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?
I know exactly what you mean, Lady Raine. It really scared me as a child when adult men I didn’t know yelled or whistled at me. That video spooked me, because I’ve been in the place of the kids those men were talking about.
“They claim that young girls dressing and acting “sexy” means they’re ready for sex with adult men, but the fact of the matter is that young girls want to emulate grown women much like dressing up your barbie dolls. It has nothing to do with sex or asking for sex. ”
There’s also the fact that a lot of the products and fashions for girls are sexualized, and there’s no way around it. Femme things are often seen as sexual by default, while butch things are not considered sexual. A little girl who wants to dress like her mother and older sisters is seen as sexual in a way that a little boy who wants to dress like his father and brothers is not.
At this point in time I think we know exactly what ALL women think of men. I’m sure you’ve all heard the hilarious news and have gotten a supreme chuckle yourselves. There really is nothing quite so funny as a man being drugged and mutilated by a woman. Oh how I rolled around in fits of aching belly laughter with these upstanding female celebrities as I heard their brilliant banter.
Now of course you’ll scream NAWALT, NAWALT, and NAWALT. So lets if that is the case. Well we have a pretty diverse crew of hosts but certainly not completely diverse to discount the NAWALT theory. How about the audience of women though? It would seem they would make up every economic group, every racial group, democrats, republicans, libertarians, as well as independents. Why along with our gracious hosts of feminists the audience no doubt contained conservative feminists, liberal feminists, and radical feminists. In fact, every demographic and every political and ideological type of woman was present. An excellent representation of all women was present and they all were brought to tears of frenzied joy and amusement.
Now imagine a nationally syndicated show of hosts made up of men, with an audience of men talking about drugging a woman and cutting away her pussy and the hosts and audience of men laughing uproariously at the plight of the woman. Of course you can’t imagine that, it could never happen. The only conclusion for that situation being unimaginable is that men are by far morally superior and have a monstrously greater capacity for sympathy, kindness and justice.
Of course the excuse for this behavior will devolve down to the intersectional power dynamic of social construction where females are devalued. And the reason why it’s deemed funny is because women’s opinions are valued less due to male privilege in the kyriarchy. No doubt my own stupidity in failing to see how the patriarchy hurts men as well I irrationally lash out at women when they’re so obviously the victims and I’m a misogynist for failing to see the undeniable truth of this wisdom bestowed upon the befuddled men-folk graciously handed down from the hallowed halls of feminist academia.
Surely someone will point out that the impeccably moral, pure and wise Ozzy posted an article denouncing the poor behavior of the hosts to show how much she cares. Yet somehow she missed how these women and the women in the audience are a literal representation of every race, creed, economic, political and ideological backgrounds of women. And they ALL were hysterical with joy and laughter. I would have posted this message there but alas I’ve been silenced for daring to blemish the record of woman’s eternal victimhood.
No doubt you’ll think this is off topic but when the hatred of man is the ONLY topic more hatred is always on topic. Instead of “misogyny, we mock it” being the manboobz motto, perhaps “misandry, we embrace it” might be more apt.
“At this point in time I think we know exactly what ALL women think of men”
At this point we know you’re insane, get back to the spearhead where you belong.
But… but… but… what about the underage girls? Subbie, you disappoint me. I am disappointed.
The Talk is possibly the worst thing on television. I don’t know any women who would voluntarily agree to watch it, much less be in the live audience for it.
Also, NWO, you are free to start your own misandry-bashing blog any time you want. You could have it up and running in five minutes, literally. It would cost you $0. (Getting your own domain name would cost less than a pizza.) On your own blog, your cut-and-pasted off-topic rants would always be on topic!
I’ve been wondering why NWO doesn’t have his own blog o_O Given how passionate he is on these topics and how he rly wants to get the msg out about the gay agenda and feminist oppression and etc… you’d think at least that’d be a way rather than comments that will be forgotten and buried in the threads here and only ppl w/ closed minds see xD
@NWO:
A couple things:
1. Yeah, the way the hosts dealt with the issue was pretty awful. Looks like it is a comedy program though, and since when did comedians ever show reverence to something as bizarre as this?
2. The few shots we get of the audience are pretty much heavier, middle aged, middle class white women. How do you know anything about their political ideologies, let alone whether they were feminist or not, and therefore how do you have any grounds to say they represent all women?
3. One host showed great mirth at the thing, and you seem to have missed one host actually making your exact argument (if this were about a woman being mutilated by her husband, we wouldn’t be laughing). But again… They’re hardly making an effort to cover the story seriously.
Think about stories you’ve heard, perhaps on an “odd news” section of a website; stuff like a man getting his penis trapped in a park bench, for one. Do you know why these are treated comedically? Because they are so bizzare, and so rare. Something like this is so out of the ordinary it’s amusing, in the “wow, what the hell” sort of way. Joking about men disfiguring their wives? Not gonna fly, because stuff like that happens far to often to be funny.
