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.
oh look, magdelyn swoops in with another no content post to draw attention to how cool and above it all she wants us to think she is. alert the fucking news.
Voip.
In his world your experiences have not happened since the 50’s.
He can’t imagine that these events happened recently because since the golden age of male run families women just leave their husbands to die on street corners. Which happens on a daily basis across America, much like castrating husbands.
Caregivers are never given the spotlight they deserve imho. Our daughter gave two years out of her life to move into her grandparents home while her grandmother was dying. She not only ran the logistics of care for her grandmother and tended to her herself but once she died she took over the household.
She had nothing to gain, in fact she lost in the grand scheme of things.
Like, c’mon, check out this awesome joke:
“What did the 29-year-old uterine cancer patient say to her husband after her full hysterectomy?”
“I…I’m so sorry… ohgod I wish we could still have children–!”
BA DUMP! Fucking comedy gold, bitches! I mean, yeah, it’s funnier when I tell it live, ’cause then I do the anguished faces of her and her husband — when he tries to stay strong as she crumples into sobbing at the last word it’s gaddamn hilarious! — but still pretty good, yeah? 😀
@ sharculese
“…no content post…”
You mean like yours?
@Rutee
“Black people are amazingly underrepresented in a number of key areas; it’s not just the presidency they’ve lacked, and even getting there we had a lot of racist bullshit”
I though I’d made myself quite clear, yet feminists can’t even get it when it’s spelled out. Obama, being black translates to nothing in the way of power for black men. The same goes for cynickal statement of….“The US Senate has 17 out of 100 who are women. 76 out of 441 in the House of Representatives.” Those 87 men in the senate and 365 men in the house, reguardless of race mean nothing to the 160 million men of this country.
There, I spelled it out for ya. If those “men” think they will get re-elected by promising women free schooling which men have to pay for, and only women are allowed to apply for jobs over 75K a year that’s what they’ll do. So when feminists say there are more men as top politicians. That. Means. Nothing. Do you get the point now?
—————————
“2 and a Half Men only fails the “5 hosts” part of this. Well, it fails ‘all male’, but The Talk isn’t an all-female audience so it’s not a double standard that 2.5 men fails this either.”
Well I’ve never actually watched the show, but if they normally talk about an actual event where a man slices off a womans genitals in front of a live audience of men and they all break out in uproarious laughter, I humbly apologize.
please owlslave, explain in more detail how a single black president in over 200 years is equivalent to a legislative body that has been dominated by men for the entirety of that span. because without further elaboration it sounds fucking moronic.
NWO: I’m deadly serious, and stop calling me Shirley.
But we know you lie, and now we have a sense of your standards. A feminst site took down a hateful comment (about using a machete on men). The MRA sites upvote the reverse.
This, in your mind shows how much less hateful MRAs are than women.
“You mean like yours?”
“I know you are but what am I”? Really?
@Sharculese
“please owlslave, explain in more detail how a single black president in over 200 years is equivalent to a legislative body that has been dominated by men for the entirety of that span. because without further elaboration it sounds fucking moronic.”
Well since you seem to be as brain dead as cynickal and rutee, I’ll try. If those men at the top meant the other 160 million men gained from them being men at the top there would only be VAMA instead of VAWA. AA only for men. Title IX only for men. Default child custody for men, (women would have to fight for child custody and lose 83% of the time) There would be 10 federally funded health centers for men. Women would be punished more harshly for the same crimes.
I could really go on forever but hopefully even someone such as yourself, either actually or feigning ignorance can grasp this.
@Rutee
“…Really?..”
Uh, yes. Really.
Hope that helps.
Or, NWO: It could be that the actual facts of the matter are that women are in need of balancing legislation to make up for systemic inequalities.
