>
 |
| 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.
>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 menAssign or ascribe? Because most of the feminists I know are trying hard to get women admitted into combat roles in the military, and it's the anti-feminists who are trying to stop it. Hell, there's an outspoken feminists who pops in here from time to time who's also a veteran. It would be nice to see some MRAs advocate for women being allowed to assume combat roles and dangerous jobs, like mining or construction. I honestly have no idea why they don't. Maybe they just like having this to complain about. Maybe they're scared of women being successful military leaders or construction workers, and would feel emasculated by a female five-star general. Lastly, wars are mostly started by men and fought by men. It's not like women provoke the wars that they send the men off to fight – more women tend to the anti-war side of the spectrum.
>@Lady"Lastly, wars are mostly started by men and fought by men. It's not like women provoke the wars that they send the men off to fight – more women tend to the anti-war side of the spectrum."Just stop talking, please."Come back with your shield – or on it" (Plutarch, Mor.241) was supposed to be the parting cry of mothers to their sons. Mothers whose sons died in battle openly rejoiced, mothers whose sons survived hung their heads in shame.
>Wow-two whole examples out of what? A thousand? In Europe alone…she is accurate in that very few women have started or sent men off into battle.
>@missyb9479Hint: Women are attracted to men because of some intangible they posess that isn't just how they look or how much money they make. It's their personality. I know that MRAs hate hearing this because there is no product they can buy that will cause them to have an interesting personality.So being an activist for gender equality makes a person's personality not interesting to you? Interesting…
>So being an activist for gender inequality makes a person's personality not interesting to you? Interesting… Fixed that for ya. Feminists are on the gender equality, including those things that will benefit men. MRA's are in for continued and increased gender INequality – skewed in their heterosexist white cisgendered ablist male favour, of course.
>Right, because what drove WWI wasn't the assassination of the Archduke or the tenuous house of cards that was Europe's alliances and treaty network at the time, coupled with Bismarck's militarism. Nope. Not at all. It was entirely driven by the White Feather Brigade, and you can completely ignore the fact that this was started by a dude, too. An alternate reading is that this guy wanted to send off more men to fight, and convinced women to convince men to do it.
>Also, who was it again who was/is fighting for female inclusion in the military and combat zones, so that women can ALSO have the "honour" of dying for their country and men won't have to bear that burden alone?Was it MRAs? Yeah, funny that it was not at all. Such a shocking thing that it was feminists. Imean, this makes it TOTALLY clear and proves for once and for all that all feminists want is to be perfect princesses, sitting on their asses at home being protected while the enslaved men earn buttloads of money for them and die for their safety. Amirite?Fucking ANYTHING, actually, since one word isn't enough to describe the stupidity, how does it work?