Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Picture the scene.
It’s January 1997. Arnold’s in a good mood, sitting in his den, paging through the latest issue of Variety. He chuckles to himself. Fuck the critics! Jingle All the Way is putting asses in the seats of the multiplexes of America, and that means money in the bank to the Terminator.
Suddenly, he hears the door to the room click shut behind him. It’s that devious maid again, with her wily, sexy Latin ways! “Que pasa?” she says, running her hands through his hair. He’s still not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly, but it seems to have a hypnotic effect on him, and his penis. He pulls the maid to him.
The next minute and a half are a blur. “Curses!” he mutters to himself, as he realizes that, once again, the wily maid has lured his hapless penis into her vaginal cavity. But it’s too late. The penis has released its precious load. “Me han robado tu esperma,” she hisses. “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
This, give or take a few of the details, seems to be how the author of the Rebuking Feminism blog imagines the events that led to the birth of Arnold’s love-child 14 years ago. Yep: in his version of events, it’s the women – both the maid, Patty Baena, and wife Maria – who are responsible for Arnold’s indiscretions:
Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold’s status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I’m sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity.
It’s tough, I guess, to be a freakishly huge, fabulously wealthy alpha male who wants to fuck everything in sight. But tougher indeed to be a beta:
As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I’m sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband.
Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina.
Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men…Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights.
Now all Maria and Patty need to do is sit back and collect the cash. Ka-ching-gle All the Way!
EDITED TO ADD: The author of the post has added a response to my post as a addendum to his original post. The gist of it:
Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.
The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end.
Oh, one more note to my last long post, here is a line from Marx’s theses on Feuerbach:
“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice.”
Kratch, Kratch, Kratch, could you at least make a tiny effort not to completely misrepresent me? I made no generalizations about men and why they have affairs. I was talking about a particular guy by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has a well-deserved reputation for being a horndog.
FFS, Arnie, the Gardasil vaccine *is* available to men (in the US and Canada, at least – couldn’t tell you about other countries). Either you are a time traveller from five years ago, or you are making things up.
“well, he claims Marx was into subjectivism and moral relativism whereas Marx was rather straightforward in his refusal to formulate an ethical theory.”
No Marx advocated taking advantage of women by catering to their gynocentric proclivities. You just have to tell women they are oppressed i.e. they are owed something. Works every time : )
We have to remember that feminism IS socialism communism so it is important to understand its ideological roots.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/–NcRJEr8oss/TVe_AU5r_JI/AAAAAAAAAhU/SQ1xbEPZY5c/s1600/ScreenShot013.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yMuzRXxRFEQ/TVe-kPvjA1I/AAAAAAAAAhM/IpCVw1cfuYM/s1600/ScreenShot015.jpg
Now he thinks he can goad us into reading it using reverse psychology.
And using screen captures to hide the URL.
Gullible me, I clicked. They’re not from his site. But they don’t prove his point either, which is only to be expected, as his point (feminism = Marxism)is not true.
Oh Arnie: You know the American Revolution was formative in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is one of those ‘formative’ idea sets in Communism, so the American Revolution (in particular the Declaration of Independence) is therefore (by the reasoning you show there) what feminism is all about.
I can’t even begin to comprehend what that Stalinist Poster is supposed to mean, esp. since the translastion is leaving a few things out. It doesn’t, for example say, “say no to to the oppression and Babbitry of household work”, but rather, “Down with domestic oppression and bourgeois nature of housework”
And it shows a young woman freeing an old woman from slaving over the samovar, to make sure the tea is always ready for her husband.
In other words, people should be equal.
Terrible message.
Actually his nonsense is (accidentally) enlightening about how he thinks. It’s a textbook case of a black-and-white worldview leading to classifying everyone except himself as the “other.”
Arnie perceives two groups of people: People who agree with him (ie, are “right”) and people who don’t (and are “wrong”). Since they’re all wrong, he doesn’t see any need to distinguish between them and thus assumes that they’re all part of the same thing. It’s the same attitude that leads to cries of “Atheists are implementing sharia law!”
You know what, it’s crazy because men have actual grievances to settle. I can only imagine the type of women who hang out in a manboobz forum. I won’t make any speculation but you know what I’m talking about. I really have to ask myself what brings them here. You know…seriously what is it that brings them here?
