>
 |
| The face (and torso) of evil. |
Certain kinds of stories are like catnip to the Men Going Their Own Way crowd: Stories about rich airheaded women. Stories about golddiggers and giant divorce settlements. Stories about idiotic or incompetent women. So it’s no surprise that the tale of Patricia Kluge and her not-so-successful foray into the world of winemaking has sent the fellows on MGTOWforums.com into full-on misogyny mode.
Kluge, you see, is the former wife of a media mogul, and her divorce settlement in 1990 netted her hefty alimony payments, which are variously claimed to have been either $1.6 million a week, or “less than $1 million a year.” The article linked to by the MGTOWers says she was rumored to have collected a settlement of a cool billion bucks and that the reported $1.6 million a week was just the interest on this vast sum. Who knows? It was a shitload of money. Plus a giant fucking mansion. Whatever the amount, Kluge has apparently blown through it all, spending huge amounts on ostentatious luxury crap and burning through tens of millions on her less-than-successful winery. Last month the bank repossessed her mansion.
So: this terrible woman was also a terrible businesswoman. Well, yeah. But to the fellows at MGTOWforums.com, her singular tale is a sign that women in general shouldn’t be trusted with money — or with anything else, for that matter. Chainlightning started off what turned into a veritable misogyny cascade by announcing:
Women should never have access to money. Look at what happened to the US since the 1960s.
Systems1082 saw Chainlightning’s “women shouldn’t have money” and raised him with “women shouldn’t have the right to vote.”
It actually goes back to 1920 when women were given the right to vote. They have learned they can vote themselves other people’s money.
Stonelifter took it even further, suggesting that some women don’t ever deserve the right to live:
i don’t understand why men don’t engage in more murder for hire
He followed this innocent little query up with a reference to the evil feminist Karl Marx and his followers at “some college in Berlin.”
it goes back to about 1870 so so when marx decided tearing down Western civilization was best achieved on many small fronts and women would be one of them. Cultural marxism was tied up into one neat package in some college in Berlin during the 1920’s but the idea to have women voting to fuck everything up came to marx at the tail end of his life
XTC pretty much trumped everyone by taking it back to the source: that bitch Eve.
It goes back to the garden of Eden when Eve screwed us all over.
So there you have it. Eve ate an apple, Patricia Kluge blew through money she didn’t really deserve to have. Therefore, women are evil.
Um, have you MGTOWers ever heard of Nicolas Cage?
(Note: Before you tell me that Nic Cage earned his money fair and square, I ask that you sit down and watch The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider, National Treasure, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Face/Off, and Con Air. Then get back to me. I will allow that he did a pretty good job in Kick-Ass.)
(Note 2: By “some college in Berlin in the 1920s,” Stonelifter was of course referring to an assortment of Marxist theorists associated with a research institute that started in Frankfurt, not Berlin, in the 1920s, but which achieved its greatest influence after it moved to New York in the 1930s because of, you know, Hitler.)
—
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.
>@ozymandus, since I have been awol since I got my dragonage 2 on thursday, I will take the gamer line as a compliment. 😉 (I already beat it once through, I am part way through my second round and have decided to take a break to rest my eyes).
>I don't think some men understand that yes, most women, even "ugly" ones can put up an ad on Craigslist and find someone who wants to have sex with them. Actually, not so much. Craiglist fast and loose flagging policy means that one of the reasons the W4M section is so barren is because trigger happy guys flag the personal ads of women whose ads do not do anything for them. You can read between the lines of this "helpful" advice for making sure you don't bore or offend the poor men on craigslisthttp://www.eskimo.com/~newowl/pages/Craigslist_W4M_Issues.htmI can't remember if it was here or on Pandagon I learned this. Either way, it's a partial explanation for why the W4M section of many craigslist cities contains 4 ads for porno sites, one or two escort services and the one real woman who hasn't been flagged off yet.
