>
 |
| Women in groups: Always trouble. |
One of the strangest places in the burly world of Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers is The Spearhead’s Shieldmaidens forum. And no, I am not making that name up. It’s a forum, essentially, for women interested in being a sort of Women’s Auxiliary to a bunch of guys who are all about hating women.
Given that such a role – trying to help dudes who don’t much like you or your whole gender — is a bit of a tricky one, the forum moderator Hestia has written a long introductory post explaining just what new gals should and shouldn’t do to support their menfolk. It’s kind of a masterpiece of doublespeak. Let’s look at some of its highlights.
Hestia starts out by warning the ladies that these rough men sometimes talk in a rough manner:
As this is a male environment, us girls can expect styles of communication that we might not use ourselves or readily relate to. For the purpose of this post, I will call all of this “locker room talk”. … Topics and expressions women may find crude are likely to occur and generalizations about women (or white, western, whatever) used to adequately get a point across. These differences, while bothersome to some women, are not wrong in and of themselves and are not reason to shame men into expressing themselves differently. As women in the locker room, we are the ones who need to look the other [way] and make accommodations; not the men for whom this website is for.
In other words: the guys here may call you sluts and whores and worse, but really, that’s your fault for being here in the first place, so don’t complain.
Welcome aboard!
Hestia continues:
We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today’s misandrist world. … We should not be bullying men into saying, “yes, indeed not all women are like that!” to appease our own egos. … This is sacred male friendly ground and should be treated as such. … We are but guests on this website and must know our place and respect certain boundaries for the sake of the men here and for the work towards gender peace.
Hard to be more abject than this. So how have the menfolk responded?
It appears that not too many men actually read the Shieldmaidens forum, but among those who do, the reaction has been a little less than enthusiastic. Our friend GlobalMan, one of the more excitable Spearhead regulars, basically tells her (and all women) to fuck off entirely:
I have voiced my opinion many times women should be banned all together from here. They are contributing nothing and they are taking up a lot of time and energy of the stupid young men who do not realise that women are just attention whores who won’t actually do anything at the end of the day. ….You women pretty much fuck up everything you stick your nose into. And you never, ever tire of fucking things up for men under the delusion you have ‘something to contribute’. You don’t. Get over it. You pop out babies. That is your one and only ‘claim to fame’ and it used to be enough for a man to love a woman for her whole life and to provide for her and the kids. Now it is not. So you women need to ‘act like men’ and suck it up.Indeed. If women had any class at all you would leave of your own accord and let the men sort out what you refused to. The only posts from women here should be ‘Men, please tell us what to do’.
A fellow calling himself Diogenes offers his two cents:
That Hestia has to write this thread proves that indeed women who come to this board do exactly that which she complains against. They have such a cozy and male-coddled life that they are shocked when some men rightly express their scorn and foul language towards their attitudes and manipulative behaviour. Women BREED misogyny because all they do is constantly manipulate and get the attention and protection of men by trying to look sexy all the time. Every time a man turns his head towards a pretty lady, she knows she is being looked after and will be rescued by a man if ever her poor little ass does something stupid. They are CHILDREN at heart. One female college student mentioned to me how according to her “every girl” has gone on dates just to get free dinners. How much more proof do we need that women are NO GOOD WHORES?
I guess that’s some of the “locker room talk” Hestia was warning the ladies about.
Granted, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen the inside of a locker room, but I don’t remember much of the talk in the locker rooms I’ve been in revolving around the no-good whorishness of all women. I think that might be because most men are not in fact hateful assholes who think all women are NO GOOD WHORES.That’s just a theory though.
—
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.
>Okay, that doesn't even make sense. "You know who else picked and chose things? HITLER!"Now go read more than the first sentence of my comment. I'm not retyping it, it's still up there.
