So yesterday I quoted some random Spearheader who described women (well, white women in particular) as “complete parasitical whores roaming the landscape spreading VD like Johnny Appleseed and fucking men over.”
One reader wondered if Mr. Appleseed really went about spreading VD. So I did a little research, and it turns out that it is exceedingly unlikely that Mr. Appleseed – who actually was a real person — spread anything other than the magic of apples. And his Swedenborgian beliefs.
Why? Because Mr. Appleseed – real name John Chapman – was what these days we might call a Man Going His Own Way. Seems he didn’t have much truck with the ladies, according to one contemporary account quoted in his Wikipedia entry:
On one occasion Miss PRICE’s mother asked Johnny if he would not be a happier man, if he were settled in a home of his own, and had a family to love him. He opened his eyes very wide–they were remarkably keen, penetrating grey eyes, almost black–and replied that all women were not what they professed to be; that some of them were deceivers; and a man might not marry the amiable woman that he thought he was getting, after all.
So what led poor Mr. Appleseed to these dire thoughts about women? Apparently the underage girl he hoped to some day get with was more into dudes who weren’t him:
Now we had always heard that Johnny had loved once upon a time, and that his lady love had proven false to him. Then he said one time he saw a poor, friendless little girl, who had no one to care for her, and sent her to school, and meant to bring her up to suit himself, and when she was old enough he intended to marry her. He clothed her and watched over her; but when she was fifteen years old, he called to see her once unexpectedly, and found her sitting beside a young man, with her hand in his, listening to his silly twaddle.
That ungrateful little strumpet!
I peeped over at Johnny while he was telling this, and, young as I was, I saw his eyes grow dark as violets, and the pupils enlarge, and his voice rise up in denunciation, while his nostrils dilated and his thin lips worked with emotion. How angry he grew! He thought the girl was basely ungrateful. After that time she was no protegé of his.
But Appleseed, despite giving up on women in the real world, held out hope for the afterlife – explaining to others that he expected to have two spirit wives all his own after he died. Which I guess is the 19th century equivalent of the MGTOWers today who fantasize about the sexy robot ladies who will eventually, it is hoped, make actual human females – with their troubling “thoughts” and “needs” and “desires” of their own – obsolete.
Mr. Appleseed’s quest to remain alone was probably also helped by the fact that – if the illustration I found on Wikipedia is any indication – he looked a bit like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Only much, much sloppier, with long hair. Oh, and instead of wearing a baseball cap, he wore “a tin utensil which answered both as a cap and a mush pot.”
So, yeah, a creepy weirdo who hates women — definitely an MGTOWer all the way.
Oh, except that he actually did something with his life — you know, helping spread apple trees to a big portion of the midwest — instead of spending all his time going on about how all women are whores.
Cassandra: This is the “Thomas Friedman” problem. When you read one of his pieces (short, or long) they are all perfectly coherent so long as you accept the premises he posits at the beginning as true.
The moment you change that, they fall apart like a house of cards in a hurricane.
Yep. It makes it almost impossible to engage with a person, if they insist on doing that. Much like with NC4OM, I think the problem is that the person in question genuinely believes the wacky things they’re assuming to be true, and they’re shocked and outraged by the fact that others don’t agree.
Which is why I’ve stopped even attempting to engage with Meller in a logical way and switched to just making fun of him.
Cassandra: re Meller, I’ve found that taking him at his word is the best way (well, I do this with everyone, pretty much). It confounds him, because his words are contradictory.
Not merely with themselves, but with his impression of himself. He likes to think he loves women, but his words (repeatedly) show that he hates them. He wants slaves. He likes to think they will be happy in his vision of paradise.
Pointing out the violence (and statism) inherent in his views, makes him crazy.
I’m late to this one, haven’t read all (or even 2) of the comments, but saw this qouted in someone else’s comment:
“If women want out, they will need something MUCH better than I’m bored, dissatisfied, or unhappy”.
I’ll say that if both or either a man and/or woman want out, and there is nothing serious like abuse or addiction, then, if they have children, they need to put the wellbeing of their kids above their own need for excitement or happiness and WORK at making their relationship better.
If there are no kids involved – leave.
Simple as that.
