>
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.
>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/aw01e/aw01e.html here ya go Nick.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E16F8395B11738DDDAE0894D9415B878DF1D3http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Whunger.htmhttp://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/suffrage_brutal.htmhttp://www.jofreeman.com/aboutjo/persorg.htmhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2860794/effects_of_mass_media_messages_the_pg2.html?cat=9…………….Why is it so hard for men to make the effort?
>Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you.
>Elizabeth: "Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you."First off, you're have actually been opposing me. You are an example of why it is so difficult to get things done. Feminists didn't have an organized opposition, they simply had people resistant to change.Second off, MRA's already have women beside us. I notice you didn't say feminists will stand beside us. I suspect you know why, even if you're not willing to admit it, even to yourself.Third. men have already done a lot of work for equality by supporting the supposed feminist goal of equality. The fact you are claiming I'm calling on women to do the work to resolve our issues, when our issues are a matter of inequality that were supposedly the goal of the feminists so many men backed… you don't see a problem here? You don't see how this is an example of feminists getting what they want and then tossing the tools like David who supported them to the roadside ditch.It is exactly as I have said above, you and lydia both are acknowledging that feminism was never about true equality, but rather, just about getting women all the benefits men have and not making things equal. feminism was a lie, and it duped men like David into helping out, with the promise of equality.you still haven't answered my question… how is having a minister for women, but not a male equivalent, the same/equal?
>Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality.If men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it.Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment.If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one.
>"Why is it so hard for men to make the effort?"opposition such as yourself, and a failure of feminists like yourself to acknowledge the work and support men have already put into establishing equality (not realizing it was only equality for women).
>Kratch, political activism is hard. No one gives you anything. You have to work for it yourself. That's how it always works. Whites didn't just wake up one day and say, hey, let's give civil rights to blacks! No, it took a lot of hard work by mostly African-American activists, against incredible opposition, much of it from police and politicians, to accomplish anything. Male politicians didn't just wake up and say, hey, let's give money to DV shelters! Feminists and other activists had to build the shelters up themselves; most shelters still get their overwhelming majority of their budget not from govt. funds but from private donations — which is one of the many reasons "father's rights" activist Glenn Sacks was such a douchebag when he advised his fans to call donors to a DV shelter whose ads he didn't like. There are plenty of feminists doing DV work who would be happy to help men build their own shelters. That is, if the men in question don't: attack the funding sources of female shelters (like Glenn Sacks did); make jokes about and in some cases actually encourage DV against women (like Paul Elam and his fans); or generally spend the majority of their time bashing women and/or feminists and complaining about how unfair it is that feminists don't do their organizing for them.
>"Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality."That explains the existence of the womens minister, it doesn't explain the absence of them male equivalent."If men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it."But we were establishing equality, the need for a male equivalent was to maintain the developing equality."Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment."Thank you for reminding me. Black people have had it far worst, and still do, then women… why no minister for black affairs?"If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one."So it's all or nothing with you? You can't have men currently getting preferential treatment in some area's (debatable, but whatever, I'll roll with it), and women getting preferential treatment in others? and thus, a need for both positions? Why must there be NO preferential treatment of men in order for there to be equality in government?
>@Kratch: Men fought with women for women, women will fight with men for men. Unless, of course, you continue to blame feminism for men's discrimination and refuse to accept that most of your discrimination has been created by men themselves. Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!Also, why are there never articles about male discrimination in men's magazines? Why don't you ask the Playboy to write about male victims of sexual abuse? (And no, I don't mention the Playboy to mock you, I do so because it's a popular men's magazine and known for its brilliant articles.)The first time I've heard about mothers abusing their sons was in a TV magazine named Mona Lisa. As the title suggests, it was actually about women's issues. What do Spike and DMAX and Maxim TV report about all the time?
>There should be no preferential treatment of either sex. But if there is a problem for women in having equal treatment, it appears that it is being addressed by having this agency.This is not like dividing up cookies "one for Joseph and one for Mary." This is about addressing a lack of equal treatment.
>Lydia-I know! Naked chicks.
>David. Male private DV shelters have been attempted. They get strong opposition from feminist movements.here is an example of a handful in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1346600/Male-victims-domestic-violence-My-wife-knifed-back.htmlhere's a relevant quote"But the refuge faced a great deal of opposition when it opened, and still attracts criticism because it doesn’t run police checks on residents to see if they were, actually, the perpetrators of the violence."imagine if a men's movement demanded women checking into abuse shelters be run through a police check? there would be an outrage.The Easton Alliance for the Prevention of Family Violence appears to have gone under when it couldn't get further funding from the Ontario Women's Directorate, yet there are currently over 20 shelters in Toronto alone. men like yourself fought for equality right alongside feminism… We shouldn't be getting the opposition that we are from feminism for trying to get our share of that equality.Just imagine the outrage that would occur if an actual minister for the status of men was established (if you can't, look at the opposition and personal attacks Kristina Schröder's has gotten, and all she did was establish a department for men under her women's ministry.I'm curious if you're going to answer my question on how it feels to be told "you fought for equality alongside feminists, but that equality was only for women, if you want equality for men, you can start over on your own". it is a betrayal (at the very least, by Elizabeth, if you're unwilling to accept it as a common feminist view), and it seems to me you are making excuses rather then acknowledging it.regardless, I'm done for tonight. be back tomorrow.