>@DarkSideCatI am so, so jealous of you right now! I preordered my copy of DA2 off Steam and stayed up until midnight when it would activate… only to discover that I get caught in perpetual save loops whenever the game tries to save. They patched it pretty quickly, but us Steam users have to wait longer for Steam to pick it up. Who's got two thumbs and is now going to avoid preordering games on Steam like it's got the darkspawn taint? This gal! @ Ozymandias:That's the cutest story ever! My boyfriend and I met at the gaming/nerd club in college. We were friends for years before hooking up (and giving lie to the Friend Zone myth!), and he's putting together a Legend of the Five Rings game because I asked him to 🙂
>A couple of comments were in the spam filter; they're up now.
>kysokisaen– That's really interesting, actually. I didn't know that.DarkSideCat– My best friend has disappeared into his room to play Dragon Age. I miss him. I can only await with fear and trepidation the release of Portal 2…Lady Victoria– Like I said, TRUE LOVE.
>kysokisaen, that list is massively fucked up! What a pathetic bunch of insecure losers.
>@Victoria, I have the PS3 version. It is a bit glitchy, but apparantly not as terrible as the PC version has been. My favorite glitch so far involved one of my enemies running into a wall and getting stuck there. It defenselessly flailed its arms as I killed it. Easiest mid-boss fight ever. I also had one where my character was convinced a bare patch of ground was an enemy and I could not move on until I "killed" it. Luckily, it counted as dead once I had my mage throw a fireball at it.
>Iodine has just brandished female privilege as proudly as any feminist ever has. Women are almost never called "losers" regardless of their employment or social status.Terms like "loser," "creep," and "pervert" have become contaminated by their use as a label affixed exclusively to men. I've heard women talk about "stalker eyes" and how much a "poor loser" he was for not buying her dinner. The sooner feminists can acknowledge the male side of the equation and perhaps give men blowing their brains out more air time than skinny models, the sooner MRAs will be receptive to feminist ideology.Pro tip, guys: spend as much time on your personal appearance as you would like a potential sex partner to spend on hers. This includes time spent on grooming, cleanliness, attention to clothes and attention to physical attractiveness. Because we have as much a right to an attractive, capable partner as you do.This post seems to imply that women are somehow better partners than men are. Why is it that the burden is always on men to make themselves "attractive" for women, but if a woman is asked to diet – EEEKKKK!
>Mr. String, I find Victoria's point eminently fair. If you want a lazy-ass hairy un-makeup-ed androgyne like myself, then feel free to be as sloppy as you like. If you want a gym rat who wears attractive and fashionable clothing, you should probably be a gym rat who wears attractive and fashionable clothing.
>Mr String, how exactly does asking a man to spend the *same amount* of time and energy on personal appearance as the women he wants to date suggest that "women are somehow better partners than men are?"
>Women are almost never called "losers" regardless of their employment or social status.That is half-true. Men are judged more for their career and how many women they date. Women are judged more for being unmarried and childless. They are opposite sides of the same coin. In both cases genders are punished for not living up to expectations. Who is trying to break these expectations? Feminists. Terms like "loser," "creep," and "pervert" have become contaminated by their use as a label affixed exclusively to men. I've heard women talk about "stalker eyes" and how much a "poor loser" he was for not buying her dinner. And women are called cat-ladies, clingy, and weird if they are unmarried and/or childless. Again, it's opposite sides of the same coin. Look up from your own pain and recognize that other people have pain also. Patriarchy hurts men too. The sooner feminists can acknowledge the male side of the equation and perhaps give men blowing their brains out more air time than skinny models, the sooner MRAs will be receptive to feminist ideology.In one way feminists do deal with the issue of male suicide by trying to break down the gender norms that lead to it. But what exactly do you suggest that the feminist movement does outside of that? Feminists have an agenda of equality between the sexes. Male suicide doesn't exactly fit within that mission statement. Do you hold contempt for the animal rights movement for not doing more to deal with worldwide hunger?
