>
Discussions of dating on The Spearhead? Pure comedy gold. So here are some more highlights from the Internet dating thread I talked about in my last post.
Let’s start with a comment so delightfully loopy I went ahead and screencapped it, for no good reason. Nergal suggested that women over 40 weren’t worth dating. Another commenter challenged him on this, which resulted in this response:
Now, granted, I’ve never actually seen deflated balloons half-filled with cottage cheese, but I, er, have seen recent photos of Jennifer Aniston topless. And I’m guessing there isn’t really much resemblance. Anyone else thinking of that line in 40 Year-Old Virgin in which Andy compares a woman’s breast to a bag of sand? Seriously, if you’re going to throw Jennifer Aniston out of your bed, do it because of The Bounty Hunter. Or Love Happens. Or The Break-up. Or Marley And Me. Or All About Steve. (Oh, wait, that was Sandra Bullock.)
Meanwhile, The Man On The Street attacked evil women for deceiving men by wearing makeup:
Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce. A mask. Just as the phony paint (made of foreskin and feotus’) that many women use to fool silly beta types into believing the false front of beauty.
Herbal Essence — not to be confused with the shampoo of the same name — lamented that “online dating is a female candyland of power trips, validation-seeking, and ego boosts,” and related how he totally put down some dumb broad he met online. I would bet good money that whatever happened between Herbal and his alleged date did not actually go down this way:
I once had a 2 month-long relationship with a girl. She flaked once without explanation (the third date) and I told her very politely but firmly not to do it again. She did it again three weeks later, and I sent her a text that said “You’re dumped.” Two hours later, I had a hysterically crying girl on my doorstep, begging for my forgiveness. I told her “In the age of cell phones there is simply no excuse to disrespect my time like that. Go home.” and shut the door in her face.
Big Daddy from Cincinnati, the author of the post that started the discussion, added a few more thoughts. including this bit of advice:
For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it.
Yeah. I’m sort of thinking that a guy who uses the phrases “pump and dump” and “lick it and stick it” will set off asshole warning alarms in most women even if he doesn’t start blabbing on and on about how much he loves Glenn Beck. Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok.
Firepower wins the award for brevity with this little gem of misogyny:
Playing hollowed-out courtship rituals with single-mom manatees stoked with anti-depressants (mainly SSRIs) is no great calling for a man.
But WGMOW wins some points for managing to compare women on dating sites to two different animals at once:
[M]ost of the women on the “serious” dating sites tend to look like elephants and/or have the intellect of a howler money. But they’ve been schooled by the dating industry to believe that they are beautiful on the inside, and that you, as a man, are shallow if you can’t sense their inner beauty. However, don’t expect one of these monsters to look for your inner handsomeness, only your wallet. Despite the fact that they claim to be strong and independent, they are just looking for a man who can “Support them in the style I’m entitled to.”
Keyster suggested that any man who decides to go ahead and date one of these SSRI-taking elephant-manatee-monkey women should make sure to illegally record their sexual encounters so he won’t be accused of breaking any laws:
[I]f you insist on persuing pooh-tang for fun, ALWAYS have a recording device rolling. Preferrably a video camera. You don’t want your life ruined by a bitter revenge seeking shrew. Remember all they have to do is dial three numbers 9, 1 and 1, and you’re screwed for life. Protect yourself!
I’ll end this little compilation with the always-quotable Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c), who attacks women for … not wanting to have sex with robots. Seriously.
You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides. Today measured in money. No-one is going to pay a robotic man to work so he won’t bring you what you so clearly want. MONEY.
On the other hand? How much money are MEN spending on robotic women? LOTS. And why are they doing so? Because they percieve that there is a MASSIVE market for robotic women. Why? Because they will be EASILY preferable to the VAST MAJORITY of real women. For a start they will have an OFF BUTTON.
