>
 |
| Feminist Training Camp |
There’s only really one rule to follow if you want to get upvoted on The Spearhead: make sure you say something hateful about women! If you follow this rule, you can say almost anything you want, no matter how completely batshit insane it is, and still get a couple of dozen upvotes. Works every time!
Consider, for example, this peculiar wisdom from one fellow calling himself Anonymous age 68, taken from a long, rambling comment that, the last time I checked, had 35 upvotes and only 11 downvotes. Take it away, you lovable old kook:
For 45 years, the man-haters who run this country have been saying privately they want to kill most men. I read MS. in the 80?s, and it was there. In recent years, they have shushed the stupids who have been saying it publicly, but you can be sure they are privately saying, “NOT YET, STUPID!” …
Killing large numbers of men is the only one of the original feminist goals which has not yet been achieved. And, all the other things they have done to men were directly or indirectly in the original lists.
I subscribed to MS magazine in the 70?s and 80?s, until my stomach would not take it any more. They told right out in there, their original goals. The world cannot be safe until most men are terminated.
I tried to tell other men, who treated me like s**t. “Why do you worry about things like that? This is the USA, and nothing like that will ever happen. …”
Exactly what the Jew leaders told worried Jews in the 20th Century.That worked out real well.
Just in case you didn’t subscribe to Ms. in the 70s and 80s, and you’re wondering what the other original feminist goals were, here’s the whole list:
1) Buy comfortable shoes
2) Create Lilith Fair
3) Kill men.
4) ???
5) Profit!
—
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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>@Kratch,I believe I have found the comment that you were referring to and which I previously remarked upon. Yes, it was from Amused, who said:"I don't know, Kratch, MRA's have been talking out of both sides of their mouths on that one. On the one hand, men supposedly "can't stop" from penetrating a woman once they see a bit of cleavage, on the other hand, how dare anyone suggest that men are dumb animals with poor impulse control. On the one hand, sex for men is a "need" that must be fulfilled at all costs, on the other, men have intellect and willpower (unlike women, presumably). On the one hand, rape is a "natural" response to seeing an attractive woman, on the other, don't you dare presume that men are natural rapists. On the one hand, rape is about sex (and violence is just a tool, not the purpose), and on the other, how dare you presume that most men are rapists, even though most men are very much into sex. On the one hand, a female rape victim is always somehow responsible for her own rape because she failed to divine the true nature of her attacker before it was too late, and on the other OMG, women who presume that all men are rapists until proven otherwise are detestable man-haters, OMG!! So which is it?"I dunno, maybe it's just my "herd mentality" (unlike the men who display "pack mentality" with their "individualism"), but it sure as hell looks to me like she's paraphrasing and condensing the contradictory "truths" that MRAs are constantly spouting and asking you, "so which will it be, then, since it can't be both at the same time".And it's not just sex or rape that MRAs spout contradictory "truths" about, they do the same with, say, women working outside the home vs. women working within the home. If you work outside the home, then you're a vile feminazi who is stealing a job away from a man, and if you remain in the domestic sphere, then you're a privilege princess parasitic leech.Honest to God, should women just swallow the kool-aid en masse and let the world be occupied by men alone, since there's obviously no space where a woman can be that she's not offending some man somewhere? Would that make men happier?
>I carry a satchel ninety percent of the time. Not only does it carry my laptop, papers, cash and cards I don't have a bulging back pocket wallet When I dont I carry just a money clip. I have the feeling that 90% of the mra's posting here choose a fanny pack instead.
>@PamFeel sorry for them. It's all you can do.
>I know, I should just leave these bastions of logic and reason well-grounded in their own (un)reality. I just have a hard time believing that they can be that obtuse!
>@Pam: Want to talk about contradictory statements? How about attributing the arguments of a handful of MRA's to being said by all MRA's, but then demanding that Andrea Dworkin not be brought up when discussing feminism. Amused's response was a direct response to me, where I was simply answering the question David asked. And instead of addressing my point, IE, the reason Josh's PSA was offensive, I get told that MRA's are contradictory (and yet, David admits in this very thread that feminists have also been contradictory, for example, on the topic of pornography), and my comments reasoning was dismissed/ignored in favour of listing some of those contradictions between my opinion and that of others I am not even familiar with.@David, are you seriously trying to tell me that not knowing MS equates to being utterly ignorant regarding feminism as a whole? I have no interest in feminist literature, so I have no reason to go looking for it. I don't claim to be an expert on feminism, but I am certainly capable of doing some basic internet search's, and establishing an opinion based off of what I see being done by active political feminists and feminist organizations like NOW. If you are honestly prepared to dismiss anything I have to say simply because I didn't go out of my way to learn about feminist literature, well, that's fine, you were going to dismiss anything I had to say anyways simply because my opinion differs from your own. Now you just have an excuse to make yourself feels justified. Still doesn't change the fact that I have posited at least a half dozen questions to you that you have refused to answer, or have avoided. In one case, you even went so far as to say "I'll reply to your comments at a later time" and then nothing.
