We Hunted The Mammoth
The MRA hissy fit over Facebook continues. Over on A Voice for (Human) Men, our old friend John “The Other” Hembling offers up his take on the whole controversy, which has roused the usually torpid MRAs to “activism,” and somehow manages to be even more overheated and incoherent than even Paul Elam before him — and at times nearly as ponderous as the legendarily ponderous Fidelbogen as well.
UPDATE: Elam has retracted his original story. See the end of this post for more details.
Men’s Rights Activists often insist that false accusations of rape are literally as bad as rape itself, and that false accusers of rape should spend as much time in prison as actual rapists.
Presumably they feel the same way about false accusers of other crimes, from murder to check kiting.
So in the wake of Paul Elam’s reckless false accusations against recent Georgetown graduate Arianna Pattek, one would expect other MRAs to rise up en masse to demand that Elam turn himself in.
Elam, you may recall, accused Pattek of serious violations of civil rights laws, claiming that she, as an employee of Georgetown’s admissions office, showed clear bias against white men. Indeed, Elam didn’t even qualify his accusations with an “alleged,” as journalists routinely do when writing about those accused but not convicted of crimes. Here’s what he wrote about her:
I am beginning to wonder – seriously wonder — if JohnTheOther of A Voice for Men has completely lost touch with reality.
Take a look at this angry, delusional tirade he posted on Reddit yesterday after a couple of his AVFM comrades were banned from Reddit, possibly for their promotion of “doxxing” – that is, their attempts to find and reveal the personal information of a Toronto feminist activist. In this embarrassing public meltdown, JtO turned on the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit for criticizing AVFM’s doxxing campaigns – and accused them, astonishingly, of being a gang of closet feminists.
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.
You may recall a post I did the other day about Roger Ebert’s recent claim that women are superior to men. You may also recall that my basic thesis was that Ebert was completely wrong. Heck, you didn’t even have to read my post to see what my stance was; I made it clear in the title itself, which started off with the words “no, women aren’t better than men.”
Well, apparently my saying explicitly that women are not superior to men, and approvingly quoting another feminist saying the same thing, was too much to handle for the proprietor of an exciting new blog chronicling how wrong and bad I and my commetariat are. Mikhael Varpole of the imaginatively named Anti-Man Boobz blog (motto: “Exposing Man Boobz as a vile hate cult”) wrote about Ebert’s claim, and my response, in a recent post.
Here’s what he wrote:
Naturally, Futrelle and the boob gallery had to get in on the action. To his credit, Futrelle doesn’t condone Ebert’s misandry- but then again Dave’s always been a sneaky one that way. He won’t stand in solidarity with Ebert- but note that he’s happy to spin an instance of bold-faced misandry into an opportunity to bash MRAs who are righteously angry, ultimately concluding:
Guys, I hate to have to tell you this, but you’re sort of making it look like Ebert might have a point.
Remember what I said about subtle bigotry? This is a prime example. Misandry and misandric attitudes are dismissed in our culture because the concept itself is seen as illegitimate. And by portraying AVfM’s righteous anger as childish and “proving Ebert’s point”, Futrelle is knowingly and consciously destroying the legitimacy of misandry as a concept. It’s psychological manipulation on a global scale, and it’s downright sinister. And Futrelle, along with his lickspittle toadies, are happily contributing to the anti-male conspiracy.
Yes, explicitly stating that women aren’t superior to men is an exceedingly subtle form of misandry indeed.
Oh, and in case you’ve forgotten what the allegedly “righteous” anger of the AVFM crowd looks like, here’s are a couple of excerpts from the angry screeds I quoted from in my post:
Feminism has provided today’s pampered princesses with the privilege-stuffed, consequence-free Nirvana that they believe they’re entitled to. Do you really think they can be swayed with reason and logic?
And:
[E]verything on this earth from the knickers these women wear on their fat buts, all the way through to just about every single thing they touch in their day, up to and including homes, buildings, cars, trains, rockets, and the food they stuff down their throats, has all been either invented or produced by those useless ‘less than’ human, men.
That doesn’t sound so much like “subtle bigotry” as “just straight-up bigotry.” This is anger of an exceedingly un-righteous kind.
Well, after receiving some gentle mockery at the hands of the Man Boobz commetariat – sorry, at the hands of my “lickspittle toadies” – Varpole posted a comment here trying to clarify his stance.
I disdain commenting here for obvious reasons, but I have to clarify that subtle or “benign” misandry can be as damaging as overt bigotry- moreso, even, because it’s harder to call out. Radfem-level misandry can usually be dismissed (usually). But less overt displays of male-hatred are very difficult, because the concept has no veracity in a misandric, male-hating, anti-man culture. A culture, by the way, that MEN set up, and MEN continue to run, at both the low and high levels.
Well, this is an interesting thesis. Men – sorry, MEN – created the world as we know it, and run things – and yet have decided to set up a culture that is “male-hating [and] anti-man.” How would that even work?
After several commenters – sorry, toadies – asked him to explain this mysterious paradox, Varpole posted a clarification of his clarification on his blog.
First, I admit that “men maintain the culture” is an oversimplification. Obviously, that’s not true- certainly not today, arguably not ever. There are women police officers, women in government, women farmers, women firefighters, etc. Women do contribute to the maintenance of civilization. Not as much as men, but nonetheless.
On the other hand, women, feminists, and their assorted mangina lackeys have a disproportionate influence in the media and pop culture. Feminists and their dogs control the messages beamed at us through music, video games, and Hollywood. They have the print news media. They control primary education (how many teachers are men?) and thus the shaping of our youth. The infamous SOPA was almost certainly backed by feminists, in an attempt to bring the Internet (not coincidentally, the primary holdout of MRAs) under their control. Even when it is a male hand holding the pen, a male voice speaking into the mic, they are generally manginas who kowtow to female demands (see: Roger Ebert; Bill Clinton; H.L. Mencken). Thus, they are mouthpieces for the misandrist NWO, and are not in any way representative of men as a class; it’s just a different mechanism for the female perspective. …
I’m not saying thy’re calling for mass castration or anything like that (such a move would be too obvious). But there is a systematic denigration of men and masculinity in the media, and a subtle promotion of a misandrist, feminist, female supremacist ideology. In the news, in television, movies, literature, comic strips- we see the epidemic with our own eyes.
Huh. MEN created and still run the world, but “women, feminists, and their assorted mangina lackeys” dominate the media and popular culture with their evil anti-man agenda? There’s no getting around it: Varpole seems to be suggesting that MEN are just terrible at running the world.
Wouldn’t such an argument be … misandry?
Not even subtle misandry, at that.
I look forward to more blatant misandry from Anti-Man Boobz in the future.
As well as some critiques of his misandry from a mysterious, even newer blog that sprung up the other day: Anti-Anti-Manboobz, devoted to debunking Anti-Man Boobz and being meta as fuck.
Wheels within wheels.
TV detectives pore over semen stains, and find evidence of crimes. Over on A Voice for Men, B.R. Merrick pores over TV detectives poring over semen stains, and finds evidence of “anti-man mentality.” On Law & Order: SVU, he says,
Every time I chanced upon seeing a bit of it, someone somewhere said “semen.”
You know the show focuses on sex crimes, right? When you’re investigating sex crimes, I’d say the chances are pretty good you’re going to run across some semen from time to time.
This is a show that has been on the air for more than a decade, a spin-off from another program more than two decades long, dedicated to entertaining millions of Americans every week using salacious, graphic language about terrible crimes. Semen. Semen stains. Semen samples. Semen on a dead body. Crime. Law, order, crime, and semen.
Spam, eggs, bacon, semen and spam. Spam, spam, bacon, semen, and spam. Semen, semen, spam eggs sausage and semen.
Sorry, I got distracted.
Semen is disgusting, if I am to conclude anything from watching this program. How is it that a show that continually mentions semen in connection with horrific crime can remain so popular for over a decade?
Christopher Melonimania? No, nothing so straightforward as that. Clearly what we’re dealing with is anti-semen propaganda of the sneakiest sort.
Millions watch, but virtually no one notices. It is as if the ejaculation of semen is something that the world puts up with but secretly detests. Since only men make semen; since it is usually voluntarily ejaculated except for certain cases of rape and nocturnal emissions; and since the voluntary giving of this life-giving substance is usually frequent; what are men supposed to think if the culture embraces mainstream entertainment that virtually equates semen with crime?