Something tells me that when the sexy robot ladies arrive at last, there will be men on the internet complaining about what a bunch of bitches they are.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Hi, this is Christine, Big Daddy from Cincinnati's brother's girlfriend. If you read his article, you will see that he said something disrespectful about me, I suppose so he could look "cool" if front of all the guys on spearhead. (And then he shared the article with his brother!) I sent an email to the owner of this blog, but I wanted to go ahead and share a little bit of what I said in my email here."Let me give you a picture of who "Big Daddy" really is: he is fat (yet he criticizes fat women?), mumbles when he talks to the point that I can't understand him half the time and generally seems like an unhappy and controlling person who never has any fun. It seems to me that he is writing for spearhead just to get attention and feel important. I know he has been unsuccessful with his dating life over the past few months (surprise, surprise!) and I suppose this is his way of putting the blame on women instead of looking at how he needs to improve himself. I actually feel sorry for "Big Daddy" because I can tell he needs more love in his life: both in learning how to give and receive love. I sincerely hope he releases all this negativity so that this can happen one day. I just wanted to share this so that people, especially women out there who might be taking these misogynistic websites seriously, to get an idea of who is really behind these articles. These so-called men are barely even worth paying attention to. They feel inadequate and therefore need some kind of outlet or someone to blame."As someone who used to be a victim of domestic violence, I don't see any difference between the attitude of my former abuser and the attitudes of these men, including "Big Daddy". But that's okay. I am in a great relationship now. Somehow his brother turned out to be a wonderful man despite the abuse they both went through during their childhoods. While my boyfriend learned to cope by improving himself, Big Daddy just seems to only know how to cope by being arrogant. I have two hopes for Big Daddy: 1) That he eventually learns to be a happier and more loving person, and 2) That his daughter never ends up meeting a man with his attitude.
>Lydia wrote:"Oh, and I never said I oppose the protection of male DV victims. I just said it doesn't go together to constantly brag about men's supposed superior strength and then to wonder why it is so hard for society to acknowledge the existence of DV against men. You know, I believe the word for that is 'logic'."In my opinion, the reason why society doesn't acknowledge male weakness is indeed related to this phenomenon. Men feel a need to be validated and elevated by women for framing themselves in the protective role. Lydia, you're a woman and so I don't expect you to relate, but as a man — even an MRA myself — a man's desire to be the hero and swoop down and rescue can be very powerful. Female validation can also be very powerful to a man. But helping a man? As a man you don't get validated for that, and you often don't get praised; you just have to quietly have empathy and help the guy. It's not usually going to earn you any brownie points if you're a male elected official and you point out an injustice that males suffer from disproportionately. The way that you must help males in reshaping public policy — and this is a political strategy — is to somehow show that you're helping females. Unfortunately that's often the only way to get such legislation through the gates, and to neutralize opposition.In a separate comment, Lydia wrote:"Most countries are ruled by men, and yet all those men can't do something for male DV and rape and divorce gold-diggery victims? It really DOES take – duh! – A WOMAN AGAIN to create a boys' department in her ministry???"Maybe it does take a woman in public office to feel more empathy for a man, compared to the empathy that male elected officials would care to display. Personally I've noted this phenomenon. A woman risks nothing about her womanhood if she stoops so low as to advocate for male victims; this is not the case for a man, who risks being called a misogynist merely for speaking on behalf of vulnerable males. Maybe it would be a good idea if more women ran for office; no one is stopping them (except themselves).
>“Do I really need to reexplain why people think the MRM has no clear stance on what its goals are…?”I did not accuse you of opposing the protection of male victims, I accused you of opposing assistance. There is a difference, a subtle one, but a significant one. I said “getting men assistance”. That includes a minister for status of men, which you HAVE opposed. My statement remains true.“"men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts."It isn't. “It is. It’s doing it in this very post when people say shit like “Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?” in a clearly condescending post. If male issues aren’t even aloud to be mentioned without ridicule… THAT IS opposition. It’s no different then telling a woman to go make me a sammich. The words themselves may seem benign, but the meaning is crystal clear… dismal. And there are many dominant feminists (the ones that actually count in defining what a feminist really is) actually doing things to oppose men’s issues, Harriet Harmen being an example.“And the next thing you're quoting – I believe Elizabeth said this? – it's true! Most countries are ruled by men, and yet all those men can't do something for male DV and rape and divorce gold-diggery victims? It really DOES take – duh! – A WOMAN AGAIN to create a boys' department in her ministry???”You just don’t get how government works. It has been feminised. It requires the men in office to think of women first in order to not piss ff the activists. Men being in power does not mean they can use that power in gender biased ways, they are required to be neutral at best, feminist at worst. Male issues will incur the ire of the feminist movement, and that can risk career’s. And for this reason and for true equality, there must be a men’s minister to represent men’s issues, who is allowed to be somewhat biased in government, JUST LIKE WOMEN HAVE. Why is it so hard for you feminists to understand what equality actually is?As to a woman creating the department for boy’s in her ministry, it’s much harder to be called a misogynist when you’re a woman, therefore much easier to do things for men. But as I’ve noted, she’s still getting attacks from feminists. And what’s her being “preggers” have to do with anything? Or is that just another attempt to somehow undermine her qualifications? And I thought feminists were about breaking down gender roles, seems to me you are trying to enforce the stay at home mom, working dad gender role“Oh no, my inner Good Samarian just came through again.”And we return to condescension and dismissal. Whatever, go make me a sammich!
