Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!
can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.
Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.
Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.
Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.
But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.
Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.
Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
NOTE: Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?
“In all of the controversy over my “Houses” for sex-addicted women, especially if underage(?), or otherwise lack the judgement for permanent relationships, I forgot that this was supposed to be a description of women, their employers (or guardians) and the larger libertarian society.”
So, what’s a good starting age for the House, Meller? And again, why can’t sex workers be self-employed. Why can’t there be sex worker’s unions? I told you, many sex workers do not prefer the communal house model and want to work from their own private homes. WHY DO YOU THINK SO MANY SEX WORKERS ARE LIBERTARIANS?* Not because they’re going to be working in Meller’s Magic House Of Beauty and Love and Guardianship, but because they want to organize their own labor standards on a free market. Also, sex workers are not “sex addicted women.”
*Again, this is further proof for me your libertarian-ness is all in your head and on conspiracy sites. If you were politically active, you would know this stuff.
CassandraSays – Also, re the weaseling, you actually are doing that. Don’t think we don’t notice that what you said before was that floozies would be “given” to the Houses, possibly by their families. A person accepting an offer of employment is not being “given” to their employer. The term “giving” implies ownership.
-Exactly. Also, he offered up this brothel …Sorry, HOUSE OF ENTER-TAYYYN-MENT! scenario totally without prodding.
“Where recent figures 2007 show that approx. 30% of babies of of White background, 45% of ‘Hispanic”, and over 60% of Black babies are orphaned out of wedlock!”
Orphaned? You’re aware that “out of wedlock” and “orphaned” are not the same thing, right? Are you attempting to say that for 60% of black babies, both their parents are dead? Because you’d think, if that were true, it would be rather noticeable in terms of overall population numbers.
. I kept telling you to expound, you then claimed it was the non-libertarians telling you that there would be poverty and that’s why you kept talking about your brothel solution, but you started this completely on your own when asked what happened to women who didn’t want to get married.
-Also, with no legal marriage, the whole WEDLOCK thing will be a little hard to judge…
It’s funny how he keeps backpedelling a little and going SEE HOW REASONABLE I AM? AREN’T YOU LADIES GRATEFUL? But then each time he adds a new, equally horrifying twist, like the new “btw some of them may be underage” bit.
Have you ever worked in and around the Trades, Meller? Because I have. There’s some sexism, I have some stories to tell, I’ve heard of worse horror stories, but I can say from personal experience that most men you encounter in the trades are decent, hardworking, accepting men, who aren’t all that shocked by GASP! A WOMAN! – I’ve heard way more horror stories from the white collar sector of the world than I’ve heard about being a lady contractor. Even if it ends up a minority woman thing, even if it’s nature or what the fuck ever, it doesn’t mean the women who end up doing it are going to be ostracised, or that they aren’t, as individuals, good at their jobs and able to succeed on the free market.
Also, an independent female contractor did not self-employ herself due to affirmative action…OR DID SHE?
CassandraSays – “It’s funny how he keeps backpedelling a little and going SEE HOW REASONABLE I AM? AREN’T YOU LADIES GRATEFUL? But then each time he adds a new, equally horrifying twist, like the new “btw some of them may be underage” bit.”
Yup! And he keeps getting shocked SHOCKED that we aren’t telling him how humane and amazing he is!!! (I’m waiting for the plastic surgery requirements and possibly footbinding…)
I’m still trying to figure out why he thought he had to explain to me that for my farm to work as a profitable venture, people would have to buy the produce… Does he think nobody will buy lady grown veggies? Why, out of spite?
CassandraSays and zhinxi–December 8-2011
I’m sure if somebody wanted to, they could go over all of YOUR posts with a magnifying glass, reinterpret them and give them the ugliest possible “spin”, and then convince everyone that you are a monster! They could even concentrate on an especially controversial one, and then go forward as if everything else that you had to say was either the rantings of a paranoid psychotic or an utter fool!
The suggestion that I made of Houses of Entertainment was exactly that, a suggestion of opportunity for women in a laissez faire world. All of a sudden, I find myself discussing stuff like brothels, compulsory confinement, mediaevel convents etc. I simply was offering a possibility of a potentially lucrative, upwardly mobile, and perhaps even humane system of helping women who probably could not be helped any other way.
As far as out-of-wedlock children are concerned, it seems a bit absurd to avoid the term “orphaned” when the father is unavailable, and the mother, in far too many cases, can’t even take care of herself, much less child(ren)! There are single mothers who are magnificent exceptions, but that is EXACTLY what they are. Exceptions!!
There is absolutely nothing about them that can apply to normal women, any more than the existence of a Marie Curie, a Gracie Hopper, a Roselyn Yalow or an Emmy Noether says anything about women in the sciences. Any effort to use them as examples for women will only misdirect scarce educational resources away from the boys (in any event, quite rare on that level) who can use them, and toward girls who would be as out of place in a math-and-science academy as ugly grey-brown moths would be in a butterfly collection!
I may not be the most effective advocate of a given scenario, but I think that proper reading would make my position clear without biased distortion!
it really doesnt take more than one of your posts for anyone to realized your views on humanity are pretty monstrous, dkm, so i guess there still ahead of you.
MELLER – “A free market DOES offer women all sorts of opportunities, but it involves buyers and sellers! you can farm, but it requires people to buy the products produced on your farm, food, medicines, textiles, or whatever. You can run a bakery, but it requires a customer base to buy your baked goods. -”
I repeat the extra credit question and expound. The HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT require a customer base too. And if so many women are crowding them, prices will be driven down, and overhead will be high on such large-scale high-brow ventures. You are going to have to see women actively being encouraged OUT of the courtesan field if the owners want to remain solidly profitable and maintain their position as up-market.
So, you end up with the very nasty awful ununionized coerced brothels you say you really don’t want, if it’s about the poor women needing a job, or, rather about CONTAINING the non-married females…
Or, you end up with much more independent options for women all over the spectrum, including sex work, and very little poverty with your HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT being much more of a niche option. So, basically, you either DO envision a great deal of dangerous, low pay, low quality, often coerced work for the bulk of sex workers and some upscale work, or you envision a society where most women are free to take on all sorts of other jobs, and sex work is a comfortable and flexible option for those who choose to make it their work. You can have upscale houses of entertainment and women doing all sorts of other lucrative jobs, or you can have upscale houses of entertainment and independent escorts and low-scale sex work where the “lower class” are economically or physically coerced, and the glut on the market makes prices low, allowing few opportunity for economic escape. Of course, this is unlikely to happen in a free market, because, you know, opportunity. Still…
You can’t just have ALL UPSCALE and it features the bulk of your society’s unmarried employed women. Sorry. Unless this is some sort of centrally planned subsidized brothel economy?
meller – “You would of course have all of this in the free market, and no, you wouldn’t have to be a laundress if you didn’t want to. I just mentioned this so I wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the usual “what would you do about the poor under laissez-faire?” for the 451,894 time that question was asked!”
And I told you that a much better thing than talking about HOUSES OF ENTERTAINMENT is just going straight to all the opportunities and taking the time to counter the often assumed expectation that laissez-faire societies are going to be ones of immense wealth disparity, and lack social services, opportunities, unions, and etc. I mean, like, just about any answer would be better than going right to houses of entertainment, if you want people to… You know, view libertarianism in a positive light. Which I don’t think you do. I think you want it to be “MINE! IT’S MINE AND I’M RIGHT AND I SAY WHAT IT IS AND IT’S ALL MINE! AND THE LESS YOU AGREE WITH ME AND THE MORE YOU CALL ME NAMES THE MORE I FEEL RIGHT!” Or something.
“I may not be the most effective advocate of a given scenario, but I think that proper reading would make my position clear without biased distortion!”
I again offer you the public debate and asking other libertarians what they think option, which will also give you the opportunity to go over my posts with a magnifying glass. 🙂
Meller, a proper reading tells me that you think I should not only submit totally to my husband, but that I should enjoy it, and that if he were ever to hit me, it would totally be my fault. A proper reading tells me that you have an unhealthy fixation on dolls and animals, which, at a guess, is an attempt to deal with the fact that no woman will give you the time of day once she hears you talk. A proper reading, Meller, tell me that you think forcing a woman to marry is fine and shiny if her father thinks it’s okay, and again, if her husband beats her, her first thought she be about how it’s all totally her fault. A proper fucking reading tells me that you think that women suffering from cancer is a fucking hilarious joke.
You might want to stick with the ‘improper reading.’
Meller – “will only misdirect scarce educational resources away from the boys” – So, are you in favor of state schooling? Why? And why are resources scarce? I told you to read Gatto. Sigh.
FUCKING FREE MARKETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?
“The suggestion that I made of Houses of Entertainment was exactly that, a suggestion of opportunity for women in a laissez faire world.”
Nope, it was not. You stated, many times, that women who were floozies and/or not virgins would be “placed” in or “given to” the Houses. We’re not going to pretend that you didn’t say that just because it’s inconvenient for you to be reminded of it.
We think you’re a monster because you keep saying monstrous things. Not even the same monstrous thing – you keep coming up with new ones all the time. You are a deep, apparently unending well of misogyny and need to control others.
Guess so! New hope for all the sad viewers that have to watch Stephen Colbert flaunt his wedding ring around being all monogamous and stuff? I think yes! All my friends from college and I are retroactively un-disappointed. 😀
From the rear end of the peanut gallery–December 8, 2011 @ 3:09pm
“It doesn’t take more than one of your posts for anyone to realize that your views on humanity are pretty monstrous, dkm, so I guess there (sic) still ahead of you.”
Well, what did the great comic Jimmy Durante once describe Mr. Peanut Gallery (or Mr. Rear end)? “Everybody wants to get into the act!!”
Bagelsan – I dunno if he even thinks there WILL be male entertainers. And I’m still trying to figure out what jobs the men are doing in his world, too. I keep claiming that I think the majority of labor and business in a free market society will be families working together, (and not just het families, but he can pretend if he wants) and a man or woman leaving to go to work will be rarer, but he seems to see it as the norm. Well, not the woman part. But he won’t say where they are working, and he denies that there will be large corporations. It’s all weird.
“Well, what did the great comic Jimmy Durante once describe Mr. Peanut Gallery (or Mr. Rear end)? “Everybody wants to get into the act!!”
-So as a male entertainer, what will people like Durante do in Meller land?
“As far as out-of-wedlock children are concerned, it seems a bit absurd to avoid the term “orphaned” when the father is unavailable, and the mother, in far too many cases, can’t even take care of herself, much less child(ren)! There are single mothers who are magnificent exceptions, but that is EXACTLY what they are. Exceptions!!”
Words mean things, Meller. “Orphaned” means “this child’s parents are dead”, not “I think this child’s mother is incompetent”.
HOLY CRAP!! What if like, Marie Osmond wants to be a singer, and start A LINE OF COLLECTIBLE DOLLS????
Entertainment house???
Mothers are never widowed?
dkm, ive explained before why i dont argue with you when you get into a state like this. i think youre totally delusional. i also think your a very lonely, very frustrated man who compensates by projecting his frustrations onto the world at large.
but that doesnt mean i can argue against world inside your head, dkm. all i can do is point out that its the vision of someone who’s truly fucked in the head.