So Return of Kings, which seems to be working hard at becoming the most abhorrent publication known to man, has a post up by regular contributor “strongsloth” titled 5 Lines That Potential Wives Cannot Cross — that is , five rules that Mr. Sloth thinks men should enforce with any woman they want to make their wife.
These rules are, naturally, horrific. So horrific, in fact, that they essentially provide us with Five Reasons You Should Not Marry, or Date, or Rent Apartments to, or Probably Even Live in the Same City With Anyone Who’s a Fan of Return of Kings.
So let’s go through them one by one. Do not date or marry a ROK fan because:
1) He will insist on being the supreme dictator.
[A]ll decisions about things outside the house are in your sphere. If she wants some responsibility, it’s ok if she chooses how to cook the eggs.
2) He will isolate you from your family and friends. You know, like abusers do.
Just make it clear that her family and friends from before are not important to you. Their opinions do not matter. Don’t spend a lot of time with them. … They will turn on you the moment there are problems between you and your wife. When that happens, the less influence they have the better.
3) He will get you pregnant in order to make you more dependent on him.
Contraceptives and abortion are murder
Why? Immediate children, more children, short gaps between children. These all increase her dependence on you and the loyalty that comes with it. …
If she is marriageable don’t be afraid to make her pregnant before marriage. There is nothing like a baby on the way to increase your bargaining power. … You are helping her by overcoming her female propensity to waste her fertile years on a career, bad boys, and antidepressants.
4) He will insist that you devote all of your time and attention to raising the children that result from his no-contraception or abortion decree.
He will do this in part because he doesn’t want to bother with the hassles of childrearing, and in part because forcing you to be a stay-at-home mother will allow him to restrict your life and control you more effectively:
Being a mother is a full-time job and her first priority. Any work, sport, church, or whatever that she can’t handle just has to go.
He’ll even insist on controlling how long you breastfeed the children:
Breast feeding is good for children and increases her bond with your children, so make her do it for one year. Then make her stop. Otherwise it might delay the next child and make her search for alternatives to being a wife and mother.
5) And last but certainly not least: Because he will rape you.
Under no circumstance can you accept the idea that she gets to choose if or when to satisfy you or choose to sabotage your joint fertility. …
You control the time and frequency of sex, not her. … [A] woman who will deny you sex early on will only use it to gain greater power over you in the long run. …
The obvious exception to this is the first time you have sex. Typically she will control the timing of that for obvious reasons. From the second time onward, any poorly-reasoned denial is a red flag.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s not the real red flag here.
As strongsloth sees it, enforcing these rules will make it impossible for your future wife to ever “stray.”
Just imagine the situation. Wedding. Pregnant. Child born. Full time mother. No career. Breast feeding. Stop breast-feeding. Constant sex. Pregnant again. Repeat. There is little opportunity for her to get away from the children and her commitment to you, let alone consider alternatives to marriage. By the time the youngest child is in school her SMV [Sexual Market Value] relative to yours will have dropped, and you are safer.
You see what I was saying about how hard ROK is trying to become the worst publication in the world?
I couldn’t bring myself to look at the comments.
We could just call it “Boner Update Quarterly” since everything they say about women really comes down to boner pleasing = good, but slutty. Not boner pleasing = misandry and oppression.
aebars,
No.
You are mistaken.
Monsters thrive in the dark.
David drags them into the light.
cassandrakitty,
That’s an excellent point. I think they should meet Nanny Mcphee.
Or better yet, Susan.
http://static.tumblr.com/10dee6b78329930a12f8320e9f08653e/nniilf1/BTfmxx477/tumblr_static_stop_bothering_me.gif
Susan takes out monsters and violent men who think they are eternal children.
@Lea: where is Susan from? Not a show/movie I am familiar with, apparently.
Yup. And that helps divert possible hangers-on away from these douchebags BEFORE they have a chance to swallow the toxic red pill.
Also, using donotlink.com and excerpting from their shitty blog short-circuits their clickbait factor. So, not only are you exposing them…you’re not feeding them, either. Die, troll, DIE!
pallygirl: I believe that is Susan Sto Helit, governess, schoolteacher, and granddaughter of Death.
Yes, that Death. The skeleton in the black robe with the scythe. Susan stands in for him sometimes when he has one of his funny turns.
Ah Terry Pratchett. I’m not used to seeing any of his works outside of a written novel context.
@ Lea, duckbunny
I think Spike might have something to say on the matter
Pallygirl,
That gif is from the holiday movie Hogfather, based on a book by Terry Prachett of the same name.
The specific line I’m thinking of is:
She is described at one point thusly:
schwadevivre,
The link won’t open for me.
These guys want a steady supply of sex and, more importantly, the control of women and society that they think comes from that. They were taught and believe that the purpose of life, society and particularly manhood, is to compete for sexual access to women, with the least perceived cost to themselves. They believe that women are biologically driven to go for the most successful, powerful male providers they can get (bad boys, jocks, wealthy men, alphas, etc.) They then will seek to control and exploit these providers for their money in return for sexual access, and then may dump the man in an attempt to get another man higher up in status. Women who have careers and thus some economic resources are simply pickier, trying to get higher status males to exploit and having silly notions about their worth as people rather than just as sexual conquests.
They believe that men who are able to control and get sex from women have higher status, beating out other men, especially if they do so with minimal cost. Women’s sexual market value isn’t how sexy they are, but how high a status man they might be able to snag, and thus how high status they are as sexual conquests. Young women at their most fertile are the most desirable for the wealthiest, highest status men and the most exploitable and controllable. Men labelled manginas are simply seen as using a tactic for sexual access that tricks women by pretending to support them and being controlled by them. They are wimpy cheaters who will be discarded by the women at the first chance for a higher status, more controlling man.
