Categories
antifeminism beta males creepy misogyny MRA oppressed men PUA rapey reactionary bullshit sex sluts statutory rape apologists the spearhead video

“Even if the teen showed you a fake ID, you are still a criminal,” and other grave injustices.

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?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

312 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Also, it’s false that husbands were held responsible for their wives’ actions. Women had to answer criminally and civilly for their actions the same as men. Also, female property owners could not vote, whereas male property owners could. So I really don’t see in what way female property owners oppressed men who had no property by not voting. Also, despite — or rather, because of — being treated as chattel, wives were held financially responsible for all of their husbands’ debts, even if the spouses were separated. Men did not have that responsibility towards wives that they abandoned.

Sharculese
9 years ago

“The constitutional argument against the VAWA was plausible. I don’t agree with it, and I think it hinges on a much narrower reading of the 14th amendment than I’m will to endorse, but it’s plausible.”

Re-posting this part because ugh, I screwed up the editing.

It isn’t. If you disagree, please make a specific reference to the actual text of the Constitution, explain in what way VAWA violates that particular provision of the Constitution, and back up your arguments with citations to actual court cases.

Considering the Supremes chose not to strike down the entirety of VAWA, one would assume the parts that are left are implicitly constitutional. But apparently that’s not enough…

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@ozymandias42

I know dear. Yet somehow children still aren’t oppressed.
I mean couldn’t a man going to jail for a womans crime be equally oppressive. Since that definitely is the case, than neither were oppressed.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

“I mean couldn’t a man going to jail for a womans crime be equally oppressive.”

Men did not go to jail for a woman’s crime. Women went to jail for their own crimes.

Also, depriving a grown person of agency IS oppression, and your likening of women to children as a way of justifying the denial of agency to women is appalling. Children aren’t oppressed by virtue of having no right to self-determination because lacking that right is temporary — once they reach the age of majority, they become full-fledged citizens. That’s not the case with women who have no civil rights.

You might as well justify actual slavery by saying the position of slaves is exactly like that of children. Or say that women being treated as chattel isn’t oppression because cows having no right to vote isn’t oppression either.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Amused… It is a fact that ALL property owners could vote. Be informed. You have the further audacity to tell me that women, not being allowed to work were also responsible for their husbands debt as well?

Further, if you actually knew anything at all about history you would know that each State had a seperate law as to voting. There were states where women could vote long before it was nationwide. In other words women were voting in some state while a man who didn’t own property living in another state couldn’t vote. Those men weren’t oppressed. Neither were the women.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

Darling Oaf, thank you for responding. I love pointing out your numerous lies.

@SallyStrange, I’m sure thru the ages you still feel the pain of not being able to vote or own property.

Did I say that I personally am suffering from the inability to vote or own property? No I did not. Hey look! Not even one sentence into your paragraph and you’re already lying.

You do know there were women property owners during that time when all men weren’t allowed to vote, only property owners.

I did not know of any specific examples, but it doesn’t surprise me. There have always been exceptions to the rule – a few women found ways to serve in the army, etc. Does that invalidate that women’s legal status for most of Western history has been akin to that of a chattel slave? No it does not. Nor does the disenfranchisement of non-property-owning men make the disenfranchisement of women, property-owning or otherwise, any less of a human rights violation.

Did these women therefore oppress the men who couldn’t vote? Of course not.

No, it was the men in power who were doing that. Duh.

Neither were the women oppressed.

Bzzzt! Wrong! A deliberate fabrication, or a simple moment of genuine ignorance? We’ll let the audience decide, but given NWOaf’s track record, I think “mendacity” is the safest guess here.

Also during that oppressive time for women men were held responsible for their wives actions. Of course you’ll call it oppression that they didn’t have agency. Are parents today held responsible for the childrens actions? Most definitely. Are they oppressed? No.

You know what’s revealing of really deep-rooted hatred of women? When a guy compares women to children, who are mentally incompetent for making adult decisions, and tries to justify taking their rights away by noting that it was oh-so-burdensome to the men of the time to be saddled with the horrible responsibility of treating an adult women as if they were childlike, mentally incompetent creatures. This here is just straight up misogyny, you woman-hating piece of turkey vulture offal.

Must men always be oppressors and women always be victims in the feminists ideology?

Lying about feminist ideology. Again.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

NWOaf-the trauma a male victim suffers from the rape is terrible and it is compounded by the victim’s wife leaving him for “not being much of a man.”