>@Lydia:"Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!"Biological reality is no stereotype; men are physically stronger than women. To acknowledge this reality is perfectly healthy and beneficial to both men and women, because it recognizes that men have something unique to offer both to themselves and their loved ones. It is feminist ideologues who portray male uniqueness as a gender construct — a cultural myth — and anyone who fails to join them in their emasculation of men they accuse of promoting anti-male stereotypes! Now that's some demented thinking right there; promote a myth (men are identical to women), then suppress dissent by promoting a second myth (non-feminists are responsible for the first feminist-inspired myth). It's lunacy, it's ideological, it's dogmatic. It's feminist!
>Kratch: the article doesn't mention FEMINIST opposition to the shelter, simply "opposition." It may be that local residents didn't want it in their neighborhood. DV shelters for women often face this sort of opposition. Also, despite this opposition, the shelter survived. This is an example of successful organization. To write about it in the past tense "male shelters have been attempted," as if it's pointless to continue trying, is defeatist and absurd.
>Re: shelters that admit male victims:A men's advocate named Pete Jensen once told me that he tried to open a shelter for male victims. Immediately local feminist ideologues who were supportive of the status quo (i.e. no shelters for men) began demonstrating against it, saying that it would be a haven for batterers. They must have thought that homelessness and disempowerment of ALL male victims was somehow the only surefire way to ensure that batterers wouldn't offend in the future. And any genuinely non-violent male victims who might have benefited? Out in the cold.Not long after these demonstrations, Jensen's attempts at forming a shelter for male victims were met with bureaucratic stonewalling and he was denied a permit because of the efforts of a local county supervisor, who — like the demonstrators — also happened to be a feminist. It's not easy to advocate for men, especially when a shelter is intended to be built specifically for male victims.
>So basically there were some demonstrations against a shelter and some stonewalling?Is that any reason to give up? No. You keep working on it. That is why politics is hard. Keep pushing the issue.
>@Kratch: The reason Ms Schröder got these personal attacks was because she literally said the first gen of feminism was made up of a bunch of manhating, sexually frustrated lesbians (the latter word meant as an insult). Of course, she worded it more nicely, but it was still her who started the attacks in the first place. It's ok if she creates a boys' "department" in her ministry, but she shouldn't necessarily further perpetuate these kinds of stereotypes about feminism.By the way: you know that *gender* equality for men would mean more men in "weak" women's jobs?! One thing I've always wondered is how alright MRAs are with members of the society like stay-at-home dads. Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too and demand their share of equality by taking a traditionally female role. So they're basically liberating women and men at the same time! Feminism is alright with them. But Spearhead readers? This is one problem of the Men's Rights Movement: That when it comes to real gender equality, they live up to the double standards they accuse feminism of holding.@ Elizabeth: 😀 But seriously, I mean it. The Playboy would be a good magazine to host an article like this.
>Elizabeth It's obvious that all your links promote situations back in the EARLY 1900s era when not many people including the average MEN had no rights back then. If average men tried to promote rights back then, the same would have happened to them. Only the big boys had a say…just like even times like the 50s
>@Elizabeth:Pushing the issue involves pointing out the reality of anti-male bigotry, in addition to subsequent efforts. But think of it from a male victim's point of view. His vulnerability is precisely the notion that he is invulnerable. His weakness is the perception of his own strength. Even right here in this thread, DarkSideCat illustrated this same mentality, saying that vulnerable men somehow have a network of friendly supporters merely because most elected officials are males.My argument is that it doesn't require the legal, political and cultural emasculation of males in order for us to accept that males have vulnerabilities and for us to stand up and help men in crisis situations. You don't pass yourself off as an advocate for abuse victims and then in the same breath cite male hegemony as the pretext for leaving a particular male victim (or set of victims) out in the cold. Part of soldiering on is acknowledging these realities.A women's strength is her facade of vulnerability; a man's greatest weakness is his facade of invulnerability.
>@ John: Seriously, duh. I so knew some dude would show up and explain (mansplain) this to me. That's what I wanted to say: Even if it's true, if you keep mentioning this on you MRM sites, people will never take the issue of DV towards men seriously!"Oh yeah, we men are much stronger than those squishy wimminz, but *starts whimpering* hey, we're so threatened by those evil [insert disgusting slang word for the female genitals here]!!! Look what she's done to me: *lifts shirt to reveal tiny purple-coloured bruise* She's so evil!"Don't get me wrong, abuse of men IS serious and seriously horrible, but superior attitude + whining about every shit = bad combination.Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.
>John DiasYour truth gets pulled under the rug in a PC and feminist view. But *cough* we men have to fight for something that's nearly impossible to fight.As feminists are supposed to be about equality, they sure don't show it when it comes to equal concern and passion towards no matter what gender.All I see is women first, men second…if there is a second place. Probably no place at all. What does the equality movement (the gender police) do? NOTHING
>Since the issue of male domestic violence is a very serious one-a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have been enough to stop the creation of it.That male who was trying to do the laudable work of establishing a safe haven for a male victim could have gotten the feminists on his side-but did he actually call up the local NOW chapter and ask for help? Did he work with the churches in the areas? What did he do to establish the need for such a center for the local county board?Did he organize a petition drive and not just ask men but the women too? Did he get testimony from officers having to deal with the domestic violence calls?Did he contact the local and state political organizations to see what kind of resources did they have or were willing to commit?The women who were protesting-did he contact the leaders organizing those protests and talk to them about what evidence he had showing the need? Did he work with the local gay organizations?There is a lot that I do not know but I do know that it should not take one protest and one petty official to prevent something that needs to be done from being done.
>Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh
>ElizabethDid most men had much say to a woman in the early 1900s to the big boys?
>Your comment makes no sense and your previous one basically ignores what women went through to get the rights that men barely had to fight for. (With the glaring exception nonwhite suffrage.)
>@Nick: "Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh"Guys like you is why the Men's Rights Movement gets nothing done.