>"However, this completely ignores the idea that maybe I don't want to fuck *them*."Yes, but that’s exactly the problem – women thinking they have a right to decide who they will and won’t have sex with. To String, et al, women are pussy dispensers. So, if the dispenser isn’t dispensing pussy on demand, there’s something wrong with it. And what’s wrong with it is usually that it thinks it has the right to decide for itself! Crazy! The idea that maybe – just maybe – people have *no right* to someone else’s body just because they want to is alien to them. Unless it’s their own body. Then, suddenly, bodily autonomy is an inalienable right. No one has any right to sex with another person. None. As soon as they accept this, perhaps they will grow up a little bit.
>The sooner feminists can acknowledge the male side of the equation and perhaps give men blowing their brains out more air time than skinny models, the sooner MRAs will be receptive to feminist ideology. I think you misunderstand feminism. Feminism is about achieving equality to men where women have unequal status (in law, society, what have you.) As such, it tends to focus on women more so then men-which is why you have attention paid to the skinny models rather then on the high rate of successful suicide by men. Feminists may be concerned about men's high rate of successful suicides but it is not the thing that we focus on because there are other things we are focused on.
>Elizabeth– That's not entirely true. While some forms of feminism are about women achieving equality to men, others are about breaking down the gender binary for both sexes. No form is necessarily better or worse than any other, and all forms of feminism tend to agree on 90% of the issues, but there is a definite theoretical difference.
>I agree, Ozy. In fact I have been chastised by other feminists for ignoring the plight of transgendered women. Of practicing "cissexism," the bigotry that defines people with vaginas as "real" women and people without vaginas as "fake" women. I appreciated her insistence that I broaden my mind and change the way I think about men and women. I wonder how much time MRAs spend listening to the concerns of transgendered men.
>@SallyOne of the writers on AVfM is gay, but because most men are straight, we do not give a disproportionate amount of attention to the gay and transgendered. I'm sure if an insightful transgendered man were willing to post his views on AVfM, we'd be happy to accept them. Paul Elam was a psychologist and, as stated previously, was happy to allow a gay man to voice his opinions on the site.Of course, neglecting the 98-95% or so of men who are straight in a so-called "gender equality movement" is far worse than focusing on men in general and neglecting to single out the plight of the transgendered. In fact, many feminists act out with hostility and become defensive at the mere mention of men's suffering. They also frequently pass the blame onto other "overmasculine" men (ie: the conspiratorial "patriarchy"), ignoring the neglectful mothers, unfair police, and prejudiced or ineffective teachers who mold those men into lives of deviance.@ElizabethFeminists may be concerned about men's high rate of successful suicides but it is not the thing that we focus on because there are other things we are focused on.And you've just given a very good case for the separate MRM. We actually are focused on men's suicide.
>@WalkerSo you think I see women as "pussy dispensers." That's fine, it's your damage to work around.@SallyI stop, pause, reflect, and say something along the lines of, "I didn't intend it that way, but I can see how it sounded racist. I apologize, I'll try not to do it again."What if someone said you hate men? Would you have the same insightful moment then, or would you dismiss the claim because men are "privileged" and hence can't be discriminated against?
>String-and? Who said you could not be focused on it? Are you saying that feminism should be focusing on it?
>"And just to add one more thought on the "men who can't get laid get mocked" complaint. SO DO WOMEN. And you know who loves to do this sort of mocking? MRA and MGTOW dudes who also complain about celibate men getting mocked. I couldn't even begin to estimate the number of posts and comments I've seen on manosphere blogs mocking fat women, women living alone with their cats, etc etc etc."—David FutrelleHow lame—you know that men get mocked far more, even with those blogs mocking women. And as far as She Wolf of the SS is concerned, by her logic these women being shunned, well: they also should be "creeps" (her words), and there is must be a reason for her it. That's by her logic. But you and others here would defended them while mocking "creeps."
>missyb9479 said… "In one way feminists do deal with the issue of male suicide by trying to break down the gender norms that lead to it. But what exactly do you suggest that the feminist movement does outside of that? Feminists have an agenda of equality between the sexes. Male suicide doesn't exactly fit within that mission statement."It doesn't, because feminists don't care about male suicide.