Fuck that. And fuck her too for doing such a thing.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

Children are controlled by their parents because children are not capable of making fully adult decisions because their brains aren’t developed yet; therefore, controlling them is not oppression. Women, however, have fully developed brains, so controlling them is.

Sharculese
9 years ago

Sharculese, please show me this “clear record” of womens abuse being swept under the rug. And how a beaten woman wasn’t being taken seriously? I would surely love to see the empirical data on this.

Did you read the bill before you decided it was the greatest threat to liberty of your lifetime? The text is here.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgidbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf

Congress’s factual findings are on page 34. Have a blast.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

Say this to yourselves everyday when you wake up. Women were never oppressed.

I know it’s feminist heresy.

Do try to keep in mind that for every woman locked away in the home. The man was doing a thankless job. Sometimes he died, sometimes he was maimed, sometimes he was alright.

Whatever percieved oppression you believe women endured in the past, men endured an equally crappy situation. Since they both bore seperate but equally crappy burdens neither was oppressed. Now say it, women were never oppressed.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

I mean couldn’t a man going to jail for a womans crime be equally oppressive.

Another great example of NWOaf just making shit up and expecting to be treated as if he’s not a complete liar who has zero respect for facts and truth.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

Say this to yourselves everyday when you wake up. Women were never oppressed.

Only if you beg me to. Come Oaf, on your knees.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Sharculese

You might find the message web page cannot be found illuminating, I don’t.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

*looks at Wiki* Women were allowed to vote in New Jersey from 1790 to 1807 as long as they had some property. In 1807 that right was rescinded and it was not until 1869 that a state/territory granted women the right to vote.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

I know you want Holly to get out the whips and chains Oaf, but that’s not going going to happen until you beg properly. You’ve been missing your spankings, haven’t you?

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

“Amused… It is a fact that ALL property owners could vote. Be informed.”

I AM informed — and you are lying. Not ALL property owners could vote. Only male property owners could vote.

“You have the further audacity to tell me that women, not being allowed to work were also responsible for their husbands debt as well?”

Exactly. Women had extremely limited employment opportunities, and yet were responsible for their husbands’ debts. Whereas men had much greater employment opportunities AND lesser responsibilities for their wives’ debts. I have the audacity to say it, because it’s the truth.

“Further, if you actually knew anything at all about history you would know that each State had a seperate law as to voting. There were states where women could vote long before it was nationwide. In other words women were voting in some state while a man who didn’t own property living in another state couldn’t vote. Those men weren’t oppressed. Neither were the women.”

That’s a bunch of lies. None of the states allowed universal suffrage until the late 19th century — and by that time, every state already provided for universal MALE suffrage, without regard to property ownership. So there was never a time when women could vote in one state while property-less men couldn’t vote in another. And in any event, only three states allowed women to vote by the time of the 19th Amendment.

Sophie
Sophie
9 years ago

@NWOslave

Actually, it was white, male, property owners who could vote. And I know that because I payed attention in history.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@SallyStrange, “Only if you beg me to. Come Oaf, on your knees.”

Run it up MSM flagpole, I’m sure the talk show hosts and audience would love it.

As long as the insatiable desire to fear, hate and ridicule men exists, the State, corporate, charity and MSM will compete to fill that demand.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

This isn’t whether children are by definition “oppressed” or not, but when it comes to power/privilege dynamics, children have v little power. I mean obv that’s b/c they’re underage, deemed to be less mature, intelligent, and unable to make their own decisions, and b/c of that they are reliant on adults (caregivers, parents, doctors, teachers, friendly neighbours who notice something is wrong) to protect them and take care of them : (one of the things often missing in kyriarchy stuff, is being a child… whether you’re a boy or a girl, you have MUCH less power than an adult, are at risk of being abused and not being listened to, ppl will defend an adult’s right to hit you in certain situations, etc)

Children’s voices are less important than adults (typically), they are not believed as much, they are often not taken as seriously. They can’t vote, or sign contracts. They are at high risk of rape and abuse, and they risk not being believed if they say something…. their anger and tears are taken less srsly, but as somebody throwing a tantrum, pity, but not understanding… etc etc

But you can also claim that children have “privilege”… that they’re (ideally) taken care of… they are reliant on their parents, but their parents buy everything for them… they can cry and throw tantrums, and be spoiled for it (depending on the parent)… their parents take care of everything for them… I mean being a child is great right?

