Here’s a little video that takes a look at some PUAs and MRAs who share a great love for underage girls … and a hatred of the word “pedophile.” If some of the quotes in the video look familiar, that’s because they’re from a creepy mini-manifesto called “Age of Consent is Misandry,” which we examined here not too long ago. The rest are from a thread on Roissy’s Citizen Renegade blog that really has to be read to be believed. You’ll notice one, er, interesting comment from a guy calling himself “Welmer.” That’s our good friend W.F. Price from The Spearhead.
Enjoy?
Oh looky, Oaf is lying again.
You think that was a lie? NWO has said that raising kids isn’t hard because you can do it in your pajamas. Suddenly, the ubiquitous (no women worked outside the home – heaven’s no) stay-at-home wives and mothers of the past were incredibly hard working.
Yup. You’re starting to get the picture, Sharculeuse. NWOaf is a liar, first and foremost. It is one of his most distinctive traits, the ease and frequency with which he lies. The clumsy transparency of his lies is another defining characteristic of his. It is rather striking, since you’d think that someone who lies so constantly would get better at it eventually.
@Ami Angelwings
I donnu Ami, it knida seems like Ozzys comment here says it all.
“I have to say in every case I’ve read in which charities give the money to women instead of men, it’s because the women spend the money on school fees for their children and the men spend the money on prostitutes and booze. I wonder why that might be.”
In the zero sum game it appears women charities help shildren with schools fees, while men are boozing it up and whoring around instead of helping boys. Nice!
Women are either good or victims.
Men, c’maaaaan, they’re pigs, All thru out history.
“I have little doubt a play, joking about a man being drugged and having his johnson sliced off wouldn’t have been met with uproarious laughter by the housewives of the time.”
I have no doubt that housewives of the time would laugh uproariously, much more so than today — because a lot more of them would have been victims of rapes, beatings and being traded like cattle, and so they would identify with the desire to slice off their husbands’ johnsons. They just wouldn’t do this on television in view of men.
“It is rather striking, since you’d think that someone who lies so constantly would get better at it eventually.”
Ah, but you’re making the mistake that he cares if he’s right. He doesn’t care if he’s right or not – he’s getting women! to talk to him! Negative attention is better than none, amirite?
That’s all this is. The desperate dance of someone desperate for attention.
Lying by omission! What was the sentence that followed this paragraph, hmm, Oaf? Come on, what was it?
@SallyStrange
Well gee, I thought I was correct about women voting in 1869 in the Wyoming territories. Now I’m a liar who doesn’t know history again. Make up your minds already.
NWOSlave: No, you weren’t correct. You claims that women always had the right to vote in some states, and that was a lie. Last I checked, when I paid attention in history, the United States existed long before 1869. Also, voting rights in two states and one territory does not cancel out the fact that women couldn’t vote anywhere else in the country, or in the world.
Okay, NWO. You have a hundred aid dollars. In the particular culture that you’re distributing these dollars in, men have social pressure from their friends to spend the money on booze and hookers, because that is “manly”.
If you give a dollar to a man, there is a 90% chance he will spend it on booze and hookers, and a 10% chance he will spend it on school fees for his children.
If you give a dollar to a woman, there is a 10% chance she will waste it and a 90% chance she will spend it on school fees for her children.
Please distribute the aid dollars fairly. Also, please note that a full tenth of the women and men defy the stereotypes in this case– a very significant percentage.
You bring up women voting in the Wyoming territories as if it presents a challenge to the fundamental fact that women were barred from voting for a very, very long time, and barred from holding property or starting businesses (with a few exceptions) for much, much longer. Obviously you know some history, but it’s also plain to see that you don’t CARE about whether you’re being accurate or not. You’ll say whatever supports your anti-feminist grudge, regardless of whether it’s true or now. Mostly you’re a liar. Your knowledge of history is made irrelevant by your willingness to twist, omit, or outright fabricate facts.
ozymandias42 | July 18, 2011 at 1:36 pm
No, Title IX says half of all funds should be spent on each gender. That is, quite literally, gender egalitarianism. “Not being privileged” is not discrimination.
I have to say in every case I’ve read in which charities give the money to women instead of men, it’s because the women spend the money on school fees for their children and the men spend the money on prostitutes and booze. I wonder why that might be. (Spoiler alert: sexist gender roles!)
This is her full comment. I noticed you left out that she answered her own question and didn’t leave it open to suggestion like your quote implied xD
NWOslave | July 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm
ozymandias42, if it’s not a zero sum game why do you insist on portraying women as always being the victims and men as always being the oppressors?
She didn’t portray women as victims, here she talked MEN as victims, and that this idea of women as responsible and men as irresponsible comes from sexist gender roles, and she’s against those. -_-
I’d like Ozy to actually explain her own comment (cuz I’m not sure if she’s saying that gender roles are causing men and women to act this way, or that they AREN’T but ppl PERCEIVE that they do b/c of gender roles and stereotypes and therefore are sexist in the way they distribute money and trust women vs men) but I thought we should have full quotes out here :]
You think that working hard way back then to keep your family housed and fed was a choice?
Yes it was. Back in the day, before it was a lot easier to find people, a man could just pack up and leave. She could do little to stop him.
It was a resposibility dear. Responsibility means that you do not pack up and leave. But lots of men did. In fact, that was one reason why welfare was not considered a bad thing because people knew that the woman was abandoned.
And you can bet your pampered ass those women worked damn hard at home while their husbands worked damn hard at their jobs. I do not have to bet. I know-my maternal great grandmother not only did the house work, she also tended to the various animals, helped bring in the crops and had seven babies (including one who was 15 lbs at birth.) She also had to cook for the ranch hands. She did all of that while also campaigning for the right to vote and other major issues of the day. I also know she would have burst with pride to see me where I am. She worked hard so I could be where I am today.