>Oooh, ooh, the Female Privilege list! I did a post on that explaining how MORE feminism, not less, leads to the fixing of these "problems", addressing each of these "privileges" separately and explaining it at length.Also, David, we can no longer be friends/strangers. You've totally ruined it since Ghost Rider is awesome as were Con Air and Face/Off. I don't know how I'll ever be able to respect you again! /wail(just to be perfectly clear, that was sarcasm! Although i do love Nic Cage (as well as Nick Cave, yums))It doesn't, because feminists don't care about male suicide. Wytchfinde: Wow you have an apt nick. Male suicide succeeds more often, female suicidees attempt more often. Men in general have better knowledge of deadly weapons and what not, which could be given as one explanation.However, men in general are ALSO actively discouraged from seeking help for feelings of depression. Actively, I say. Why is this, do you think? And really, DO think about this.Because seeking help (and in fact the very symptoms of depression itself! Co -inky- dinky!) is seen as "weak", and something women do/feel – that makes it BAD and men must never ever ever do that or they'll be punished for being "weak" and therefore "feminine", which we all know is the most shameful thing to be in the entire multiverse. Feminists are on this, I promise. When the Patriarchy/Kyriarchy is long gone, people will be able to seek help for whatever they need at whatever time regardless of their gender, because the gender binary is bullshit in any case.Also, why do men get mocked for "not getting laid enough", while women get shamed and suffer actual punishments for being "laid too much"? Could it have anything to do with the patriarchal view that men must dominate women, the more the better, and penetration = domination, while the dominated ones are women by definition (see also: why being gay is seen as bad), but only by one guy? Feminists are on this too, I promise. Slut shaming and expectations to be a player or be punished are right up there, built into the very gender dichotomy that feminism is fighting against.Also also, I have NEVER, in almost 10 years of netting and 5 years of actively pursuing feminist blogs, EVER seen ANYONE say that men can not be discriminated against. This includes Jill of I Blame the Patriarchy. As a feminist I personally don't agree with their viewpoint and dispute it, and never met a feminist online or off who do agree with that point.
>*please insert before the last sentence: If anyone does say that, I do not agree.
>Power matters when discussing prejudice. Is black nationalism the equivalent of white nationalism? No, obviously not. While it does involve racial prejudice, it does not involve the same power and it does involve more legitimate complaints of severe abuses. It does not involve the same semi-social legitimacy. To claim otherwise is to falsely equivocate and to claim that anti-male sentiment is the same as anti-female sentiment is a similar false equivocation. So, let us take a rad femme who genuinely hates men and is prejudiced against them. Is this a good thing? No, but it is not the equivalent of a man who hates women either, because it is not backed up with the same power and history. Context matters.
>Me: I stop, pause, reflect, and say something along the lines of, "I didn't intend it that way, but I can see how it sounded racist. I apologize, I'll try not to do it again."Dude who lacks critical thinking skills: What if someone said you hate men? Would you have the same insightful moment then, or would you dismiss the claim because men are "privileged" and hence can't be discriminated against? You implicitly conflated "being racist" or "sounding racist" with "hating black people."That right there is the core of your problem.You think, like so many other MRAs, that "patriarchy" is code for "men are evil and women are blameless." That's like thinking that the statement "I oppose white supremacy" is really code for "I hate all white people; all white people should suffer and die." Once you get this basic distinction sorted out, you'll no longer be confused as to why it's possible to simultaneously hate the patriarchy and love (some, not all, because people are individuals) men at the same time.
>@Sally – I'll try to things simple to avoid confusing you*:If someone said you were sexist against men, would you listen?The patriarchy means "rule by fathers." Additionally, many feminists assign a bulk of this so-called "oppression" – you know, not fighting in wars and being seen as more important in a family – to men. How is patriarchy theory anything other than assigning the bulk of blame for the ills of one group on the shoulders of another? If it weren't about men, why is it called patriarchy theory?Thank you in advance for your courteous and insightful answer. I would expect nothing less from someone of such a pleasant and rational disposition.*My fault.