Doesn’t have anything to do with feminism, and I like how you are able, from a few brief shots, that representatives from every sector of femaledom was in attendance to that one show, including all manner of feminists. Feels like another “this woman is the leading feminist of the world, and says this!” No. No they aren’t.
Ozymandias is also clearly part of the whole plan. She gives lip service to it in order to provide us w/ something to point to while missing the key parts. xD
I’m also amused how NWO has finally added Intersectional(ity) to his vocabulary b/c of dealing w/ us xD and now it’s a nice seamless match w/ the rest of the feminist justification for misandry in the grand queer-feminist alliance xD (at least we’re influencing him :3 it disproves the theory he doesn’t learn! xD )
what’s the word for anti-kyriarchy? cuz that needs to replace women obv… since it’s no longer women making up patriarchy, it’s [PoCs, children, poor ppl, disabled ppl, queer ppl, etc etc] making up the kyriarchy o:
@Ami:
Well, kyriarchy is supposedly a system in which groups are stacked in a hierarchy of ruling and suppression, right? The opposite of that is… well… pretty much Communism.
@Kirby actually it’s not a hierarchy but how they all intersect together and can interact :]
@Ami:
Then… wouldn’t any society, or any group of concious beings at all, be considered a kyriarchy, since there will always be power differential? Or is kyriarchy simply a name for this complex web of interaction, not a system that can be put up or taken down?
@Kirby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
@ kirbywarp:
“Well, kyriarchy is supposedly a system in which groups are stacked in a hierarchy of ruling and suppression, right? The opposite of that is… well… pretty much Communism.”
Finally, you admit to being a pinko Commie, kirbywarp.
@summer_snow:
Well, it is true that I am pinko. 😉
@NWO:
Actually, I have to second speedlines here. This was a great chance for you to actually be on topic with your vaguely disconcerting laments about lacking lolita lovin… Is it a rule for you to be on-topic on every post, to the point where you would post about evil bankers in a feminist thread and the evils of feminism in an economics thread?
Addendum: Of course that was supposed to be “off-topic on every post.” Silly me, getting used to an edit button. ^__^;;
reactionary bullshit
Really? Wasn’t feminism “reactionary bullshit” when it first came out? Or were you too emotional and imbalanced to catch that hypocrisy? I hope it wasn’t deliberate, that would speak volumes for the followers of feminism.
@FactFinder:
No, no it wasn’t. It was a reaction, sure, a reaction against demonstrably true prejudices and conditions. MRAL, instead of calmly and rationally thinking about an opposing view, sometimes simply reacts with anger and vitriol rather than actually thinking things through.
… is what I would have said if you weren’t so obviously trolling. Seriously, equating a kids violent, invective-filled rants online with an equity movement? Nice going, buddy.
Aren’t all equity movements founded on a kid’s violent, invective-filled rants online tho?
MRAL, instead of calmly and rationally thinking about an opposing view, sometimes simply reacts with anger and vitriol rather than actually thinking things through.
Playing devil’s advocate here, but many feminists also react with anger and vitriol… you’re just not allowed to say anything, because then you’re a misogynist using a ‘tone argument’, and they have a RIGHT to be angry, and nothing was ever solved by being polite, and blah blah…
That’s a nice strawperson you have there, Ion. I’m sure it will look great on my frontyard.
Front yard*
Arrrgh, spacing fail.
“That’s a nice strawperson you have there, Ion. I’m sure it will look great on my frontyard.”
Er, not really. During one of my first excursions to a feminist blog, I posted some pretty mild disagreements to what some people were saying, and was immediately met with insults and personal attacks. When I commented on this, I was told it’s a ‘tone argument’, and that somehow I was the bad one, followed by more insults of course (I should mention that the owner of that blog and many commenters had self-admitted psychological and emotional baggage, so that probably didn’t help). The point is, civility is not overrated and we should all probably try being nicer to one another.
A better reason to discount MRAL’s comments, to me, would be that they’re often incoherent and seem to have no thought put into them, being based largely on personal feelings rather than objective facts.
“During one of my first excursions to a feminist blog, I posted some pretty mild disagreements to what some people were saying, and was immediately met with insults and personal attacks.”
So, can I ask, where is the proof? When feminists discuss sexism and other wrongdoings, they usually provide proof to back up what they’re saying. If they don’t offer proof, they’re discounted.
How can one trust you here?
“A better reason to discount MRAL’s comments, to me, would be that they’re often incoherent and seem to have no thought put into them, being based largely on personal feelings rather than objective facts.”
But people in the comments have been doing exactly that. People like me may be irritated while we’re critiquing him, but that’s because he is constantly wrong and on top of it all really hostile. Yet, the facts (or lack thereof) are the core reasons behind any critique of him when he displays this behavior.