I mean that’s very similar to the type of “privilege” that ppl often attribute to other groups… like when ppl talk about the “good old days” and marriage and women shouldn’t work, etc… “well you can get pity if you cry, ppl can take care of you, you don’t have to work, etc etc”

This isn’t saying that our laws protecting children, or children being taken care of by their parents is WRONG or oppressive, but that if you want to argue that children are a non-privileged group, there’s def an argument there, b/c not only do they lack rights, we treat their voices, agency and intelligence, lower than of adults, and that can often lead to harm if it’s abused. : Which is why being “treated like a child” is something ppl do not like (and being called a child is an insult).

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

The fourteenth amendment was passed in 1868. Say this to yourselves every day: after Reconstruction, Black Americans were never oppressed.

Did it work? Did I actually change history?

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

“Actually, it was white, male, property owners who could vote. And I know that because I payed attention in history.”

Native Americans did not become US citizens until 1924. And it wasn’t until 1965 that federal law finally put a stop to individual states denying Native Americans the right to vote. But no, it’s white males who are the most oppressed group in history. *Facepalm*

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

All women were allowed to vote in the wyoming territories in 1869. Unless I’m wrong. State to state princess.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

Say this to yourselves everyday when you wake up. Women were never oppressed.

I think this is another case of 2 ppl talking past each other xD

What groups do you consider to have been oppressed in history? o: And why do you consider them to have been oppressed?

What groups NOWadays are oppressed? o:

I think we need to figure out what the standard is for oppression for NWO first, before you can start arguing w/ him if you want to argue w/ him :3

Does he mean in ALL of history btw? o_O (like incl in every single part of the world, history is pretty diverse)

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

Well if indians couldn’t vote until that time you as a woman oppressed them.
Because if men could vote before women and women were oppressed. Well the only ones left that could be oppressing them are men.

So whats your excuse for oppressing indians?

Sharculese
9 years ago

All women were allowed to vote in the wyoming territories in 1869. Unless I’m wrong. State to state princess.

You, um, understand the difference between a territory and a state, right?

Sharculese
9 years ago

Well if indians couldn’t vote until that time you as a woman oppressed them.
Because if men could vote before women and women were oppressed. Well the only ones left that could be oppressing them are men.

This is the dog that caught it’s own tail.

Holly Pervocracy
Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

I’m still convinced the way NWO meanders–we’re talking about age of consent! No, abortion! No, VAWA! No, Title IX! No, goddamn women’s suffrage!–is indicative of how little he cares about any one of these issues.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

The only way to free youselves from your hatred of man is to admit that whatever hardship women endured in the past, men endured an equal hardship. Otherwise you’ll always be a victim and man will always be an oppressor. This allows you to justify you fera and hatred of man.

Once the fear, hatred and ridicule is gone. The State, corporate and MSM can no longer profit from your hatred.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

There were only male indians? How did they reproduce?

Sophie
Sophie
9 years ago

@NWO slave

Actually, you are correct. Women were allowed to vote for a short time in the some of the territories. It was mostly just a way to attract new settlers, and it was canceled after a while.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

I like how now he’s a new age motivational speaker now xD

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

I have no excuse for oppressing American Indians, NWO. I live on land that was forcibly taken away from them, in comfort I might add, while they have been reduced to reservations — places mired in poverty, disease and hopelessness. Have you ever been to an Indian reservation? It’s like a different country. It looks like the Third World. Strike that — having been to the Third World, I have to say, it looks worse than the Third World. And it makes me ashamed for my country that we have such places in it.

As a single person, I can’t undo what’s been done. But what I can do is not discriminate against Native Americans on an individual basis, not spread lies about them, and not deny their history of being oppressed at the hands of European colonizers. I don’t think that simply doing this much means that I am being denigrated, oppressed or humiliated by the Native Americans.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

NWOaf because you are making the fact that a man had to work hard for pay equal to the fact that women were refused the same opportunity.

In the man’s case, he was working hard but he still had the chance. In the woman’s case, she never even had the chance to work at all.

So your equalizing it makes about as much sense as anything else you make up.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Sophie

Holy crap, I was actually correct.

On a side note, I’ve never voted. There has never been anyone worth voting for.

Plus, your vote means nothing, the supreme court decides any issue and can overturn any issue. There not even elected officials yet they have control.

