Men’s Rights Activists and manosphere misogynists love to complain that I “cherry pick” quotes in an attempt to make them look bad. Which makes it especially ironic that all too often when I call them out on some particular bit of bullshit, they more or less double down on that bullshit, reiterating and in many cases amplifying the terrible things they originally said.
Several days ago, I wrote about a Spearhead post from W.F. Price with the priceless title “After 25, Women Are Just Wasting Time.” It was appalling even by Spearhead standards. Price used the untimely death of a talented young writer named Marina Keegan as an opportunity to rehash the belief, widely held in the manosphere, that women over the age of 25 who haven’t managed to snag themselves a “good husband” are “just wasting time,” growing older and uglier and less appealing to men. (Evidently, women’s appeal to men is the only thing that really matters about them.)
Price’s article inspired numerous comments from Spearheaders that were even more grotesquely misogynistic and cruel than his own post; Price at least pretended to care about the dead girl, even though his post was a crass and opportunistic insult to her memory.
And it inspired one regular Man Boobz commenter, a 26-year-old woman, to wade into the muck that is the Spearhead’s comments section to point out that Price’s grand narrative of female decline after age 25 has no relation whatsoever to her own life story:
I’m 26 years old. 27 terrifyingly soon. I am nothing like the person I was when I graduated college.
After originally getting a film degree, I’ve just started nursing school.
I’m living on the other side of the country and loving the different culture here.
I’m dating a wonderful guy who mysteriously didn’t dump me on my 25th birthday.
I’m doing difficult, not always fun, but ultimately socially useful work, work I couldn’t imagine myself doing when I graduated college.Since I graduated college, I’ve read more books, worked on more movies, learned more skills, lifted more weight, traveled more places, marched in more protests, gotten published more times, saved more lives than I thought I ever would.
And I’m still only 26.
You think I’m going to stop protesting and writing and working the wild Saturday midnight shift in the ER before I’m 30? Before I’m 60?
Or do you think it doesn’t matter because I might not be as fuckable then?
Well then fuck you. I’m 26 and I got miles to go.
–
(Oh, and I’m way better at sex now. Guys who thought I hit my “expiration date” just around the time I was first learning what a Kegel was, you are missing out.)
The Spearheaders responded, predictably enough, with downvotes and insults and a lot of mainsplainy comments suggesting that she’s regret it forever if she doesn’t get married ASAP and start popping out children.
The strangest comment of the bunch came from a Spearhead “Shieldmaiden” (that’s what they call female commenters on The Spearhead, for reals) by the name of Andie, who launched into a barely coherent tirade that somehow revolved around, er, SCENTED CANDLES!
Price, after seeing Andie’s rant mocked by the commenters here, decided to feature it today as the Spearhead “Comment of the Week.” So without further ado, here is what Price considers to be the Spearhead community at its best:
@26 year old woman
Let’s see how you feel when you’re 29 and the end of everything possible is right at your doorstep. Hell, lots of women are infertile at 26. Done. You won’t do everything. You won’t be a mother.
And if that doesn’t bother you, darlin’, you ain’t a woman.
And if your plans are to actually BE a mother (as in do the damn work), you are already in very deep water.
Your resume will never put his chubby little arms around you and tell you he loves you, like a child will. Your resume will never give you grandchildren, like your children might. Your resume will never share in all your joys, all your sorrows, all your triumphs, all your tragedies, like your husband will.
But you WILL be able to rape that resume of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS over your lifetime. Yay!
The fastest growing consumer product category: scented candles. SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES.
Yes, 26 year old woman, all your education and opportunity and rights have resulted in millions of children raised without fathers, the total destruction of the family, the rise of GIANT ASS government to give all those wymyns a place to work (doing utterly useless shit) and what was it for? What did we gain?
SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES!!
Nicely done, ladies. Really good job.
Fuck you, bitch. My daughters are coming for you. And millions of daughters just like mine. We see you, you superficial piece of trash. You have cost us our lives. For patchouli candles.