>"Amused: "Penises have no logic."Guilty of the same kind of generalizations you claim him of. "Kratch: Yes, I hold on to this ridiculous notion that no person can claim to be a logical thinker just by virtue of his or her sex organs. I don't believe there is any scientific proof to support the idea that having a penis fosters logical thinking, but feel free to prove me wrong. Same applies to vaginas. A generalization? Please.
>"seems to me you are trying to enforce the stay at home mom, working dad gender role"You're not really good at understanding sarcasm, are you? I meant that SHE as a WOMAN has to take care of men while her dear husband, … yeah, what, actually? What's he doing for men? I just wanted to point out what the MRM is suffering from. By the way, this goes out to John, too, I'm much more eager to call women misogynists than men. BECAUSE I rather expect a man to stand up for his own gender. When a woman does so, I always just think of the overprotective mother cow."And we return to condescension and dismissal. Whatever, go make me a sammich!"Again, sarcastic comment to point out what's wrong with…(continues forever).@John: Is that the reason why so many men started feeling "useless" when women became liberated more and more? Because we don't need your protection anymore? See, I notice quite a lot that some men are totally "focused" on women. Sexually and socially. It's like you're still trying to impress us, as in pre-feminist times, but at the same time, we've become competition for you. Is that correct? This is one of the saddest facts about men, that somehow liking women and staying away from them doesn't go together for you. That would indeed be "Happy Bachelorship". Instead, for many of you, it's either loving or hating us. I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves, and if a guy is threatened by his woman, it's not about weakness, it's not about being perceived misogynist, it's not about being a "White Knight", it's just about saving yourself, which, in that case, means getting away from that woman.
>@Lydia:"@John: Is that the reason why so many men started feeling "useless" when women became liberated more and more? Because we don't need your protection anymore?"I don't usually say this because I consider it to be rather low-brow, but in this case your comment calls for an exception:LOL!Sista, are you on crack? Who is enforcing the laws? Who is running the military? For that matter, in an intact family which partner — husband or wife — is the one expected to go check out that creepy bump in the night? Not women, you can be sure of that.If you feminist women didn't actually need the protection of men as a result of your physical nature, then you wouldn't constantly be calling for the passage of so many draconian laws. You would just be.
>“You're not really good at understanding sarcasm, are you?”This isn’t the first time you’ve accused someone (and not just me) of this. Perhaps you just aren’t very good at delivering it? Or perhaps, you’re prone to revitionist history, equating something as sarcasm in order to avoid owning it? Oh, but that couldn’t possibly be the case, nothing is ever a woman’s fault, right? (Sarcasm)“ I meant that SHE as a WOMAN has to take care of men “You’re mistaking a desire to do something with it being required of her. She chooses to stand up for men, she doesn’t have to. “What's he doing for men?”I’m not sure, but as a man and an elected official for all people, not just men, he needs to be careful. Daniel Raad is the first male politician to speak up for men, and he came out swinging, no subtleties, no tiptoeing around the issues. He laid out the truth and has gotten a backlash for it. But it was the only way he could, any man could. He had to get all the issues out in the first strike and hope people could see them as truth before he gets buried under feminist attacks. It was a HUGE career gamble that will follow him the rest of his life, good or bad. We shall have to see how it plays out, but if he doesn’t get the boot, you can be certain many other countries will follow behind. If he does get the boot, well, point proven… It’s dangerous for a man to speak up.“I'm much more eager to call women misogynists than men. BECAUSE I rather expect a man to stand up for his own gender. When a woman does so, I always just think of the overprotective mother cow.”Acknowledgment that standing up for the male gender is considered misogynistic or somehow wrong IE, being an overprotective mother cow (and I thought David was blaming MRA’s for equating women to animals? Seems it’s a trait of feminists too). “I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves” ROFL. Many Feminists to this day still blame everything on men, “the patriarchy”, and their oppression (to this day), hardly what I’d call taking responsibility for themselves. Taking responsibility means owning your own failures and mistakes, not just your success. Battered wives syndrome being an excuse for murder or chopping off penis’s, and post partum for infanticide, are perfect modern day examples of ways some women DON’T take responsibility for themselves. Not to mention your repeated refusal to acknowledge saying “you don’t need a men’s minister” isn’t resistance to suggesting a men’s minister, despite the plethora of issues a men’s minister could and should address. Despite the definition of equality demanding an equal counterpart to the female minister. It’s also a very lonely life looking out for yourself and no-one else. Likely the reason mothers hoard the parenting responsibilities. Because despite all your complaints, it still remains a fulfilling role.“and if a guy is threatened by his woman… …it's just about saving yourself, which, in that case, means getting away from that woman.”And what if it is about his children, just saving himself doesn’t do them any good. Do feminists not understand the concept of putting others before their own needs? It’s just about being responsible for yourself… no-one else? No wonder so many of our youth today are arrogant little s#!ts, no-one takes responsibility for them.@amused… and it really is no man’s calling to try to court a manatee, single mom or otherwise. Different species after all, and the aquatic environment would just add too many complications long term. If you want to play word games, go right ahead.