>Heres a fun story, women getting men to kill for them in defense of a false rape. Too damn sweet.Exactly one year ago, on April 18, 2010, Felisha Hardison, 25, from Latrobe, Pennsylvania, along with her mother, picked up a group of young men, ages 19-22, and drove them to the home of Cody Wightman, 25. Hardison and her mother then sat in their minivan while the young men proceeded to kick in Mr. Wightman's front door, then punch and kick him, and finally, beat him with a claw hammer. They cut Mr. Wightman's head and bruised him, but, thankfully, Mr. Wightman survived the attack relatively unscathed.The attack occurred because Hardison had told her mother and the young men that Mr. Wightman had raped her. Police say the rape claim was false.Last Friday, Hardison, her mother, and four of the young men pled guilty to charges in connection with the attack.It turns out that several weeks before the attack on Mr. Wightman, Hardison had falsely accusing another man of raping her. She pled guilty to that charge, along with charges related to the attack on Mr. Wightman, last Friday. In that earlier false rape claim, Hardison told police she had been raped by a man with whom she has three children. She claimed the man forced her to have sex with him, punched her and choked her, and videotaped the act with his cell phone camera. The man denied the allegations and said Hardison made the accusations to get custody of one of their children. A review of the cell phone camera footage contradicted Hardison's claims of rape and showed the two had consensual sex, police said. Last Friday, two of the young men in the attack on Mr. Wightman were given maximum sentences of 23 months and two years respectively. Hardison's mother was given a sentence of nine to 23 months in jail, but she was given credit for time already served and is no longer in custody. Hardison and two other young men were given sentences of two to four years. But note, Hardison's sentence also included her unrelated, prior false rape claim, so, presumably, Hardison received a more lenient sentence for the attack on Mr. Wightman than the two young men who merely exacted her vengeance against Mr. Wightman.
>Wow, restraining orders, huh? THAT'S what you're going after as a crime against men?So I have a question: Say a woman has assaulted you. Say she hasn't been convicted for whatever reason, or maybe it wasn't all-out assault but she's just been persistently extremely threatening, and you're very afraid of her and don't want her near you. How would you like the law to deal with this?Don't say "ARGLE BARGLE THE LAW HATES MEN AND I WOULD BE CASTRATED AND SHE WOULD GET A MILLION DOLLARS," I mean how would you like the law to deal with this?Maybe they could issue some sort of… order… an order that… restrains… her from coming near you? Wouldn't that be a better solution than living in fear?(Also, no idea where you got the idea that this could be done over the phone, seriously. At a very minimum you have to sign stuff.)
>Christ, lay off the ctrl-v, dude. You don't have to copy-paste the entire Spearhead in here.We get it, sometimes women harm men. I actually don't deny this. Women are people, and sometimes people are assholes. Nonetheless we as a society give people rights, and that's a good thing.
>@Holly…I guess it's lucky were not in the same room. Under VAWA if a man uses "logic" on a woman it's considered DV. You could have men incarcerated. Sounds like Marxism.I read your comment Holly and you read mine, but apparently you couldn't make sense out of it? Come now you'll have to do much better than that. You understood. As Aristotle said, "Women do quite well under Tyranny."
>@NWOslave: could you actually, y'know, source these quotes and stories? Cause as it is, we have no idea if you're just pulling these out of your ass.
>Did you just threaten to hurt me?Or do you just not understand how hyperbole works, so you're saying things like "Under VAWA it's considered DV if a man rides a unicorn past a woman eating peas!"All I can say is I don't even know how women are DIFFERENT from men, most of the time. I got born with a vagina, is all. Trying to make the best of it. Working a job, dating a nice fella, arguing on the Internet with people who want me to, I don't know, stop being so darn vagina-having or something. If you were born with a vagina you'd do the same.
>It's not even true that there's no trial with a restraining order. Anyone has the right to challenge a restraining order in court. I know someone who did it successfully.NWO, you're just spouting bullshit with the occasional kernel of truth–again. You have not a grain of credibility with anyone here.
>NWOslave-restraining orders require preponderance of the evidence and in Arizona at least, emergency orders can be granted over the phone only from a peace officer's request. Not merely the plaintiff's request. It only lasts until the next judicial day unless there is a reason to extend it. Note in my link it says nothing about only women getting those orders-men may get them as well. As for the county I live in, Maricopa-one court does video orders from people still in the hospital. Yale also is a private business, if they wanted to throw anyone out for any reason, they could. Preponderance of the evidence is a reasonable standard to remove someone the campus when you are dealing with someone who could, oh, I do not know murder one of the students.
>This…no longer even slightly resembles a conversation anymore. Summary:various people: Some points about the MRA movementNWO: Terrible things said/done by women!various people: Rebuttal or reply to NWONWO: More terrible things done by women!various people: More rebuttals and repliesNWO: More terrible things done by women!
>Why quote a story about a guy who did not die and claim that women are having men murdered on false claims of rape? Having men beaten yes, but murdered? That is not evidence of it.
