You might assume that those Occupy Wall Street protests (and their various offshoots) you’ve seen so much little of on the news lately are all about, you know, Wall Street, and the economy, and the fact that the very people who got our economy into the mess it’s in are somehow all still richer (a lot richer) than you or me. But apparently that’s not it at all. Nope! Apparently it’s all about hating on the menz.
How so? Let us turn to the good fellows at The Spearhead for guidance. In a recent post titled Occupy Wall Street Is Just Another Vehicle For Misandry, the blogger known only as Pro Male/Anti-Feminist Tech (PMAFT for short) argues that the movement is overrun by dastardly “single mothers and other women demonstrating high levels of entitlement.” His proof: one lady he found posting her story on the We Are the 99 Percent blog who noted that she had “no job, 3 kids and cannot see a med … let the dudes pay my bills.”
You might assume that by “the dudes” the lady in question is referring to extremely rich dudes – you know, the 1 percent that the “we are the 99 percent” movement is focusing its attention on. But apparently PMAFT knows better than we do, declaring that
she is demanding men subsidize her, not rich men or billionaires (which would be questionable enough) but men in general.
Oh, but she’s not the only entitled princess on display on the 99 Percent blog. Here are two other women — chosen from hundreds of examples from the blog — that to PMAFT seem to epitomize the evils of female entitlement and man-hatred:
Imagine, women actually having the chutzpah to want medical insurance for young children! Blatant misandry at its worst!
The commenters whooped it up in typical Spearhead fashion. “Single mums want to fuck with John and expect Harry to support her and her kids,” complained Nico. “New-age gov-mediated cuckoldry.”
To the redoubtable Uncle Elmer, these women’s pleas were
symptomatic of the feminized educational system and media. Without a manly Patriarchy to call BS on a lot of these entitlement notions, we have several generations of women now sailing into the hard rock of reality. … nobody cares.
Finndistan, meanwhile, wrote a screed nearly as long as the OP, laying out his case against shoe-wearing single mothers. A condensed version:
So, single mom? Should’ve kept your legs closed… should’ve chosen a better man….
I am not in America, but my single friends who get laid by one of your friends once every blue moon are already paying for you and your friends shoes and bastards by the insane amount of taxes imposed on them with threat of imprisonment.
If these guys are the 1%; that makes you, the 99%, parasites….
You, found a dipsh%t welfare boy, made a baby, and we, the 1% as defined by you, who actually want to work and create something useful, not bastards, are getting screwed by the real 1% who steal from us to give to you, so you can buy shoes and create bastards.
As a man … more than one third of my earning … go[es] to feed your shoes and your bastards …
Single mom with shoes and bastards, bought and being payed for by my money.
Occupy Wallstreet just shows that the western man is the pinata of the western world. And then he dies.
This comment got 63 upvotes from the locals, but no shoes or bastards.
AfOR, not quite as longwinded, noted that he found the women’s pictures “hilarious,” adding:
Suck it down bitches.
If you blow me PROPERLY I’ll buy you a 99 cent burger.
This got 58 upvotes from the totally non-hateful readers of The Totally Non-Hateful Spearhead.
EDITED TO ADD:
Speaking of hateful, here’s a comment I somehow missed, from evilwhitemaleempire. Readers of the comments here will recognize him as a dickish dude who posts dickish comments here from time to time. But in this comment he really lets his misogynist flag fly. (TRIGGER WARNING FOR VIOLENT MISOGYNY) Referring to one of the women cited as “entitled” by PMAFT, who had noted that she has “no money to hire a lawyer so I can divorce my abusive husband,” evilshitemaleempire offered this advice:
Heh. If she’s telling the absolute truth about her life on that paper (questionable) then she needs to go back to that abusive husband and start doing some serious dick sucking.
And if he wants anal sex she’d better give it to ‘em.
At last count this comment had 16 upvotes and one downvote. Stay classy, Spearhead.
