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?
Ami, I’m pretty sure that I’m the oldest Star Wars fan you know. I did see ESB in a theater when it came out, and if memory serves the Reveal about Vader being Luke’s father had all the impact of a wet noodle because it had already been spoiled in various media outlets.
You are? o_O How old are you? o: You always struck me as young xD
I think NWO is 50…
oh, it had been? o_O I didn’t know that (about it alrdy being spoiled) how was it spoiled? o:
What jerks also! >:O
SallyStrange – That’s a good point. I think it’s also good to point out that neither of these guys are really arguing about the things they’re arguing about.
NWO isn’t concerned about male victims or male students. He’s just expressing “GRRAGH FEMINISTS,” and complaining about VAWA or Title IX is, to him, not a specific subject of conversation but merely another inflection of “GRRAGH FEMINISTS.”
(You can tell this by the way he changes topics with such fluidity, or tackles 10 topics at once–he doesn’t really care about any one of them.)
It’s impossible to pin him down to an opinion like “so, what do you think we should do to help boys in education?” because not only does he not know, he doesn’t care. He only cares about making angry juice.
…
NWO, you’re welcome to disprove this by your actions–by talking about your opinions directly rather than by implication and by describing how you would make the world better for men, rather than worse for women.
Alternately, you can disprove this by your actions through participating in letter-writing campaigns against Got Milk and The Talk for their clear misandry, and through donating money to help 1in6 protect male survivors of child sexual abuse.
Title IX benefits only women. I mean c’mon.
Title IX primarily benefits women, because historically, women are generally the ones denied access to educational opportunities. But it’s been used to benefit men, too. For instance, a few years Western Kentucky was handing out more of its sports scholarship budget to female athletes, and they had to create 22 new football scholarships to compensate.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080115123929/http://wku.edu/news/releases06/november/football.html
VAWA is possibly the single greatest infringement to the constitution ever created.
Yeah, when I think of gross constitutional violations, I too think of gray area equal protection cases.
For that matter, why would someone who believes in an honest to god NWO conspiracy still be worrying about constitutional violations? Like, once you reach that point isn’t it just assumed that the rule of law has gone out the window?
Right, because unconstitutional is used here in its modern form: “affront to my archaic sensibilities.”
Ami, Johnny is correct. I also saw ESB in theaters, and the ending had been ruined for me by a kid who shouted it out in class one day. I think most people already knew, those who paid attention at any rate. I think my mom was surprised, but that was about it.
Ami, I was about 9 when ESB came out and I remember when the big reveal came about I was pretty much, “So?”. That’s one of the things that struck me. I am adopted and as such I was accustomed to thinking of a father as the guy who was raising you. I really didn’t get why this information, while surprising, was so traumatic for Luke. Obviously Vader was not the guy Luke had fond memories of playing catch with or whatever, so I didn’t see the tragedy. Obviously my obtuseness was clearly the fault of my adoptive parents for not schooling me in Greek myth from the time I could walk.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth, the trauma isn’t the problem. the wife leaving is. The wifes lack of compassion is the problem. Horrifying isn’t it.
Put it this way, if a man leaves a woman because she was raped who would you blame for him leaving. Go ahead, tell me you would blame her for not getting help.
How you can’t see your hatred of man when it is so obvious.
Yes, NWO, but what about your hatred of elephants?
I believe that is the real issue here.
No, NWO, you twit, both the trauma AND the wife leaving are problems.
I blame men who leave their spouses for being raped, and women who leaving their spouses for being raped. See? Equality.
I still don’t know how any of this is gender egalitarianism’s fault.
VAWA is possibly the single greatest infringement to the constitution ever created.
Yeah, I still think the Alien and Sedition Acts have VAWA beat. Or, if you like more modern examples, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Japanese internment order…shall I go on? Or is it only a violation of the Constitution if it can happen to you?
@Sharculese, how could VAWA not be unconstitutional?
Violence against women act. The name says it all. Violence against women is above voilance against men. It is a seperate exculsionary law the pertains to violence against women. Violence against women is worse than violence against men.
How can this not be a violation of rights? One group of people have written in law that an exact crime comitted against them will be more severly punished than the same crime they commit against the other group.
@ Oz,
I still don’t know how any of this is gender egalitarianism’s fault.
Because, in his mind, you would hold men to a higher standard than you hold women. And if you deny it, you’re lying. What you would actually do in real life is irrelevant. Feminists are responsible for all that is bad, and if they’re not responsible, then they secretly approve of it, therefore they are responsible, QED.
@Holly Pervocracy, by dismissing my point of hatred of men being endemic, that this hatred is supplied by the economics of demand you further illustrate your approval of this prevailing attitude.
Will there be more shows, sitcoms, products, exclusionary charities, ect. demanding the fear, hatred and disenfrachment of men?
If the answer is yes, then that means the demand is already there. Economy will dictate supply.
Apparently, decades of legally sanctioned abuse of women by their owners – sorry, I mean husbands, lack of prosecution for rape, denial of basic rights like being able to own property, start a business, enter a professional field, run for office, or even vote, failed to create among women a widespread hatred of men.
But along came the movement for gender equality and BAM! suddenly women start hating men.
Yeah, that makes total sense. Just like every other stupid thing NWOaf pulls out of his ass.
Not decades. Centuries. Thinking on the wrong timescale here.
how could VAWA not be unconstitutional?
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.
Violence against women act. The name says it all. Violence against women is above voilance against men. It is a seperate exculsionary law the pertains to violence against women. Violence against women is worse than violence against men.
I know I’m going to regret trying to actually explain this to you, and I refuse to give an entire rundown of equal protection jurisprudence to someone who doesn’t want to understand it, but you understand that titles of laws are um, just names, they don’t have any enforcement power themselves.
VAWA was called that because it was designed to correct a systemic problem of local authorities responding to incidents of violence against women at much lower rates than violence against men. This was definitely happening. The record is clear. The whole point was that nobody was taking violence against woman seriously, and to establish that it was just as bad as violence against men.
@SallyStrange, I’m sure thru the ages you still feel the pain of not being able to vote or own property. You do know there were women property owners during that time when all men weren’t allowed to vote, only property owners. Did these women therefore oppress the men who couldn’t vote? Of course not. Neither were the women oppressed. 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.
Must men always be oppressors and women always be victims in the feminists ideology?
Nobinayamu
You are correct, I apologize for the error.
Sally
I see you still love me. 🙂
“@Sharculese, how could VAWA not be unconstitutional?”
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.
It’s not often that I ask for substantiation, but I am sick and tired of people who would rather pull their teeth than read the Constitution complain about this, that, or the other thing being “unconstitutional”.
T4T: I am so sorry for using facts as weapons to attack you with. I know passive-aggressive insinuations are more your style. Oh, actually, wait, no, I’m not.
NWO, love, there’s a pretty clear difference between “women” and “children.”
the trauma isn’t the problem. the wife leaving is. The wifes lack of compassion is the problem.
So if an unmarried man is raped, everything’s hunky-dory. Gotcha.
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.
Amused
I know. 😉