GirlWritesWhat on “The Necessity of Domestic Violence”: “I don’t really find too much [that’s] seriously ethically questionable.”

but is she… the jester’s fool?

I never thought about it like that.

It’s just another angle from which M-feminists can show their vile natures.

Are you trying to write to make me laugh, Steele? It’s working.

Is Harley Quinn a jester’s fool?

Ok fine then, gosh!

But vile misandrist-feminists, given their misandry, are obsessed with even the smallest display of force to such a degree that borders on the absurd. People hit people all the time – and it’s always wrong – but the only instance in which it’s seen as some kind of mortal sin in when a man hits a woman that he is in a relationship with.

Bullshit. I am not aware of any feminist saying that it’s okay to hit men or people one isn’t in a relationship with. Hitting one’s significant other, or one’s child is particularly despicable because the abuser relies on the relationship itself for getting away with it — and obviously, takes advantage of home privacy to carry out the abuse.

It also goes without saying that using physical coercion against someone physically smaller and weaker — even in the “smallest” possible way — is a “mortal sin”, as you put it. It’s a mortal sin because the goal of these supposedly innocuous “small” displays of physical superiority is to inspire fear and trepidation. The message is “Sure it’s just a black eye this time, but if you annoy me again, I’ll break your fucking neck. Or, alternatively, I will inflict ‘small’ amounts of pain on you every day until the slightest noise behind your back makes you flinch.” That’s what abusers go for. So he may not break her neck, but he breaks her spirit. And when the abuser is your spouse or your parent, your fear is worse, because your ability to get away is a lot less than if you received a beating from a random stranger.

Guys I am an alien fortune teller from the planet blamket. My predictions says xardoz is telling the truth. Believe….

@Falconer

Naw, that was FactFinder

It was someone else, I think it was originally used as an insult against David or the regulars for using fancy edumacated words.

It’s pretty obvious Pell WANTS to be that guy, however. Like many MRAs, he’s using the accomplishments of other men to feed his own shriveled ego. Kind of sad.

@cloudiah

Thanks for posting the link to Pell’s earlier comments. The stuff about “mature orgasms” is HILARIOUS.

I’m just scrolling down her front page, reading and finding all sorts of ridiculous shit gems to post here.

Here, she’s approvingly quoting someone else in the transcript of a video about how feminism will cause economic collapse:

“So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.
…
But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths. The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.””

hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

When a man defaults on child support, we incarcerate him, to the tune of about $60,000 per year. This not only directly costs us, but we’ve also removed his earning and taxpaying capacity while he’s incarcerated and further, have handicapped his ability to return to a productive role once he’s released with a criminal record. We are essentially paying for him to become less productive and more of a burden. It’s lose-lose!

Those poor guys who don’t pay child support when they can afford to do so! Not to mention she talks about child support like it’s a luxury for women.

The London riots were blamed on fatherlessness.

By whom, on what evidence, etc..

Patriarchy worked very well for society overall, because it provided women with the surplus labor they required in order to raise their children in the best possible circumstances AT NO COST to anyone but husbands and fathers. And men’s ownership of their children motivated the vast majority of men to do more than just subsist–to essentially labor at more than minimum capacity. That meant that a lot of work got done, and the economic surplus men generated was handed directly to the women who needed it.

Excess labor on the part of men is good…

Consider, also, that when a family breaks up, you suddenly need two households and almost twice the money to support the same number of people–all of that money flows upward toward corporate coffers, rather than staying in people’s savings accounts and helping them build futures. And since women control 80% of consumer spending in the west, the more money you put in women’s sole control, the more of it gets spent on consumer goods and bonuses for CEOs.

…but bad when it’s because of divorce cuz corporationz.

My gods, pell has ego problems, the most I invent about myself on the internet sincerely is the fact that I’m slightly less shy than I am in real life, but holy crap this guy needs help.

Wait, they’re claiming that women do 80% of the spending in the West, based upon what? A study saying that in a het married household, the woman does 80% of the shopping?

I guess I underestimated the capacity of MRAs and associated persons to produce BRAINFAX.

Steele said:

People hit people all the time – and it’s always wrong – but the only instance in which it’s seen as some kind of mortal sin in when a man hits a woman that he is in a relationship with.

Jesus, how fucked-up and violent does your worldview have to be for you to complain that people are taking too strong a stance against domestic violence? You fucking abuse apologist.

David, do you mean to say we’ve been made the jester’s fool’s fool’s fool?