My understanding is that science has a great lead on male birth control, but the drug companies say market research suggests men won’t use it. Obviously some men would but apparently not enough to justify rolling it out yet. This is one area where MRAs could get some activist experience. Let the drug companies know what you want!
What about the other 99%? The 99% of MEN who have to financially support these women’s poor choices. I’m tired of these entitled princesses wanting MEN to pay for their health care, “child support”, and uni loans.
Wait, men have no power to call off engagements? Since when is every man Bertie Wooster?
Meller, are you seriously complaining about not being able to marry a woman without her consent? Because that’s what I’m seeing.
Here are some tips for you. Read and remember them well (she said, knowing full well that he wouldn’t):
Men can propose marriage, or not propose marriage.
Women can propose marriage, or not propose marriage.
Men can accept a proposal of marriage, or decline a proposal of marriage.
Women can accept a proposal of marriage, or decline a proposal of marriage.
Men can break off an engagement at any time before the marriage is made legal.
Women can break off an engagement at any time before the marriage is made legal.
Men can sue for divorce.
Women can sue for divorce.
Where’s the injustice here? Both sexes have the exact same rights vis-a-vis proposing, entering into, continuing, or ending a marriage.
You do know how creepy it sounds that you get upset about someone have veto power about who they’re willing to spend the rest of their lives with, right? Also, when a women proposes to a man (which should happen more often, I agree), the exact same thing remains true.
Also, my heart really breaks for these women, and all the other posters who were brave enough to tell their stories. Sometimes I hate this world so, so much.
Karalora, Meller thinks the injustice is that men and women have the same rights. He thinks that having to listen to women talk is oppressive to men.
If you don’t trust women not poke to holes in condoms (Does this happen often, by the way? You have any statistics?) then don’t let your condoms fall into anyone else’s hands before you use them. Or, y’know, don’t have sex until you get your raging paranoia under control.
Please. We don’t just poke holes in condoms; we poke holes, then fold them back up, rewrap them, and reseal them so perfectly no one can tell they were tampered with. Every sexually active woman keeps an industrial blister packaging machine at home for just that purpose. If only it were possible for men to buy their own condoms, they might have some way to protect themselves from the hordes of women desperate to steal their sperm, but no dice.
I have to admit, I have a perverse fondness for the MRAs who are incapable of concealing the fact that they know exactly as much about sex as the average twelve-year-old. They’re so… innocent. In a totally evil way.
According to DKM, a slut is a woman with 3 kids who is divorced OR a pregnant woman who does not mention her marital status. I don’t see how being too slutty plays into this at all.
Everywhere? I doubt it. DKM, this will blow your mind: in Sweden, men and women give each other engagement rings. HOLY SHIT CULTURES DIFFER ARGLBARGLKLJDSALKFJ
In some states in the US, men and men can marry each other! How do they know who asks who? I have no idea!
And believe or not–I know you won’t–but even in the God Blessed United States Of America it is legal for a woman to ask a man to marry her.
Marriage results as a result (contacting the Department of Redundancy Department) of a man and a woman or a woman and a woman or a man and a man accepting each other.
This sentence is especially weird, even for DKM:
“Woman declines, for any reason, engagement is off, and marriage doesn’t take place, whether she is randomly evil, wears disgusting powersuits, or not.”
Um. What? What does being randomly evil or wearing “disgusting powersuits” have to do with it? Do you even think about what you’re writing as you write? Or are you trying to imply that the only reason a woman should be able to cancel an engagement is if the man no longer wants to marry her?
In any case, Newsflash: both parties can veto a wedding. Maybe you live in Kyrgyzstan where there are a bunch of bridenappings but in most countries it is not legal to marry someone against their will.
@katz
I know, but I can hope that by confronting him with his views in plain language, I at least shock the shit out of someone who was thinking “He’s batshit, but he kind of has a point.”
Well, look on the bright side. At least DKM is being increasingly clear about the fact that it’s women’s ability to refuse requests from men that really ticks him off. Things were so much better in the old days when you just asked a woman’s father if you could marry her, man to man, and she had no say in the matter at all.
