Georgia O’Keeffe: Probably Not Christopher in Oregon’s favorite painter
It’s time for another visit into the fertile mind of Christopher in Oregon, perhaps the most viscerally misogynistic boob I’ve ever written about on this site. Most of the misogynists I write about here like to pretend that they’re not misogynists, or to dress up their misogyny in pseudoscientific terms, talking about the evils of female “hypergamy” or citing dubious evo psych to back up their reprehensible views.
Not old Chris. He’s an old-school, women are bad because their vaginas are stinky, woman-hater. And his 2007 manifesto “Deconstruct the Female,” which I recently found reposted on MarkyMark’s blog, may well be his masterpiece.
Michelle Obama is not impressed with your argument.
Christian J., the blogger behind What Men Are Saying About Women and the inventor of the infamous MRA two-dot ellipsis, has always been an open racist as well as a misogynist, letting drop horrific comments from time to time on why he thinks black women are the worst kind of women in the world.
Christian lays out his thesis statement in his first sentence:
I have made no effort to hide my disgust about black females as they do really deserve every criticism they get.
What follows is a largely incoherent stream-of consciousness rant unencumbered by logic or the correct use of language.
Christian starts off by attacking “black “Lesbian” females” and “Oprah “Find the Victim” Winfrey,” whom he describes as a
selfish, self-serving, anti-male bigot and organiser of female only schools in Africa. A true racist bigot in every sense of the word.
Yes, the author of “Why Black Women are More Repulsive than any Other..” did just call Oprah a racist bigot.
Apparently immune to irony, Christian J continues:
The facts about black women is even more horrendous than one could even assume. They developed themselves as being so arrogant and self-serving, that even black men avoid them like the plague. …
The fact that they have constantly hit out against black men as being either gays or hoods or in jail, leaving them pregnant (that’s a favourite with women, always blame someone else for one’s own stupidity) and refusing to man up when required. They vilified black men at every opportunity. …
The black man’s response was huge. They enjoyed handing their oversized asses back to them in popular songs like rap and other genres.
You will no doubt have noticed by now that Christian J. does not seem to understand what words mean or how language works, exactly.
They reduced the black female down to the levels they could understand and they also stated in no uncertain terms, what black females could do with themselves while they went off and picked females from other races to replace those high and mighty, self-elevated edifices and phoenixes.
Edifices? Phoenixes? Is he just pulling random words out of the dictionary now?
Poetic justice and it was the appropriate feedback they required to put them back in the box where they originally came from and hopefully teach them some level of humility.
The … box … they came from? What the fuck is he even talking about here?
That did not work of course as their ego now had grown even bigger that they themselves could no longer control. …
Some people dream of going back in a time machine and strangling baby Hitler in his crib, thus preventing World War II, the Holocaust, any number of stupid memes. Our dear friend Heartiste — the repellent right-wing pickup guru — dreams instead of delivering the incredibly wussy teenage Hitler his own Sixteen Commandments of Poon, thus saving young Adolph from the horrors of Betahood and perhaps also preventing World War II, etc.
Heartiste, who evidently gets his news from seven-year-old stories in the Daily Mail, has been reading about a not-so-new book that tells the story of teenage Hitler’s unrequited crush on a girl named Stefanie Isak. To hear the Daily Mail tell it, Hitler was quite the beta simp, watching from a distance in fury as alpha male army officers charmed (and won over) the young lass. Heartiste is driven to comment:
Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.
You keep using that word. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of this quote.
If you ever need proof that Men’s Rights Activists live in a world of their own, check out this, er, argument, found in a posting on A Voice for Men UK, the official British franchise of the American hate site we know so well :
All women are homophobic.
Whether the men being prejudiced against are gay or not is kind of beside the point – after all, ‘homo’ = man, ‘phobia’ = fear, therefore: ‘homophobia’ = Fear of Man – but, if you want to quibble over Greek & Latin etymology, perhaps we can at least agree on this: all women, to a greater or lesser extent, display the ‘symptoms’ we attribute to said condition: overt caution, fear &/or disdain of men.
Yep, that’s right. In order to find an excuse to call women “homophobic,” they’ve invented an entirely new definition for the word not based in any way on the actual etymology of the word “homophobia” (which is of course derived from “homosexual”) but on something they’ve just made up.
The author of the post then uses this weird logic to make excuses for actual homophobia among straight men:
Female ‘homophobia’ is so normalized in our society that treating every man you meet like ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’ is considered an ordinary, common sense fact of life – just so long as you are a woman. But if a man feels at all uncomfortable around another man sexually, he is presently branded an evil bigot for behaving the way all women do at all times.
