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.
“Also, I love the whole calling men who want to have sex with modern women “eccentric” thing. Fucking hilarious.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I know!
I have a theory that a lot of the men in the Manosphere are closeted.
a couple of websites are representative of all men?
also I’m not humorless, I’m laughing at Meller’s comment right now.
“You have to pay via credit card/pay pal JUST TO WRITE the first email to the girl. And I guarantee you those pics on their are FAKE and who’ll you’ll be writing to is an INDIAN DUDE.”
Best. Scam. EVAR! 😀
No Indian girl of good repute and upbringing would be a mail order bride. They have their marriages arranged to Indian men of equal SES, caste, religion, culture, etc.
As nature intended.
Some of Meller’s Greatest Hits from elseweb.
(ANUnews.net/blog?cat=181)
Racist, yep.
(the Spearhead, “too pretty to do homework, Sept. 7, 2011)
Meller, if the soft and fluffy women are a majority, why are they so hard for you to find?
(ibid)
Yep, no desire to reduce half the population to slavery (also, no cry to get rid of the state, just one to change the laws; so that women are brood mares, not citizens).
This one is a bit out of keeping, but the spelling is interesting.
I believe that it was either Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy who said that you could tell a lot about a country’s degree of civilization by its prisons! I guess the prisons extent in the USSA (United Statist Socialist Amerika nowadays tell us all that there is to know, don’t they?
(bobtuskin.com: prison hell in america)
For a dose of the really not clear on the concept (not surprising, as Meller is a Climate Change Denialist).
(The economic collapse blog: The worst mississippi flood ever)
(theamericanconservative.com coburns burden).
Yep, the FDA, and the EPA should be shut down, so the glory days before they existed, when all food/drink/medicines were healthy and the air was pure, and the water sweet.
(ibid)
Unless of course, they were, you know, women; or disagree with him (you know, like me… one of those people who served, on the FRONT LINES).
Never mind that most vets don’t qualify for free care unless they were (like me) rated at more than 50 percent disabled, got a purple heart or are below the poverty line.
Why let facts screw with a good screed.
There’s more, but I have to go to work.
Yeppers, non-libertarianism (of the Mellerian School), is the cause of plaugues and earthquakes and brushfires.
DKM:
I’d quibble about the phrase “sexually access”, but I can certainly attest to the quality of two-way sexual congress with strong-minded, confident women who are comfortable with their own bodies, who know exactly what they want, and who have an erotic imagination to match. It’s pretty damn great, in fact.
Hmm – I wonder why that might be?
“Most men” ≠ MRAs.
And most men of my acquaintance have had a bad relationship experience at some point – or, to use your terminology, they were “done bad by contemporary women”. But because they recognize that a single bad apple doesn’t say anything useful about half the global human population, they picked themselves up and moved on. I myself met my wife literally hours after splitting up with her predecessor (about whom, frankly, internal alarm bells had been jangling from day one).
I’d never get involved with anyone narcissistic, bitter or humorless – what would be the point? But most feminists I know are bright, witty, and endlessly interesting – largely because they have opinions of their own that often differ from mine, which to me is an overwhelming plus. Similarly, I don’t recognize “opinionated” and “pushy” as negatives – indeed, I’m delighted that my daughter is already heading firmly down that route and woe betide anyone who tries to stop her.
“also, no cry to get rid of the state, just one to change the laws; so that women are brood mares, not citizens”
The LAST thing these MRA so-called “libertarians” want is to get rid of the State, the Feds, Big Government. Rather they want MORE laws to be made – to restrict women, of course.
Meller, your ego knows no bounds. Either that, or you’ve never figured out how to differentiate between yourself and other people. Your opinions =/= the opinions of everyone. Just because you think something doesn’t mean everyone else does, or should.
@NC4OM!: Really? And what would those laws be? Because even abortion is pretty split in the libertarian camp.
Even libertarian women (and not a few men) who were initially sympathetic to MRA (At one point, that was very true of a more-conservative previous incarnation of zhinxy, btw) have moved on as it became the hateful mess we see today.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.1381
Moving Out of Striking Range.
The libertarianism you see in the MRA these days is usually the same libertarianism you see in the fringes of the conspiracy and white seperatist movements – A sort of hodgepodge that fits the general tone of “don’t trust the gov” “They’re trying to destroy the constitution” “Black helicopters” “Sacred duty of men” “Women are being turned against us by the cia” – A hodgepodge of anarchism one moment, constitutionalism the next, down with the schools one minute, educate women only to level x next, feminists can have their own society, women must be constrained…
Meller – How on earth, if women truly need to be contained, and restrained, are you going to restrict more than half of the population without a state?
Hells, just because I think something, it doesn’t mean anyone else should. Anyone who claims that their way of thinking is the only right way to think is full of shit – and that includes feminists. Not that I’ve noticed a lot of feminists doing that, but there are some.
I posted this in the wrong thread.
MRA and “libertarian” do not go together because MRAs absolutely do not believe in freedom and individualism. Just see this comment from another blog;
There are a couple of reasons why no one is saying “You women need to woman up, get married to the local betas, and start pumping out babies” is twofold:
1. That phrase is considered shaming language and sexist. Our society has bought hook, line and sinker the notion that women are just evening the score after centuries, nay, millenia, of unfair and brutal treatment at the hands of men.
