Ugh. It’s the Jailbait subreddit again. If you’ve been following any of the discussions that have recently been swirling around Reddit’s popular subreddit dedicated to the posting of technically-not-child-porn pics of underage girls, you probably ran across the standard Jailbait apologia: The pics there aren’t nude pics, and besides, most of them were originally posted on the internet by the girls themselves. So it’s all good clean fun, I guess.
It’s going to be a little bit harder for the Jailbaiters to use this bullshit argument in the future. A day or so ago, you see, a Jailbaiter calling himself TheContortionist posted a pic of his (alleged) 14-year-old ex-girlfriend’s ass in a thong. Naturally, the regulars demanded more. The OP noted that the only other pics he had of her were nudes.
I can only hope that some of the requesters were FBI agents.
Here’s a screenshot of the whole disgusting thread (SFW; in an earlier NSFW screenshot posted to Reddit virtually all of the comments you see downvoted here still had net upvotes).
Naturally, this being Reddit, the r/jailbait apologists are still insisting that, hey, even though something like 70 people in r/jailbait publicly requested PMs of child porn, this sort of thing is officially frowned upon by the subreddit’s mods, so, you know, not to worry. As CapNRoddy put it:
The existence of r/jailbait does not mean nudes of children. Those are against the rules. Those posters broke the rules.
And then of course there were various iterations of this non-argument, set forth here by im_only_a_dolphin:
You know what I do about /r/jailbait?
I don’t visit it. Bam. Problem solved.
If by “solved” you mean “ignored, because I don’t give a shit about crimes that harm people other than me,” then I guess, yeah, that is “problem solved.”
These are the awkwardly posed businessladies who wrecked our economy
Like a lot of people, when I’m looking for insights on the current economic mess, I turn first to random dudes posting on The Spearhead. Here’s some guy called Poiuyt explaining how ladies and the men who don’t hate them are the source of all our troubles:
Because this god damned genderist society has become so amoral, so degenerate and so bankrupted on account of its genderist pervervions and femaleist subversions, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to grow itself out of the mess it finds itself in. The proverbial golden geese and their precious eggs in male produktivity have been either been killed, eaten, over-exploited, over worked, abused, dis-incentivised, harrased and are now increasingly extinct.
Well, I can’t argue with that, though the whole goose metaphor isn’t working 100% for me, given that I’m pretty sure it’s not the man goose that lays the eggs, but the lady goose. But that’s nitpicking. Poiuyt is on a roll:
You simply cannot get any further male inspired ekonomic growth out of hugely indebted and morally bankrupted societies as ours following genderist statism today, … … because the primary sources of growth potential in male inspired productivity and male entrepreneurship has been cannibalised to the bone. Cannibalised to the point where there is nothing left to base any further ekonomic growth on, consequent of the vicious sexist state ideology of womanism at all costs.
In my last post, I referred (albeit obliquely) to a discussion taking place in the comments section over on The Frisky about an article called How to Teach Boys to be Feminists. With a title like that, it’s hardly surprising that the topic drew MRAs like, well, I was going to say like flies on shit, but it was more like the other way around. (Even our friend NWOslave made an appearance.)
Reading through the comments, I noticed a couple from a commenter calling himself “Really?” — with a question mark – that laid out point by point why he thinks men are getting the short end of the stick. His points were an equal mixture of wrong and silly. So I decided I would offer point-by-point responses to them all.
If any of you want to fill in more detailed responses to any of his points (or to challenge or correct my points), please do so.
So let’s give the floor to Really?
If you ever think women have it harder in modern society, just think of this:
Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?
Really, Really? You’re going to lead with this? This, to you, is the most salient example of female privilege? My answer: I don’t know because this literally never happens in my life. I put the seat and the lid down because I don’t want things to fall into the toilet.
Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?
Huh? Men complain about women who “want everything” all the time.
Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?
Because these are rights that are reserved only for those who can make babies inside their body. (Women who are infertile, post-menopausal, or transwomen don’t have these rights either.) When (cis) men develop this ability, they can have the same rights. Remember that pregnant (trans) man? He had the same rights as a pregnant women.
Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?
