It’s no big secret that many doomsday preppers yearn for the apocalypse — if for no other reason than the opportunities it will provide them to say “I told you so” to all those who doubted their paranoid fantasies. And to possibly shoot some of these unprepared scoffers when they come begging for food.
Nowhere is this more obvious than amongst those apocalypse-fantasizers who’ve convinced themselves that it will be feminism, rather than volcanic eruptions or nuclear war or Donald Trump, that will bring about the end of the world.
On the Men Going Their Own way subreddit, the regulars are talking apocalypse, as modern misogynists are wont to do. And it is as revealing as these exercises always are.
A fellow called BagOfBrokenBits dreams of a not-very-distant future in which uppity ladies “will do whatever they are told.”
The future as I see it, is that as society collapses around us (5-15 years?) most women outside of a tightly controlled patriarchal group simply will not survive, because nobody will put up with their sh*t long enough to feed them. When resources are scarce they will not be able to defend what they have and most lack the health, strength and abilities to obtain or build what they need. There will be no feminism, there will be patriarchy. Men will work together as they always have, in challenging and horrific conditions. Women will do whatever they are told because conditions will be too harsh to tolerate dissent.
And Mr. Bag will be one of those doing the telling, because of all the toiletries he is hoarding:
I am a Prepper. I currently have stores of food, toiletries etc for five years with tools, seeds etc to extend that.
He’s apparently filling his doomsday bunker with as many canned goods as he can get his hands on:
It has been noted that in past shortages due to wars an afternoon with a woman can be had for a tin of … anything really.
You know what I mean, you know what I mean? Nudge nudge say no more!
The pros and cons of the apocalypse:
Cons:
- Death of most of the human race
- Contamination of water sources with dead bodies
- No medical care beyond basic first aid
- Return to stone age civilization
Pros:
- Women will have sex with you for a can of beans
AOF_Semiramis suggests moving to New Zealand. And he has some interesting thoughts about Pokemon GO.
Go complete ghost in New Zealand or the likes.Heck even in the US with private as fuck properties.Grow your own food,have stable ways to get water and raise animals a la farm.Fish too if your near a lake.Assuming your far away enough,lake is isolated enough,your too far from idiot humans and any large concentration of them,then nukes won’t land on your spot too since it would be a waste of resources.(Its why the CIA funded Pokemon GO. So the brainless droves would fill the map for them.Obviusly there are still holes.)
Surviving the apocalypse is so easy that even a kid could do it!
Also..a 15 year old discovered an ancient city due to studying the stars in Central America.So you can bet that there are other places in the world where you can live safely.
Make sure to pack popcorn, for all the gloating you’ll be doing.
I know its f*cked up,but nothing you can do to stop it. You can only save yourself at most.So just chill,get some popcorn,and just accept the f*cking up.
timoppenheimer, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be doing any prepping beyond living as selfishly as he can:
WWIII is coming, and I am horrified too, OP.
My plan is to enjoy my life. They already took my foreskin; fuck society, I’m living my life for me.
Talkytalktalk is evidently a fan of Alex Jones:
This is the great culling of the human population. The eugenics population reduction freaks are going to kill billions and out the rest under the yoke of totalitarianism. It takes a woman to pick the runts and dispose of them.
But which woman? WHICH WOMAN!?
I need to know now so I can mangina my way into her good graces before the culling.
I have a tin of stickers I’ve been collecting since I was a kid. Sometimes I use the duplicates I’ve gotten. I think my favorite is between the orange ninja or the ones that have English on there, like a sticker that says “BANG” it a business giraffe pointing at a picture of flan labeled “pudding”.