2. Young women have been freed from the old constraints on hypergamy. Now that there are no constraints, women are free to sex up the alphas. They are free to travel (code for “have sex with strange d*ck and exotic men with names like Fernando, Francois and Marco”). They are free to say anything they want to anyone they want, or do anything they want anytime and anywhere they want, with impunity.
in the old days, hypergamy was not constrained. Hypergamy was pushed on you by your family, because it was the hope of the whole family to be lifted up in the world. Keeping your daughter from marrying, or yes, often being the mistress of a powerful man was not something your family was gonna keep you from doing cause a “good beta” needed a wife…
MRA and “libertarian” do not go together because MRAs absolutely do not believe in freedom and individualism. Just see this comment from another blog;
Well, as meller points out, it can be done as long as only men are individuals…
Being bought and sold as de facto chattel isn’t hypergamy, it is involuntary servitude.
But of course. I’m just pointing out that when people use “hypergamy” historically, they’re referring to that, not “susie would chase after the football player in ancient football rome, but they made sure she married beta billicus instead. That’s how people used to constrain the wimmen!” that exists in mrafantasy land.
Zhinxi–15November, 2011 @3:00pm
I was going to discuss this anyway, but your query here provided me with an opportunity to answer the question here and now.
How would we “suppress” half the population of the world without a State?
We, and other libertarians, wouldn’t have to “suppress” anybody. Feminism, left to itself, shows itself to be such a repellent philosophy (‘a woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle’, “don’t cook dinner, starve a rat today”, the defeminization of girls and women by encouraging them in obviously male fields like math, the physical sciences, law and jurisprudence, commerce and industrial management, law-enforcement, the Armed Forces, etc! that left to itself, without Billions of $$$$ in government support, without the intrinsic bias of ‘affirmative action” of gender based ‘quotas”s, without the brainwashing in the electronic noisemedia (FCC regulated and replete with the “…isn’t it WONDERFUL that women are now…” when everyone knows that NO, it isn’t wonderful, it STINKS, the highlighting of women’s so-called achievements over far more significant men’s work in countless fields…
Without the State/Corporate/ noisemedia endless promotion of feminism, without the endless glorification of “unisex”, and without the twisting of legislation and bizarre rulings by Federal Courts demanding equality where none existed, feminism in all of its forms, would be at most, a political and psychological curiosity, if not a freak show!
Without government, and its attendent corporations and their lying ‘Pravdas” pushing it 24/7, nobody would believe it , nobody would listen, and nobody would obey! You feminists would recede to where you were before governments started helping you in the late XIX and early XX century–when things generally started to go straight to hell in a toilet anyway–and women would rediscover their natural femininty, fluffyness, and domesticity! This may even be MORE pronounced than was the case in the past, because the level of prosperity of a laissez-faire society and its technology, global (or even space-based) commerce and free trade, and sound money–for really the first time in human history–would make their natural domesticity and femininity much easier for most (heterosexual) women, along with the men who could take care of them! Feminism would shrink in influence (at least in advanced ex-countries) to approximately the extent of something like wicca (the religion that believes in witches) goddess worship, or a flat-Earth sociey. No suppression, no police state, and no government action needed, or even wanted! Just Women (and the real men who love them) going their own way…!
Patriarchy and anarcho-libertarianism are compatiblle. Women, contrary to the claims of a few ignorant and foolish feminists, would not be slaves in any way, they would be honored, loved and cherished as the source of nurturance, love, and beauty in the culture, society, and the world at large, and feminist unisexers would be, at most, an ugly curiosity of an earlier primitive time,much the way we look upon, witch burning, crucifixion, or cannibalism today!
I hope that his puts to rest any thoughts about an inconsistancy between my antifeminism and my love of libertarian anarchism! Your freedoms to embrace feminism and its “unisexism”, in whole or in part, are absolutely sacrosanct, but who would want to??
Everybody else would embrace something much better!
DKM, you’re the only one who’s “brainwashed” here.
What I don’t understand (well, OK, I do and the answer is “because sexism”, but still) is why, from a libertarian POV, and choice that a woman makes about her sex life is a problem. So what if women practise hypergamy? As long as it’s not leading them to beat people up, or kill people, who cares?
Except that you weren’t talking about women being set free and freely choosing on their own to be traditional. You were talking about arranged marriages and the consequences of women having rights and “too much freedom” – Either setting women completely free will make them choose to be traditional, or women will need arranged marriages and other constraints on their freedom – Which is it? You keep shifting back and forth?
OK, DKM, everyone will go along with your New World Order because that’s what they secretly really want.
But surely there will be some dissenters. What do you do about them? How do you stop them from messing everything up?
“don’t cook dinner, starve a rat today”
LOL! I like that one, where’s it from?
I grew up in a part of the world where arranged marriage is the norm and there’s hypergamy on both sides of the parents’ line when they are searching for a “suitable mate” for their boys and girls – adult kids.
None of them are looking to marry their kids “down” – that’s for sure.
Another thing I want to discuss at some point is how you seem to see a laissez-faire economy as primarily one of wage-labor and sharp distinction between “home” and “work” – A very artificial and ahistorical system that largely emerged due to state-corporate intervention.
I believe that the typical married heterosexual couple in a laissez-faire world would be engaged in home business, together.
Women’s sphere being “home” and men’s being “business” – Where business means leaving the home and engaging in wage-labor, is hardly “the way of the world” naturally.
Meller, it seems like if the majority of women (and men, for that matter) actually wanted to live in your dreamworld, they’d be asking for it.
Meller, you have yet to prove that, with feminism somehow mysteriously vanished, most people would want to go along with your idea of how things should be. You’ve also failed to prove that most women want to be Sweet Old Fashioned Girls, or that most men agree with you. You’ve certainly stated these things, many times, but you’ve yet to prove them, or even make any attempt to do so.
You might want to take a look at this profile – it’s looking more and more as if it may explain the gap between what you want and what’s actually possible, given that other people are not you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder