>
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.
>Can any feminist please cite me how and where feminists care about men as they do towards women?What does equality mean?
>David Futrelle said… See if you can find the misogyny in these quotes:"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce." He's a misogynist because he dares to call a spade a spade."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." He's a misogynist because he notices that women like money. A lot.Some other clues: guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgression (how DARE he!!!), guys who regularly refer to women they consider (THAT ARE) fat as "manatees." That sort of thing. So basically anybody that has the audacity to tactlessly criticizes women is a misogynist.
>Evilwhitemaleempire:Blanket judgments are stupid. The blanket judgments of women in those statements make the statements misogynistic. If someone said "All (enter race here) people are lazy idiots," that would be racist because it makes a generalized stereotyped and untrue statement about a group of people.Just because one, or two, or all the women you've met "like money. A lot" doesn't mean that all women are gold-diggers. Don't make blanket statements about any group. It makes you look really stupid.
>Elizabeth said… "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."Yes the American revolution was barely a fight at all."what women went through to get the rights"They caught colds standing around in the cold and rain holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote at a time when most dudes couldn't either.
>"Don't make blanket statements about any group. It makes you look really stupid."Don't be a part of a stupid group and no blanket statements will be forthcoming.
>If someone said "All (enter race here) people are lazy idiots," that would be racist because it makes a generalized stereotyped and untrue statement about a group of people.But what if it's a true statement?You reckon stereotypes just materialize out of thin air without any factual basis and are not based on REPEATED observation?
>Evilwhitemalempire:"Don't be a part of a stupid group and no blanket statements will be forthcoming."You just made a blanket statement about making blanket statements. Okay, the blanket statements stated above are all about women. Not feminism, but women. I don't know if you've heard, but you can't choose your sex (right away). So, tell me, wise sir, how we poor unfortunate members of the Stupid Groups should save ourselves."But what if it's a true statement?"To be a true statement, it has to be true about every member of that group. Because you don't know every woman in the world or every (enter race here) person in the world, the statement is not true. The statement MAY be true for an INDIVIDUAL, but not for the group, even if based on repeated observation. For example, I have repeatedly observed white males beating their wives and girlfriends. But it would not be a true or fair statement to say "All white men beat their wives and girlfriends." That would do an injustice to a huge number of white males who do not beat their wives or girlfriends. The statement is true, correct, valid, and just for the INDIVIDUALS I witnessed, but not for the group.
>They caught colds standing around in the cold and rain holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote at a time when most dudes couldn't either.But the reason that most dudes couldn't either wasn't because they were dudes. Most dudes weren't landowners, but not because they were dudes.
>"But the reason that most dudes couldn't either wasn't because they were dudes. Most dudes weren't landowners, but not because they were dudes."Why didn't those dudes catch a cold holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote? Because, again, it took women to change something.
>Evil White Empire-after 1870, universal male suffrage had occurred. It took another 50 years of effort to get universal suffrage for the US.It was not a few women standing in the rain yapping.
>David. You dodged my question for a second time. You ether actually agree with these girls, that feminism has not been about equality, but simply about women… or you are a hypocrite, unwilling to speak a dissenting view to your followers, even when given a reason, despite your insistence that MRA’s should be speaking out against the trolls on their boards without cause. I'm truly curious which it is?Elizabeth: “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.”I’ve never claimed the minister for women wasn’t needed. I claimed there was a need for equality, in that ether both genders get one or nether. There being a men’s minister in no way hampers or impedes a woman’s minister, and yet, you yourself have said you will only support a men’s minister once all women’s problems have been solved… “If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to…”. Why the need to wait for women to get everything they want before men can be cared for? Why oppose a men’s minister (as you have been doing in this very thread) who can work separate and alongside the women’s minister so that both gender’s issues can be dealt with simultaneously? Why does a men’s minister seem so threatening to you? It’s not like a men’s minister is going to come in and take away all women’s rights again… unless you believe it’s women’s right to die 4 times less from suicide (not like a men’s minister would make women kill themselves to equal the tally ether), or it’s women’s right to deny their children from ever seeing their father, defying court orders in the process.Lydia: “Men fought with women for women, women will fight with men for men.”Men thought they were fighting for equality, not women. The fact that they were duped is why so many men are angry now. Perhaps you don’t see that now due to your female privilege? ;DElizaabeth: “a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have been enough to stop the creation of it.”If feminism was really about equality, a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have happened. Where is the equality in opposing male shelters? This is the problem you are having. You still believe feminism is about equality even as you are saying it's women only. Women only IS NOT EQUAL.