You actually think that heterosexual men are oppressed by women wearing makeup, showing cleavage and wearing short skirts? Most heterosexual men manage to steal glances at women they find attractive without being a creeper about it. And for the most part, women don’t get upset if a guy looks at them; what’s upsetting is when guys pull up in a car and ask “can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?”
Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?
Who pretends that? Feminists acknowledge that women abuse children. And yes, women do abuse children more than men — because women, on average, spend much more time caring for children than men. If you adjust for the amount of time spent caring for children, men are more likely to abuse. But it’s not some sort of gender competition here. Abuse is a horrible thing, regardless of the gender of the abuser.
If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?
I’m guessing for the same reason men initiate divorces: because their marriages are terrible, and they’re miserable. [Citation Needed] for the claim about perjury.
Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?
At the time the bill was passed, people were only just beginning to understand the prevalence of domestic violence towards women. Nonetheless, despite the name of the bill, VAWA is gender neutral, designed to protect male victims as well as female ones.
Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman – won’t the man be in more pain?
Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?
I know of no feminists who would consider him a wimp; they would consider him to be what he is, a victim of domestic abuse. No one is a criminal for defending themselves; they can be a criminal if they respond with disproportionate violence, responding to a slap by beating their partner unconscious.
Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?
Many of these issues are related to (cis) women’s reproductive health. Men have a smaller number of issues specific to their gender. If men want to help increase awareness of men’s health issues, they are free to organize awareness campaigns just as women have done over the years.
Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?
[Citation needed]
Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?
Depends on the club.
If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?
Women do get paid less. That’s simply a fact. The question is why, and that’s complicated. Sexism plays a part. See here.
How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?
The same way they know who to arrest in cases of domestic violence involving heterosexuals: by determining who is primarily responsible for the violence. This may involve collecting witness statements (if there are witnesses), by looking for visible signs of injury and other evidence of violence, and so on. Women – heterosexual women and lesbians alike – are regularly arrested for DV. Sometimes both partners are arrested.
Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?
I’m having a hard time seeing the contradiction here. If a married man doesn’t regularly care for his children, he is less likely to be awarded custody.
Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?
Women cannot unilaterally decide to cut off visitation. This is something determined by the courts. If a man is denied visitation, there’s generally a good reason for this – he may, for example, be an abuser.
If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?
Feminists don’t actually run the military. Generally, feminists support women’s right to serve in the armed forces, and NOW has petitioned to include women in draft registration. But most feminists I’ve ever met are opposed to the draft for anyone, male or female.
Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else.
Because the ratio of women to men in the sciences is seriously skewed against women; STEM professions are heavily male-dominated. And this is no coincidence: girls and women are often told that women are “naturally” worse at math and science. There is no similar prejudice against men in, say, the liberal arts.
Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?
Child support is intended to help support, er, the children. Women tend to be the primary caregivers, so they are more likely to win custody. When men win custody, child support payments go to them.
Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?
This is a difficult situation, with no easy answers. Courts put the interests of the children first, as they should.
Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?
Do they? I don’t think aid recipients should have to prove what they spent the money on.
Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?
That’s not how Title IX works. It’s intended to give female athletes the same opportunity as male athletes, not to “cut men’s sports.”
Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five – isn’t that equal pay for less work?
Again: Really, Really? You’ll have to take that up with the people handing out the prize money. The amount of money athletes make is pretty arbitrary, largely determined by how popular their sport is, how good their agent is, and what sorts of endorsement deals they get. Female gymnasts work pretty hard. How many of them earn big bucks? There are far more millionaire male athletes than there are women.
Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?
It’s cheating either way, unless you’re talking about people in open or polyamorous relationships. Who exactly is lionizing female cheaters? Not the show Cheaters, in any case.
Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?
Outside of a few cases in which women who murdered their children were indeed suffering from postpartum psychoses, this is simply not true. Lawyers defending murderers often press for their clients – male or female — to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity, but they rarely win.
Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?
Are there? I doubt it. And if so, what difference does it make? There are various feminist organizations that deal with issues related to motherhood (and parenthood in general) like parental leave. What on earth is your point?
Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?
The fact that there are social problems attributed to fatherlessness does not mean that all fathers should get unfettered access to their children. Divorce is messy, and generally there are good reasons why certain fathers are prohibited from seeing their children. Giving a father who is a child abuser access to his children will not solve any social problems.
Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?