I’d try to point out the vast depth of your misunderstanding of the actual facts of the act, but I’ve seen that it’s fruitless, and I need to do things of both greater import, and with more chance of success, like steam-clean the cat.
owlslave, you know that thing where i keep telling you you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to the law. this is that again. VAWA and Title IX are both gender neutral, and senator biden, who i know is like super-hitler in your fevered imagination, endorsed statements to the effect that nothing about vawa should be construed to deny its protection to men who are victims of domestic violence. seriously, owlslave, if youre going to lie to me, pick a subject i dont know.
@rutee-
magdelyn may be a cliche but at least shes committed to being a cliche. ill give her that.
I’d try to point out the vast depth of your misunderstanding of the actual facts of the act, but I’ve seen that it’s fruitless,
yeah, im pretty sure this is the last time i try to explain the law to owlslave. its not just that hes clearly out of his depth, its that he has no interest in actually understanding the content of these laws. its not worth my time.
“There, I spelled it out for ya. If those “men” think they will get re-elected by promising women free schooling which men have to pay for, and only women are allowed to apply for jobs over 75K a year that’s what they’ll do. So when feminists say there are more men as top politicians. That. Means. Nothing. Do you get the point now?”
They won’t get re-elected if they promise those things, you dimwit, and the propensity for people in power to understand, empathize with, AND ADVANTAGE those like them is not up for credible debate, as it’s so well established.
But you’re a moron. You don’t get how it’s helpful to have an Old Boy Club on your side, because you’re still poor. You haven’t read the number of times men specifically bias against women, when they’re in positions of power, some of which have been shown on this site. You don’t know that women are discriminated against even unconsciously. You’re an idiot.
Arguing that Title IX and VAWA are “gender neutral” is either a profound mistatement, or flat out mendacious. There is a concept in the law, Disparate Impact. Just because the language of a statute or administrative action is neutral, does not mean that the impact of that statute or adminstrative action is not discriminatory. Title IX especially, being primarily enforced through administrative rules that never come before an elected body to ratify, particularly has a disparate impact on men and boys. The Office of Civil Rights which adminsters claims of discrimination functions wholey to the detriment of young men in sports. We are repeately sold the fiction that young women are just as interested in sports and young men, therefore, sports opportunities have to satisfy the prong of the three part test that requires proportional opportunity. Now that 60% of colleges are women, these administrative fictions serve to make college even less welcoming for young men.
The Department of Education may have couched its new requirment that colleges adopt a perponderance of the evidence standard for sexual harassment complaints, but every thinking person knows that this scandalous intrusion by the department will have a disparate impact on young men.
The argument is silly.
Kave:
I was running this conversation around in my head earlier and I came to the conclusion that when he said this:
“Getting rid of mutual dependency is the best thing feminism ever did. It looks great in fairy tales, but there is a story of tears between the lines. The story of solitude, unreached potential, and moral confinement is never told. Dust from the fairy tale covers all this up.”
he has to assume that most people shouldn’t love, that it’s just “mutual dependency ” that needs to be “gotten rid of” since it makes you less likely to “reach your potential.” If he thinks that love is weakness, that’d explain some of the other things he says too. I mean, it’s a terrible way to live, but at least it explains the vitriol he pours on the concept of child support.
Anyway, I hope you and your family are doing well. You have my sympathies.
“Arguing that Title IX and VAWA are “gender neutral” is either a profound mistatement, or flat out mendacious. There is a concept in the law, Disparate Impact. Just because the language of a statute or administrative action is neutral, does not mean that the impact of that statute or adminstrative action is not discriminatory. Title IX especially, being primarily enforced through administrative rules that never come before an elected body to ratify, particularly has a disparate impact on men and boys.”
Yes, we know men are not actually the majority victims of discrimination by gender. We’re completely aware of that, that’s why we’re feminists. The point of neutral language is that if a man *IS* discriminated against by gender, they should still have redress before the law. If a man *IS* the victim of domestic violence, outlier or not, he still needs redress and protection. But we’re already aware that women are going to benefit more, because they suffer more oppression in general. That isn’t a particularly good argument.
