>
 |
| Guys, they’re hiring! |
I’m beginning to suspect that the Happy Bachelors who populate the Happy Bachelors Forum are not quite as happy as they let on. Why is this? Well, when anyone suggests that their single status might in any way be undesirable, they don’t brush the comment off like most of us reasonably well-adjusted unmarried guys do. No, they get mad. Really mad. And they start talking about “femhags,” “fem-nags,” bitches and hoes (not the garden implement).
Here’s the thread in question. “analyzing” starts off the festivities by pointing to an email from a lovelorn 42-year old lass to an online relationship advice column:
Maybe I shouldn’t have waited [to get married], because it seems like every unmarried guy in the age range I’m looking for (40 to about 50) is a loser of one sort or another. If the guy has never been married, he’s either got commitment issues, or he’s lacking in social skills, or he drinks too much or has some other unattractive qualities. If he’s divorced, he’s either angry at women or so desperate to find a new one that he wants to hook up before he even knows you.
This comment is like a red flag to the Happy Bachelor bulls, who release a torrent of abuse that inadvertently reinforces every negative stereotype in the woman’s email. After a few comments lauding the superiority of young Thai and Filipina women over fortysomething American gals, spocksdisciple gets the woman-hating orgy underway. (I’ve bolded some of the best — as in worst — bits in his comment and some of the others.)
Women like this lack an essential quality to even begin to comprehend why they are such total failures in their relationships.
That essential quality is that of introspection and reflection, instead of asking what bad choices she’s made and her role in making these choices, she goes on the typical female tirade about how it’s the fault of all the men around her. …
I see lots and lots of cats in her future and nothing else, I will enjoy the upcoming decades as more and more of these useless bitches end up alone and going stir crazy. I’m betting that many of them will end up abusing drugs or alcohol to make their pain bearable. I will laugh at them because even then they will not look inwards to see if they were in part responsible for ending up alone.
Marcus Aurelius commends what he sees as an excellent analysis, and adds his own thoughts:
[W]omen are not capable of introspection, its always someone else’s fault. They don’t realize that their being cum dumpsters, going for Alphas, and their hypergamy destroys their chance at landing a mangina. They don’t have a beta male mangina…because…they overlooked them…and still are. I think you are right, these aging women that are alone will be screwed up mentally. …
Women just don’t know what to do with themselves. … Coming home to a quiet and empty home for them…is like descending into hell because they don’t know what to do once they get there. Men get hobbies. For them Its get drunk, or watch So You Think You Can Dance or the Bachelor…hahaha…..nothing goes on inside those heads of theirs.
I’m assuming he’s not the real Marcus Aurelius — I’m pretty sure the original Marcus Aurelius never used the term “cum dumpster.”
Others contribute their own insights about women. In the process, Curiepoint explains why he never became a firefighter:
I find it an honor to be so offensive to the likes of women. After a lifetime of looking after everyone else, bowing and scraping for a meagre paycheck, and kissing the ass of a woman who voraciously consumed everything I had (two of them, actually) I am more than proud to stand in defiance of any woman’s shitty personality.
I wouldn’t piss on a woman if she were on fire. Chances are, that would amount to one huge, spitting grease fire, given how “hot” women are comprised mostly of blubber and cheap rayon clothing. …
Women aren’t worth the effort to work up enough spit to hurl at them. And, any man who would actually cave in to her demands deserves to burn right along side them. They are not men. Both barely qualify as being vaguely humanoid.
Lavastorm suggests that perhaps being a winner isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, based on the following (apparently typical) scenario:
So a “winner” is a “man” who follows society’s pre-programmed path to self-destruction (gets married, becomes the wife’s tool to keep up with the neighbors, works in a soul-destroying job, is destroyed by wife when she gets “bored,” gets blamed for “destroying the marriage,” is thrown to the gauntlet of dread judges, retarded pit bulls, and menopausing succubi who commence sucking his blood.
In case you’re wondering: No, he never closes the parenthesis. He’s Going His Own Way, grammatically.