David I wonder about you as well. I wonder what your relationship with your mother was like. Anyway, my thoughts just crept in about this as I realize I’ve hit an intellectual brick wall here with you people. David’s answer to the connection between communism and feminism is “(feminism = Marxism)is not true.”
Conversely, many MRAs are very intelligent men and accomplished as well. I’m not trying to be insulting..just sharing my thoughts here. I wonder what your personal lives are like. I imagine you all living in apartments with cats.
It takes some seriously intellectually vacuous people to find their way out of an intellectual debate by literally sticking their fingers in their ears and telling someone they won’t listen while making childish remarks and attempts to belittle their opponent. It’s nothing but pure affirmation to me.
Your thought process begins and ends with “feminism is about being equal” Goebbels was not joking about the methodology to bringing propaganda to the masses. Holy shit.
Think about this for a minute. Get your heads together, holy shit.
“Arnie seems to think that, if he links to it enough times, we might be gullible enough to visit a blog called “Rebuking Feminism.”
No, I thought you might be intelligent enough to have talking points on the subject matter. I thought wrong…clearly.
Arnie, rejecting your bullshit is not the same as “putting our fingers in our ears.”
I happen to know a good deal about Marxism, and a good deal about feminism. Over the years, I have known many marxists and many feminists. I have known some people who are both marxists and feminists. I’ve also known marxists who didn’t give a shit about women’s issues. Meanwhile, the vast majority of feminists I’ve ever known are not marxists in any way, shape or form.
I’m a feminist, and not a Marxist. I have mixed feelings about Marx himself; he was a brilliant but deeply flawed figure. Lenin, on the other hand, was basically a sociopath, and an asshole, and his influence on the world has basically been an evil one. Followers of Leninism — Stalin, Mao, and various other evil fucks — were responsible for probably 100 million deaths in the 20th century.
See, while I am a feminist, I am also an anti-Communist.
Yes, there have been and still are people who are both feminist and communist. That doesn’t mean that feminism and communism are one and the same.
There are dog people and cat people. Some people are both dog people and cat people. That does not mean that dog people are cat people or vice versa.
That would be the lulz, as quite a few have stated numerous times. Perhaps you missed that whilst busy waxing intellectual?
I hope you’re not trying to pass that off as your profound insight, as if we’ve never heard all that “cat lady” shit before.
@arnie, Note: I am both a feminist and a Marxist. I am not a Leninist, I am a democratic socialist, but I am a Marxist. So, you see Marxism being pro-feminism or feminism being pro-Marxism would not be a problem in my book. What is a problem is your blatant and obvious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of philosophy and history.
For example, because, yes I did read your link (give me brain bleach now please), wherein your sole support of your notion seems to be your claim of Kollontai as a feminist, despite the fact that, while she was an ardent women’s rights advocate and some later feminists have adopted her, Kollontai actively refused the feminist label, stating that the feminist movement was a bourgeois capitalist construct. I think you cite Kollontai because you assume that people will not know of her, because you assume that people will not know much about the history of the left or actual feminist leftists of the time, and because you desire to use her association with Stalinism as an ad hominem attack on feminism. You are so obsessed with being able to use the Bolsheviks as a slur that you even ignore points that would better bolster your “argument” for a leftist-feminist conspiracy. For example, in the US, Eugene Debs, the founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran one of the top ten (by percent of votes received) third party candidacies in the post civil war US the first election after women gained the right to vote in the US, and used his support of suffrage as a key point in his campaign materials. Debs founded the IWW, ran the largest leftist party in US history for a long period, was praised by Susan B. Anthony (it was Debs who invited her to Terra Haute), quoted by Margaret Sanger as a proponent of the legalization of elective birth control, wrote papers calling for equal rights for men and women (as well as equal pay-necessary for a true socialism, in his view), and gave suffragists editorial space in his union publications. Of course, the Socialist Party of America and Debs have a rather positive history (and a rather anti-Stalinist history), and as your goal is to try and stir up a gut reaction that commie=bad rather than make any real historical analysis, I can see where the root of your obsession with the rare Stalinist women’s rights advocate comes from.
Also, again, the dude that wrote the paper about women as the original oppressed class was Engels, not Marx (quote the right communist, please). You realize that Marx and Engels were not one mega-person right? Additionally, your assumption that Engels did not believe what he said, especially given the fact that he appears to have been relatively committed to these ideas in political practice, is asinine. Engels’ assertion is not that women as an oppressed class is a good rhetorical tool, but rather that it is an anthropological and historical fact (note the anthropological and historical claims that riddle Origins of the Family). Now, you can dispute his claims or his sources if you want. But asserting that his claims were mere subterfuge with no evidence of that fact just makes you look like a willful ignoramus.
