The feminist utopia. (Franz von Stuck, “The Battle over Woman,” 1905)
So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit the resident dudes (and small but statistically significant population of dudettes) were getting all worked up at the notion of men standing up for women, and getting into fisticuffs over them, and all that sort of thing.
You know that’s the feminist ideal. You see it blatantly in radfemhub, but I’ve seen more moderate feminists swoon over the idea. Sometimes I wonder if they’d have us living in some wasteland fighting on another over the scraps to survive while occasionally taking one of us, the strongest, hostage for breeding. …
That’s why when some drunk asshole or something comes over to me and tries to start a fight while there are other people around I try to avoid it. I do so because I know somewhere there could be a feminist watching who would be rubbing her hands together over it and getting wet panties of seeing two men duking it out blow for blow while daydreaming about her utopia.
If you want even more proof that the denizens of A Voice for Men live in Imaginary Backwards Land, let me draw your attention to a recent posting from FeMRA TyphonBlue and JohnTheOther. The post’s bland title, Men, and patriarchy in the church, belies the loopiness of this particular bit of theological argument, the aim of which is to prove that Christianity is and always has been about hating dudes.
Oh, sure, TB and JTO note, it might look like Christianity in its various forms has been a tad dude-centric. I mean, it’s based on the teachings of a dude. And there’s that whole “God the Father” thing. Oh, and Christian religious institutions have been almost always headed up by dudes. There has yet to be a Popette.
But apparently to assume that the people running something actually run that something is to indulge in what MRAs like to call “the frontman fallacy,” by which they mean that even though it looks like men run most things in the world it’s really the sneaky ladies who call the shots, somehow. TB/JTO, citing the aforementioned faux “fallacy,” ask:
Because Christianity has a male priesthood, is headed by a man and uses masculine language to refer to the God and humanity’s savior, does it necessarily follow that Christianity is male favoring?
Bravely, the two decide not to go with the correct answer here, which is of course “yes.” Instead, they say no. And why is this? Because Jesus didn’t go around boning the ladies.
Seriously. That’s their main argument:
[Christ] had no sexual life. This absence leaves no spiritual connection between the masculine body and the divine.
The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body. …
The implicit stricture of making the female body the vessel of Holy Spirit while offering no corresponding connection between the divine and the male body creates a spiritual caste system with women on top and men on the bottom.
Also: Joseph didn’t bone Mary, at least not before she gave birth to Jesus.
The birth of Christ is without sin because, quite simply, it did not involve a penis. The entire mythology around the birth of Christ implicitly indicts male sexuality as the vector of original sin from generation to generation.
Uh, I sort of thought that the notion of Original Sin had something or other to do with Eve and an apple in the Garden of Eden. But apparently not:
Forget Eve. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Serpent. If all human women, tomorrow, conceived and gestated and gave birth without ever coming into contact with a penis, our race would be purged of original sin.
Pretty impressive theological revisionism from a couple of blabby video bloggers who apparently don’t know how to spell “canon.” (ProTip: “Cannon” refers to one of those tubey metal things you shoot “cannonballs” from.)
The two conclude:
Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one. That war arguably began as we adopted a faith which marginalizes the role of men in procreation, idolizing a story that removes them completely from the process. The exemplar of male virtue in this theology is a man who had no natural sexual expression, although his character is designated as male. And his primary purpose was to be flogged, literally tortured for the “crimes” of others, and then bound and nailed through his limbs, still alive to an erected cruciform scaffold, to die from shock and exposure on a hilltop. And we somehow manage to claim that this religion elevates men over women?
Well, yeah.
Rather than supremacy, Christianity provides to men the role of asexual stewards of women’s benefit, and sacrificial penitent, preaching the gospel of a female-deifying, male-demonizing faith. It is true that women have not historically been allowed to front this farce, but mostly because that would make the message too obvious.
What?
While some kinds of Christianity get rather worked up about the evils of premarital sex and/or birth control, I’m pretty sure married and/or procreative sex is a-ok with all Christians this side of the mother in the movie Carrie. Even — well, especially — if it involves dudes. (I’m pretty sure the church fathers were never big proponents of lesbianism.)
And if women really run the show, despite men “fronting” the church, could you perhaps spell out just who these all-powerful women are? Like, some names perhaps? Who’s the lady puppeteer behind the pope?
They of course don’t offer any real-world evidence for this secret supposed matriarchy. Instead, they ramp up for a sarcastic ending:
But we continue to ignore all of this, and we entertain the farce that our religious institutions constitute a male-elevating, female oppressing patriarchy.
Yeah, tell us another one.
No point in telling you guys anything any more. Clearly you can twist any and all facts about the world to fit your increasingly weird and baroque fictions about men always being the most oppressed, past, present and future.
A Voice for Men is slowly but surely disappearing up its own ass.
EVERYTHING relating to female appearance in based on deception. Women put blush on their face and lipstick to suggest that they’re sexually aroused thereby causing men to get stupid and malleable in their presence. Twats wear heels in order to not only appear taller but also to elongate the appearance of their legs. They wear spanx to conceal their flab. They shoot botox into their face to appear to have that last vestige of fertility. They put hideous silicone filled sacs onto their chest to create a more alluring figure (although as any man who’s actually ever felt these knows it’s like playing with a skin wrapped basketball). They paint their nails to create the illusion they’re always clean. They shave and wax and pluck to show off as much bare skin as possible – to conceal the fact that they’re hairy beasts.
DO NOT fall for it when marriage legislation is once more made rational. It’s simply a trap to lure men back in, and when there’s enough suckers in the Ponzi scheme, those at the top will abscond with it all once more.
most women simply can’t hack it at that high of a professional level. Their minds and bodies are simply not designed for that. Not surprising given how nature has clearly designed them to bear and raise children.
