Let’s celebrate this lovely February day with some random stupidity from Alcuin, a brave anti-misandrist intellectual titan who is single handedly bringing about what he calls “the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Mostly by blathering on and on about how much ladies suck.
Some highlights from recent posts.
The history of achievement is, in fact, the history of male achievement to such an extent that, were women absent from human history, we might still be where we are today, but were men absent from history, da wimmin would be in the caves, screeching ‘n hollering at each other. …
Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. Feminists crafted VAWA, the beginning of the end of western freedom.
Shakespeare changed the English language. Sharon Osbourne laughs about the female mutilation of men.
Socrates established a way of thinking and reflection on the virtues that still inspires us. Women falsely accuse men of rape on a weekly or even daily basis.
Feminism is the KKK with tits. The only difference is that western women don’t have any shame, so don’t cover up with white bedsheets. They are openly supremacist. That is why their starting point parallels the KKK, but they tend towards Nazism as well. The Hitlerists were no more ashamed of their supremacism than western women are of theirs. Both bigoted groups, in fact, are quite proud of their prejudicial thinking.
Racial supremacists running around with bedsheets are cockroachy – they run to the darkness whenever light is shed on them. Feminists, like Nazis, prefer the limelight. Will we soon see Nazi-like rallies with tens of thousands of banshees and their manginic self-hating male bozos?
Everybody Loves Raymond, and your female supremacist mom
Men are made into buffoons by Hollywood because male buffoonery sells. Women eat it up as greedily as they inhale chocolate cake and buy useless luxury goods. “Everybody Loves Raymond” is Everyman. Why does your mother like that sitcom so much? Because she’s a female supremacist. Why does your girlfriend like that show? Because she’s a female supremacist.
That’s why the lady is a tramp
Life is too easy. It’s too easy for a woman to become a tramp, and experiment sexually and socially, so she does. What are the consequences? Our society has so much surplus that we’ve eliminated the consequences of bad or irresponsible behavior, at least for women. We are wealthy enough to reject the concept of shame. Thus, we have shameless hussies.
Perhaps because men are still the most creative movers and shakers of our society, men as a whole class have been pushed into being the responsible ones, the moral adults. Women are let off the hook, able to remain perpetual moral children, responsible for none of their behavior, such as drunken sex. Non-issues such as faulty breast implants or police warnings about slutware enrage these people because they face no real injustices or hardships.
Slutware?
Also, here are The Undertones, with “Life’s Too Easy.”
Actually, sincerely recant your your words, Meller, and people might stop holding you to them. Though I doubt it, since your reputation for scrupulous honesty is yet another product of your imagination.
And I remind you, yet again, that pretending you never said the shit you said is not the same thing as taking back the shit you said.
ithiliana –
Tangent, there’s a FASCINATING book called “Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s ” which deals with some of the ladies of the heyday of the white sheets, including their push for women’s suffrage and support for eugenics and other legislation. (You can either go, SEE, FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THE KKK or THANK GOD THE KKK IS OVER THAT AWFUL FEMINISM NOW depending on how you’d rather see it, troll dudes.)
… Pull one of the other ones, they’ve got bells on.
Are you serious?!
@Falconer: I’m too lazy to try to track it all down, so am relying on memory, but yeah, I believe his argument was more or less: 1) it’s closer to HISTORY so more accurate, and 2) it’s before feminists took over ruling everything and revising TEH TRUTH OF MANLY MENZ.
Falconer, that Britannica thing is no bullshit.
Ah, the wonderful and completely illogical world of David K Meller, in which articles from a few months ago are too old to be relevant, but all the important works of libertarian scholarship were written at least 20 years ago and the newer ones don’t matter.
Did Irene not give you a dolly hug today, Meller? Are you feeling a bit tantrumy?
(Side note – I am so excited to see our two trolliest trolls talking to each other! Long may this trend continue.)
Kirby and Kristin:
I was reading Jack Spong (The Sins of Scripture) about this a little while ago and he seemed to consider that the sin of those particular cities was a tradition of raping travelers after sunset and thus they failed to offer safety and shelter to strangers as YHWH had told them too. They were really dangerous places to be after dark if you didn’t have kin there. Hence Lot’s desperation to keep the mob away from his angelic guests and offering his young daughters as substitute.
@SaruGoku:
I’m not surprised at the number of interpretations out there. Like a lot of biblical stories, there is precious little actual text to go by. Most of the interpretation comes from the model you build around the words.
True, indeed. It’s fun playing with various interpretations of the text but difficult, if not impossible, to come to anything definitive. At least if you don’t take a fundamentalist view and they can only do it because the confine themselves to one particular interpretation and refuse to read anything else.
Meller: and when I respond, they then cite excerpts from articles months, perhaps YEARS, in the past claiming that my responses are false, or at least disingenuous.
