>
Today in “Women Are …”: Horrible generalizations about women from The Spearhead. Spearhead readers have the option to upvote comments they like, and downvote those they don’t. The comments these quotes are taken from all got a lot of upvotes and only a tiny handful of downvotes, if any.
Women are: Dumb as bricks
For all their degrees, today’s women are dumb as bricks. They have rejected ‘weak’ feminine virtues in favor of masculine vices, imagining themselves to be empowered by them. … There has never been a more miserable generation of women, yet it seems they would rather have their misery a hundred times over than trade it for their natural, submissive role as wives and mothers under a patriarchal system.
(This comment got 68 upvotes, 2 downvotes)
Woman are: Good for Sex (Some of them.)
Some women are good for sex. That’s it. The rest deliver manipulation, financial devastation, false accusations and every form of betrayal with the government and every other lying bitch backing them up. NO THANKS!
(This comment got 38 upvotes, one downvote.)
Women are: A Parasite
Modern women are a parasite. They have no conception of the fact that to get, they should be willing to give. And woe betide the man who puts any trust in a woman. She will pull the rug out from under him simply for the power trip she gets.
(22 upvotes, one downvote.)
Women are: Spoiled beyond repair
Women are … purely ME focused animals, and they’re neither capable of logic nor feeling empathy for a man. … U.S. women are spoiled beyond repair.
(39 upvotes, 0 downvotes.)
Apparently, this is the sort of thing that gets you massive upvotes on The Spearhead. Duly noted.
>No, I would admit that there was SOME basis in reality to inspire it, but not enough to justify the "all" part since that would require 100% of men to be pigs.
>The comments I quoted appear to be directed at ALL women as well.
>When no quantifier is specified, convention dictates that "in general" be the interpreted quantifier. Also, "all men are pigs" is a bad example from the other side because "pig" doesn't even specify any particular behavior or trait, whereas "manipulation, financial devastation, false accusations and every form of betrayal" are things that can actually be identified.
>You know, I just realized that David's whole argument — that the Spearhead's comments section mirrors the MRM as a whole — falls apart when you consider that any anonymous reader of any political persuasion can up-vote or down-vote anything. This includes feminists, who could be artificially up-voting the most outrageous comments in order to later discredit the legitimate voices (and the legitimate issues) of the MRM.How do you know that those up-votes come from people who really agree with the comment that they're up-voting? Same for down-votes? The answer is you don't; they could be artificially inflated by feminists, or by a small band of misogynists with an axe to grind against the Spearhead (such as M101), or by an even smaller group of genuine misogynists whose IP addresses haven't yet been banned.It's a criticism of David's that rests on an imprecise measurement.Do I believe that there are misogynist supporters of the MRM? They absolutely exist. But those people tend not to be the doers; they are keyboard warriors. They probably also quarterback major NFL football teams from the comfort of their armchairs. Such voices pose no threat to the existing order.
>"This includes feminists, who could be artificially up-voting the most outrageous comments in order to later discredit the legitimate voices (and the legitimate issues) of the MRM."Yeah, that's right, John. 68 evil feminists and/or Manhood 101ers signed up just to upvote that first comment abut women being dumbas bricks, and somehow magically prevented all but two ethical, non-misogynst MRAs from downvoting it. Not only that but you think that dozens of Manhood101ers went on the site to evilly upvote that comment, and they somehow refrained from posting their usual spam?Also, how many MRAs are there out there who actually are anything more than "keyboard warriors?" You might actually do activist stuff in the real world, and some father's rights people might as well, but the vast majority of MRAs I've run across do very little but vent online. For the most part, I suspect, the MRM is little more than a bunch of armchair quarterbacks, many if not most of them frankly misogynist or otherwise very angry at women.
>DAVID: …about women being dumbas bricks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversyBoys are stupid, throw rocks at them…The T-shirt was designed by company founder Todd Goldman, who started David and Goliath in 1999 with "Boys are Smelly" T-shirts. It now features clothes with a variety of slogans, such as "Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes!" or "The stupid factory, where boys are made". "Boys are stupid …" has evolved into a successful object for merchandise, which includes all types of clothes, mugs, key chains, posters and other items.David, you have to see both sides of the story…
>@Yohan, again, reading your own sources helps "Goldman [the creator of the shirts] himself says that his T-shirts have nothing to do with the girl-power movement, "I'm a guy. I couldn't give a rat's ass about girl empowerment…"This person is man who is explicitly not a feminist, so, he is hardly good evidence that feminists think or behave in such a way.
>Darksidecatyou are missing the point, those misandric products sell because there is a market for hatred of boys and men, which has been created by feminism.