Here, let me give you an example of a standard passage from Origin of the Family:
“The further political history of Athens up to the time of Solon is only imperfectly known. The office of basileus fell into disuse; the positions at the head of the state were occupied by archons elected from the nobility. The power of the nobility continuously increased, until about the year 600 B.C. it became insupportable. And the principal means for suppressing the common liberty were – money and usury.”
Yep, there is a whole section like that on the rise of the Athenian state (not to be confused with the other section on the Greek Gens). It is a rather dense work, full of discussion of history and anthropology used as evidence to try to bolster its claims. The “let’s trick those ladies with long detailed passages about history-prehistoric to modern-demonstrating that societal structure oppresses them” ruse is certainly not a common one, you must admit. Why, it almost looks as if Engels actually believes his position is right, as most people have a habit of doing…
Sidenote: Marxism and fascism are mutually exclusive, and fascists are almost always explicitly anti-feminist.
Oh, I’m definitely here for the lulz.
Arnie, maybe you should try imagining us as all being different. You know, some of us might not have cats, or maybe we live in houses instead of apartments.
It’s all about the lulz, dude. This place gives us the chance to laugh at the ridiculousness of the MRM, rather than just despair that people who actually believe this exist.
See? That statement produced some quality lulz right there.
Arnie, you have no idea what any of us commenters are like or how we live. I have no cats, but I like cats. I live with my husband, my two kids, and after Sunday night, my parents. I can’t go to my own home right now because a giant tornado ripped through my city Sunday night and destroyed a quarter of the homes and businesses. My family and I are VERY LUCKY to be ALIVE. I am grateful to sleep in a bed, take a shower, and eat a meal at my parents’ home. Those are luxuries I used to take for granted.
NWO, you describe how men sacrifice themselves to save others. That is true, because I saw men searching through rubble to find survivors. They are risking their lives directing traffic in lightening, moving downed power lines out of yards, and carrying children to safe places. These brave men are heroes.
I also saw women working day and night in the rain to dig people out. Some of my friends, who are women, are working 24 hour shifts at makeshift hospitals trying to save lives. When my family hunkered down in our basement closet, I used my own body to cover my children, because I wanted any falling debris to fall on me and not them. Today I plan to donate blood and gather some of what little I have to bring to the local shelters. Some women are volunteering to help bring supplies to shelters, babysit children so survivors can dig through the remains of their homes, and bring home cooked meals to the rescue workers located in the city.
Self sacrifice is a HUMAN trait, found in both men and women. Likewise, some people, both men and women, are taking advantage of this disaster to loot and cause trouble. Some people act heroically, and some act dishonorably.
I don’t know if you’ll believe any of this, and frankly I don’t care. I just want to defend the many women you accuse of narcissism and selfishness. This week, I saw plenty of evidence to show how good and altruistic most people really are. Sorry to be so long winded. It is just that I feel emotional about some of the things I read and wanted to set the record straight. I came here to laugh and get my mind off the tragedy, but I got angry to see MRA’s whine about insignifigant problems and accuse women of being selfish.
Conversely, many MRAs are very intelligent men and accomplished as well.
Would you tell them to get their asses in here? I’d like the chance to talk to some of them.
You’re of course are correct Arnie, feminism started as a marxist/communist/socialist (take your pick) hate movement designed to destroy the family and transfer all social, economic and political power from men to women with the State being the ultimate authority. This is all it could ever be.
Women will cry over some percieved oppression in the past; Fathers “owning” their daughters sexuality, which of course turns a fathers love and concern about his daughters welfare into an oppression. Or women forbidden to work as miners which turns all mens concern for all womens safety into an oppression. Everything must be turned into an evil act of oppression by men. The hatred must be maintained.
Heres a link to Title IX which was supposedly for womens sports and further education.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
Of course for every one woman who signed up for college sports, (and those numbers are padded to keep the money rolling in) four men slots were cut. Wrestling was funded privately in many colleges so Big Daddy Guv made a “law” forbidding privately funded sports for men in college.
Since women recieve roughly 58% of college degrees you would think Title IX would be dissolved, right? The dept. of Title IX was recently handed an extra 1 billion dollars of taxpayer money to step into the realm of thought police.