And when we quote things you said mere hours before you whine that we aren’t taking you in context.
But real reason we say you are lying, or being disingenous (which is a 7 dollar word for lying by misdirection), is that you don’t actually deny the things you say. We quote you, you say, “Well if that’s what I really believed I would be a bad person, but I don’t really believe that but if I did it would be completely justified!”
Which is really you saying, “I don’t want to admit to what I believe, but I can’t bring myself to deny it outright.”
I think you are afraid the men you want to like you will see you denying things they are proud of you for saying and kick you out of the club.
I haven’t caught up with all the comments yet, but this is awesome. NWO is like that guy who wrote an outraged and passionate rebuttal to the Onion article “I’m So Happy I Got An Abortion,” or however it went. Hell, he might BE that guy. And I probably just admitted I’m happy I got an abortion. b-b-b-b
Can we go back to fun comparisons? I’m good making it Why Men Are Better Than Women for a while.
Men have 75% more teeth than women!
Unlike women, men can echolocate, like bats!
4 out of 5 men having beautiful singing voices and could lure sailors to their deaths if they wanted to! But never do, because they are morally superior to women! Who can’t sing, anyway.
I think it’s time for a song about anal sex and god…
“Having the vapors” was a colloquial expression in Victorian times that was used to apply to women, when they became hysterical, irrational, and demented. Men prided themselves on being calm, rational, and lucid, and did not “get the vapors”. My writing about feminism (and feminists) expresses strong dislike and aversion to them, or at least to their behavior, but it does not in any way show me as “hysterical, irrational and demented”. My objections to feminuttery may be vehement and loud, but they do not indicate anything like ‘the vapors”, especially not for a man!
I have ALWAYS responded to objections by clarifying what I meant, or revising it in terms that I thought that manboobzettes could understand. When, for example, I was taken to task for supposedly advocating placing sexually loose women in brothels (“Houses of Men’s Entertainment”) I showed that firstly, no compulsion would be used against the women, that the women involved were all sexually undescriminating anyway, and that, even at worst, wouldn’t be doing anything that such floozies wouldn’t be doing anyway, under much less safe and desirable condiitions, and that while the Houses would include brothel services, they would not be in any way LIMITED to such activity. If the women should outgrow their promiscuity and sluttishness, they could “graduate” to being entertainers on a more refined and ladylike level, or go somewhere else, or get married and set up homemaking and motherhood, if that is what they want to do.
I believe that I even said once that they could try out for male occupations or professions like firefighting, aircraft test piloting, or underwater engineering or demolition, if anybody would have them, and if they could apply without provoking apoplexy in her would-be employers once insurance and employer liability costs were factored in–a libertarian free market–NO BAILOUTS HERE! and no affirmative action mandating the hiring of females either.
As I said in previous posts, ladies, have fun!
Certainly not “having the vapors, here.
The nonsense that my posts “excused” or “justified” the abuse of women? I repeatedly said, along with the continuous denouncing of domestic violence of any kind for any reason, that a man wants his woman to love him, respect him, and appreciate his company. He would therefore, for his own reasons, regardless of temperment, be inclined to treat her with gentleness, consideration, and love. He would no more want to beat her, stab her, rape her, or otherwise terrorize her than he would try to cook his supper in the refrigerator, or keep ice-cold drinks in his oven! Such action would, and could, NEVER yield the desired results, even with pets or livestock, much less with his nearest and dearest!
Some critics, especially Pecunium, then said, and say, that I still did not “mean it” when I denounced spousal abuse, and assumed that I was simply being evasive or deceptive.Alright, have it your way!
I also won’t criticise you when you try to add some nasty, stinging red wasps to your butterfly collection, won’t say a word when you cuddle your cactus, or, as per examples cited above, try to cook you food in the freezer, or chill it in the oven.As I write this, it is 23 degrees with a stiff Northeast breeze, so go whole hog with being crazy, and find a nice clean lake or river to bathe in, and use your bathtub as a bed for sleeping. Pecunium, I know it sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than beating a woman to get her to love you (an observation that I repeatedly made) and certainly if I warmly endorse DV as much as you would believe, you have no problem with anything else cited above.
Another time,when I was asked about what I think about one Paul Ryan, as opposed to Ron Paul? I answered that, for all practical purposes, I didn’t think of Ryan at all! I gave some reasons why not, and gave some comparisons with Ron Paul, and answered the question very well.Ron Paul, in my opinion, was the real Republican, and the real person. Paul Ryan was (and is) an empty suit! My answer was treated as if I had not responded at all. After an apology that I am “sorry that I wasted your time’, My reply was taken as if I had actually wasted the questioner’s time! If my replies are not even going to be read, I am not going to pursue anything like a steady effort to reply to you!