>Lydia: “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).”Not asccording to the interview as posted here http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,728175,00.htmlNotice that, according to this article, it was that very interview that riled Schwarzer. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,728207,00.htmlIn this interview she actually stated there was nothing wrong with feminism, that she simply didn’t agree with it’s core statements, and that her best friend was a feminist. Your impression of Schroeder likely comes from the propaganda levied against Schroeder since then by feminists that don’t like a women with her own mind being in power.“By the way: you know that *gender* equality for men would mean more men in "weak" women's jobs?! “And more women in the low end dangerous jobs that cause 98% of workplace deaths to be men? Or how about more women homeless and on the streets? Those men don’t get jobs at all. Your belief that women are on the bottom rung is faulty. “One thing I've always wondered is how alright MRAs are with members of the society like stay-at-home dads.”There are several MRA’s that ARE stay at home dads. Many of them are fathers rights activists that would gladly be stay at home dads if they could be, but aren’t even able to see their children at all because the mother denies court ordered access.“Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too “Again you acknowledge that feminism isn’t about equality. Male feminists also have to stand up for themselves, because feminism isn’t about equality.And no, not a single fathers rights activist would call himself a feminist. Many would have once upon a time, until they realized what you have said outright… twice. Feminism is only about women, despite the lies about equality.“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.”Read David’s disclaimer on the side. It specifically says his posts do not represent all MRA’s, that not all MRA’s are misogynistic. Don’t equate the tripe David puts here with the MRA.Lydia: “Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.”Why not, your actively opposing the idea of giving men assistance. And feminists have blamed me for women being abused (in this very thread I was accused of blaming rape victims for their victimization by Socratic method man. I've said nothing of the sort) and I don't oppose women's shelters. You’ve done so in this very thread. Your condescending attitude towards male victimization perpetuates the resistance to male support.
>Kratch, people in an oppressed or disadvataged group fighting for equality are fighting both for themselves and for equal rights for all. I certainly don't go around complaining that Martin Luther King didn't devote much of his time or energy to fighting for the rights of white people. (Though he actually made overtures to the labor movement and supported union members who were white.) So too feminists can and have fought both for equality and for women's rights — at the same time, because in a situation where women are disadvantaged they are the same thing. That said, feminism has never been only about women. Feminists fight against gender stereotypes that harm and restrict men — like reducing the stigma associated with men being househusbands, etc. And feminists have also challenged old notions of chivalry: every feminist I've ever dated paid for herself, for example. And feminism has simply expanded our understanding of the world, of culture and history. I'm a fan of horror movies, for example, and much of the best work on the subject over the past 30 years has come from feminists. I don't think it's possible to really understand what's going on in horror films without the insights we've gotten from feminism.These are just a few scattered examples, but it's very clear to me that feminists, in fighting for women's rights and equality (not contradictory things, but largely synonymous) have improved the world for men as well.