Mother nature is the ultimate bitch to all aging females. Most women don’t have her slim body type(easier to trap a man), so what’s a girl to do? What’s the ‘moral of the story’ for the average LADY with ‘high’ expectations but not much to really give a man in return??? Easy, find a clueless blue pill sucker(who has never been to this site)….er husband material as soon as possible before your looks really start to take a dive. You ladies can call me an asshole all you want but I’m only speaking the truth.
How about you get your expanding ass off your chair and go visit the ghettos where there are no men. Hey, at least they are ‘matriarchies’ where women are ‘free,’ boys grow up to be feral animals, and emotions run high without logic!
Also, I learned that the new go-to derogatory term for women is “ankle.” Why? Because, according to the Online Slang Dictionary, “[a]n ankle is two feet beneath a cunt.” Here’s an example of the term in use, courtesy of MGTOWforums:
Dealing with an ankle that don’t understand the phrase “Not my child not my problem, ‘ya ankle bitch”?
It pays to increase your word power!
EDITED TO ADD: If you have trouble visualizing the “twats wearing shoes” mentioned in the second quote, regular Man Boobz commenter Polliwog has helpfully provided this [NSFW] picture.
Evil women oppressing men and destroying the economy.
JeremiahMRA’s call for lady murder wasn’t the only highlight (by which I mean lowlight) of that Fathers’ Day thread on The Spearhead. Towgunner also posted a rambling wall-of-text in which he offered some most intriguing thoughts on Fathers’ Day, economics, feminism, and ladies in general. Here’s are some excerpts, which I have taken the liberty of breaking into separate paragraphs:
Happy Oppressor’s day. I really like passive aggressive ruse by feminists who claim that housework is beneath them and thus oppressive. And yet, in honor of men and fathers, we have posts and articles discussing how fatherhood has “evolved”? …
Like everything from feminism it contradicts itself. If equality is to “liberate” women (from staying at home, oh the humanity!) and that staying at home is something pathetic, then why doesn’t that apply to all people? Under this new understanding, no one should be subjected to the indignity of staying at home. So why are women throwing temper tantrums yet nothing is said of men?
Uh, maybe the issue is that men and women should be able to decide if they want to stay at home, rather than being compelled to either work or stay home based on their gender. Not that this choice is really a choice for most people, as most mothers, like most fathers, have to work.
Worse, if there is a trend of men staying at home, then it is a disturbing trend indicative of the major structural perversions created by government intervention.
Watch out, you’re spilling conspiracy theory all over your misogyny.
Today, thanks to our “smarter” and “faster” women, we’re to believe that fulfillment is an internship at goldman sachs…and, oh by the way, all these longer hours “they” are paying you less…and less and less.
Because … feminists are responsible for long hours and stagnating wages?
And then women write books on how their disadvantaged from “asking for more money”, because they were brought up with dolls? Never once do they acknowledge that everyone is being paid less because since the government gave them “their chance” it created incredible amounts of malinvestment, which effectively bankrupted the US and the West.
Ah yes, “allowing” women to enter into the workforce – never mind that they’ve always been in the workforce in large numbers – somehow caused the financial crisis that led to our current malaise? Towgunner, please show your work here.
This is all to show that women can be a part of human progress. It pains them to no end when they flip through a history book and its one man after the next. I say that they did have their chance and look at the results – we will go through another crisis, likely a huge global reset and the US is, right now, a vastly different country (not for the better)…look at our culture we celebrate death and killing people…we hold the most decadent and immoral on high.
You do realize that men still basically run the economy, right? That as of 2011 there were only 12 female CEOs in the Fortune 500? That the overwhelming majority of economic movers and shakers, in governments and in the private sector, are men?
The women’s world is here, they do things not out of practical necessity but out of spite, Mother’s Day comes and they bemoan house wives, Father’s day comes and they point out that some men are staying home. There is nothing practical here, there is spite, there is insult, and there is hubris.
Women get jobs out of spite?
I don’t admire women, I don’t ever want to be one either, there is nothing noble about them. In fact I find it an insult to be called “equal” to them at all.
And a happy belated Fathers’ Day to you too, Towgunner!
This comment got me thinking about the old Martha and the Muffins song “Women Around the World at Work.” So here it is:
Up until now, as you all know, I’ve been a strong supporter of the gynofascist ladytopia. But after watching the following video I am beginning to reconsider. Three seconds is too short. This lady is too bossy. And I really, really don’t want to have to learn how to line dance. Also, why does everyone have to wear a white shirt? Watch, and you’ll see what I mean. If this is the ladytopia, I want none of it!
Over on The Spearhead, a fellow calling himself American offers a fascinating new theory on the death of Jesus: It was the evil ladies who did him in!
Pierce brought up an important event in the life of jesus. He was falselly accused, and the violent masses and the heathen whordes wanted to see blood; so the pilate delivered. Kinda like the American feminist whorde of barbarianism. Maybe womens justice is simply more primitive and barbarian (more heathen-esque) than patriarchal orderly justice. whether its the klu-klux-klan “mob lynchings” of 100 years ago over false rape accusations, or the Duke lacrosse feminist mobs roaming the streats of durham looking for blood, there seems to be a common theme here. feminine matriarchal justice is lies , hysteria, mob/klan barbarism; while patriarchal justice is truth based, orderly, ect. ect. Pontius pilate didn’t want to kill jesus, but the violent matriarchal whorde/klan wanted to see blood and forced his hand.
Happy Easter, if you’re into that sort of thing! Just remember, as you’re enjoying your chocolate eggs and microwaving your Peeps, that woman are all a bunch of lying, bloodthirsty whores.