“Yep. It makes it almost impossible to engage with a person, if they insist on doing that. Much like with NC4OM, I think the problem is that the person in question genuinely believes the wacky things they’re assuming to be true,”
Silly girl, you have failed to provide even ONE example of something “wacky” I believe to be true.
Believing that Islam needs to be revised, updated and feminized is not “wacky”. You do realize that there are Muslims who feel the same, don’t you? Are they wacky too?
What is so “wacky” about revising and updating a religion, and making it more female friendly?????????
Is religion a “sacred cow” that cannot be touched upon ever, even with the intent to make it more egalitarian and fair? What gives?
Again, I don’t really expect to get an answer out of you, because you can’t. But I’ll ask anyway and hold out hope for change I can believe in.
🙂
NC4OM: Believing that Islam needs to be revised, updated and feminized is not “wacky”. You do realize that there are Muslims who feel the same, don’t you? Are they wacky too?
What is so “wacky” about revising and updating a religion, and making it more female friendly?????????
Is religion a “sacred cow” that cannot be touched upon ever, even with the intent to make it more egalitarian and fair? What gives?
Are you, now, a practising Muslim?
If not, then yes, it is a “sacred cow”. Telling other people what to believe is not on. It’s the sort of thing MRAs and Mellers do.
Again, I don’t really expect to get an answer out of you, because you can’t.
Actually, Rutee has answered you. You have, stubbornly, refused to admit it. I’m not saying you should accept her arguments, but you aren’t even willing to entertain them. That’s not engaging in debate. That’s you holding forth and demanding everyone else pretend you are the only one addressing the issues. It’s you acting as if you are proven right, merely because you are plugging your ears and closing your eyes to the actual responses.
As you did the last couple of incarnations you chose to use to grace us with.
Dave, Pecuji needs to be “moderated”! She brought the RofP of up after you clearly said whoever does will be moderated (instead of made moderate).
NC4OM: 1: I didn’t see his command prior to my comment.
2: Even if Dave chooses to moderate me, he has a life, and isn’t reading the blog 24/7.
3: I didn’t actually talk about Islam. I talked about you.
4: Feeling put upon? Upset that you can’t rant and rave, and annoyed that others have commented, mostly about you, and you can’t froth about your favorite peeve.
That, as they say, is the way the cookie crumbles. It was your monomania which caused Dave to ban that topic of conversation. You make your bed, you lie in it.
BTW: I see what you are doing with my name. I know that you are doing it intentionally.
If it pleases you to you amuse yourself that way, well… your kink is your kink, but is that the way an adult acts? I’m not the only one watching you. I’m not the one with a credibility problem. I’m not the one behaving in a publicly petty manner.
Just something to think about.
One problem that I am discovering when trying to develop and apply a theory of rights which can safely include women, in a laisssez faire economy and social order, which I (and other libertarians) have given too little thought before, is that women–as a group–seem to lack the rationality, good judgement, and maturity (at least until menopause?) and one is trying to describe–or even advocate–a society for them giving them an equal freedom and personal sovereignty that they are certainly not ready for! Even libertarians acknowledge that children, pets, etc. need some degree of guardianship, and that application of rights appropriate to a fully developed rational entity is NOT appropriate to one whom is not, even though cruelty or neglect may be clearly prohibited.
One–of countless examples–that we all have encountered, follows below:
A women (girl) who goes on a date with an internet pickup, attends a tavern, in a shady part of town, has too much to drink, gets herself drunk to the point of disorientation, her “escort” disappears, she staggers out with the first “man” she sees who will “take her home”, he takes her–to HIS home–and,,,it’s showtime!!
Drunken floozie wakes up the next morning, finds that she was yesterday’s entertainment, at the behest of man #2, can barely remember what happened in the bar with man #1, and the she runs to the nearest police station crying “rape”!
Detectives (already overworked with the (far easier to prove and prosecute) rape and assault cases they have, must drop everything to deal with a hysterical modern woman exploring the “dating scene”.