>David, I'm not talking about Feminists doing the work. I don't know how many times I need to say this. I AM talking about feminists BLOCKING efforts. Look at the opposition to my suggestion for a men's minister. Equality dictates there be an equivalent counterpart to the women's minister, and yet, Elizabeth and Lydia have both said men don't need one, that men already have representation from the politicians who are legally required to be gender biased. This doesn't demonstrate equality, it demonstrates female privilege… Women get what men have, but men can't have what women get/have. If feminists were really about equality, they would support a men's minister, even if they weren't willing to do the fighting… But that's not what we see here or elsewhere. We see resistance to the idea. The resistance Schroeder has gotten is example of this same feminist attitude actually being perpetrated in politics. This is evidence of why many people believe feminism has never been about equality, but rather, about female empowerment… As much as it can get, regardless of equality.If feminists were for equality, they wouldn't be so opposed to a presumption of shared parenting, making accusations about father's rights activists motives being a symbol, and that fathers don't actually want to spend time with their children (how is this supporting the reducing of the stigma of fathers being family oriented? If anything, it promotes the "fathers don't care as much as mothers do for their children" mentality)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement#Shared_parenting"That said, feminism has never been only about women. "Check. hypocrite. I actually asked you straight up to ether agree or speak against your followers, and you effectively refused until I called you on it. And even this paragraph of your's is coddling and excusing Lydia's claim that it was a fight for women only. If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only (as opposed to your claim here that feminism was fighting for equality, even if it would be more beneficial for women then men)."These are just a few scattered examples, but it's very clear to me that feminists, in fighting for women's rights and equality (not contradictory things, but largely synonymous) have improved the world for men as well."Fighting for women's rights is not fighting for equality… it is fighting for women's rights. They may not be contradictory, but they aren't synonymous ether. Equality for women, by it's very nature, is an inequality (it's an oxymoron), because it's ONLY FOR WOMEN. Something that is only for one group is not equal.
>I failed to complete my though…" If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only (as opposed to your claim here that feminism was fighting for equality, even if it would be more beneficial for women then men)."Should conclude If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only when you are specifically called out on it, then where do you get off telling MRA's that they should be telling off the trolls on their sites?
>Excuse you Kratch, I never said that politicians are legally required to be biased for one gender or not. Nor does the fact that there is a woman's agency mean that men are not having their rights ignored-it means that there is an effort to ensure that both sides have their rights respected.But I think you are ignoring that and assuming a lot that is not in evidence.
>Kratch: Given that neither Lydia or Elizabeth has said what you claim they have said, no, I'm not going to "tell them off."
>Elizabeth: "Excuse you Kratch, I never said that politicians are legally required to be biased for one gender or not."That was my error, I meant unbiased.. It wasn't intended as an accusation of what you said. I can’t edit old posts to correct that mistake. This shouldn’t have been difficult to identify as a typo, given my argument up to this point. Therefore, the statement should have read like this: “Equality dictates there be an equivalent counterpart to the women's minister, and yet, Elizabeth and Lydia have both said men don't need one, that men already have representation from the politicians who are legally required to be gender neutral. “David: "Given that neither Lydia or Elizabeth has said what you claim they have said, no, I'm not going to "tell them off.""Lydia said "@Kratch: Men fought with women for women,."… FOR WOMEN. not for equality… FOR WOMEN. “..women will fight with men for men.” Future tense means the fight was never for men, or equality in general. men’s concerns will have to wait until the women get what they want.Elizabeth said “Quit blaming women or feminists for standing up for their rights when your own sex refuses to stand up for theirs.”“Their” rights, not equality, “their” rights. Men need to stand up for their own rights, regardless of feminisms claim for supposed equality… and should expect to get resistance to those attempts from feminists, just like she’s providing resistance to my suggestion. Elizabeth’s resistance to a men’s minister demonstrates as clear as saying it outright, that equality will not be accepted if it benefits men. Her suggestion that men shouldn’t get a minister until all women’s “inequity” is dealt with is ludicrous and sexist, and flies in the face of true equality.
>The world, for the most part, is already biased towards able-bodied, straight, white men. It's not able-bodied, straight, white men's fault that the world is biased towards them. The point is to be aware of that bias and privilege and fight for equality.That's why we need representatives for women, different races, et cetera.
>"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."I am puzzled as to how "pump-and-dump" is consistent with conservative values. Is this a man who believes this kind of conduct is immoral, but only when engaged in by other people? "Logical", my foot. Penises have no logic.