>Kave said"Nick I guess the answer is no.I also asked if you have ever learned about personal responsibility. I'm also going to take a leap and say that is a no as well.You also need to stop pretending that the evil is feminist, and start coming to terms with the fact that you hate women."Well Kave, I guess you are too deluded in your pathetic and bigoted feminist agenda.I pretty much call out on the persuasive sexism against men in today’s society in this blog as this blog is all about the bad things men do. My post are no different to feminists calling out on misogyny. Can you see the double standard? I guess not.I am aware that women have problems too. But it magically turns into sexism when men act the exact same way as feminists do except going in the other direction. This is sexism, discrimination, and oppression within it's self.But I don't think a feminist bigot will ever see this light.The bottom line is, when it comes to many feminists such as your self and David in this blog, its only sexism when criticism is going towards women.And when there is exposure to sexism against men in this blog, feminists are full of excuses and bogus justifications for it. This is why I totally think this whole blog is disqualified as there is no balance what so ever. Do you know what gynocentrism means?
>To say that men in today’s western societies have no problems at all is laughable. As it is when it's going in the opposite direction.But when men talk about male issues, they are likely to be accused of being misogynists, someone who can’t get laid, someone who disrespects women etc etc etc.If you can sit here with a straight face and not call this discrimination and oppression against the male gender, there is seriously something fucking wrong
>How about attributing the arguments of a handful of MRA's to being said by all MRA's…If the arguments that I have read are from only a "handful" of MRAs (and I have been reading their arguments and other materials for a lot longer than this blog has even been in existence, never mind when my awareness of this blog occurred), then I would think that the majority of the world's male population were MRAs, a great many not being vocal at all, and perhaps this is true.Yes, I have read items where one or more MRAs disagree with each other, but it tends to be over the issue of methodology not a critical examination of the often contradictory beliefs that they spout. I say contradictory when it's the same persons holding/stating beliefs that are mutually exclusive, or when some agree wholeheartedly with mutually exclusive beliefs, not when one disagrees with another. For example, criticizing/condemning those who might appear to be saying that all/most men are potential rapists, but then those same critics, when speaking in defense of porn usage, state that incidences of rape have gone down significantly with the increase in availability of porn materials and that if porn was banned all/most men would then be out raping women.The beliefs seem to take a 180° turn depending on what it is that those same persons are protecting/defending. …but then demanding that Andrea Dworkin not be brought up when discussing feminism.One single, solitary person (as opposed to many MRAs), whose primary focus was pornography and its effect of propagating a rape culture (not saying that I agree or disagree with her on this, just pointing out her main area of interest), is brought up time and again as being definitive of ALL areas of feminist thought and feminist concern for evermore. Additionally, bringing up Andrea Dworkin seems to be utilized as a method to bring the conversation to a grinding halt, as the persons who choose to bring her up seem to have no awareness of her works outside of a few out-of-context lines that appear in the ever-circulating list of "Feminist Hate Quotes", making the totality of her works or of any single one of her works rather difficult to discuss. By the same token, I wouldn't want to get into a discussion about, for example, the plays of William Shakespeare with someone whose sole experience of his plays is only a couple of lines from Hamlet or The Tragedy of MacBeth.Amused's response was a direct response to me, where I was simply answering the question David asked. And instead of addressing my point, IE, the reason Josh's PSA was offensive, I get told that MRA's are contradictory (and yet, David admits in this very thread that feminists have also been contradictory, for example, on the topic of pornography), and my comments reasoning was dismissed/ignored in favour of listing some of those contradictions between my opinion and that of others I am not even familiar with.That is a separate issue from what I was pointing out about your use of a small portion of Amused's response to you. Similar to the compilation and usage of that list of "Feminist Hate Quotes" (and no, I am not saying that you are necessarily responsible for that), you took a portion of Amused's reponse out of context and have presented it as evidence of her stating her own "hateful" belief, and then chastised David for not criticizing what you were trying to pass off as a "hateful saying" based upon that person's "hateful" belief.
>What Pam said. Plus, nick, you said:this blog is all about the bad things men do. No it's not. It's about the dumb things misogynists say. Many of these misogynists are MGTOW or MRAs. If I were writing about the bad things men do, this blog would mostly be links to news accounts of men committing heinous crimes. Ironically, there are a lot of MRA/MGTOW sites that basically do this, except with women instead of men, linking to or reposting every story of a "woman behaving badly" in the news they can find. I think that's pretty unhelpful, to say the least. We all know that individual members of both sexes do vile things. But the subject of this blog is misogyny. I've posted only a couple stories about crimes allegedly committed by men, and that was because the criminals in question seemed to be raging misogynists; one was a PUA whose "teachings" were basically a recipe for date rape; I mostly posted about what he had written, not what he apparently did.