You will pay.
Go back and read @26 year old woman’s comment, then read Andie’s again. Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
I should note that when Price first posted the quote, he evidently left out the last few paragraphs; perhaps even he realized they were a tad over the line as a response to a woman whose only real “crime” was telling the Spearheaders that her life was interesting and fulfilling to her, and that she wasn’t planning on having any babies in the foreseeable future. (And if they didn’t approve of her life, too fucking bad for them.)
In the comments to Price’s “Comment of the Week” post, HL offers this thought:
Every time something like this comes up, it becomes ever more apparent that the ignorance, hate mongering, bigotry and fallacies rests so much more heavily on the side of the feminists.
To paraphrase Rick James, lack of self-awareness is a hell of a drug.
Oh jeez, I just found this how-to and wow, just wow.
“To further, explain this lets look at the American Indians as a people. The federal government has acknowledged their sovereignty as a matter of fact of law. The treaties with the Indians state that they do not need a drivers license or a registration on their vehicles, they are not taxable by the federal gov, they are immune to the legal system that you are living under etc.”
TRUFAX! Native Americans are under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, except the BIA is admin’ed by the feds, and so underfunded as to be a joke; they only have jurisdiction over reservations anyways. Most (maybe all) tribes have their own laws and enforcement thereof and yeah, that *is* the exception they see in the 14th amendment, but it doesn’t apply to them, and they probably wouldn’t want it to anyways (the US is really shitastic at honoring tribal IDs for example).
Which in entirely ignoring that Native Americans aren’t subject to the same laws as US citizens because they were here first. This might be the most impressive case of oppression olympics ever in other words. But yes, the feds do acknowledge Native sovereignty, after 100+ years of trying to simply genocide that issue out of existence >.< (and there's a good case to be made that the US's continual violations of treaties still constitutes genocide, but now I'm getting way off topic)
*fumes* They aren't even trying to get the same laws as the BIA is under though, they just want no laws, period. I knew when I read that wiki that reading the 14th like that was basically asking for the same laws as apply to Native Americans, I just can't believe I'm straight up seeing them say that while ignoring that sure, Native Americans can (and do) use tribal IDs, but the feds regularly raise hell over that. They really do like ignoring history don’t they?
Oh look, they’re wrong again — “Because names on official stuff like birth certificates are usually in capital letters (like JOHN DOE)…” — I just photocopied mine for something, and it’s in regular John Doe formatting (ymmv of course, but mine’s not in all caps)
Am I automatically a sovereign citizen then?
I…
I see no problem with that logic.
Or maybe the government has switched it up. If you use your name in all caps then you’re the birth certificate person, and that’s how the…
Agh. I’ve broken my brain trying to think like them.
Re: Indian affairs.
So in my state the Abenaki people have been trying to get recognized. (I have some Indian ancestry, but not Abenaki; my ancestors ran away from our place of origin) The government refuses to recognize them, pointing out that they don’t have a constant, unbroken presence here.
Yeah. Because that same state was engaging in FORCED STERILIZATION to wipe out the Abenaki.
And they wonder why the Abenaki can’t prove continuous presence here? Gah!
“I have some Indian ancestry, but not Abenaki; my ancestors ran away from our place of origin” — ditto (blackfoot here from what I can piece together from my perpetually drunk father)
But yeah, I want to scream at these sovereign citizens that if they want forced sterilization, their kids put in foster care for no reason at all, absurdly high suicide and alcoholism rates…well hey guys, enjoy that shit? That they seem to be universally white, not of Native descent, and fucking stupid though, makes me think they don’t even realize wtf they’re saying, and that’s scream inducing. (Then again, I just got back from dealing with the state, maybe everything is going to be scream inducing today.)