EDIT: You know, for the sake of how this thread went, THIS is my favorite.
http://i.imgur.com/r3AGODth.jpg
Nick G: I thought it was Central Asia mostly, not Mesopotamia. Avicenna from current Uzbekistan, Al-Kwarezmi from Kwarezm (obviously), near the Aral Sea.
numerobis,
A lot of the intellectuals were from Central Asia (and Iran, Syria, etc.) but the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties were based in Baghdad, and I specified “the monarchies”. The Fatimid dynasty in Egypt was also later important in the patronage of Arabic science (i.e., science in the medium of Arabic, many or even most of those prominent in it were not Arabs, quite a few were non-Muslims – Christians, Jews, pagans, possibly even atheists). And when the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in 750-ish, one branch of the latter survived and patronised intellectuals in Spain; and later (after that dynasty had fallen), the Christian (re)capture of Toledo in 1085 gave a huge boost to knowledge in western Europe, as both original Arabic texts, and Arabic translations of Greek ones, were (re)translated into Latin (mostly by Jewish scholars IIRC, although Adelard of Bath and Gerard of Cremona rightly get a lot of credit).
I’m back in Chicago. Thanks Oogly 🙂
I’ve been reading through the thread since last night, and there are two comments I wanted to make on some of SR’s points:
1) At the time of the American Revolution (or the English Colonial Revolt, or whatever it’s called in Canada and the UK), George Washington was one of the wealthiest people on the continent, if not the world. HOWEVER, this was because he married Martha Washington, who was the heiress to one of the wealthiest planters (read, slaveholding plantation-owners) in Virginia. So, if we want to read it that way, Martha was a true-blue American aristocrat, and George just married into her status.
2) I always felt quite sorry for Alexander II. What little I know about him strikes me as a person who genuinely wanted to do right by his country, but was undone by the aristocracy that he depended on. Sort of tragic, to my mind. However, I will admit that my knowledge of Russian history is about as superficial as a Russians knowledge of US history (true fact: I had to explain what ‘the south’ referred to to one of my medical school classmates from Belarus, as he’d never heard of the American Civil War).
@EJ: That was a truly touching post in response to SR. I hope he gains something from it. I initially thought he was simply trolling, but digging through these comments, I agree that he may be seeking help, although possibly subconsciously.
@Schildfreja: I have to ask, what is ‘Unnyones’? I tried googling it, and got a whole bunch of references to ‘the funny ones’, which was apparently an old sitcom. Also, props to you for your patience with SR as well, but you’re always patient with people here.
Is it just me, or is Sedentary Reactionary just another way of saying Armchair Warrior?*
*It’s probably just me.
ETA: Hmmm. My icon changed color, too.
MarkyMark
That’s not true.
Untrue. Since that time feminists have been working to get women allowed in all places in the military. That’s why women weren’t conscripted. And as soon as it was made illegal for women to be kept out of all positions based on gender the issue was back independent of a female president. It’s been on the selective service site for years stating that the supreme court will have to revisit the ruling when women were allowed in those positions.
yeah they examined why it was male only and worked to change that. It’s funny, a lot of men’s groups were all for using the ERA, not because they thought women should get equal rights, but because they thought they could use it to end the draft completely because they couldn’t imagine women in combat. After the court ruling, did they join with feminists to get women into combat roles?? Nope!
Uhh this is stupid and wrong. Feminists are all for shared custody. You know most men don’t even TRY for custody? Because society doesn’t pressure men to be a caregiver of their kids like it does women. But you know what? When men TRY for custody they usually get it. You want to use the men who don’t even attempt for custody to pad your numbers. Go look at real numbers.
As for child support, let’s return to the numbers of men who don’t even try for custody. Women are the ones who are expected to take care of the kids, with or without the father there to help. You want to get rid of child support?? Encourage more and more men to help take care of their kids. Help make child care not only the woman’s job. Let it be gender neutral. That’s why child support exists, because we don’t expect a man to help take care of children, so we have them assist financially because children are expensive.
Then again, you don’t even want men to help keep their children fed or in clothes, why would I expect you to encourage them to help with the actual care.
See above about working to get women in combat roles. It wasn’t male only because of discrimination against men, it was male only because women weren’t allowed. And feminism has worked for decades for that equality. If they did it your way, men would still be the only ones allowed in combat roles (which I’m guessing is how you want it anyway).
Handsome Jack:
Eh, anime dudes look the same to me.
But this
http://67.media.tumblr.com/fcccfffe6c26a769a28585f23b249f5f/tumblr_mqaaldnUFa1r2u7p0o1_500.png
This is beautiful.
(That’s a reference, no actual judgement.)
