>
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.
>Elizabeth: “Kratch-that was then, this is now.” Irrelevant. During the beginnings of the feminist movement, there was a lot of angry women that said a lot of awful things. If it wasn’t for this angry, the movement wouldn’t have grown so quickly, as the drive wouldn’t have been there. Now men are starting to get angry, and despite feminist efforts to suggest otherwise, there are ample good reasons for it. But now you have people like David picking out the angriest amongst them for display, pretending that, because feminist anger doesn’t fester in the same way (ANYMORE), that it is somehow unacceptable and feminists are above that kind of thing (they weren’t, even if that was then this is now). Your argument suggests that you can only be angry if feminists are angry, or back in the 70’s, not anymore. That’s ludicrous”Also, most of the law I have seen regarding domestic violence is that whoever is the most dangerous is carted off to jail. “VAWA… Violence Against WOMEN Act.Perhaps this video will enlighten you. http://www
r perhaps an example of the policy that dictates police action, that assumes the abuser is the man and acts accordingly. http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/vawir_policy_2004.pdfElizabeth: “That young woman who slapped her boyfriend in the face was wrong-but the reaction of punching her face with a fist shows he is not only wrong but of greater danger then she is. Perhaps to you this is not the case and the slap is exactly equal to a punch. “Not sure what situation you’re talking about, but I’m referring to this one, where the man ended up DEAD, and his murderer got away with it. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html”Men are also encouraged to speak up when they are being harmed by a female-they are given the right to ask for protective orders, to seek legal redress when she hits him, and to be upfront with the judge regarding it. There are shelters where he can seek refuge. “Shelters? Care to name a few? There are homeless shelters, there are not abuse refuges. As for men being encouraged to speak out about it… ROFL.”Also, the reason that women get those resources is because women banded together and they worked their butts off for it.” So… because women worked for it, they should get it exclusively? So, all the things men have worked hard to build, we should get to keep that exclusively for men? Is that really the argument you’re trying to make? The funding is there, the law states the funding should be distributed to both sexes, there is no one in parliament who is speaking for men to ensure that happens, and that’s what I was told I was wrong about.”Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them.”Actually yes, many feminists ARE stopping them. Just look at the opposition I’ve gotten simply for mentioning it. Errin Pizzey has received bomb threats and threats to her children and grandchildren for speaking out on behalf of male victims. Google her.
>Elizabeth: I brought up DV as an example of men's voice not being represented in government. I think your last sentence…"Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them" acknowledges that men don't have these things (even if the claim no-one is stopping them is naive). If men had the voice in government darksidecat says they did, we'd have it and wouldn't need to push.It amazes me how easily people get off point in this place. I wasn't talking about domestic abuse, I was talking about men not having a voice in government, and you completely ignored that part in order to debate the example…
>The point is that men have a voice. They just need to use it. So if they do not have those things they want, then they are not using their voices.83.4% of the members of the US Congress are males. They have those men they can contact.78.4% of the state wide elected officials are male in the US. They have those men they can contact.76.7% of the state legislators are male. They have those men they can contact.To claim that men have no voice is ludicrous on the surface of it and goes downhill from there.Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response. That they fail to do so is not because of some sinister plot by women or feminists. Quit blaming women or feminists for standing up for their rights when your own sex refuses to stand up for theirs.
>man, what's with how stupid gynophobes are?Kratch – I love how people like you blame women for providing an example of how all men are violent abusers, but when a woman gets raped it's her fault because she should have known it was going to happen, and men can't help themselves because of evolution or whatever excuse you come up with to excuse how dreadful you are.I'm raising my sons not to rape and abuse women kind of the same way we raise our kids to share and not hit. It's worth mentioning, because every other source they're going to see and hear is going to tell them what a good idea it is, and how they can't be held responsible for the provocations of whores.Good luck with your terrible opinions, I hope they don't get anyone else killed or hurt.
>Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?*wrings hands*
>*puts on a cape and yells* "I WILL!!!"
>DarkSideCat"nick, it is not true that sub or slave necessarily applies outside of the bedroom either. I think you are confusing 24/7 with subbing. Someone can both sub inside the bedroom and be equal outside of it. Victoria is right, they refer to preferrence for specific types of sex acts/scenes."Wrong, a sub simply submits to anything (except his limits) 24/7 regardless if its sexual or not. This includes any activity out of the bedroom such as being told to do domestic chores etc. Or even when the sub is not in the dom/dommes presence and in his/her own house.A bottom is someone who simply only plays in the bedroom solely for sexual acts. When both people go outside the bedroom, the power play stops."Accusations of misogyny get thrown out far more often because it is far more common. First, because it is far more common in western culture, period"What a load of fucking crap!For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis.In the BDSM scene alone, if a man just simply shows lots of interest in his sexual fantasies, he is considered as a fake that just wants to use women in the name of BDSM. Yet females can express all they want about what sexual fantasies they crave in BDSM and never get shoot down by the community."But also because we live in a culture with expectations that men be the dominant or active sexual partner and that women be passive and submissive"Another load of total baloney. Especially when women everywhere simply express to men one way or the other if men don't act like this or that or treat women like this or that, these men will never get laid.If that's not domineering behaviour, what is?Sandy"Nick, as others have pointed out wanting a female lead relationship doesn't mean you believe in female supremacy"I never ever said that. But as usual, feminists like to twist things around. Please indicate where I exactly said that female supremacy and female led relationships are the same thing?My point is when I raised this topic, I expressed that many self proclaimed female supremacists in the BDSM scene also claim to be feminists. And these types seem to be the most interested in the feminism scene compared to others.