It would be nice though if the BIA and all the tribes (recognized or not) could just answer the feds with “because you’re trying to genocide us still, that’s why” whenever the feds get stupid. Be nicer if they’d learn some respect, but that seems less likely. NPR did a piece not that long ago on the foster care issue though, so maybe there’s a glimmer of hope that they’ll start following 30+ year old treaties >.<
That's the part I don't get about sovereign citizens, they are clearly not getting that the US does not honor it's treaties with actually sovereign people.
Which makes no sense, oaths are not always signed, some are done verbally and so to claim victory because the oath is not being hung in the courtroom would mean that no one who gives a verbal oath could stay in office. Well unless of course a photo of it works but since this is about hollow victories, probably not in PA:N(C)’s world.
I haven’t had the spoons to listen to NPR since I heard them reporting on that. And on how kids from the reservation are automatically marked down as ‘special needs’ kids, just for being from the reservation. I was crying and shouting at the radio so hard I nearly drove off the road.
Yeah. And that fits in with the whole ‘men are clearly more discriminated against than women,’ or black men, or Native Americans. If we can only get hold of the secret incantations that make the courts treat us like we weren’t white! Then we’d win!
…reality denial is a way of life for them.
The BEST quote ever from an appeals case in the 9th circuit:
“The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent.”
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/06/08-10147.pdf
princessbonbon — that might actually be the best quote EVAR, despite just how many options there are for that, judges are not usually that blunt!
Howard Bannister — I’d read the NPR piece and yeah, it took days to get through so I could stop and scream at my laptop.
Argenti: They have a model… all that fits in the model is “correct” and so is “valid” precedent.
Everything else is “invalid” and can be ignored.
It’s sort of like Antonin Scalia and “Original Intent”. Oddly never has Original Intent been in conflcit with Scalia’s personal opinions.
One of the things I recall seeing some groups of “Sovereign Citizens” claiming was that fringed flags are battle flags (which is sort of true, Military Flags, in the US have fringe: i.e. flags of the Army, and of Divisions, Regiments, Battalions, etc.) and so any courtroom which uses it isn’t a civil court. This has led some to claim they were exempt from civil law, and to demand to be treated as POWs… which is stupid, because POWs are kept until they are either exchanged, or the hostilities are over.
If they got what they asked for they wouldn’t be getting “an illegal trial”, but they would be locked up for the rest of their lives. Three MREs a day, two letters a month and CARE packages.
Pecunium — my moronic brother actually likes MREs, he orders them to eat in our parents’ well stocked kitchen.
Point noted about sovereigns making it up as they go, but this amuses me — “It’s sort of like Antonin Scalia and “Original Intent”. Oddly never has Original Intent been in conflcit with Scalia’s personal opinions.” — I keep thinking if SCoTUS hears a same sex marriage case he’s going to have to vote in favor of allowing it, and then he’ll go home and cry (feminists may not wish harm on their opponents, but a moral crisis resulting in crying seems acceptable)
I walked by a preschool earlier, they had US and state flags with fringe, are they at sea or war then? (I’d almost buy that the staff are POWs, I’ve worked with kids, pretty sure throwing PB&J at POWs is banned…)
The way he has been able to flatly vote against things he voted for and vice versa is terrifying. People thought he was trapped by his own earlier arguments when it came to… um, ah, I don’t remember. Pick one. https://www.google.com/search?q=scalia+contradicts+himself&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
He ignores consistency. He doesn’t even give it a thought. Any current position overwrites all previous thoughts.
Howard Bannister — well yeah, but I’m guessing it’d be a solid 6-3 either way, since I’m already talking to him I ran it by the nearly-a-lawyer best friend and he’s thinking maybe even 7-2 with Scalia and Atilo getting Catholic about it — Lawrence basically forces the issue though. And I was just enjoying the thought of one of the biggest pains in the neck having his damned gov’n job finally override his religion.
Man. Yeah. I would enjoy that very much, I think.
…this. This is schaudenfruede. My god! It’s full of stars!!
