Those of you who aren’t regular readers of the comments here may not appreciate the true genius of David K. Meller, an excitable and exclamation-point-loving MRA I’ve mentioned once or twice in my posts, but who shows up in the comments here with some regularity – ending each comment with his trademark “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!”
Mr. Meller is a great lover (not physically) of men:
Men, by and large, are a wonderful sex! We are more intelligent than women, more creative, at least in the areas outside the home. We are, also, as a rule, physically stronger as well …
He claims to love women, too – though not feminists, whom he seems to consider something other than human:
Women ARE people, and often wonderful people at that! Feminists, on the other hand, AREN’T! …
Women are people, and properly raised, educated, and loved,, are beautiful, charming, and lovely!
Despite his alleged love of women – at least the non-feminist ones – he often says utterly horrible things about them. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. But let me draw your attention to one rather telling comment of his I found recently on The Spearhead.
In the midst of a discussion of Sharon Osbourne’s now notorious comments about a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, Meller offered the following musings on the subject of women and cancer. I am having trouble finding much love of women in them:
It is .. possible that the breast cancers (not to mention ovarian and vaginal cancers) have a psychosomatic aspect to their development. … The feelings of vicious sadism, brutality, and callous indifference to another’s pain in such harpies must inexorably work on the molecular, genetic, and cellular level to generate consequences! I hope that you girls find these consequences as hilarious as I do when you annoy me with your next women’s health campaign against cancer!
Maybe women don’t strictly speaking, DESERVE cancer, but it will be hard for me to stop laughing at them …
Isn’t the thought of cancer-ridden women going under the knife amusing? Isn’t thought of women losing part, or all, of a sexual organ that is precious to them FUNNY? The pain women experience when recovering from surgery (and radiation or chemo, which is almost as bad) is still less than the agony which that poor man underwent when he underwent castration at the hands of a deranged, sadistic, and vicious she-weasel (my apologies to weasels)!
[F]or every man who is abused and tortured by his woman, it almost warms my heart that the same hatred and spite characteristic of the female human(?) sets THEM up for a similar fate down the road, as that bitterness, vicious sadism, and bloodthirstiness so characteristic of those who would LAUGH AT the suffering caused by a “woman” committing such a vicious crime predisposes them toward cancer, and (I hope) a similar fate!
Karma is always there, girls, and it is a bitch!! HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
That “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!” always gets me.
This being The Spearhead, Meller’s comments garnered more than a few upvotes. Not as many as he usually gets, admittedly, but some.
At some point I will do a Best of David K. Meller post, highlighting some of his “best” comments here. He is one for the ages.
And he tries to tell us feminists, and we don’t believe him.
Deke: And the women who are assaulted by men? The ones who are killed by men.
The ones people in your MRM say deserve it, and more besides.
Yeah… you are such a paragon of balance. If you want to go there (which I don’t) the number of castrations in the world is more than a trifle low.
OMG,. I love all you castratin’, man-hatin’, she vipers eleventy billion times more for the Monty Python jokes.
CHEESE AND CRACKERS!!
B
DKM said, “the divorces instigated by wives who just want to find themselves” while bankrupting the ex, rendering him homeless”
The reality is that women tend to become poorer after divorce, while men tend to become wealthier after divorce. There are exceptions, but to say that divorce fleeces men and makes them homeless is a myth. One reason women are poorer after divorce is that they are more likely to take care of the children, which is much more expensive than the father would pay in child support. Another reason is that women, on average, make less than men. Once again, DKM, you are full of crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research
Kendra: I don’t think once again is the right turn of phrase, that would require him to be wrong episodically.
Pecunium, I stand corrected. I should have used “as always” instead of “once again”. For DKM, being full of crap is a permanent state of being. I am amazed by his ability to be wrong so much.
‘Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.’ ~ A. Einstein
@Sharculese
“both VAWA and Title IX are gender neutral. this is obvious from the most basic reading of the text.”
Could you tell me what the W in VAWA stands for again?
Bruce (are you a poofter?): I’ve been a Python fan since I can remember, and some stuff just works so beautifully with the lines I’m given. Thanks!
“A compromised immune system? They were exposed to the pathogen and their neighbors weren’t?”
Well, sure. The body of a person susceptible to illness has already undergone a change to which the bodies of his/her neighbors weren’t subject, or gets exposed to some bug or other and that brings about a bodily change. Ailments of the body exhibit themselves by means of the body, and the whole thing gets reflected in the brain. I agree that that isn’t rocket science.
“Bruce (are you a poofter?)”
My husband says, “I certainly hope so!”
“(are you a poofter?)”
KathleenB, what the hell?
bekabot, I’ve been following this whole “mental states cause diseases” convo and I’m just baffled.
“Ailments of the body exhibit themselves by means of the body, and the whole thing gets reflected in the brain.”
Weren’t you talking about people both having malaria and being bipolar a while ago? It read like you didn’t believe in germs. I can see how having malaria might make someone depressed, but it’s not a guarantee. There are many people who have nothing physical wrong with them and have mental problems, or have mental problems which predate any illness. It might not be rocket science, but you seem to be denying or confused about how illness is actually passed on and affects people.
@Smowy:
Snowy: Someone beat me to it – I honestly wasn’t meaning to insult. I figured that someone who appreciated the Four Yorkshiremen would get the reference. Kinda forgot that not everyone on the internet is a Python fan, sorry to have offended.