And ya know what, I don’t feel oppressed for have never voted.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

Men and women were both oppressed, NWO. Sexism is not zero-sum.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

NWO’s logic seems to be similar to the logic expressed by some white feminists during one of the RaceFails. particularly, it reminds me of Heidi Schnackenberg (I wrote a giant angry post about this when she first said this) who said basically that women can’t be racist, b/c racism is a male thing and racist women are only “identifying” w/ the racism of the men >:

Which is so f-ed up (and prolly what NWO believes we here believe xD )

but yeah the “women were oppressing First Nations ppl!” reminded me of that xD

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Holly, NWO could give a shit. In the numerous (oh so many) threads about the now infamous “elevator incident” he carried on about how oppressive women were being by expressing anything from irritation to outright fear when men approach them specific situations. Immediately before and directly after, he chastised women for placing themselves in danger from strange men.

He has no intellectual or ideological consistency. Not a fucking drop. He’s unhappy, women are the reason. What ever he doesn’t like, or believe, or even understand is the fault of women.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I had to laugh at NWOaf being shocked he was correct on something.

And it is sad that you assume that you have no voice NWOaf.

redfoxfan
9 years ago

“I’m still convinced the way NWO meanders–we’re talking about age of consent! No, abortion! No, VAWA! No, Title IX! No, goddamn women’s suffrage!–is indicative of how little he cares about any one of these issues.”

Exactly. A convo with NWO is like trying to catch a flea with your bare hands.

redlocker
9 years ago

Gah, posted with a wrong name. I r dum.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

In the 1840s, Frederick Douglass published the abolitionist newspaper,The North Star. Hence, all slaves could read and write and if they couldn’t, it certainly wasn’t because they were oppressed.

Voting means nothing, and the unelected Supreme Court is all powerful says the same man outraged by laws he considers “unconstitutional.”

Ab.Surd.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

Nebody want to take bets on the next topic he meanders to? xD

We should make like an NCAA bracket pool thing…

everybody chooses topics that they think NWO will talk on, and at the end of the day, ppl with the most topics wins

OR conversely, the one w/ the topics he DOESN’T hit on wins (like if he does go on them, then it gets eliminated) xD

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

You think that working hard way back then to keep your family housed and fed was a choice? It was a resposibility dear. And you can bet your pampered ass those women worked damn hard at home while their husbands worked damn hard at their jobs. And ya know what else, they were extremely grateful to have a hard working man who cared about their welfare.

Ya see they had this mutual respect thing goin on back then, they cared about each other. 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.

As long as you continue to see women as victims men will always be portrayed as oppressors and you will vindicate yourselves for fearing, hating and belittling men. Until you stop this acceptance of hatred every State, corporate, charity and MSM outlet will continue to expand and profit from this hatred.

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

the insatiable desire to fear, hate and ridicule men NWOSlave

FIFY

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

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?

Sharculese
9 years ago

Ya see they had this mutual respect thing goin on back then, they cared about each other. 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.

Lmao.

Remember on the last page page when you said you paid attention in American history? That was a lie, wasn’t it?

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

It’s weird that NWO just said that women worked hard at home and men worked hard in the work place.. but NOW we’re all “pampered” o_O Presumably everybody here has a job (and a home that they maintain)… so what changed that now women working are pampered and we’re not working hard to keep ourselves alive? xD

SallyStrange
SallyStrange
9 years ago

they were extremely grateful to have a hard working man who cared about their welfare.

Yeah, want to know why? Because they were barred, by means legal and otherwise, from seeing to THEIR OWN welfare.

You sound just like this Burundian guy I met on a bus once. I was coming home from a long shift at Macy’s during the holiday season. He said, “you look tired.” I said, “Well, I had a long day at work.”

He said, “If you were in my country, you’d never be tired because men to all the work while women stay at home.”

I said, “Look. Men leave. Or they get hurt. Or they die. Either way, I’d be an idiot to depend on someone else to take care of me.”

The conversation went on from there, he tried to convince me more and I pointed out to him that Burundi’s level of economic activity was no doubt being hampered by excluding 50% of the populace from the workforce. Either way, him and NWOaf would get along quite well. Because it’s really not about “taking care” of women in the sense of trying to look out for their welfare. Because that is easily accomplished by asking women what they need and then providing them with it, whether it’s low-interest loans to start their own businesses or subsidies for girls’ education, or whatever. It’s really all about “taking care” of women in the sense that you take care of your cows and your car and your home entertainment system. Keep one’s possessions in good working order so it functions properly. That’s the only kind of “care” patriarchal misogynists like Oaf and Burundian guy really care about.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

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?

Has she done this? o_O