Argenti: I keep thinking if SCoTUS hears a same sex marriage case he’s going to have to vote in favor of allowing it, and then he’ll go home and cry (feminists may not wish harm on their opponents, but a moral crisis resulting in crying seems acceptable)…
Lawrence basically forces the issue though.
One would like to think so, but this is the same man who said that actual evidence of innocence doesn’t require a voiding of a capital sentence. He would, I suspect, argue that fucking is different from marriage, as the one is private, and the other is public.
Bush v Gore shows that precedent doesn’t bind him.
As to the MREs… has he ever eaten them for months at time… with nothing else (save what came in the mail, with a delay of weeks/months… NEVER ship food and soap in the same package; if you have any love for your your fellow human beings never do that).
what?
Scalia decides the outcome he wants and then just post hoc makes shit up to justify it, he isn’t even slightly consistent between rulings.
DSC: He’s not hiding it at all anymore; he doesn’t have the self-awareness of Thomas, i.e. he can’t keep his snark to himself when he’s on the bench anymore.
Sharculese — I probably should’ve said “hoping” rather than “thinking” since I’m not really convinced he’d stick to precedent for once, but the schaudenfruede of it is excellent.
“He would, I suspect, argue that fucking is different from marriage, as the one is private, and the other is public.” — Scalia probably will, the rest of the court (excepting Alito) probably won’t. Lawrence was decided as a due process issue, the ruling basically binds the court to the fact that Americans have the same rights regardless of orientation, thus it should be an easy 5-4, or 6-3, or even 7-2. I want Scalia to have to vote in favor of the law for once, but no, I don’t seriously think he’s going to. Precedent doesn’t seem to mean jack shit to Scalia, but the rest of them generally follow it.
“As to the MREs… has he ever eaten them for months at time…” — no, he has not. Everyone who’s met him compares him to Chris from Family Guy, if that helps any. He’s enough of a lazy ass he probably would eat just MREs if he didn’t still live with our parents though — our mother only buys pre-cooked chicken nuggets anymore, because he once ate them raw thinking they didn’t have to be microwaved if he didn’t want to wait >.<
"NEVER ship food and soap in the same package" — for curiosity's sake, would ziplock bagging the soap help? Triple bagging keeps lionfish in the bag, its got to be enough to keep soap in too right?
It’s Scalia. His take on due process is… special. I think he had ulterior motives in Lawrence. He’s a form over function kind of guy. Honestly (color me cynical) I suspect that had it been brought when a democrat was in the White House, or when it looked to Scalia as if a Democrat were going to be elected (which wasn’t the case in 2003), he’d have ruled the other way.
I have zero faith in his intellectual honesty.
No, the problem isn’t keeping it in phsycially, it’s keeping the perfume out of the other food. Beef ramen a la Irish Spring is awful (and I was so starved for variety, I ate it). It got through ( to a much lesser degree) the foil-wrapped moisture retention packaging of Sugar Smacks.
Soap goes in a different package, always.
Pecunium — he wrote the dissenting opinion on Lawrence, so idk, voting the other way would be voting in favor of gay rights, and I don’t really care what motivates him to do the right thing so long as he does (likewise, I don’t give a shit why Bill and Melinda Gates started the Gates Foundation, they do good shit with all that money). I agree with this — “I have zero faith in his intellectual honesty.” — but I don’t really think it would come down to his vote anyways.
I don’t think he’ll really vote in favor of gay marriage, I think he and Atilo will dissent and then go home and cry, hopefully to wives who will go “but how is their marriage different from our’s dear?” because schadenfreude is excellent sometimes. One has to be particularly vile for me to enjoy your misfortune, but when the dissenting opinion is basically “but sex toys, and pre-marital sex and the downfall of society!!” I have to laugh.