>Lexi: "The world, for the most part, is already biased towards able-bodied, straight, white men. It's not able-bodied, straight, white men's fault that the world is biased towards them. The point is to be aware of that bias and privilege and fight for equality."And does that also mean that concerns that affect able-bodied white males should be ignored? What about males that aren't able-bodied or white? A men's minister would also look into things like the reasons and solution for high levels of minority incarcerations, or equal funding for prostate cancer research and awareness campaigns. He would look into homelessness (being that 90% is male) and suicide rates (80% of suicides are male. In Canada, suicide is the the leading cause of death after disease/cancer. Higher then accidents. That's right, more men kill themselves intentionally then die by accident).The fact that white males may be privileged (debatable, but irrelevant.) doesn't mean they have no problems to address, or that their problems should be ignored."That's why we need representatives for women, different races, et cetera."we're not talking about why we need representatives for women (and there are non for other minorities, they all get lumped under heritage or culture. FYI). I am asking why there is not an equivalent male minister.. equivalent meaning equal.Amused: "Penises have no logic."Guilty of the same kind of generalizations you claim him of.
>@ Kratch: "Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men tooAgain you acknowledge that feminism isn’t about equality. Male feminists also have to stand up for themselves, because feminism isn’t about equality."In fact, I was actually referring to the MRM's supposed antifeminism, not feminism. I wanted to ask how this goes together that a person can stand up for both women's and men's rights, as many a MRA thinks that doesn't work.By the way, most feminists I know stand up for true gender equality. It's just that there are issues that affect mostly women, issues that affect both genders equally, and issues that affect mostly men. Of course a movement that calls itself FEMINism (this is getting repetitive) would care mostly about women's and gender equal issues. That doesn't mean they're against the fight for men's rights. It just doesn't make much sense to blame feminism for not focusing on issues like military draft, as (at least in Germany) this doesn't affect women, but is instead a perfect example of discrimination from men against men. So I think men are "emancipated" enough themselves to work against things like this on their own instead of blaming feminism for not doing that. It's a question of independence and capability, or, as my maths teacher liked to word it, being "grown up yourself". Stop thinking mommy will come to clean up your self-created mess.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".
>Lydia… Again your missing the point. men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts. This very debate alone is a prime example… "Men don't need a voice in government, they already represent X%" is not an egalitarian response to pointing out there is a minister for the status of women but not a male equivalent."Oh, and I never said I oppose the protection of male DV victims."I'm not certain if I accused you specifically, I don't think I did… I'm generally speaking of feminism as a movement. The prominent and politically active feminists that do oppose men's issues being addressed. Who claim acknowledging men as victims/women as perpetrators is misogynistic.
>"I'm not certain if I accused you specifically, I don't think I did… I'm generally speaking of feminism as a movement. The prominent and politically active feminists that do oppose men's issues being addressed. Who claim acknowledging men as victims/women as perpetrators is misogynistic.""Lydia: “Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.”Why not, your actively opposing the idea of giving men assistance."Do I really need to reexplain why people think the MRM has no clear stance on what its goals are…?Seriously.And, seriously, again:"men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts."It isn't. Duh. Not gonna say more on that. 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??? Seriously. For the third time.But hey, Ms Köhlerschöder is preggers, did you hear? Maybe she's having a boy, so she can pamper even more men while her hubby is out to work doing absolutely nothing for his gender.Maybe the feminists should start some "Adopt a Men's Righter" campaign where each of us teams up with a man who's got plenty of complaints but no way to get them through, and help him fix his problems. I mean, come on, we've come so far all on our own, it won't be much of a deal for us to take care of some guys' discrimination.Oh no, my inner Good Samarian just came through again.
>What do 99 percent of feminists do to make things better for women?They always use the word "we" as in they had a part of it to….yeah right, as if I am going to fall for that. Only a small minority of feminists have actually made things happen.99 percent or all the feminists on the net who tell MRAs to do something about this or that are hypocrites as they are practically doing the same which is sitting on their fat ass and complaining on the internet and then use the word “we” as in they had some part in making things change for women.The next feminist who tells MRAs to do something about it, think about your own hypocrisy before you open your hypocritical mouth.As for telling men to do something about it; for example, what can I do about getting more support for male domestic violence victims such as getting shelters? I could stand at the government’s door and scream all day about it. I would probably only last 5 minutes anyway as the cops would take me away. As it’s politically incorrect to complain about male issues, the complaint mostly falls in deaf ears. That’s mostly the reason why nothing ever get’s done about obvious issues. We are whining misogynist even if we just talk about it.Yet things like billions of dollars get handed to the VAWA so easily. And then they have the audacity to call them selves the second class citizens. heh