>Well, David you have to understand that not all women are victims, despite they claim so…And my links are not only about evil women, they are about young innocent girls – as young as 13 – who enjoy 'to do with their bodies whatever they want' – and parents have not even the right to be informed. And in case something is going wrong with the girl, it's convenient to accuse the boy, a minor himself of being a rapist. Even if the boy is considerable younger than the girl. Problem solved. Feminism makes it possible…
>So how is any of this relevant to the topic at hand? It seems like no matter what I post here, or what people are discussing, you respond by posting random examples of evil women and/or evil feminists. What does birth control for teen girls have to do with anything being discussed here?
>David, The titel of this thread is 'Not-So-Beautiful Losers'and who says, the loser must be always a male.There are also female losers – I gave you some examples – but this is not PC. You never write about female losers and female assholes, right?You want the MRAs to be silent about malicious females. About Marc Lepine, I think, this man was mentally sick. A case for the loony bin.Good for us all, he committed suicide.His killings for sure did not help the Men's Rights Movement, more the opposite I would say.
>@ PamPAM BEGGED OFF WITH: "@bishopsinisterNo, in other words I'm not about to waste my time reinventing the wheel. The information is readily available, do your own research if you're truly interested."In other words YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. The end.Random Brother.
>Do I have to repeat myself "Also amusing: his sole source regarding the US is from a UK site." Every single link is from one reactionary UK news source, except one where the 'evil woman' was given a 7-14 year sentence. Damned injustice where the perp gets a decade in prison. Oh, and this case was far from the normal, according to the damned judge who oversaw the trial and who sentanced her "Judge Kenneth McHugh said Ruggiero's attempt to set up her ex-husband and use the legal system as a weapon was unlike any other case he has seen. "There's a lot of people, usually women, who have been subjected to abuse by their significant others," McHugh said, during Ruggiero's sentencing yesterday. "As a result of her actions, their cases, their safety, their security has been damaged. The web for this is much greater than what has just happened to Mr. Ruggiero.""I know when I see the words "unlike any case he has ever seen" said about a judge, I know that what happened is a system wide problem (<-sarcasm).On the issue of underage girls "…they are about young innocent girls – as young as 13 – who enjoy 'to do with their bodies whatever they want' – and parents have not even the right to be informed. " I am not a fan of arguments about parents having a 'right' to deny their teenage children any sort of medical care, including contraception. What is this, some sort of bizarre 'parent's rights' arguement? One that disregards the fact that half of parents and more than half of parents who are primary caretakers aren't men. What are you protecting these girls from? From being able to have consensual sex without getting STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and unsafe back alley abortions? Well, I think they are much better off without your 'protection'. You aren't whining about this because you care about protecting children, but rather about girls and women not being seen as perpetual paternal property.
>…about parents having a 'right' to deny their teenage children any sort of medical care, including contraception News are international, and if you do not like an UK source, look up for the same story from CNN or from any other English source in USA, Canada, Australia or elsewhere by yourself. I choose the UK source, because it is in English and David does not like links to foreign languages in his blog. There is no reason to give priority to US-press agencies as they are in no way more credible than news agencies from other countries. More the opposite I would say.You must have a rather good stomach to consider regular sexual contracts with men of any age including contraception and abortion as medical care for girls as young as 13. Cases are know where the girl was even younger, 11 or 12. I wonder if you are also so protective to young boys being raped by paedophile adult women, or if you are so protective to young men, still minors, who are facing a court as an adult for being a rapist and paedophile because they offered 'medical care' to these girls.Interesting also that you are talking about 'consensual sex' in relation to a 13 year old girl or boy.Parents rights are not 'bizarre', they are necessary. Your talk about paternal property is plainly stupid. Father, mother, son, daughter belong together – that's called a 'family' – do you know what this is? – and there should be no secrets among them. If a family is functioning normally, 13 year old daughters do not need contraceptives and still will never be pregnant, because they respect the decisions of their parents, of both mother and father.You are putting words in my mouth I never used. I said 'parents do not have the right to be informed' – I never said 'parents should have the right to refuse medical treatment'.