“Soap goes in a different package, always.” — kk, I hadn’t really thought of the perfume issue as the only thing I use bar soap for is my paintbrushes, and the bottle itself generally contains liquid soap’s scent. Of course, shipping liquids is its own nightmare >.<
Argenti: You’re right,I was, for some reason, thinking he’d voted for Lawrence, not against it. There’s no other way I can see him letting precedent constrain him (his sense of his reputation for consistency being the only thing I think he cares about).
Anyone who can say, “It’s perfectly acceptable to kill a person we know to be innocent, if they had a trial which met all the forms of fairness”, isn’t an good person. There are other aspects of his public hypocrisy (his views on the death penalty, and his views on abortion, are at odds with each other; since he makes reference to his religion on one, and not the other, even though the opinion of his church is more strongly against the one he is for, but I digress).
Scalia is a dirtbag, and the schadenfruede I have is knowing that the longer he sits on the bench, the more the public opinion is going to change. He used to be lauded as “brilliant” and consistent. He’s now getting more, “reactionary” and “ideological”. That’s got to sting. I think it’s why he’s being so caustic from the bench, he thinks his side is losing the war, even if he can win some of the battles.
On some issues (gay rights, womens’ rights), I think that’s true. On other things (civil liberties in general) I am not so certain.
“Lawyers can NOT be doing law for real when they are ‘practicing’. They are DOING LEGAL and calling it PRACTICING LAW.”
Holy crap is this funny. They are “doing legal”? And I spent 6 years only “practicing law” when the whole time I could have been “doing legal”?!?!? I feel ripped off.
” Lawyers operate in the LEGAL SYSTEM (also known as Uniform Commercial Code)”. Oh man. My stomach actually hurts from laughing. Someone might want to let him know that the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter UCC) is really just a set of model statutes that have been adopted (to varying degrees of completeness) by every state dealing with commercial transactions — buying/selling goods, warranties…fun stuff like that.
For those who didn’t suffer through a UCC course ( in law school or business school) I suppose all I can say is that the hell that was that class makes this a particularly funny statement.
At any rate, I’ve been reading tons of old posts and comments on this site all day today after having gotten sucked in while researching whether there are any stats on whether there is an increased likelihood of sexual assault by members of the PUA community.
I must say the community here is pretty incredible and I will definitely be coming back…..with a MOTHER FUCKING SCENTED CANDLE!
Pecunium — I missed your reply until now, but wanted to say I agree with this wholeheartedly — “Anyone who can say, “It’s perfectly acceptable to kill a person we know to be innocent, if they had a trial which met all the forms of fairness”, isn’t an good person.”
He is, to put it mildly, a terrible person, hence my desire for the schadenfreude. And yeah, I get a kick out of the anti-abortion // pro-death-penalty // “we’re pro-life!” crowd, the cognitive dissonance is amazing. (My mother is one of those people, her justification is that babies are innocent and death row inmates aren’t — let’s just ignore that some are and there’s no way to fix killing someone who was wrongly convicted >.< )
mordacei brown — hello! Have an introductory hard chair to go with your SCENTED MOTHERFUCKING CANDLE. Let's see if I can get the hard chair "argument" correct — hard chairs are misandry because men have less padding on their bums so the pressure of their larger body mass makes hard chairs more painful than they are for women (who have both more padded bums and generally less body mass). Thus you need a hard chair and a SCENTED MOTHERFUCKING CANDLE to be properly misandrist.
As for the law stuff, my best friend's a law student rather enjoyed that as well, something about it being nearly the most out there thing he's read, and given he's interning with NGRI clients, that's saying something.
@mordecai, doctors must not do anything either, as they are “practicing” medicine. But yeah on the lol with the UCC, esp. as it doesn’t even govern many areas of law (I’m leaning towards criminal law myself, which means that me and the UCC won’t have to meet up too much in practice). Though, personally, the worst written, worst organized statute I have ever seen is the Immigration and Nationalization Act one, it’s awful. I took federal income tax the same semester, nothing makes you appreciate the orderly and sensible nature of the tax code like the INA does.
*Nationality, not Naturalization, my brain needs to function better…