If semen is outlawed only outlaws will produce semen?
The conclusions we are supposed to draw seem pretty obvious to me: Women and sexless children are the victims of semen, the victims of men. Men are too quick to indulge their semen-connected desires. Pornography is directly connected to men, semen, and the oftentimes unavoidable crimes that result.
So jerking off into a sock has been criminalized?
Once you indulge a penis, all bets are off. Unless, of course, he’s been thoroughly trained.
Penises can be trained? Really? I’ve had very little luck training mine.
Men who are raised not to take their feelings seriously will probably feel a little tinge that is quickly ignored when semen is mentioned in a silly television program. Men who are used to being teased will grin along with the giggling girls who laugh at a man whose penis is not only severed, but shredded in a garbage disposal, so that he can spend the last several decades of his life without one.
So Law & Order: SVU is secretly preparing men for a dystopian future in which all untrained penises will all be shredded in garbage disposals?
Stay tuned, I guess.
Sure, Man Boobz 2011 Troll of the Year NWOslave may live in an alternate reality — but he at least seems well-grounded in that reality. What might happen if he were to suddenly ingest a tab or ten of LSD?
I think I have an answer to that question. Meet blogger and conspiracy theorist Jay Dyer, a self-described “controversialist, writer, comedian, debater, and philosopher/theologian.”
That’s a mouthful, and Jay more or less lives up to it, delivering stream of consciousness rants that range from Aleister Crowley (he’s not a fan) to the evils of women dressing like Hannah Montana. Plus he quotes the Bible from time to time.
Actually, that description doesn’t even begin to capture Jay’s peculiar charms. So, without further ado, I present to you some highlights from an essay titled The United Skanks of Amerika that Jay wrote with the assistance of someone identified only as M.B.
Amerika has become one, big, nasty, black metal mosh pit. Satan said to Adam and Eve “do what thou wilt,” Satanist Aleister Crowley said, “do what thou wilt” and the gospel of Amerika is “do what thou wilt.” … Churches are dominated by fat matriarchal women and homosexuals. Women open their purses and the priests of Ashtoreth bow and tell them whatever they want to hear. … Amerika is a play land – a bigger, gayer Disney world. It’s middle-aged moms on facebook, donning Montana garb. The nation is frozen in perpetual adolescence and arrested development.
After this dramatic opening, Jay offers up the strangest capsule version of American history I’ve ever seen:
Started by a bunch of tee-totaler puritan gnostics, this nation has jumped to the opposite extreme and become a cess pool of flesh. In fact, in the East Coast punk scene, kids are now eating chunks of each others’ flesh. Let that sink in. In the West Coast gay scene, it is now an honor to receive AIDS from trendy gays.
Then Jay gets around to the “skanks” of the essay’s title:
Women of this country, especially young women, are perpetual princesses stuck in a perpetual mirror glance, coated in chemicals and striving for the most unnatural goals – to be a manwoman. For a sensible male to get with one of these creatures is in serious danger. But watch out – before long, they’ve left you for another woman and taken your fake Federal Reserve notes. They get half of your all-seeing eyes. Whores with your Horus. Dressed like complete whores, will they soon be completely naked?
But young men don’t get off any easier in Jay’s critique:
The average twenty-something male is now a fat, gamer, feminized, emo freak, who spits every time he lisps, because he can’t form sentences.
Neither do middle-aged men:
Grown men – baby-boomer dads – collect comics and play Dungeons & Dragons. And if they don’t, they stare at pixelated football and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.
Yes, he really did just say “Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.”
Jay also has some issues with higher education:
The “wise men” of this culture are the Marxist, gay, feminist, druid college professors, who, if they have children, drive them to white horror core rap concerts. Just like the sociology professor mom involved with Pyscho Sam whom her daughter met over Myspace.
And lower education:
That any parent would put their children in public school is a sign of apparent hatred of their kids. Why would anyone put their kids in a government re-education camp? Public schools are prisons where the teachers screw students and students get doped up on pills become homosexual.
When they’re not shooting each other, that is:
[P]arents can’t understand why their children shoot each other at school. The[y] shoot one another at school because they are possessed by the demonic culture. And while you stupidly play golf and make scrapbooks, your kids are worshipping Lucifer, who, according to you, doesn’t exist.
Women working! Men raising kids! It’s all one big air-conditioned nightmare for Jay:
The family is now become stay-at-home dads that care for the 1.3 kids, while moms climb the skyscraper and has sex with the CEO for more fake fed notes. If it’s not this, it’s “my two dads.”
Preach it, Jay!
Amerika is just this – Chuck E. Cheese speeding at you on a Harley, holding Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice,with Jenna Jameson mounted on the back. …
Amerika is krunk. Amerika is funk. Amerika is junk. Amerika is Lil’ Jon having sex with Lady Liberty. …
Rationalism is what birthed this country, but it morphed into utter irrationality. Thomas Paine became Spongebob and Spongebob is Thomas Paine.
I think I’ll just leave it at that. Oh, there’s more — much, much more — in Jay’s little manifesto, but my poor brain can only take in so much in one sitting without exploding.
NOTE: I discovered Jay’s essay through a link on MGTOWforums.com; the dude posting the link described it as “one of the best essays about feminism and life in the US … By far one of the most accurate essays I have ever had the pleasure of reading.” It got a mixed reaction; the consensus seemed to be that while he made some good points, Jay might just be a little too obsessed with Aleister Crowley and the Masons.
EDITED TO ADD: Also, if middle-aged women want to wear some sort of “Montana garb,” I’d suggest they go with Patsy, not Hannah. Patsy Montana was awesome!
So W. F. Price of The Spearhead has made a momentous discovery: there is a television show called Glee. In a recent post, he shared some of his findings with the regular crowd:
I’ve only recently heard of the teen drama Glee, which is evidently a big hit with the teenybopper crowd. The other day, I came across it while flicking through channels and forced myself to watch some of the show.
Apparently, it is really, really gay.
First, I have to say that I now do believe the conservative Christians are correct in saying that the media is pushing a gay agenda. Of course, I don’t really care (one can always change the channel), but it was so blatant on Glee that I couldn’t help but laugh. The show revolved around a “glee club” (an insipid American high school institution for you Brits), cheerleaders, football players, gay football players, football players in drag, football players with cheerleaders, with gay cheerleaders, etc. There was even Broadway-style singing and dancing.
The horror!
Glee is about the gayest show I’ve ever seen on TV. Even the name is gay.
So, you’re saying it’s gay.
Still, Price did have one little complaint about the show:
The gay issue aside, there was one thing about the show that, although unsurprising, was still obnoxious: it features the same old negative stereotypes about normal males. The teen sluts (both gay and straight) are the heros, while the villains are generally straight or straight-acting males … .
It’s true. No one in American society is more oppressed than “normal” dudes. How dare Glee add to this bigotry!
Shockingly, it turns out that there aren’t any Glee fans amongst the Spearhead set – at least none willing to speak up.
In the comments, Meistergedanken explained that Glee was just a part – a loud, singing part — of a devious queer conspiracy:
It’s all part of the plan. Just like “Desperate Housewives”, “American Horror Story” or “Dawson’s Creek”, or any of those other shows created by the queers, straight couples – particularly married ones – are inevitably shown to be the most hypocrital, intolerant, ignorant, mentally unbalanced and emotionally dysfunctional characters. In this way normality is portrayed as a sorry sham. …
It’s so strange to see the progressives insist on marriage for gays, while at the same time showing married couples (and the husbands/fathers especially) as the worst people out there. They want to tear down marriage so they can scrounge the tattered remains for themselves, I guess.
Towgunner, for his part, delivered up a long, rambling manifesto of sorts on the subject of the gays. Some highlights:
Is it a tragedy that gay people suffer? I honestly used to think so, but I don’t really think they suffer all that much. They seem pretty happy at their parades. Matter of fact, I’d say that a balding women (regardless of her sexuality) or a poor black family or an orphan in Africa suffer thousands of times more than some sappy fruit.
In that light homosexuals have proven to be one of the most selfish groups in all of history, right up there with women – after all they want to be women anyway. …
Furthermore, it says something about our culture that gives only homosexuals and other sluts special treatment. … All this to facilitate a small group’s ego so they feel only slightly less guilty at themselves when they orgasm. That’s where your taxpayer money goes to…to make a pervert feel good about itself.
So, apparently, the government is giving out gay orgasm grants, or something?
Andybob, meanwhile, spoke up for the gays. Or, at least, the gays who hate Glee. And women.
The first time I saw “Glee” I wanted to punch my flatscreen through the wall. Here again, gay men/teens are being shown as shallow, trite, superficial, dismissable, malleable, silly, flippant cretins with nothing to offer the world except fashion advice and sloping shoulders for whiny bitches to cry on. …
Those of us [gay men] who live far from Hollywood and have no connection whatsoever to Broadway musicals are very likely to be very aware of issues confronting men. Some of us are even vocal MRA’s. … [We’re] not handicapped by the need for sex from women. We can recognise their manipulative BS from miles away. The female psyche laid bare is an ugly thing.
Gay men like men, identify with men, actually are men. We watch men we care about like our brothers (I have a straight twin brother), fathers, and mates get ground down by a system created and maintained by feminists and their pussy-begging lackeys – and yes, some poodle-carrying flamers along for the ride. Women are always shocked to learn that most gays side with men. That’s not what they see on the telly. …
The bitchy gays who discriminate against straight men … are the manginas of the gay world. …
Women don’t like gays and straights to collaborate because they don’t want us to compare notes. I have seen women try to shame my straight friends out of hanging out with me. They are threatened by our mutual support. Together, we are able to construct a composite picture of women that would peel paint for sheer gruesomeness.
Gay men and straight men – together, united in hatred of whiny bitches!
Christmas came early for the MRAs this year. Earlier this week, a generous soul calling himself AgentOrange posted a 165 MB present online for them, an assortment of super-secret internet postings from a private forum connected to the RadFem Hub, which Mr. Orange collected by bravely going behind enemy lines and, er, screencapping a bunch of shit. As the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE declared:
[B]oth feminists and MRAs alike, have been anxiously awaiting the promised complete files of screen shots and associated materials collected by Agent Orange.
These files are apparently so vile and incendiary that Mr. Orange has deemed it necessary to reveal the personal information of some of the RadFemHub commenters. Not to encourage anyone to stalk or harass or harm them, just so that those offended by them can do whatever it is people do when personal info is leaked on the internet that doesn’t involve stalking or harassing or harming them. Send them postcards?
But in any case there is no reason whatsoever to think that a group of really really really angry people who love making threats on the internet and think their opponents are as bad as Hitler could ever do anything that would be in any way problematic.
So, you might ask, what dastardly secrets do these new files disclose? Oddly, the PRESS RELEASE doesn’t actually specify. The AgentOrange website doesn’t say either. And the 165 MB download is just a bunch of files with no explanation.
But I have spent some time going through these files myself in a completely random manner, which is evidently what AgentOrange expects everyone who downloads the files to do. To be perfectly honest, I haven’t spent that much time on this. I’ve really been quite busy with other things. But I have spent some time. More than twenty minutes, anyway.
So let me share with you some preliminary findings.
Here, straight from the AgentOrange files, are some RadFems discussing a news story about a male midwife who thinks that mothers should embrace the pain of childbirth as a “rite of passage.” (Click on the teensy image on the right to get it full-sized.)
Apparently some of those RadFems don’t think this is a good idea! One of them says:
Does he even know what uterine cramps/contractions even feel like?
Another adds:
I read that and rolled my eyes. … If only it were possible to subject mister midwife (my ass) to the joyous pain of childbirth. I guess a swift kick to the balls is as close as he’s ever going to come to it.
Clearly suggesting that a male midwife suffer pain similar to what he suggests women should suffer is nothing short of GENOCIDE!
But wait, there’s more! Another woman writes:
There is no reason why women should have to endure pain like this in this day and age.
That sounds exactly like something HITLER would have said! (If you replace “women” with “Jews” and “no reason” with “every reason.”)
Still another adds:
This is phenomenally stupid, and completely out of step with current pain management theory and procedures.
Is there no end to this feminazi depravity!?
Oh, but there’s more, much more. In this thread — click the image to the right — the evil RadFems complain about guys trying to pick them up in a creepy manner. One of the ladies suggests that a good way to get the guys to leave you alone is to tell them you’re a widow.
You see now that feminism is all about DECEPTION!
Maybe it should be called Deceptionism!
Ok, ok, just one more. In a thread called “I’m mad as hell” — right over there on the right again — one commenter complains about getting a computer virus.
She’s so mad she says she’s even considering downloading Ubuntu and forgoing all Microsoft products, which are frequently targets of viruses! What? Huh? DOES NOT COMPUTE. BZZZZZZZ. LADY USING LINUX ERROR ERROR. *$^*$()*%(*$$$$$$$$. EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN.
CARRIER.
REBOOTING.
FLUSHING CACHE.
Ok. I’m back. Another commenter there says something about castrating guys who write viruses.
That does seem a little excessive. Though I don’t think she means it literally.
I will return to this topic later, after I recover.
In the meantime, if you want to see the most ridiculous comments on the matter from Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers, you can find some of them collected together here. Among the highlights:
This isn’t public shaming, its outing criminals that are planning your genocide.
A story of a plan of naziesque proportions is about to broken.
I think we can all agree that feminism inevitably heads down the road of male genocide.
MRAs, more melodramatic than emo kids.
Oh, and by the way, two of the Reddit quotes above come from a fellow known on Reddit as Sigi1, but who may be more familiar to Man Boobzers as Eoghan. Without clicking on the links, can you guess which two?
This post contains:
Does anyone still doubt that we live in a gynofascist lady-tatorship? Some guy who calls himself Davd – because there’s no “I” in Davd! – has posted a sharp analysis of one of the most insidious tools of the matriarchy: those flashing lights they put on school buses to try to stop people from running over kids getting on and off the buses.
And no, I am not making this up. Here’s Davd, explaining it all to you:
Anyone who thinks that the women of North America were subjugated by some kind of patriarchy back between 50 and 100 years ago, need only look at the traffic on rural roads in the morning, to know better. …
Those school buses have been running mornings and afternoons for as long as i can remember—and i’ll soon be 70. They are a symbol of women dominating men and boys [and perhaps girls as well, though girls seem more able to wheedle adult women than we are]. …
[W]hy do Canadian and US school buses have big bright flashing lights fore and aft, and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side? I don’t remember the children who rode on them, including four of my sons, being all that grateful for the fuss; and i don’t remember them being all that frightened of the traffic. … It was obvious enough to me and my sons, that the School Buses were babying the children.
So who babies children—Mommies or Daddies? …
The School Buses with big bright flashing lights fore and aft and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side, are the spoils of political victory for babying Mommies, well over half a century ago, not anything remotely patriarchal.
So Davd suggest we go whole-hog and just paint the things pink, to remind us of who really runs the world:
Pink school buses will be truth in packaging: School biases against boys are more important than the babying bus lights and STOP signs, and a larger reason to paint school buses (and school doors) pink.
Naturally, most of the commenters on The Spearhead found Davd’s concerns to be completely reasonable and in no way exaggerated. Firepower, in the very first comment, one of the most heavily upvoted in the thread, Godwinned it out of the park with these observations:
Tolerating pink gear on NFL players gets you pink buses. Accepting pink buses gets you pink uniforms in the future concentration camps.
Babying and coddling American kids/boys – gets you the youth you see today.
Meanwhile, Keyster suggested that the fact that school buses are painted yellow was itself evidence of an insidious conspiracy. For, you see, that color was set as the standard for school buses after a conference in 1939 that was funded in part by a grant from – cue dramatic chipmunk! – the Rockefeller Foundation.
And yes, that’s the same Rockefeller Foundation that funded and continues to fund feminism. No surprize that they’d fund a centralized government standard for the color of a gasoline consuming conveyence meant to transport our future proles. It’s important they identify school with safety as part of the indocrination process.
Much of the rest of the thread was given over to guys gloating that the girls they used to have such crushes on when they were in grade school had now all become old and fat. Nugganu —who recently informed me that he’d like to see me “anally raped by ten well endowed black men” — got the most upvotes of any commenter in the thread with this observation:
For whatever reason I still see alot of the girls I grew up with in the 80′s fairly often. They’re all serious boner-killers now. I suppose it doesn’t help that they’re all varying degrees of fat, uglier and have the look of having had 100+ dicks stuck in them over the years. All of them are single too, surprise surprise.
Naturally, aging Spearhead dudes remain just as handsome and appealing as they were in their salad days. Everyone knows that ladies age like mayonnaise in an tuna sandwich, while Spearheaders age like fine whine wine.