>@Lydia:"I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves, and if a guy is threatened by his woman, … it's just about … getting away from that woman."And just what mechanisms do abused men have for getting away from abusive women? Their physical strength advantages, in the public's mind, unfortunately overshadow the hidden but superior emotional strength that it took for such abused men to constrain their own urges to strike back at their female abuser with physical violence. So you say that women should never be challenged, but that the man should run away from her and lose everything that matters to him in the process — his children, his home, his life. Judges, because of the White Knight urge in so many men, are predisposed not to take women's abusiveness seriously, and therefore they are much less likely to grant an abused man's request for a restraining order against an abusive woman. Knowing this reality, many abused men won't even make the request, because it's likely to backfire and simply result in a protracted legal battle that will likely leave them penniless, childless and emotionally broken and despaired.The devolution of authority from the family to the State just makes these types of outcomes inevitable. The State doesn't care about you; it's not your family; it has no blood connection nor emotionally compelling loyalty to you. The State also considers female-perpetrated emotional abuse to be harmless, but an emotionally abused man feels emasculated. The State considers emasculation irrelevant, and typically will not order the female perpetrator of emotional abuse to attend a program for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. At best, it will refer such female abusers to attend a program which urges them to consider themselves victims and to make better mating choices in the future. Female abusers are simply not challenged enough in this culture.And you're expecting men to just flee, like chased dogs? It's time that we as a culture started challenging abusive women as the perpetrators that they are, rather than victims.
>"LOL!"What lol? I'm into girls. The last thing I need in my life is a man, or a society ruled by men who can't do anything for themselves. That doesn't mean I hate men.To Kratch and John: You guys sure know to read between the lines. Or read between someone else's lines, because I can't remember having said all those things you accuse me of saying. John, I said that women don't need protection because YOU said it's a man's urge to protect women. There you go. Protect yourselves. And please where did I say men should just run away losing everything they have doing so? I was thinking of DV shelters which provide a place for men, and yeah, their kids too (if they have any, wasn't thinking of that, btw, sooorry) to get away from the woman temporarily.Women, especially feminists, DO take care of themselves nowadays, that is to say, they have a job to sustain themselves and don't worry as much about "finding a man" as they did in earlier times, as opposed to a man who still needs to show a woman what a great guy he is and feels "unmanly" if his woman doesn't depend on him. "Not being needed by a woman" is still one of the biggest threats to masculinity. Where, do you think, does all that hatred towards lesbians come from?Is that why you think feminism opposes men's rights? Because you simply misinterpret that into its teachings?
>@Lydia:"John, I said that women don't need protection because YOU said it's a man's urge to protect women. There you go. Protect yourselves."Women need protection BY men FROM men (and from women too). Whether that is in the form of a husband, a boyfriend, a security guard, a policeman or a soldier, you're already getting the benefit of men's protection even as you run around saying that you're somehow independent of men's protective qualities. You just don't realize it.My original point is that since there is a strong urge in men to protect women, it's hard for some chivalrous men to acknowledge that women can be violent or abusive, and therefore they are easily manipulated into interpreting women's abusiveness as some sort of defensive reaction, never offensive. Chivalry is, in fact, what I believe to be the motivating factor for so many male elected officials voting in so many one-sided (i.e. women-benefiting) and draconian laws which can turn every male into a criminal in one instant, so long as there's some woman to call upon some judge while she points the accusing finger.And as far as your comment on supporting men's access to safehouses for domestic abuse victims, that's commendable. But the vast, vast majority of domestic violence service providers turn male victims away from safe houses for DV victims, if they acknowledge male victimization at all. The best that a man can hope for is to get sent off to some hotel with a voucher in hand, and in terms of security a hotel is not always the equivalent of a domestic violence safehouse.
>“There you go. Protect yourselves.”If we do protect ourselves from violent women such as self defence, we are yet still seen as the bad guy as the saying goes "violence against women is wrong no matter what"Even women…yes women… are probably more likely than men to have this mentality of female privilege."Not being needed by a woman" is still one of the biggest threats to masculinity"Can you please provide substantial evidence to this? More than anything, myself and the men around me don’t want to be a life support system for women or in other words, a financial slave.Myself and the men around me want a woman who has the intelligence and capability to financially support herself without bumming off of others.