Oh okay, nevermind!
The body of a person susceptible to illness has already undergone a change to which the bodies of his/her neighbors weren’t subject, or gets exposed to some bug or other and that brings about a bodily change. Ailments of the body exhibit themselves by means of the body, and the whole thing gets reflected in the brain.
“Undergone a change” like a compromised immune system due to stress or malnutrition. “Ailments of the body express themselves by means of the body,” like when a guy who shoots himself up with yellow fever gets yellow fever, proving it’s a virus. That’s about as clear as you can get, causally. You’d almost never get a proof that clear in my discipline (history, which is either The Messiest Science or The Most Scientific Branch of the Humanities).
Anyway, you didn’t say earlier that “the whole thing gets reflected in the brain;” like Molly Ren pointed out, you began by explicitly stating that your point was to ask whether “biological causality” “only ran one way;” whether or not mental states caused illness.
Given extreme conditions, “how you are” might well affect “how you think”. Why, then, might “how you are” not affect “how you think” under less extreme conditions as well? Is biological causality a street which only runs one way?..They don’t need to have had profound mood swings, only something which rendered them susceptible to the disease …Why are they subject to that particular disease? What separates them from their neighbors?
Are you changing your mind to a position that’s more defensible (if so, great; thanks) or are you equivocating?
*sigh* i feel like this should be too obvious to need explaining but the title of an act has no legal significance. its just a thing that there for debating it, it isnt passed into law. the text is what matters, and the text of vawa is conspicuously gender neutral. seriously, it could be called the centuars rights act and as long as the text wasnt changed it would have the same effect.
Hey Mr. Meller, dyu know what else is hilarious? Prostate cancer! Bwahahahah!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!11!!111!!!!
Side note: it’s the second day of my employment discrimination class and already some dipshit was like ‘what about white men?’
Yep, not rocket science. Now if only there were a branch of science dedicated to exploring this “illness” stuff… hmm…
The fact is, “[n]othing in the act denies services, programs, funding or assistance to male victims of violence.” See here. So why is it necessary to make the language of VAWA gender inclusive? Because words matter. The very title, and the gender exclusive language, of the current VAWA serve as a de facto “MEN NOT WELCOME” sign that only reinforces eons of harmful, gender constricting cultural stereotypes–stereotypes that make it very difficult for men to acknowledge their victimization from domestic violence, much less to do anything about it.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Tedious, witman. We’ve already covered that and if you can’t pull your head out of you ass long enough to listen to people (perhaps even a lawyer who could use VAWA to help male DV victims) who have already talked about it repeatedly, then we’re not going to hold your hand because your fee-fees are hurt.
Obviously I struck a nerve here! Since 1977 (or thereabouts, it is more than thirty years ago!) When a certain Francine Hughes made the headlines by burning her husband alive when he slept, every few months it seems that a woman inflicts a horrible death on a man,usually a man who is supposed to be her “nearest and dearest”, a hugh gaggle of shrieking harpies gather for the “defence” of such a monster, and proceed to behave more or less the way the feminists–and their contemptible renegade male(?) housepets–do on this cite.
Mounds of ridicule, posts that support the tormentor, attempts to cite total irreleventa to “show” that he (the beast) somehow “deserved” it, and just plain dismissiveness…
After thirty years+, I have had it! As they say in Brooklyn, “Da woim toined”! I am NOT a fiend who goes around looking for tragically unfortunate female cancer victims to gloat over their misery, Never have and never will. But after hearing about After hearing about this latest outrage from Sharon Osborne and Wendy Williams–who are both, as far as I know, still on the air–I struck back in the only way that I think that they–or other man-hating feminists–understand. I said, basically, let the same thing happen to you, and see how you like it!! I see that I have made my point.
There were two measly posts here who reminded me that there were some women who rebuked the talk-show harpies for their outrageous cruelty. Sorry, but out of 273, at the time of this posting, two is NOT enough!The responses of the other 270+ are all that the talkshow feminists were right, and I am WRONG to object in any way! Your posts all show that feminists, in the media, are exactly as inhuman as I show them to be, and that my response-wishing upon the torments of cancer–, however outrageously cruel it would be with real people, against feminists and their ilk–is thirty years overdue, and long justified! Maybe I am the first to invoke karmic justice here, but I won’t be the last!
This was after more than three decades of the most callous, brutal, and vicious attacks on men imaginable, simply because they were male–the poor fellows were born with a Y chromosome. If you find it cruel and unusual punishment when women are similarly treated, on a tiny, eccentric obscure website, how will you feel when justice pursues feminists onto the mainstream media. It will happen, and will BURN whether I am even alive to help it along or not.Your consistant and extremely vocal support for the female tormentors just shows the world the kind of people(?) that you are and vindicates my actions!
PEACE AND JUSTICE!!
David K. Meller
PS- i don’t–and never have–spent my time drooling over the idiot box, or mass-circulation periodicals, most of whom are dedicated to women anyhow. One can safely surmise, therefore, that the situation as It is is far worse than I have related it regarding female abuse of and murder of men. I no doubt missed quite a few equally horrid cases. DKM
Way to selectively read, Meller. There were more than two posts here disagreeing with Sharon Osbourne, Feminist Icon.
In short, eat a bowl of fuck.
YOURS IN SHE-VIPERY!!!
hellkell