Sorry I haven’t been around much in the last couple of days. Sometimes I just need to clear my head of all this manosphere nonsense. Regular posts will resume shortly. In the meantime, some pictures to amuse you, and a new video from Azealia Banks.
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
i love how after the puffy ‘analysis’ of his first couple posts he’s worn himself down to a pattern of generic lead in paragraph, a one sentence quote, and then some variation on ‘fukkin boobz, amirite’ before stumbling off
Wow, his sense of humor is horribly broken isn’t it?
Found this on the old timey ad tumblr Katz posted earlier
what a young husband ought to know, a book from 1899
@Molly Moon
From the table of contents:
Well, that does sort of sum things up nicely… Men do all the hard work, and always have. Even our gametes prove it!
I love the antimanboobz categories: “durr,” “idiocy,” and “lolwut.”
Sharculese: he seriously hates hellkell, doesn’t he
He said he was going to put me on permanent moderation if I didn’t pretend he had made logically structured arguments.
I told him that wasn’t going to happen, and am no longer even trying to comment. I don’t see the point in letting him feel smug (well more smug than he does from having a public wank).
AntiMB is phoning it in: I mean, sheesh, ONE LINE taken out of context.
One line
He cannot even be bothered to cut/paste a paragraph. Lazy little creep.
And it’s funny the attempt to ‘mimic” David (taking a break? Uh huh).
Lol, check out snowny’s comment over there, its (troy ounces of) gold.
*Snowy — sorry!
*applause for Snowy’s comment*
Wow NWO really cannot parse conditional statements today.
“Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the “diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.”
If neither of those applies to you then you are still welcome to apply for joint custody; you though? You’re uncooperative to a silly degree.
I almost can’t believe you’re actually arguing that “violent husbands/fathers” should get de facto joint custody, but then again, you’re you. We all already knew you support abusing women and children.
“Men have no reproductive rights.”
And again I say — use a fucking condom. (Actually NWO, just stay away from women until you learn some basic decency)
Shit, code fail. “forced”,”uncoorperative” and “violent husbands/fathers” should be bolded, not the rest.
What the hell is that first picture from anyway? Something fail, or something at least trying to be decent?
Rutee — the first thread picture is off Comically Vintage — so 50s fail probably.
I know it’s off comically vintage, but non-assholes did make comics in the 50s, one presumes. Just vastly outnumbered by assholes, as always.
@NWO: okay, I see now what your point was. But you must live in a seriously weird neighbourhood if children go around dressed like porn stars where you live.
If the woman actually was the primary caretaker it makes perfect sense to give custody to her in cases where the parents can’t cooperate. The children will be so much closer to her emotionally. In Sweden joint custody is the norm nowadays, but that’s because fathers usually go on some parental leave and take a big part in childcaring. THEN it makes sense to have joint custody as the norm. But the more of a fifties-stereotype-style family culture you have, the more it makes sense to simply hand custody over to the mother, at least in cases where the parents have trouble cooperating.
You just can’t combine a fifties-stereotype-style family culture with equal rights for fathers regarding the kids after a divorce, it doesn’t make sense.
And obviously the mothers should have sole custody if the father is VIOLENT. Just as obviously it ought to be the other way around if the mother is a threat to the father and the kids – it’s just that this is MUCH RARER.
However, I did know a guy some years back who had sole custody of his child. Both he and the mother had been drug addicts when the child was born, but then he became clean and started to straighten up his life while the mother did not. When I met him he had moved in back with his mum and lived on welfare, so not an ideal life situation, but he was clean of drugs and looking for both job and apartment. And as I said, he had been granted single custody. I assume that if this could happen in Sweden, according to some MRA here on this site a “hotbed for misandry”, it could happen in the USA as well.
Dvärghundspossen — I’m not a social work expert, but yeah I’d assume in the US that the non-addict parent would get custody over the addict (almost certainly as the other option would be foster care and our foster care system is horribly over-burdened). As to the rest of your points, good luck convincing NWO of anything. (I’d honestly expect him to insist you’re a woman for the “if the father is violent” part)
Dvärghundspossen: NWO is against it because NOW is for it. It’s that simple. If a woman likes it, he thinks it’s bad.
Then, of course, he rails about how women don’t think, just do. How “the mantra is woman good, man bad” and the rest of his knee-jerk glossaglia of loathing. Never mind that the law in Michigan is (apparently) a default of joint custody; and all NOW is opposing is that default status.
Aw, Varpole’s hate crushing on me. That was the internet equivalent of pulling my pigtails and running away.
Dude, if one sarcastic throwaway line turns your crank that hard, you need to relax.
@Argenti and Pecunium. Okay.
And I am a woman. 🙂
@Dvärghundspossen
Let’s try this primary care thingy from a different angle. Now let’s pretend for a moment, which really wasn’t all that long ago, that the State didn’t have the authority to intrude into the personal business of the family. Now a man and a woman get divorced citing irreconcilable differences. Could the woman say these are my children and just up and take them? Of course not, that’s kidnapping. Could the man do the same. Most certainly not. Could either of them kidnap the children and further demand extortion fee to simply have contact with the children? Most definitely not.
There’s no place a man or woman who kidnapped children could go for refuge. Even their own relatives would shun them. Would you harbor a kidnapper? What could the excuse be? I put in 10% more time doing personal care? The amount of personal versus non-personal care has no relevance. So the custody, which is ownership, always stays the same, 50/50.
So what’s changed? How is kidnapping and extortion accepted? State intervention of course. The State has been given authority it has no lawful right to assume. Without the State no man or woman would even think of kidnapping children. Everyone knows it’s wrong and you would be the enemy of every person on the planet. The State says the exact opposite, what was wrong is now right, and to compound the wrongness of the State we’ll demand extortion fee’s for kidnapping. If the extortion isn’t paid you’ll be placed in a cage.
No one would endorse or accept ordinary people kidnapping children, extorting funds and caging them if they failed to pay their extortionist. Yet everyone of you endorses the State to do the exact same thing. The only time the State should ever be involved is if someone does kidnap children. You’ve been feeding off the government teat far to readily once you begin to believe the State has the right to enforce kidnapping and extortion.
Erica Kennedy (Feminista/Bling) has died. No details. She was 42.
@Argenti Aertheri
“Men have no reproductive rights.”
“And again I say — use a fucking condom.”
Using a condom is to not reproduce, which is the opposite of reproducing. For a man to actually have reproductive rights he would have to have the right to reproduce. As long as a woman can slaughter his unborn child a man has no right to reproduce. If a man has no right to reproduce, he has no reproductive rights.
By contrast, a woman has the right to not reproduce, (use contraceptions), to reproduce, plus, under current legal statute, she also has the right to end the life of someone else. A woman has far more than just reproductive rights, she also has the legal right to kill. If anyone here had been successfully aborted as a fetus you would be dead. That’s a fact.
But you must live in a seriously weird neighbourhood if children go around dressed like porn stars where you live.
He’s previously state that all women wear see-through blouses, micro-miniskirts, and no panties.