>@Yohan "There is no reason to give priority to US-press agencies as they are in no way more credible than news agencies from other countries." No, there is every reason to prioritize new sources from the countries in which the event occured whenever possible. News is contextual and an audience can very well miss critical points when going through an international middle man who might make mistakes about law and culture. I always prioritize linking directly to countries of origin for a story of statistic whenever language issues make that possible. It would not be a big deal if you had linked a UK site once, but you have done this repeatedly in regards to US stories and you (as well as some of your links) have demonstrated that you have serious gaps in understanding of US law and culture. "You must have a rather good stomach to consider regular sexual contracts with men of any age including contraception and abortion as medical care for girls as young as 13. Cases are know where the girl was even younger, 11 or 12." No, I nowhere referred to 'men' having sex with girls. I specifically discussed consensual sex. A man cannot have consensual sex with a 12 year old, another 12 year old could, however. And, when two adolescents are having sex, how are unwanted pregnancies and extra STDs an improvement on the situation? Studies on the matter find that most teens say that being forced to tell parents would not make them less likely to have sex, but would make them less likely to use birth control. It is far better for two thirteen year olds to be having safe sex and to not end up teen parents than it is for two thirteen year olds to end up with HIV or an unwanted pregnancy. "I wonder if you are also so protective to young boys being raped by paedophile adult women" Yes, yes I am. Not that it is really relevant to the topic at hand. "if you are so protective to young men, still minors, who are facing a court as an adult for being a rapist and paedophile because they offered 'medical care' to these girls." Wtf are you talking about here? I am not aware of a jurisdiction where sex with a minor of a certain age suddenly becomes illegal by offering them a condom where such sex is otherwise legal. " Father, mother, son, daughter belong together – that's called a 'family' – do you know what this is?" So, this is the limitations of you what you count as a family? If only 'traditional' heteronormative sexist models count as family, count me the hell out."If a family is functioning normally, 13 year old daughters do not need contraceptives " Teens have sex. Perfectly healthy good teens have sex. Honor student band geek teens have sex. "because they respect the decisions of their parents" Oh, so now teen girls use birth control for activities they do on their lonesome now? She's always responsible, isn't she, but she never gets control? Be obedient, girls, and don't have ordinary biological urges, or fuck all if we care what happens to you."I said 'parents do not have the right to be informed' – I never said 'parents should have the right to refuse medical treatment'." Legally mandated informing of parents amounts to the samed damned thing and reasonable people know that. I think it is best if teens are in situations where they can talk safely with their parents about their need for birth control or abortion. And, in reality, many teens do, however, in reality, there are also plenty of teens who can't. Part of the reason some girls can't is because of the bullshit attitudes like yours that say that 'normal' girls don't have sex or need birth control. Another reason is abuse (from parents or from others and not wanting to inform parents).
>Cat, your comment got caught in the spam filter. Only just now noticed it there and took it out.
>DarkSideCat: It is far better for two thirteen year olds to be having safe sex and to not end up teen parents than it is for two thirteen year olds to end up with HIV or an unwanted pregnancy. @ DarkSideCatYour comment is just crazy.Do you really suggest that 13 year old girls should have sex? And what about all these boys of similar age who have sex with those girls? Do you know that these boys will be convicted as sex-offenders for statutory rape? Or even might end up with false rape allegations, if the girl is asked what happened and she is telling a lie to her parents to get away with it if something is going wrong?Sure, as a radical feminist, you care only about girls and their sexual needs as they are 'victims'. arkSideCat: I specifically discussed consensual sex. A man cannot have consensual sex with a 12 year old, another 12 year old could, however. ?????You don't care about boys of the same age, 13, and what happens with them…Boys – minors – were sent to jail for years in USA for consensual sex with girls because the girl was a minor, too.http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/legalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=1