I can, for instance, make a generalization about Simpsonsdidit in that he or she won’t be writing grammatical sentences anytime soon.
KathleenB, actually poking holes in condoms has been seen before, but you don’t unwrap it, you take a needle and punch small holes through the condom while it’s still in the wrapper. While I don’t doubt there are some women who do this, men also do (not sure about the percentages of women vs men doing this). It’s a form of control and abuse to make sure your partner doesn’t leave you by getting pregnant or getting them pregnant. Here’s a NY Times article about men abusing women in this manner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/research/15pregnant.html
I’m actually having a tough time finding a report on women who do this, Google just brings up a bunch of personal blogs with guys complaining that women do this all the time because they all want children and men never do…not really reliable sources.
Damn, I know what I forgot to do today, go out and buy a power suit.
And they forgot to blame the 15 year olds working 100 hour weeks in sweat shops in Bangladesh for crashing the stock market. I can’t believe they missed that. Damn.
You get the feeling that if these guys get caught in an unexpected rainstorm, they rush home and post a rant about how women screw up the atmosphere.
The New York Times is the most feminist bunch of birdcage lining this side of hell. If they are reporting that “men are sabotaging condoms to subvert their women’s birth control” it is a safe bet that women are doing it for purposes of trapping men into marriage by unexpectedly getting pregnant.
That is what I meant when I said that women were often sabotaging condoms. I made a mistake when I said that they unwrapped the condom before poking a hole. They don’t have to unwrap it, they can poke a hole in it and he won’t ever know, until it is too late!
The Times simply twists it, giving the news a pro-woman slant, making women out to be “victims” and men out to be the victimizers, but the condom sabotage goes on all the same!
Most of the Times is written for women nowadays. I don’t touch it, except to get a handle on how the criminal NWO elites are thinking, and even then, there are far better websites and newsletters for that purpose!
So much for the New York Times being a ‘reliable source’.
DKM, what do you consider to be a reliable source?
Apparently you learned somewhere that women sabotaging birth control is an epidemic and men doing it isn’t. Do you remember where? Do you remember why you considered it reliable?
Most of the Times is written for women nowadays. I don’t touch it, except to get a handle on how the criminal NWO elites are thinking, and even then, there are far better websites and newsletters for that purpose!
Can you name one?
Bonus points if there are no RUNS OF CAPITAL LETTERS or fucking inappropriate swearing on the front page!
DKM thinks the NYT is biased? I never would have guessed.
DKM laid out his choice of websites in another thread. Reynolds would run out of tinfoil if you tried to read all that.
Holly, While I don’t think that you will actually will read or consult these materials–none of which have runs of CAPS or inappropriate swearing–since you are far too brainwashed for them to do you any good. However, here goes:
American Free Press
The Barnes Review
The New American
American Renaissance
American Nationalist
http://www.mises.org
Chronicles-A magazine of American Culture
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.anu.org
http://www.newswithviews.com
http://www.v-dare.com
The Occidental Quarterly
http://www.thenewamerican.com
Harry Mankow/ http://www.savethemales
Fred Reed
There are others, but this is an excellent start. After a year, if you assimilate the materials, and associated books and periodicals, you WILL understand WHO is turning this world of ours into s**t, why they are doing it, and the (fairly minor) role that feminists–(privileged and overly entitled (mostly) white women–play in their plans for us all!
Truly wishing you…
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! on this journey
David K. Meller
sloejenphys: I do remember reading about abusive partners sabotaging BC, now that I think about it. But I’m still very skeptical of DKM’s claims – he’s not known for using what those of us here in common reality call reliable sources.
Not using “reliable sources”? Pray tell, KathrineB, why do I–and MY sources–turn out to be correct 95% of the time, while those of you “here in common reality” end up with your heads up your backsides all the time,not knowing your butts from a hole in the wall?
Sorry for the vulgarity!
That seems to be the only way that I can get through to you feminists!
What sources though-I have not seen any.