>Lydia As your big bad patriarchal, woman oppressing, government gives around a billion of tax payers to VAWA each year, would you have a problem if VAWA started getting a lot less?….Like the funds from tax got halved because now tax from males won't be counted to support VAWA?After all, women can look after themselves now right? So for that, VAWA funds should be cut in half as no more tax from males should go into VAWA funds, instead it should go into funds to support men.Would feminists be protesting over this? I think they would without a doubt as feminists usually want their cake and eat it to.
>Lydia: "You guys sure know to read between the lines."perhaps it is that your underlying feelings are more prominent then even you realize. As for everything I have "accused" you of saying, I virtually always put the quote right before it. you're more then capable of reading it yourself and finding why I made the accusation, and then being certain not to make the mistake (if it is one) again… or do you need us men to spell it out for you? It might also help to realize, that when I say "feminists", I'm not talking about you specifically, though you may or may not be included amongst them, I am talking about the feminists who influence politics and industry… the feminists that actually matter and act on their opinions.
>"This is one of the saddest facts about men, that somehow liking women and staying away from them doesn't go together for you. That would indeed be "Happy Bachelorship". Instead, for many of you, it's either loving or hating us."—LydiaStaying away from a misandrist like you is a good thing.
>Women need protection BY men FROM men (and from women too). Whether that is in the form of a husband, a boyfriend, a security guard, a policeman or a soldier, you're already getting the benefit of men's protection even as you run around saying that you're somehow independent of men's protective qualities.You're claiming that 100% of soldiers, police officers, and security guards are male. This is obviously false. The corollary is also that security guards, soldiers, and police officers offer protection not to society at large, but to women as a class, because they are appointed to do so by men as a class. Are men therefore excluded from the protection of the police or the army? Obviously not. Another false construction. The entire structure of governance and the social contract comes into play here. There is nothing intrinsically gendered about getting a government together, passing laws, deciding on a mechanism to enforce them, and hiring people to do the enforcement. It's ultimately the government that bears the responsibility for the protection, not the police or the army. And when the government is elected by the people, it's the people who bear the ultimate responsibility. So I think it's a little presumptuous to claim that the entire structure of governance and law enforcement is just a favor that men do for women.
>"There is nothing intrinsically gendered about getting a government together, passing laws, deciding on a mechanism to enforce them, and hiring people to do the enforcement."That statement begins to fall apart once government has one person placed specifically to be biased in favour of one gender but does not for the other.
>@SallyStrange:"You're claiming that 100% of soldiers, police officers, and security guards are male. This is obviously false."I apologize if I seemed to imply such a ridiculous thing, so please allow me to clarify. Unlike the female population of soldiers, police officers and security guards, from a security standpoint the males in such roles are actually necessary.
>John: Okay. Men protect women — until they don't. And women need men to protect them — until we have to fend for ourselves. There were exactly two times in my life where I found myself in actual danger at home from an intruder. Both times, I protected myself and the other people in the house. On one of those occasions, I was with my boyfriend, a very traditional patriarchal type who liked to brag about how women need men's "protection". But when it became clear that someone was lurking in the apartment, he told me he had a stomach ache, gave me his gun, explained how to use it, and I ended up protecting BOTH of us. Turned out, I really didn't need him to protect me — the gun was enough. Which once again demonstrates what I've pointed out before: your superior muscle power is increasingly irrelevant in a technological world. People who use and invent technology don't need you to protect them — you need THEM to protect YOU.Growing up and throughout my life, I saw men bragging about doing "manly" things, while women actually did them. Women supposedly needing men for their muscles and their money — it's 99% empty chatter and bragging, not actual reality.There is something else that needs to be mentioned. Earlier, John Dias, you stated how a woman can't possibly relate to how a man feels. Accordingly, I assume you cannot possibly relate to how a woman feels, but suffice it to say, it's deeply humiliating to be required to always be a victim in order that some guy may validate himself by "saving" you. Men who see themselves primarily as saviors of women need women to constantly be in danger. They actually don't give a shit about the quality of women's lives — if anything, they want women's lives to suck, so that there is "saving" to be done. I mean, they feel useless otherwise, right? Once again, I don't expect you to relate to how women feel, but personally, I prefer to live by that famous principle that Benjamin Franklin came up with — that people who trade their liberty for temporary security deserve neither, and in the end, lose both. Thus, I'd rather spend my life in greater danger than be a perpetual victim in order to provide some guy with a raison d'être; it's better to die than to live at another's mercy and be treated as a perpetual child and a lackey.