Uh, yeah, that’s not how that works. Many divorced men (and some women) pay child support, with the amount determined by the needs of the children and of the non-custodial parent’s ability to pay. This support is meant for the children. Alimony is only awarded in about 15 percent of divorces; roughly 4 percent of alimony recipients are men.
If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?
[Citation needed]
Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?
Because the person who initiates the divorce is not necessarily the person who has “walked out” of the relationship.
Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?
There are a number of networks aimed mostly at men. While sexist shows are often criticized for being sexist, the idea of appealing to a specific demographic isn’t terribly controversial.
Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?
Are they? The wife on King of Queens is a bit of a shrew, isn’t she? And Kevin James is the star of the show, isn’t he? (Newsflash: comedians often portray buffoons.) In any case, feminists generally aren’t big fans of shows that reinforce old stereotypes about the genders – including the buffoon dad and the humorless mom. Every feminist I know is appalled by the new sitcom Whitney, which reinforces a lot of old stereotypes, many of them misandrist.
Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?
Huh? Comedians say misogynistic things all the time.
Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?
These are getting weirder and weirder. I can only assume you’re talking about women who choose to be stat-at-home moms (or whose husbands choose this for them). Women who do this are more likely to be traditionalist than feminist. Every feminist I know wants men to have the same option to be a stay-at-home dad. That’s why feminists push for better parental leave, not simply better maternal leave.
Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?
Feminists want women to have the same employment opportunities as men. Women have in fact fought to get into dirty, dangerous fields heavily dominated by men, like mining, for example. (Darksidecat could give you more on this.)
In a second post, Really? asked a bunch more questions. As you’ll see, they got sillier and sillier as he continued:
Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?
You don’t “have” to say anything. You can say whatever you want, though people might look at you funny if you were to call a female chairperson a “chairman.” As for “bad guy,” well, men make up the overwhelming majority of criminals (in real life) and villains (in movies, TV, and fiction generally), so it’s not altogether shocking that the term used to refer to the baddies is gendered in this way. You don’t have to use the phrase if you don’t want.
Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?
Huh? Could you give examples of this (that don’t involve the Titanic)? When talking about wars, people generally use the phrase “innocent civilians.”
Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?
[Citation needed]
Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?
The issue of shared parenting is complicated, and it’s often not the best option for the children. Generally speaking, the person who was the primary caregiver gets primary custody, and this makes sense to me. If more men were stay-at-home-dads, men would get primary custody more often. Every feminist l know is supportive of stay-at-home dads.
Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
Huh? Could you give an example? I think it largely depends not on gender but what the parent in question is angry about – whether they were angry because of cutbacks at their kids’ school, or because they’re an asshole with a giant sense of entitlement. Angry asshole mothers need anger management classes as much as their male counterparts.
Why is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?
I’m going to let Don Draper respond to this one for me.
Onward:
Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?
Gross generalizations about men and women are sexist no matter who says them. But anyone can criticize individual men or women – or groups of men and/or women who hold specific beliefs – without being considered sexist.
Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?
What on earth are you talking about?
Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?
Because our legal system works in the open, the names of accused criminals (regardless of gender, regardless of crime) are made public. In the case of rape, accusers are often demonized and shamed and threatened, so we protect their identities. Or try to: in many cases their names have been made public. Accused criminals who win acquittal can move on with their lives; in some cases where the jury’s verdict is controversial, like OJ Simpson’s not guilty verdict, they may be seen as guilty by many people. The law has no control over people’s opinions.
Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?
[Citation needed.]
Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?
Uh, yeah. Very few MRAs suggest merely that we “consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change.” Instead, they write out long crazy lists like yours, attempting to portray men as horribly oppressed slaves at the hands of evil feminazi matriarchs. When MRAs set aside this nonsense and bring up specific issues that affect men disproportionally or exclusively, like circumcision, they generally are taken much more seriously.
If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?
Feminists don’t “always side with women,” whatever that means. They have raised a number of issues that affect women disproportionately or exclusively, and tried to win some redress. Feminists also work on initiatives that help both men and women, like parental leave, as I mentioned earlier. Whatever political power feminists have stem from years and years of organizing and lobbying. Other groups – like Christian conservatives, who are generally antifeminist – have also won themselves a degree of power through organizing and lobbying. (Do you remember that whole debate about Planned Parenthood?) Men’s Rights Activists are free to do the same.