>"Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?"That's the typical sexist feminist attitude towards men's issues.It's mostly some sarcastic comment such as the one I quoted above or "what about teh menz"Wow, I thought feminism was supposed to be against sexism and discrimination
>Elizabeth, you are mistaking an individual voice to contact a politician with a voice that is a representative for the interests of the chosen target. Just because men are in office doesn't mean those men are representing the interests of men, they are representing the interests of everybody, and more often then not, women. it is as simple as this. There is a representative specifically for women in government. Gender equality dictates that there should likewise be one for men, and there isn't. it doesn't matter how the rest of government is made up, as they are supported to be representing the best interests of the people, all people, and that includes women as much, if not moreso then men. So if that is good enough for men, it should likewise be good enough for women and no gender representatives should exist. I consistently hear the claim that feminism is about gender equality, but when equality is asked for, that request is rejected. And people wonder why men are beginning to hate feminism, and realize it isn't about equality, but women/feminists getting their turn.
>@ Kratch: You from Germany? Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it. I mean seriously, blaming that young lady who certainly first needs to find her place in the government for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far? How could they do that? Hello? She's a WOMAN! Some patience please. Poor lady, and she just said that lesbians shouldn't feel uncomfortable about straight sex and that women shouldn't complain about getting paid less than men, because women all get paid like cleaners, even though they work as engineers in reality.Seriously, I don't get what the "fight" for men's rights is supposed to do with this post. So men being "critical of women" are allowed to spread their misogyny because they failed to create a male equivalent to feminism? Men's rights are one thing, stupid insults another. I'm telling ya, going on like this, you'll never reach your goal because no one will take you seriously. See, that's exactly what has been mentioned so many times on this blog. You just sit there and troll feminist sites. And if someone tells you to actually do something about your complains, you find a thousand excuses not to do this and blame FEMInism for not focusing on men. Elizabeth just said this above: Just think, what the feminists have done to achieve all this. What have you done so far?And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway? It's about misogynist comments from the Spearhead. Not a single mention of men's issues and the likes. David just points out that these so-called MRAs often DO hate women. There's no doubt about that, but no justification either.
>Elizabeth: "Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response. "Women likewise have these same rights. They likewise have the rights to contact those officials and have their voice heard. To petition fore redress of their wrongs. To run for office if they are dissatisfied. So why then is there still a government official specifically there to represent their issues? Why is it unreasonable to ask for the same, equal, representation for men?
>You know ALL of those laws you hate? Do you think that those just came about because one day, some men woke up and said "I am so going to pass a law that gives Title IX funding to women sports in colleges.""I am going to write and pass a law that gives women the advantage in divorces because well gosh darn it, those little ladies deserve it!"No, it is because women decided to get together and work to get what they wanted done. So in those places where the law seems to be ever so unfair to your gender? It had nothing to do with men suddenly deciding that being office means kowtowing to women-it means that they listened to the people talking to them. And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing.
>“And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing. “Political correctness stops men from even opening their mouths about male issues as we get accused for being misogynist, weak, whiners, someone who can’t get laid, or just because females had it worse in the past, men are not entitled to complain about female advantage in the present. If such strict political correct forms of poison didn't exists, there would be far more men trying to do something about it. In fact, these issues against men wouldn’t exists as we speak if such obstacles were not blocking that freedom
>"Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it."it was opposition to someone looking into the interests of boys."for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far"She acknowledges boys are falling behind in school. She established a department for boys and men. Are boys and men not part of a family? Are women the only indicator of what a family is, and thus, anything that isn't specifically tailored towards women isn't family related?"What have you done so far?"I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored."And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway?"Ask DarkSideCat, who choose to take a single comment out of a rather long post of mine, and turn it into a new discussion. Your tone seems to be directing the blame at me though. typical. just for clarification, I wasn't even claiming Boys and men needed voice in government (I do believe it), but instead was stating that Schroeder recognized that need.
>Elizabeth. Those laws were passed by the men as well as the women in office. why the need for the special women minister? The fact you don't see my point, that you're not even trying, is really annoying. this isn't (just) about men getting specific complaints addressed, it is about equal representation in government. Having ministers who are gender neutral, but happen to have a penis, is not a representative for men, they are representatives for the people. The minister for the status of women (In Canada, whatever in the US) is not a gender neutral representative, she is specifically representing the interests of women. IE, Government has an official that is specifically representing women's interests. Otherwise, all other representatives are gender neutral, regardless of their personal gender. In fact, if they do something that is in men's best interest, they will be accused of discrimination and misogyny and booted out of office. have you not seen the opposition to the presumption of shared parenting (unless deemed not in the best interests of the child) in custody agreements. Government officials are reluctant to even touch the issue, because it isn't desirable to the feminists who claim to represent women and equality (how is shared parenting not equal?), and they fear for their career's. Harvard's dean got sacked for nothing more then noting an observation that men seemed to do better in the sciences and maths.
>Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society. They were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions…And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to. Men refuse to organize and do anything for themselves because of what? Someone might laugh at them? It is not PC? Since when are men so fragile that the very idea that a woman or another man might mock or yell at them makes it impossible for them to do anything? Please, spare me the histrionics over that idea that men cannot organize for male rights.
>Larry Summers was not sacked for that reason-he did resign six months later and was given a very generous package upon his resignation.He was censured for being a boob though.Government officials who are too wimpy are being so because no one is bugging them about it. I know government officials-you ask them to do something and raise enough heat-they WILL act. So get off your duff and go demand that something happen.
>"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society. "So feminism never stood for equality like claimed. It stood for women getting what they want and men can go to hell. All those men who stood along feminism, calling and demanding equality, their efforts were only for women, not for themselves?thanks for finally acknowledging that.
>@ Kratch: "I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored."That's exactly how you guys are NOT supposed to do it. How many women have created self-help groups for victims of rape and domestic violence on their own? How many women have taken action for their cause with NO official help from the government and other institutions? If you wanna do something for male victims, please, do me a favour (seriously!) and go ahead. Inviting some guys over to you and offering a place to exchange negative experiences costs almost nothing and is arranged very easily.As for boys falling behind in school, how do you wanna know it hasn't always been like that? Maybe it's just more obvious, now that most schools are mixed?!? But kindergardeners and elementary school teachers have mostly been female in your praised Fifties too, haven't they? As well as the fact that boys are mostly raised by their mothers (women) anyway, as their dear fathers are out to work all day long.
>Kratch-what part of "the SAME rights…and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand? Same/equal means that it is exactly what men have. Not men get more. Not women get more. THE SAME.
>"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted…they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society.""They were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions…And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to." Please provide proof to all this harsh treatment of this
>"For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis."Not because he has a penis. Because you can't be un-raped after it happens. If I meet a guy on the internet I won't give him my phone number or address before we meet. I give him my google voice number which forwards to my phone but can't be traced to my address. I go and meet him in a public place instead of him coming to my house or me going to his. Is this because I assume he's a rapist? No, but because I have to protect myself. Rape is real. It does happen. And once it happens you can't go back and undo it. BTW, this is one of the things women talk about when they talk about male privilege. You don't understand the real physical fear that comes from something as simple as walking alone at night in the dark or going on a first date with someone. You can't understand it because it isn't something you have to live with. Just like I, as a straight woman, can't ever understand what it is like to be a lesbian and have to be afraid of expressing public affection with my partner out of concern that someone will be offended or might harm me in some way. I'd also say that the way that I treat strangers is just sort of common sense. If my little brother was going to have a first date with a woman he met online I'd also suggest he not give her his real phone number or let her know where he lives. She could be unstable or dangerous. It's a fact of the modern world that we have to treat all strangers with suspicion until they earn our trust. Women aren't being wary of you because you have a penis but because you are a stranger. Stop assuming everything is about your gender. It isn't. I also can't comment about the school posters because it's an issue I don't know anything about. I also don't know anything about German politics so I also can't comment on that issue.
>Lydia. MRA's are exactly what you are calling for, groups of men gathering together to organize a movement. It has it's angry quacks, just like the feminists did. Those angry quacks get more of a voice then most of the feminist quacks due in large part to the internet. of course, we're all labeled as misogynists for doing so. Even the most influential activists, such as Fathers & Families, has been called misogynists and have serious feminist opposition.As to boys falling behind. That's an ignorant argument your making.Elizabeth: "what part of "the SAME rights…and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand? " I'm asking you that very same question. Along with "How is having a representative solely for the interests of women, but not having a male equivalent (look up the origin of that word) "equal treatment"?"Women have a minister for women. having the SAME/EQUAL would indicate there would be a minister for men as well. What's your excuse for the inequity here?
>Missy. unfortunately, the school posters are an example of what we're talking about when being accused of being rapists. A women being cautious is prudent, even advisable, and most men (unfortunately, I can't speak for all here) don't hold that against women (in fact, many men will come to the aid of a woman. I have, twice.), except in ridiculous cases (IE, If I say hello to a girl in a club while at the bar getting myself a drink, and she treats me like a rapist, it will annoy me). But posters implying I might be a rapist, or implying men are all potential rapists or abusers. or the worst, posters that just say "men rape" (more subtle, but same message). That pisses me off. it would be like having public service announcements advising men that "women are looking to get themselves pregnant to bilk you of child support for the next 18-26 years". This doesn't say all women are doing this, just that there are women that are doing this… but I suspect the insinuation would piss you off just as much.
>I'm curious how men like David, who have been fighting right alongside feminists for equality, feel about being told "if you have problems, deal with them yourself. feminists had to fight for the equality women have, men can do their own fighting. and all the fighting you've been doing for equality was really just for women."David?