So pick-up artists try to trick women into sexual access and being controlled and humiliated by men who pose as higher status alphas or who sometimes trick the women as apparent manginas — who will get their sex for minimum cost. The number of women you control and have sex with is one competition for status with other men. The minimum cost of it is another. The looks rating systems combines status of the woman’s sexual market value competition with sexual access status competition.
So if you want one steady sexual access that you can control, you want a woman who is a virgin — she hasn’t been able to exploit a lot of men as providers yet. You get to be the first to control and humiliate her. And you want her to be economically dependent on you, so she doesn’t try to switch, so women from oppressive foreign cultures, young virgins, women having to look out for their kids, etc. are the best candidates. There’s a type of status in that, despite the costs, because you control the woman fully, versus the other type of status of lots and lots of strictly sexual hook-ups. You don’t want a woman who is working in that situation, who can use you and then more easily go on to another man — meaning you lost the competition among men to use and control women. So their list makes perfect sense for them because of how they see men and women as biologically wired and in competition.
Better sex robots might help out some of these guys, but if they see that as losing status among other men, which many of them would, since it isn’t controlling women, then they’re trying to come up with a way to have a woman as much like a sex robot as possible in situation.
Who’s up for another episode of the ‘Nope’ show?
http://funny-pictures.picphotos.net/ony-nope-nope-nope-gif-gif/memeorama.com*wp-content*uploads*2012*02*ony-nope-nope-nope-gif.gif/
I think the main problem with ignoring them is that we (reasonable, kind people) are not their intended audience. To them, we’re the obnoxious hecklers at the magic show, shouting out “it’s in his pocket! Watch his left hand!”. Their audience are the misled, bitter punters hoping for easy answers to hard questions. They monetize the punters’ dissatisfaction and feed their own egos in the process.
They would LOVE it* if we ignored them, like mildew in a middle schooler’s gym bag.
* To the extent that they are capable of it, that is.
Bina,
Actually, we think the redacted Torah is 100-200 years older than that. Also, I highly doubt that the concept of patriarchy was cooked up by a few dozen Judean priests and scribes during the Babylonian exile. I’m actually vaguely uncomfortable with the “Old Testament” references use by multiple people in this thread. My first thought was just that I don’t call it the “OId Testament” any more, but rather the Hebrew Bible or the Tanakh. Then I thought that changing the pejorative to be more closely tied to the Jewish folk would make it worse and not better. I’m not really sure where I come down on this, but perhaps it would be best to find another phrase like “bronze age,” “theocratic,” “atavistic,” or “atavistic bronze age theocracy.”
There are at least two meaningful distinctions between Tanakh/Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament. One is the order of the texts. The Tanakh goes Torah, Prophets (Nevi’im), Writings (Ketubim) whereas the Old Testament goes Torah, Deuteronomic History with Ruth in the middle (which is in Nevi’im in the Tanakh, except for Ruth which is in Writings), Ezra/Nehemiah (Writings), Chronicles (Writings), the rest of the Writings, Prophets (with Daniel treated as Prophet not a Writing).
There are theological reasons for this. The Tanakh goes (to massively oversimplify) from most to least inspired, while the OT does the history of Israel and Judah, various theological writings, and then the Prophets because they see (imo completely incorrectly) the Prophets as foretelling the coming of Jesus and therefore as the best transition from the OT to the NT.
The other is that Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments contain texts not found in the Tanakh. This is because they were composed in Greek or Aramaic and therefore did not meet the rabbis’ requirement of being in Hebrew for what texts could belong in the Tanakh.
Reblogged this on Dreams of the Shining Horizon and commented:
Important safety tips. It’s rarely easy to tell which man will be abusive, but some few do make their red flags obvious.
From the comments:
What disgusting people.
Lea – Sorry I must have messed up the bb code try this http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Adora_Belle_Dearheart
I’m not wild about the constant references to Bronze Age or Iron Age this or that anyway. For plenty of societies it was before writing existed, and we have no records to suggest anything about social structures. The few hints from archaeological finds often enough disrupt archaeologists’ assumptions about the sex of the buried person anyway (it has a spear! Must be a warrior dude! Oh, no, wait, it’s actually a middle-aged woman who had several children. Oh, the spear must be ceremonial, then!)
Moreover singling out one particular society is, as Orion said, pretty dubious. Look at all the rabidly patriarchal societies we do know about (Greece and Rome, anyone? The Assyrians?) who were not remotely influenced by Hebrew society, and who indeed influenced them and later Christian and Moslem thought.
Kitteh: If we’re going by ancient texts then yes, there were more countries than Israel that had patriarchal societies. Even as far east as China.
sunnysombrera, yes, exactly. It’s a worldwide phenomenon.
Aebars,
Sorry for the Mean Girls meme, but: do you even go here? Exposing and mocking guys like Roosh & Co. is literally what WHTM is about.
Leum,
I think when we allude to the “Old Testament,” we’re hardly ever talking about the collection holistically. While there are properties of the Old Testament that are distinct from those the Tanakh, we’re generally invoking a few specific pieces of content, not the properties of an arrangement of texts. Generally when people used “Old Testament” as pejorative, they mean either “Genesis-style sexism,” “Leviticus-style legalism,” or “Joshua-style genocide.” I’d say that all those ideas are equally pertinent to the Tanakh and the Old Testament.
It’s a pathetic response to a minor part of this, but I wonder if they’re even vaguely aware that a lot of people are refusing diamond rings of any stripe these days due to the connection to blood diamonds…
That was a thing back when I was engaged nearly fifteen years ago.
Suuuure they have. Were they about banana flies?
I’d like to see those studies. Any chance of a citation?