A Voice for Men: they reject your reality, and substitute nonsensical unreality that allows them to say bad things about women.
Today is Day 3 of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending some bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
The news of misogynistic marriage-hater Mark Minter’s upcoming nuptials has been ricocheting around the manosphere for about a week now. In my previous post on the subject, I looked at the manosphere’s initial reaction to this startling — and for many, disillusioning — development. Today, a followup, looking at how the manosphere has begun to adjust to the idea of a married Minty.
Well, it took them a little while, but the folks at Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men have finally figured out an angle on the Trayvon Martin case. According to regular AVFM contributor August Løvenskiolds, the whole thing can be blamed on a woman — specifically, Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Trayvon Martin who was on the phone with him just before he was killed.
According to Løvenskiolds, who seems to know more about what happened that night than it is in fact possible for him to know,
During a post-trial interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Rachel Jeantel, the reluctant phone witness who was talking to Martin just before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, finally revealed that she had warned Martin that Zimmerman might be gay, or even, a gay rapist preparing to approach Martin.
This isn’t news; Jeantel said in her testimony that she told Martin she was afraid the man following him might be a rapist. But Løvenskiolds moves quickly from “sworn testim0ny” to “making shit up.”
Martin freaked out over the idea that Zimmerman might have sexual designs on him or his family, and this seems to have precipitated the attack on Zimmerman – which, of course, would make the attack a violation of Zimmerman’s human rights as a (purportedly) gay man, and make Jeantel the proxy instigator of the attack.
Yes, that’s right, the whole thing was “violence by proxy” instigated by an evil homophobic woman.
Would you like some armchair psychoanalysis to go with your unfounded speculation?
So, Trayvon Martin was killed in the act of gay-bashing (in Jeantel’s and his own minds, anyway). The fury of Martin’s sudden turnabout attack is now explicable (he had been avoiding being followed up to the point of the introduction of the gay rapist idea) and it indicates the degree of Martin’s revulsion that he went from flight to fight mode in so short a time.
And this of course makes it all All About The Menz Rights.
The men’s human rights issues related to a woman (Jeantel) being held blameless for using gay/rape threats to precipitate man-on-man violence ought to be obvious.
It’s always a woman’s fault, isn’t it?
Elsewhere in the post, Løvenskiolds seriously suggests that when a police dispatcher told Zimmerman that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin, that was Super Seekret Man Code for “we actually DO need you to follow him.” No, really.
Such negative suggestions are as clear to savvy men as this: “Honey, you don’t need to buy me roses for Valentine’s Day” – meaning, of course, “if you know what is good for you, I’d better get flowers AND chocolate AND jewelry AND a nice dinner AND…”
The fact that the dispatcher further expected Zimmerman to meet with officers – drafting Zimmerman into the militia, as it were – made it clear to Zimmerman that his continued pursuit of Martin was expected by the police as well.
The societal expectation of militia service by all able-bodied adult males is certainly a men’s human rights issue and an indication of inequality between the genders that needs to be redressed.
MRAs may not be good at much, but they’ve got mental gymnastics down to a science.
EDIT: I added a graf after the first quote from Løvenskiolds clarifying that Jeantel says she did in fact tell Martin that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist.
So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing the Saatchi/Lawson divorce, as we were yesterday, and, well, it’s going better than expected, in that quite a few of them are actually willing to accept that Saatchi actually abused Lawson and that his demand that she defend him against the accusations of abuse thus don’t really make much sense. I guess that’s what happens when the abuse is literally caught on camera and printed on the front page of every British tabloid.
But not everyone there has responded so, well, rationally. Take this fellow:
Dude, I’m pretty sure the rich and/or weird are subject to the same laws (and moral judgements) as the rest of us. Billionaire art collectors don’t get a free pass to choke their wives in public. Nor is that equivalent to a hypothetical Playboy centerfold cheating on you.
Also, as a point of fact, Saatchi isn’t a billionaire. According to Celebrity Net Worth, he’s worth something on the order of $100 million; the site estimates Lawson to be worth $15 million.
Here’s an interesting, er, historical discussion I found in the Red Pill Women subreddit, in a larger discussion of vagina size:
The more you know!
The entire discussion is, of course, a gold mine of misogynistic nonsense. You can dive right in here, or see some of the more memorable quotes highlighted in this Blue Pill discussion.