>MRAs on this blog constantly make the mistake of thinking that they are representative of all men. It's incredibly arrogant, and, thank L. Ron, it's also far from the truth.
>“I think that's pretty unhelpful, to say the least. We all know that individual members of both sexes do vile things. “But that’s not true. Many of the posts that show “women behaving badly” include how these women are getting away with it, or are being excused and given lighter sentences. The domestic abuse industry alone is a huge example of society denying women perpetrators. It seems to me that many people, policymakers and law enforcement, are actually trying to deny these vile things. False accusations, when they are actually prosecuted, are done so, not because they did something vile in destroying a man’s life… No, when it is prosecuted, it is done so because “she wasted police time and taxpayer money”. "MRAs on this blog constantly make the mistake of thinking that they are representative of all men. It's incredibly arrogant"Are you referring to nick's comment "To say that men in today’s western societies have no problems at all is laughable."? because if so, then it would be contradictory to claim feminist's complaints about their problems in society is thinking they speak for all women and is arrogant. Most MRA's don't deny women had problems (though many argue those problems have ether been resolved, or are actually being held back due to poor methods being used, such as the fact that in the 50-60's, male and female domestic homicides were almost even. Since women's shelters became available, men's death's started to drop (since women now had an alternative), It is not unreasonable to question whether men having shelters would decrease women's death's, but that would require acknowledging male victimization), but the reverse clearly is true.
>No, rather I was referring to the fact that every time I call Wytche out for being a sniveling coward who preemptively wets his pants at the thought of possibly being mocked by anonymous internet commenters, he tells me it's because I hate men. No, dude. I hate YOU. You just happen to be a man. Similarly, every time anyone says something negative about MRAs, y'all are like, "More PROOF that feminists hate men!"No, dude. It's proof that feminists hate anti-feminists. Unsurprising, no? To say that men in today's western societies have no problems would indeed be laughable. Which is why nobody ever says such silly things, except for the straw feminists in Nick's brain.
>"To say that men in today's western societies have no problems would indeed be laughable. Which is why nobody ever says such silly things, except for the straw feminists in Nick's brain."sure, they don't deny the problems, but when a person tries to acknowledge those problems, they ether do so in a respectful, cordial manner, which gets them called weak and dismissed as just whining. Alternatively, if they aren't passive, they are labeled woman haters. There is no middle ground, you are ether whining or a woman hater, and quite frankly, that is why MRA's choose to be aggressive, because nether stance will be accepted, but an assertive stance will be heard. Feminists may not deny male problems, but they do usually deny a chance to speak for men without being personally attacked.
>"No, dude. I hate YOU. You just happen to be a man."—SSHey, go fuck yourself, misandrist.
>If she is not talking about any other men, how is that being misandrist? Are you the world now Wytch?
>"Are you the world now Wytch?"—dorkI'm from planet earth. Can't speak for you, however, or a twit that hates me because I don't cough up evidence for her fat ass. Maybe if I tell her to fetch some bon bons she'll work off the chub on her glutes and stop crying about not being fed the "correct" candy. Yah know, the expensive kind for only her lowness deserves to ingest.
>Someone is itching to be banned.You can dislike her personally just as she dislikes you personally-but if she only dislikes one man, that is not being misandrist. No matter how important you think you are.
>I dunno, Elizabeth, wytch's insults are so amazingly stupid I can't imagine they actually hurt anyone's feelings enough to merit a ban. They certainly don't make him look good.
>"I dunno, Elizabeth, wytch's insults are so amazingly stupid I can't imagine they actually hurt anyone's feelings enough to merit a ban. They certainly don't make him look good."—DavidJust wait 'til your feminist folk discovers what you really look like underneath it all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU91qV-n7Ss
>"Someone is itching to be banned."—ElizabethSomeone's feeling are hurt. Odd that, considering the mockery and scorn for anyone not feminist is twenty times as much. "Take it like a man!"
>"You also need to stop pretending that the evil is feminist, and start coming to terms with the fact that you hate women."—k(n)aveYou need to come to terms with you are a weirdo that likes watching men "help themselves" with 2 percent milk, and you rationalize statutory rape as a side dish.
>"No matter how important you think you are."—ElizabethA veiled insult! On your way to get your remarks deleted, Liz.You're like a tae knon do point sparring newbie getting owned by a cage fighter. Not a pretty sight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f77Pld4JAHg&playnext=1&list=PL0BC053E8D4859EA9