. … If you act like a whore, then you are going to get treated like a whore. If women were pleasant to be around and were loyal, more men would probably stick around. You reap what you sow, women.
Napoleon (24 upvotes) urges his fellow men to be cautious when dealing with the wily female:
Women these days are increasingly trying to have the best of both worlds and present themselves as wholesome nice girls to the public while hiding a lot of whoring that goes on behind the scenes. There is really no way to know whether a woman is a part-time prostitute or not but a good rule of thumb is to assume that she is until proven otherwise due to the prevalence of such antics.
Silent warns men to be especially suspicious of any woman who seems to know what she’s doing in bed:
Just be careful about the super-sweet girlfriend who knows a little too much about how to do that thing you like, without you having taught her. She may have had a mouthful. But hey, maybe it’s all “in the past”.
YoungMan shares his tale of woe:
Back in my plugged in days I dated a girl for over a year before I found out she used to play with herself on camera for money. I was incensed I had been taken advantage of like that.
Keyster, a bastion of morality who once boasted about dating a 14-year-old (when he was 25), warns men to stay away with women who don’t keep silent about their sexual pasts:
Any woman who feels compelled to reveal her debaucherous past has no intention of having a serious relationship with you.
It’s not a shit test.
It’s meant to show a certian amount of disdain and disrespect for you as a man who doesn’t quite measure up to her standards. Don’t ever forget that.
Yes, because if a woman has had sex with anyone other than you, it’s all about disrespecting you.
And then he adds:
If she says she can’t even remember how many guys she’s f*cked in a rather “matter-of-fact” tone, you’ve entered the Futrelle Zone. Go home and video tape your cat on a Roomba and post it on YouTube. It would be time better spent.
I guess I should be flattered? But alas it was not my cat on the Roomba. I wish I had a Roomba. (Also, I wish I had my cat back, but that’s a whole other and much sadder story.)
Alan Vaughn writes an impassioned defense of pedophiles – sorry, “pedophiles,” in scare quotes – that I’m frankly too tired to bother to cut and paste in here. Check it out yourself if you dare.
Eric has a sad about the poor quality of American women:
Women are presumed to ‘have all the power in relationships’. Really, it’s her choices alone that matter. Women choose to be with thugs and idiots when there are numerous better and more responsible options open to them. The fact that women overwhelmingly terminate relationships with good men and pursue worthless ones is proof in itself that the responsibility lies with them and not with us.
Men, on the other hand, are very limited in their field of choices (unless they expat out). The abysmal quality of American women; women’s complete lack of interest in responsible men; and the ever-impending consequences of acting contrary to misandryist legal and social norms considerably constrict men’s options. Most men, if they were honest about it, would admit that their choices are pretty much limited to the least objectionable—not the most desirable—of available women.
Life is apparently very tough for American men who hate the very idea of women ever having sex with anyone but them. And doubly tough for those who don’t see the inherent hilariousness of cats on Roombas.
All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
Revver started things off with this lovely thought:
Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.
How easily they make themselves look like fools.
Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:
Women judge men by pre-selection.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