Bah, you think american cartoon dudes look different?
Look at this other american cartoon guy!
http://i.imgur.com/pMSteZW.png
Looks the same! They could be twins.
Well, that blockquote failed miserably….
Handsome Jack:
Look at this other american cartoon guy!
http://i.imgur.com/pMSteZW.png
Looks the same! They could be twins.
@Nick G – Not just Jewish scholars; when you look at something like Alfons X’s great translation court in Toledo, you find scholars from all over the place. Although, IIRC (and I definitely might not RC, I didn’t read much about it) a lot of the initial translation from Arabic was done by Jews, into languages like Castilian, to later be translated into Latin etc.
@joekster, it means ‘peace’, or more specifically, ‘freedom from hate.’ Pronounced rather like “un-IDH-ness,” I think, making the whole thing “sildh-FREY-ah-un-IDH-ness”.
Why yes, I do like tongue twisters.
And thank you, Nick et. al. for the history lesson! Not my strong suit.
Pretty sure this is a reference to a particular law from somewhere in the midwest (can’t remember off the top of my head) that the local NOW chapter opposed. The law purported to rectify a bias against men in issues of child custody.
What it actually did was split custody 50/50 between the two parents by default with zero reference to any specific family’s actual circumstances. If one parent felt the other shouldn’t have the kids exactly half the time, they then had to go through all the bureaucracy associated with that after the fact.
Even apart from situations where one parent is abusive or otherwise unfit this is quite clearly a horrible way to handle child custody. Women don’t get custody because they’re women but because, in most cases, women are the primary caregiver and courts wish to avoid as much upheaval as possible for the kids. The last thing they need in the midst of their family falling apart is to suddenly have to spend half of their time away from their primary caregiver.
And then you have abusers. Under this law, even an abuser would get shared custody by default and it would be the other parent’s problem to get them declared unfit after. After the kids got sent to spend half their time alone with their abuser. And if the abusive parent was male, he could just pull the whole “she’s making this up to alienate my children from me” schtick and be believed. And then later, when the kids actually turned up injured or dead, Mom would still be the villain for allowing her children to spend time with their abuser.
Which is why NOW opposed it. Which NOW’s website explains quite clearly. But MRAssholes still bring it up because they’re fucking selfish, entitled shitheads who view children not as little human beings to be loved and nurtured but as property that they feel entitled to half of however much harm is caused.
@Tessa
You’re right. To the untrained eye, you could probably just switch their clothes and be none the wiser.
Nick G: ah, I see the distinction.
Quite fascinating how what’s the pinnacle of civilization and what’s a backwater has flip-flopped over the millennia.
@Scildfreja
Uhm, actually… Nah, you got it. I just need to exercise my pedantic ‘splaining reflex lest the stress build up too much and I ‘splode
The sc is kinda complicated actually. In Old English it could be pronounced sh or maaaybe hsy (not everyone can pronounce that last one). In Old Norse, it could be more sk, but I’m not sure
The accented ý could more sound like a German ü than an i (again, not everyone can pronounce the former). Tho modern Icelandic apparently prefers the i sound. The accent generally means the sound is stretched out a bit
The ð is identical (functionally identical anyway) to a hard th like in ‘tho’ and ‘breathe’. Unless that’s what you were going for with dh. In which case ignore me
Of course, it’s your name, so it’s pronounced however you say it is. I’m just being stupid. Sorry 🙂
@Tessa: Timmark (I like Timmark because of the ironic similarity to ‘Tiamat’) has pasted the exact same screed on several forums now. I know that someone has made the exact same rebuttals you have, and they apparently have not phased him.
Apologies if you were the one to rebut him last time, and are posting the rebuttals for the benefit of everyone else. If so, than the point totally flew over my head 😉
@Schildfreja: Thanks for the explanation. If anyone on this site desers a moniker meaning ‘free from hate’, it’s you. Especially given the extreme tolerance and patience you’ve shown, both with the trolls and with unintentional a-holes (like myself). I was going to suggest something like ‘engager of trolls’, but yours is much more erudite.