For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?
Dude, did you really just ask that?
Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?
Uh, maybe because they still are more privileged, a fact readily apparent to everyone who doesn’t live in MRAland.
Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
We need a Godwin’s Law expansion pack to deal with white dudes who compare their lives with that of slaves in the Antebellum south. Well, for those who compare their lives to slaves without concluding: “Wow, my life is really much, much better than that of a slave. For example, I am not enslaved!” That’s not, alas, the conclusion drawn by this spelling-challenged Men’s Rights Redditor:
In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, new hosts Little Girl and Manbot Woman Hater 5000 discuss the views of an MRA who thinks all men should live on one side of the Mississippi and all women on the other.
Yes, those of you who regularly read the comments here know which MRA I’m talking about here: regular Man Boobz commenter and antagonist “Anthony Zarat,” who spelled out his simple solution to the whole man-woman thing in the comments here. Full text, and a link to the original comment, below.
Here’s what Manbot quoted from Anthony’s comment, which you can read in its entirety here.
[T]he separation of our species will liberate men and women from FEAR.
Women will be free from fear of INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE.
Men will be free from fear of COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE.
Said another way:
Women will no longer fear the faceless man in the darkness.
Men will no longer fear the police officer of civil judge in the daylight.
See, better for everyone.
In my dreams, we divide this continent along the Mississippi. Men on one side, women on the other. Never to meet again. Free at last, free at last, free at last.
From Human Stupidity, an MRA blog rather obsessed with underage girls and the alleged evil of age of consent laws:
[I]f a 15 year old … can decide to have sex with a 16 year old … [h]ow come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?
Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? I have a solution:
what about legalizing sex with underage adolescents, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. More safety that is offered to 21 year old tipsy Friday night party girls who may feel sorry for what they did yesterday
I think he might actually be serious here. Though it’s pretty clear he’d be happy with any excuse to make it legal for 35 year-old men to have sex with 15 year-old girls.
Sorry, folks, no regular post until tomorrow. But to tide you over, might I draw your attention to possibly the most offensively misogynist song in history? (Trigger Warning: I’m about to describe what is possibly the most offensively misogynist song in history.) It’s a song recorded in 1970 by British actor Peter Wyngarde – star of several 60s spy dramas and allegedly an inspiration for Austin Powers.
The music itself is not the problem – it’s peppy and punchy, and sounds like a lot of crime/spy soundtracks from the 60s and 70s. No, the problem comes from, well, it comes from Wyngarde. The star, as Bret at Egg City Radio points out,
chose not to go the easy listening/pop route, instead bizarrely delving into lurid and sometimes flat-out stupid spoken word interludes.
Not just stupid, but offensive. Really offensive. Case in point:
a little three-minute ditty entitled “Rape”, in which Wyngarde not only seems to extolling the virtues of rape, but also executes a handful of wheedling barf-bag racial stereotypes that would make even Jerry Lewis blush. It must be heard to be believed … .
Well, yes and no. The idea that back in 1970 some dude might think it hilarious to do a song that was basically one big rape joke? Not that shocking. That he might add some horrifyingly “funny” racism into the mix? Also not completely shocking. That the record is mixed in such a way that it is nearly impossible to tell what Wyngarde – an actor who presumably knows how to enunciate – is saying? Now that’s a little shocking. I would have thought the record executives behind this cash-in project would have hired a more competent producer.
Did I mention that it’s titled “When Sex Leers its Inquisitive Head?”
EDITED TO ADD: Woah, the song is up on YouTube. I didn’t even bother to check, because I assume it violates pretty much all of YouTube’s rules, but here it is. Thanks to Donsie in the comments for the link.
The Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy: One big sandwich joke.
At first glance, Alcuin’s blog would seem to be some sort of parody. The blog’s slogan – “Promoting the Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy” – seems so over-the-top pretentious that even the smuggest of would-be intellectuals wouldn’t be able to post it with a straight face.
But if Alcuin is a troll, he’s a dedicated one, and one (at least based on my less-than-exhaustive survey of his blog) who never seems to break character. So I’m assuming he’s real. Which makes him a pompous ass with a lot of irritating ideas he’s somehow convinced himself are new and interesting. Take (please!) his recent post “Back Where They Belong.” And yes, “they” mean who you think, and “where they belong” means where you think.