Somehow, NOW, ‘Take Back the Night” and other bitch lobby activists then get into the act,
Newspaper headlines, and idiot box lead stories transmit Ms. floozy’s tale of woe; male callousness and brutality allegedly ‘causing’ this, and rapes(?) like this from Tokyo to Paris, from San Francisco to New Delhi, and from New York to Buenos Aires fills noisemedia for days, if not weeks…Of course, any comment that maybe if she had used the good judgement at any time during that evening which is expected of a ten-year old (“Don’t get into a car with strangers”, even if he offers you a treat!”) is called ‘blaming the victim”, and is promptly discounted if not suppressed.
You, dear readers, take it from there…
How many dozen, if not hundred of stories similar to this have we read about adult (OK chronologically adult) women every year? How many are just as messy, but go unreported?
Women accorded personal freedom and its attendent responsibility? Let’s look more closely at that one, shall we?
Next case!
“women–as a group–seem to lack the rationality, good judgement, and maturity (at least until menopause?)”
What the eff happens at menopause? Do our vaginas turn into extra brain cells?
Do you feel that it is misandry for women to take steps to protect themselves by avoiding men that give off “vibes” of rapeyness? Or is it only acceptable for women to avoid rape by limiting their choices?
Is it wrong for men to get drunk? Is it wrong for men to go out with dates from the Internet? Is it wrong for men to visit bars? Is it wrong for men to go home with strangers? Why? If these are not wrong, is there comparable behavior that is wrong for men but not women? Are you aware that men can be raped?
Does getting drunk, going out with Internet dates, visiting bars or going home with strangers imply consent? If so, what other actions imply consent to sex? If not, why are you using question marks after rape?
Meller, first of all, you’re off your game. You forgot to say PEACE AND FREEDOM!
Secondly, if you’re any indication, women have a higher mastery of comma usage, at least.
MENHIRS AND DOLMENS!
So…. one night of excess = drunken floozie.
“have some madiera my dear”
Men who engage in random sex = just ducks.
Women = ruined, and lacking in judgement.
And you think this justifies making women non-citizens.
But you still call yourself a libertarian.
To clarify: A woman makes a choice you disapprove of (perhaps even many women), this means you can decide they aren’t capable of rational thought.
Many people point to your stated views, and decide they think you aren’t capable of rational thought.
This, you declare show they are irrational. So you, a single person, are able to declare half the human race to be incapable of thought, even though a lot of people (many of them men), can point to evidence of you discarding actual reasoning, facts, evidence.
Again, you are being an authoritarian, and pretending you are a libertarian.
Looks like Meller is another………………. Sexual Marxist.
“Women are incapable of rationality, good judgement, and maturity, even when they are in their 20s and 30s. It is possible that women may gain these qualities upon reaching menopause, but what hormonal changes have to do with it has not yet been discovered.” — from the updated version of David K. Meller’s History of the Modern World.
NC4OM is like a drinking game.
Seriously. I know some Marxists who are cool people. Stop insulting them by comparing them to MRAs.
Since our host told her to stop babbling about Islam she had to find a new theme to fixate on. Thus, sexual Marxism.
NC4OM: I’ve seen what happens when people who hate each other stay together ‘for the kid.’ It isn’t pretty. It left horrible psychological scars that may never heal.
She’s like a radio that’s always playing the same song no matter what station you’re on.
I stopped closing my posts with “PEACE AND FREEDOM” when people asked me to.
I don’ t know what–if anything–menopause has to do with this, Molly Ren. I just noticed that it seems that younger women get themselves –and their goofy girlfriends–into such messes more often than older women do. Maybe girls are more impulsive and emotional than older women are, as a rule, but I am sure that someone could find exception to that.
Ozy42–I am probably the wrong person to talk about with this, since I don’t go to bars, pick up strangers off the internet, and awaken drunk in somebody else home, having had my “virtue” stolen. If you like, every large city, and indeed most small towns, at this point, have women who, despite warnings, can talk about this with a much more “inside perspective” than I can.
Yes, men can be, and are, raped. But lest deal with one problem at a time, shall we?
Pecunium, you see yourself in print again. Twice! Isn’t that wonderful? Happy now?
“Sexual Marxist”?? Who or what the heck is THAT?? I am NO Marxist, except, with due respect to John Lennon, of the Groucho variety!
As Gaiman and Pratchett said, “all tapes left in an automobile become “The Best of Queen”.
Meller: You refuse to answer my points. You got to engage in what you think of as mockery.
Happy now?