@sevenofmine: Isn’t there a story where Solomon arbitrates between two women claiming the same child by offering to hack the child in two, and gives the child to the woman who would rather give the child up than see the child killed? Seems MRA’s should review that story. I’d post the reference, but I’m much more familiar with the New Testament than the Old.
@numerobis: I vaguely recall a theory from my East Asia history classes in Undergrad regarding the tendency of the backwater to become the new center. So, as Qin was the backwater in the Zhou times, Qin later conqured Northern China to form the first Chinese empire, then southern China (which was considered the backwater) wound up conquring northern China at the end of the three kingdom’s era, etc.
In a way, it applies to Western history as well: Greece, Rome, Britain, and the US were all considered half-barbarian backwaters by their predecessors.
Sorry if that was too much of a teal deer.
Missed the edit window. I meant ‘deserves’, not ‘desers’ above.
Thank you Axe, I knew I was getting it wrong. I’m just muckin’ around here, so I hope no one takes me as an authority on any of that.
Scildfreja Púoaslaga? :3 a.k.a Scildfreja Trollslayer?
As for why I picked Unnýðnes, it’s more of a reminder to myself that I need to keep anger from controlling my reactions. I was getting a bit worked up!
@ joekster
Yep, one woman had accidentally smothered her own child in her sleep and attempted to switch her dead baby for the other woman’s living one. When they end up in front of Solomon he offers to cut the child in half and that child’s real mother yells for him to give the child to the other woman as long as he’s not harmed. The other woman is fine with cutting the child in two and Solomon infers that the baby’s real mother is the one who was willing to give him up to keep him safe.
joekster:
Eh, the thingie I responded to was a response to somebody else responding to his longer angry copypasta. I figured since he responded once, he wasn’t a drive by at least. *shrug* And even if they aren’t phased, I never liked leaving stupid stuff like that unchallenged because too often “ignoring” something sends a message to the jerks that they’ll never be challenged, and sends a message to onlookers that the jerks are the unchallenged defaults. Not that that’s a problem here, but in general.
@Scildfreja
Oh, don’t take me as an authority either. Up til now, I’d been pronouncing it HSYILT-fray-uh (you’re absolutely right about the syllable stress, btw!), so we’re both almost definitely wrong 😀
@schildfreja: if you put them together, would you get ‘slayer of trolls without hatred’? Because that is exactly what you do here.
@Tessa: Fair enough. And I may have been out of line to suggest you were wasting your time. Another thing my PD liked to say was, ‘throw enough mud at the wall, and some of it will stick’. (not that anything you said was ‘mud’. He was referring to the educational value of repetition).
Penny Psmith,
Yes, I think you’re right – I’d forgotten a lot of stuff was translated from Arabic into vernaculars, then retranslated into Latin! And I’ve read that some of the Greek material was first translated into Syriac, then retranslated into Arabic – so by the time they were available in Latin, some Greek items might have been translated four times! I wonder how much of the original sense survived.
sevenofmine,
The oh-so-wise Solomon “bisect-the-baby” story has always struck me as daft. Is it really psychologically credible that the non-mother would say “OK, deal, cut it in half”?
@ Nick G
Yeah not really. Why would she switch the babies if she was then going to be willing to let the other baby be killed? Surely the point of switching them is to still have an actual living baby? Or at least to not be thought of as a murderer? Agreeing to slice the child in half seems…counterproductive to any conceivable goal she might have had, even apart from being a fundamental failure of empathy.
@7ofmine and NickG
I dunno. I mean, you’re right. It seems completely out of left field to want half a child. At the same time, this woman had just killed her son and kidnapped a little boy. I can’t exactly bring myself to assume complete rationality or emotional stability on her part. ‘Postpartum Depression’ exists, ‘Münchhausen by Proxy’ exists, etc. Not internet diagnosing a biblical character, but, while it’s an odd course of action she takes, perhaps it’s not entirely unbelievable…
@ axe, 7 & nick
Isn’t it just a case that the woman in the story is one of those people who, if they can’t have something then they’re content so long as someone else can’t have it either,
So her view is ideally she’d like a replacement child but failing that she’ll be satisfied if someone else loses their child.
That’s not an uncommon mindset even today.