“The Department of Education may have couched its new requirment that colleges adopt a perponderance of the evidence standard for sexual harassment complaints, but every thinking person knows that this scandalous intrusion by the department will have a disparate impact on young men.”
Yeah, because young men commit a disproportionate amount of sexual assault. What’s the problem?
@ Rutee
I would suggest you go do a little more research into the enforcement of title ix before you present such a weak rebuttle. BTW sexual harassment =/= sexual assaut, no matter how much advocacy research you rely on.
“because without further elaboration it sounds fucking moronic.”
I think with further elaboration . . . it will sound even more fucking moronic.
“Thanks. I work at it. I bet you would also, if you were a member of an oppressed and dehumanized group, regarded as sub-human by your government.”
Hey Zarat, my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on were literally an oppressed and dehumanized group, regarded as sub-human by our government. They didn’t find hyperbole and obtuseness to be particularly useful tools. Of course, the nature of their oppression was as clear as the “Whites Only” signs that perfectly encapsulated it, so they didn’t have to resort to hyperbole. Lucky them.
You don’t really have to explain to people how oppressed you are when the very act of exercising your constitutional rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, is met with fire hoses and german shepherds.
My grandfather told me that being bitten by a german shepherd is almost exactly like having someone disagree with you on the internet.
that is such a terrible synthesis of the law that i just don’t know where to begin. soo let’s start with you fucking up the basics.
there is a difference between reading a statute on its face and how it is applied. only one of them is relevant to the thing owlslave is talking about (ranting about the evils of congress). why you think bringing admin law into a discussion of congressional intent makes sense is beyond me.
anyway, on its face (again, this is the thing that matters when talking about congressional intent) both VAWA and Title IX are gender neutral. this is obvious from the most basic reading of the text. it is buttressed by comments by the drafters, as i mentioned earlier.
whether the statutes, as applied, have a disparate impact is another question, it is totally irrelevant to the claim owlslave made, and thus bringing it into the discussion would have been dumb. which is why i didnt. again, im not sure why you did.
“I would suggest you go do a little more research into the enforcement of title ix before you present such a weak rebuttle.”
So you’re not gonna substantiate your claim, and you want me to think you’re not a clown.
Nope, don’t think so. You’re just another Good ONe. Good luck with that, the misogynist dudes never need a misogynist woman to validate their bullshit opinions.
“BTW sexual harassment =/= sexual assaut, no matter how much advocacy research you rely on.”
DoJ Statistics != Advocacy Research. But you’re right, sexual assault is also not sexual harrassment, but you know… still disproportionately men who commit it. Funny, that.
“again, im not sure why you did.”
Because she is a moron?
i dont think shes a moron, i just think shes absorbed a rudimentary understanding over the issues involved (there is evidence to suggest that VAWA is being applied in a discriminatory manner, actually. its not conclusive, and im not convinced by it, but it exists) and taking it way beyond where she should have because shes overconfident in her understanding of the law.
the elementary explanation of disparate impact was what keyed me off. it was very babys first blacks dictionary.
@sharcluese
first, you misrepresent owlslave argument. He didn’t say; “the text of the laws” are discriminatory. He implies that those statutes benefit women, and only women, which exactly right on the mark. You try to reframe his argument because you know that the aforementioned laws discriminate against men. But to argue that the “Violence Against WOMEN act” is neutral is silly. Have you read the law? It is far from gender neutral.
I’m not familiar with the evidence specifically for VAWA, but that would dovetail ‘nicely’ with research on men’s domestic violence experiences, et al (Less common, but still inferior help). I’m also familiar with a few cases in the law that establish that, hollow comfort that it is, men have as little right to self-defense claims in at least domestic violence as women.
But yes, none of it substantiates her claim. And I noticed the rudimentary explanation, because it’s close to what I’d say, and I’m aware I only know more than laymen about the law.