>@Holly…Oh no, no, no. "Rights" are for women not men. Lets run down the list of rights.Men have NO reproductive rights. Don't even think of saying men have the right to not have sex, because after the man and woman have sex and conception takes place they BOTH could've not had sex but they chose to.We went trhu it yesterday that after divorce men have NO rights to their children. Women get default custody, this cannot be denied.A restraining order means men have NO right to even dwell in an apartment with a woman if she chooses to evict him.Under VAWA, in a domestic dispute a man always is the "predominant aggressor" And under VAWA someone MUST go to jail, even if the man is the one bleeding HE will go to jail. He has NO rights.Title IX which I just showed you extends like a venomous snake, usurping the right of innocent until proven guilty, further under the new Title IX the accused, (man) will not even be able to confront his accuser. Both of these are against the constitution. Under Affirmative Action in 2012 50% of all CEOs will manditorily have to be women, no merit is required, only gender. These men will be fired. I have felt first hand the quota system when applying for employment as a maintenance manager. The fellow doing the interview leaned in close like it was a conspiracy and said, "you're perfect for the job but I NEED a woman to fill the position." I have NO rights to equal opportunity employment. I didn't fill the quota.You speak to me of "rights." We live in a Marxist country, where one rule applys.Men are Imperfect Women. Men are Broken.Men are the burgiousse oppressor class.Women are the peasant victim class.Man = Bad.Woman = Good.
>You want sources? When I give them you discount them, whats the point? You want a source for VAWA, google it. Stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. Any other time you're all geniuses, now all the sudden you're helpless know nothings?
>I think that guy was just using it as an excuse to not hire you. "Psst, I am not hiring you, not because you are an unqualified weirdo who would scare our clients but because we need a woman."
>@Elizebeth…Oh so a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, like that never happens right? Then she rounds up a bunch of friends to teach that evil rapist a lesson. He dies and they go to prison and this isn't a prooblem for you? A dead man and men in prison who ran to save a womans honor. Go feminism. This happens all the time, but I guess sometimes men falsely accused of rape can learn something. Isn't that what one of your great leaders said?
>@ Elizebeth…Yea that it lizzy, 25 years as a machinist, wireman, machine designer, installer and assmbler yet a 2 year college girl was better qualified.
>NWOslave-I gave clear evidence that disputes your points about restraining orders and private business controlling access to their property. And where in the VAWA says that men are automatically stripped of all constitutional rights? Considering the SCOTUS easily smacked down some of the law, you would think they would have noticed a provision that said "ALL MEN LOSE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THIS ACT AND WOMEN ARE NOW THE SUPERIOR SEX."
>You haven't answered my question, NWO. (You haven't answered ANY questions except "would you like to unfocusedly rant some more?")If a woman had threatened you and was stalking you but could not be incarcerated, what would you like the law to do about it?
>No NWOslave, it does not happen all the time. It did not even happen in your example. So if you are going to claim there is mass slaughter of men over false rape accusations, find some actual evidence or admit you are wrong. (And no, I do not expect you to admit you are wrong.)Also, again, the guy probably was not going to tell you the real reason he was not going to hire you-it would hurt your widdle feelings.
>Wow, I am not even a feminist and I agree with most of the quotes NWOslave presented. I am guessing that was not the intended effect. But what is so bad about most of these? I don't agree with the ones about beating up men or running them over, because I kinda like not getting beaten up or ran over. But apart from that, it's a pretty good collection of quotes, if you believe in that sort of thing.
>Under Affirmative Action in 2012 50% of all CEOs will manditorily have to be women, no merit is required, only gender. And nobody told us feminists? How could that be? Must be a conspiracy…
>@Holly…Oh I see, someone "could" murder someone else? Sounds just like all men are potential rapists to me. Maybe the State can offer more protection. More power to the State, yaaaayyy!!! Better yet why not just have a man kill another man by false accusation, or does that never happen. This way you can kill two birds with one stone. Plus you can ask the State for even more "protection" Go State.
>Now all we need is for NWO to demand to see Obama's birth certificate.Come on, NWO, you know you want to go there! Get out that tin foil hat!
>Uh, she is asking if YOU a MALE has a female in YOUR life who is not leaving you alone despite repeated requests and her not violating the law in a way that would send her to jail, what would you do about it?
>I'm starting to think that NWO is, um, it's not too much of an ad hominem if I go with "drunk," is it? Under the influence of something–internal or external, temporary or permanent–not giving him full use of his cognitive functions. Maybe drunk.Never even mind content, I'm just talking about the typing here.