Men should run the government, business, education, and religion. Women should stay at home. Young unmarried women can briefly work as kindergarten and elementary teachers, but there are no reasons why men can’t usually do this as well.
I’m not sure if Alcuin understands that women actually hold most of the jobs that currently exist, and that removing virtually all of them from the workplace would cause the economy to implode like, well, Alcuin, if you suddenly removed all of his idiocy. Also, how many kindergarten teachers do we really need?
As long as women run things, men will continue to be sidelined and slandered because feminism is a zero-sum movement.
There can be no peace between the sexes until women are back where they belong. The sexes are meant to complement each other rather than compete and put one another down.
Yes, and the best way to show how the sexes “are meant to complement each other rather than … put one another down” is for one of the sexes to, er, put the other down by sending them back into the home.
Women have no business being lawyers, judges, educators, doctors, bureaucrats, writers, or religious leaders. Their attempted leadership in these areas, an illegitimate coup d’etat, is destroying our society.
I agree. Lady Pope is doing a terrible job of dealing with all those abuse cases!
Sadly, they prefer to enjoy their present situation, and let society rot, than go back where they belong and participate in building things again. Much like enjoying the concert on the sinking Titanic – though in this case, don’t expect chivalrous men to jump into the cold water so the ladies can have space on the lifeboats.
A little Titanic humor always enlivens a dull rant, eh?
Knock knock!
Who’s there!
An iceberg!
Damn, I guess we shouldn’t have kept going in zero visibility in a part of the ocean where icebergs had been recently sighted, in our ship that doesn’t have enough lifeboats for everyone!
I crack myself up sometimes. Back to Alcuin:
Feminism is a hate movement that brings out the worst in women.
Unlike the Men’s Rights movement, a hate movement that brings out the best in men!
It hates women because it hates femininity and motherhood, the chief characteristics of what it means to be a genuine woman. It brings out the worst in women by turning them into men, or trying to masculate them.
Damn you, feminism! Don’t go masculating those ladies! First they want to wear pants, and the next thing you know they’re growing ironic mustaches and using Axe Detailers instead of loofahs and subscribing to Bass Fishing Monthly.
It hates men because it blames everything on men, and regards masculinity in men to be evil. It emasculates men at the same time. Gays and, much more secondarily, manginas, are somewhat acceptable to the gynocracy, especially when the furniture needs moving or some bitch can’t pay her own bills.
Because when you need furniture moved, or some money, you call … the gays? Is this some new gay stereotype I’m not aware of? I mean, manginas, sure, manginas are furniture-movers and money-to-bitches conduits extraordinaire. That’s how they get access to pussy, after all.
But what’s the incentive for the gays? They don’t need pussy; they’d, presumably, prefer to spend their money on tiny dogs and gym memberships than on some bitch’s bills; and while gays may have strong opinions about where the furniture should go, are they really interested in carrying it there themselves?
Women generally use men, and feminism continues this grand tradition. A man’s value is defined according to his use to women. Deeper than that, feminism regards men in the same way that the Nazis regarded Jews – men are Untermensch and cannot be granted the same rights and privileges that women are.
And … now we’ve got Nazis.
Feminism aims to bring men down, as it is a zero-sum movement. It doesn’t simply aim to improve the lot of women through, for instance, education, but seeks to exclude men from education.
It does? Last I heard, colleges were actually lowering their standards in order to enroll more guys.
Thus the current propaganda about campus rape, and the attempt to make it easier to accuse a university male of rape in the USA. Thanks, government. You are, once again, the handmaiden of misandry.
Feminist hate will never be satisfied, so men can’t keep avoiding the issue. We must avoid feminism as much as we can, and educate each other about it and about alternatives.
Generally it is advisable to actually know something about something before trying to “educating” other people about it.
This intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy business is a lot trickier than you might think.
Ugh. It’s the Jailbait subreddit again. If you’ve been following any of the discussions that have recently been swirling around Reddit’s popular subreddit dedicated to the posting of technically-not-child-porn pics of underage girls, you probably ran across the standard Jailbait apologia: The pics there aren’t nude pics, and besides, most of them were originally posted on the internet by the girls themselves. So it’s all good clean fun, I guess.