Zhinxi, I do keep up, at least in a general way, with contemporary libertarian theory. One area which I will devote attention to, time permitting, will be Stephen Kinsella’s exploration of intellectual ‘property’, the market and the State. I also am interested in whether the corporation is a free market phenomenon, or whether it is an entirely corrupt example of State privilege. I am the first to admit that this is “cutting edge”, and that I probably will have to read a considerable amount to be brought up-to-date. My current state of awareness is Ralph Nader, Bearle and Means, and Garbriel Kolko, on one hand, and Professor George Riesman on the other, and there is probably a lot more to be said before I could resolve this issue.
See, Zhinxi (and Ami Angelwings), I am aware of new developments, and I am also aware of the fact that there is indeed a lot that I have not yet been informed. I shall attend to these areas as time permits. As I explained in a previous post, (one which you also must have fogotten),I am a rather fast reader, but it still takes TIME to read, to understand, and to integrate the written or heard material. In addition, Zhinxi (and Ami Angelwings) there are many contemporary areas of interest which trump ‘libertarian feminism”, which, with all due respect to Voltarine deClayre, Suzanne LaFollette, Wendy McElroy, or Camille Paglia, I don’t have too much interest in anyway.
“Libertarian feminism” STILL sounds to me like an attempt to mix oil and water. Even assuming that women have the same capacity for independent and mature judgement as men, the only areas of feminism that can logically intersect with libertarianism would be the right to work outside the home and keep her earnings, the right to own and use her property independently of her father or her husband’s authority, the right to select or refuse her mate, and her right to sign contracts in her name, and with her own resorces. These are questions which have been resolved, at least to most feminist’s satisfaction, in the XIX century.Everything else, even the “right” to vote, to “hold office” to “sit on juries”, to receive an abortion, etc. are law-granted PRIVILEGES, not rights! They are privileges even for men, and understanding this was one reason (not the only one) why the founders of the American Republic (NOT democracy!!!) were so reluctant to expand this beyond the levels where a free society could be sustained.The incompatibility of liberty and equality is not the only reason why feminism and libertarianism would be strained, but it is probably the most important one!
I may wonder here, if I am perhaps too involved in earlier books and periodicals discussing liberty in the past, are YOU too tightly focused on current studies, and neglecting the history of ideas, both recent and more ancient?. There was, after all, a libertarian movement, even one limited to Ayn Rand’s living room, since c. 1943, and one which, when understood as “political economy”, Classical liberalism, or “natural philosophy”,was active for several centuries before that, both in Europe and its colonies in North America!
It is the above outline of reasons why I don’t answer questions put to me here any longer. If I am not read, or understood, or if I am selectively cited in the worst possible light, I have better places to go, and better things to do!
Guess that touched a nerve.
Keep on backpedaling, you irrational, demented, vapor-having freak.
Please go somewhere else, you were never wanted here in the first place. Go back to Stormfront or whatever crackpot woo site will have you.
FREE EVAN!!!
*Offers DKM a fainting couch, and smelling salts, and more tea for his favorite LLL, Polly Prissy Pants*
Not having enough oxygen even when not moving much generally means one is close to fainting. So when they got even a little excited-like say when they saw a little kid get nearly run over by a cart, they would be unable to breath enough oxygen and “swoon” and pass out.
This is a BAD thing. This is not a sign of women being irrational, this is a sign of a woman being UNABLE TO BREATH. So women had to be revived by using smelling salts (usually ammonia) which released a vapor to bring them back.
Men generally were not corseted to the point of being oxygen deprived so no, they would not faint when they got hysterical, angry, cranky, or otherwise excited.
Once again, you have no idea what you are babbling about DKM. So go free Evan.
Fucking hells, Meller, would you try to stick the flounce this time? You’re rude, condescending, annoying and an asshat, and I think we’ve collectively made it clear that you’re about as welcome as Nixon at a hippie convention.
Nixon would be more welcomed-at least they could throw flowers at him. Or ducks.
You are the people who “struck a nerve”, using an old-fashioned expression that was usually applied to women, to me–having the vapors–and when I respond, you ersatz “women” get unpleasant?
I am no more “rude, condescending, annoying and as asshat” even at my worst, then you modern women are every day! One more reason why there is a joke:
How do you spell “feminist”? G-A-R-B-A-G-E
Who’s Evan? she asked, knowing she would probably regret it.
Meller Hardy-har-har. You must crack up the Klan meetings.
DKM: oh buuuuuuuuuuurn. You called us garbage? So what. Much like garbage, at least we get taken out, unlike some sad little man that plays with dolls and wants legalized slavery for women and people of color, and who justifies abuse at every turn.
You do seem to be on the verge of passing out DKM. I put a pillow down so at least you do not hurt yourself when you fall over.
There’s nothing worse than being insulted by some dude on the Internet who fucks his babydoll collection while wearing a pillowcase hood. MY SELF ESTEEM, IT BURNS PRECIOUS