And ya know what else, they were extremely grateful to have a hard working man who cared about their welfare. Maybe they were. She is not here for me to ask her. I know that my paternal great-grandmother was well cared for by my great grandfather (he was also 24 years older then her so maybe that is why.) But not every husband was this idealized strong provider who never ever took out his frustrations on his wife and kids. Or drank the family’s food budget. Or left her when he got tired of dealing with the responsibilities of being a husband and father.
Oh okay, she responded :3 Nm! You can go back to “ignoring” me NWO xD
(also I love the black and white world xD Apparently if you know that 1+1=2 but you get EVERY OTHER math problem wrong, ppl can’t tell you that you don’t know/understand math) xD
NWOaf-do you know what Salic Law is?
Seriously, take a look at your comments.
In every case women are victims, or
women are good or
women are oppressed or
men are oppressors
men are bad.
Ask yourselves, is there more fear, mockery and hatred of men portrayed by your government, your MSM, the products you buy, charity organisations than 10 years ago? Was there more 10 years ago than 20 years ago? Than 30 years ago?
The goliath line of clothing made them millionaires with sayings like, boys are stupid throw rocks at them, boys tell lies poke them in the eyes, ect, ect.
Keep in mind these were boys, children. Little girls are wearing this stuff. Some mothers even dressed toddler boys in these shirts, I’ve seen it.
These are fucking little boys. They have commited no crime ever. The only possible reason that these products made that company into a muti-million dollar business is because the hatred is present in society. The “need” already existed and a private industry capitalized on that hatred. What else could it be?
I remember my sister being in the hospital after a little boy hit her with a steel ball.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth….
You said, “I know that my paternal great-grandmother was well cared for by my great grandfather (he was also 24 years older then her so maybe that is why.) But not every husband was this idealized strong provider who never ever took out his frustrations on his wife and kids. Or drank the family’s food budget. Or left her when he got tired of dealing with the responsibilities of being a husband and father.”
Now you could’ve stopped at great grandad was indeed great, but you chose to elaborate on how there are bad men who didn’t treat women well. Why didn’t you also elaborate that there were bad women who didn’t treat men well.
You see, you turned it into a zero sum game and I lost apparently. For every bad man there is a bad woman and for every good man there is a good woman. OK. If that is the case and it most assuredly is, no one was oppressed and no one was a victim more than the other.
SO everytime you give a but there were bad men, or many men weren’t like that, you are proclaiming womens victimhood. And where there is a victim there is an oppressor; Man.
As long as you continue to portray women as victims of oppression the oppressor HAS to be man. And as long as that kind of thinking is prevelant it will be used to justify the fear, hatred and degredation of man.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
And there are a million cases where little girls hurt little boys.
It means nothing.
As I said for every hardship women faced men faced an equal amount of harship. No one was oppressed.
Okay, so what.. is your point that the problems men face are problems that should be dealt w/ also… or that men face equal problems, and that’s life, and suck it up? o_O
Cuz this might be why whenever Ozy talks about helping men, you don’t respond.
So I’m wondering… is it the first or the second you mean when you keep bringing up “but men suffer and face gender pressures too!” do you mean “and we suck it up, that’s life, not oppression” or do you mean “and you should fix these problems too!”
AMI
NWOslave | July 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Read my post for this entry. Answer the question.
I keep answering but get no answers.
Read the post the question at the end is simple. “What else could it be?”
NWOslave | July 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
And there are a million cases where little girls hurt little boys.
It means nothing.
As I said for every hardship women faced men faced an equal amount of harship. No one was oppressed.
But you also said that. Which sounds like “men suffer too, and it’s not oppression” so I was confused o_O
All you have to do is say what you mean when you say “men suffer too” xD I dunno what you’re so afraid of (or why these important issues to you always turn into a little game of Q&A o_O )
If you’re saying it IS oppressive and wrong, and should be fixed (as I think we all agree that “throw rocks at boys” is a farked up shirt, I remember that kerfuffle and being massively against it… but I wasn’t blogging back then xD I was young) then, you and Ozy (and me!) are on the same side, b/c she’s against this sort of casual joking about hurting men thing too :]
We are not talking about the women who did bad things (which was a lot rarer then men but that was more opportunity issues actually), we are talking about men being these perfect providers NWOaf.
My great grandfather was a good one apparently (I have never heard any stories about him but my great grandmother seemed to be a happy woman according to my mom so I just assume that he was a good guy.)
However-I am not so stupid as to believe that all men were great. Why? On my mother’s side of the family, one of my great-great grandmothers had to get a divorce because her husband abandoned her. So in my own family I have the example of a good guy (Great Grandfather Edward R.) and a terrible one (Great Great Grandfather Michael L.)
No AMI you didn’t answer the question.
Once again here it is. Everything that pertains to the question.
The goliath line of clothing made them millionaires with sayings like, boys are stupid throw rocks at them, boys tell lies poke them in the eyes, ect, ect.
Keep in mind these were boys, children. Little girls are wearing this stuff. Some mothers even dressed toddler boys in these shirts, I’ve seen it.
These are fucking little boys. They have commited no crime ever. The only possible reason that these products made that company into a muti-million dollar business is because the hatred is present in society. The “need” already existed and a private industry capitalized on that hatred. What else could it be?
Also NWO, so you believe that marketing and screwed up ideas about gender, and gender roles, are only negative in the media towards men, b/c of misandry in our society, and there’s nothing to complain about w/ the way women are portrayed in the media, and etc and the msgs for women? :] And that the MSM and companies propagate hatred to men and only hatred about men?