Than of course you have the fantastic AA, heres a link to who supports that.
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/
Again there are more men than women unemployed so once again this organisation should be dissolved. But once again they are handed billions of taxpayer dollars. Once an organisation is created it can never go away. Fear and hatred must be maintained.
The reason, and the be all end all of arguements will be “patriarchy,” of course, because some how men have the power. I mean everyone here knows men die 7 years earlier, men recieve much harsher conviction rates and sentences, 80% of suicides, 95% of work related deaths/injuries, blah, blah, blah. Men have no rights to even a live child and those that are born they have no rights to. The myriad of womens only federally funded programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars. welfare is basically a womans only club, ect, ect, ect. The media and education system is basically a social praise woman, demean men club.
I doubt if Daves server could even handle to simply list just the names of every State agency that give women a leg up. This is all in the “patriarchy” that favors men. I gotta be honest with ya, this is the worst partiarchy ever, becuase I’m just not feeling the “power.”
But it seems to me that you are trying to defend David’s assertion that when a man cheats, it’s because he is some sex fiend, but you also seem to think that, when a woman cheats, it’s because of the man she’s cheating with? Are you seriously going to make that double standard? That no matter if it’s the husband or wife that’s cheating, it is a MAN’S fault
I said no such thing. Previous to my comment, most MRAs were jumping on either Baena or Shriver, or women in general who cheat. It was all their fault. But I wondered about the MRA view on a man who sleeps with a married woman, knowing she’s married. Does he have any responsibility to the husband or society, and if so, what? What about a woman who knowingly sleeps with a married man?
People cheat for all sorts of reasons, and generalizing why anyone of any gender commits infidelity is going to be a useless waste of time.
Fathers “owning” their daughters sexuality, which of course turns a fathers love and concern about his daughters welfare into an oppression. Or women forbidden to work as miners which turns all mens concern for all womens safety into an oppression.
It’s one thing to be concerned for your daughter’s welfare, it’s quite another thing to think you can tell her who she can and can’t marry, to keep her at home to prevent her from being ‘soiled’ and to think you have the right to give her away when she gets married, as if she were your property. People sometimes joke about the shotgun wedding, where a poor boy is forced to marry at gunpoint a girl he’s had sex with and impregnanted – but they forget that she’s being just as forced into this marriage as he. If a mother were as concerned with the state of her son’s sexuality, we’d all get worried.
And if a woman wants to become a coal miner, and knows the risks and accepts them, and has access to all reasonable safety measures, why shouldn’t she be a coal miner? If everyone is concerned with women’s safety, then why aren’t they concerned with the men’s safety as coal miners as well?
oh, hey, I live in a duplex with cats!! Of course one of them was my fiance’s from about 2 years before he met me. The other one we got together, though technically she’s “mine” 🙂
@Lady Victoria von Syrus
A quote from you…”If everyone is concerned with women’s safety, then why aren’t they concerned with the men’s safety as coal miners as well?”
Exactly. Why aren’t you concerned for mens welfare? Because men aren’t like you is why.
Wow, that’s some pretty amazing word-twisting going on.
Short answer: I don’t run a coal mine.
^^Wow. Just wow.
Since NWO seems to have no conception about what either he or LVvS just said: NWO, if you want men to work in coal mines but not women, that means you don’t care about men’s safety.
I can’t believe I’ve been accused of living in an apartment with a cat. The shame and horror! OH THE HUMANITY! At least he didn’t accuse us of being fat.
“I mean everyone here knows men die 7 years earlier, men recieve much harsher conviction rates and sentences, 80% of suicides, 95% of work related deaths/injuries, blah, blah, blah.
What does this have to do with women? No one asked you to kill yourself or get hurt on your job.
Men have no rights to even a live child and those that are born they have no rights to.
Why do you get to have a “right” to another human being? A “right” to do what? Your rights with regard to your children include making sure they are well cared for and make it to adulthood alive, in one piece, and emotionally stable. YOUR feelings in the matter, well, don’t matter.
If you created a child, YOU should be the one to take care of it regardless of the circumstances. But if it is determined that you are a social bad influence on the child, you don’t have a “right” to be around that child anymore. I fail to see what’s so hard to comprehend about that. That goes for either gender.
welfare is basically a womans only club, ect, ect, ect.
Childless women do not qualify for welfare. Welfare is only for PARENTS. It is not a women’s club, it is a parent’s club, and some single fathers are on it too.