We Hunted The Mammoth
As everyone reading this blog no doubt already knows, feminists have hailed the Pentagon’s decision to open combat jobs to women, which will allow women the same opportunities to serve as men. The decision is also a backhanded acknowledgement that, for all intents and purposes, women are serving in combat today already. (Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth lost both of her legs in combat in Iraq – but officially, what she was engaged in wasn’t combat.)
I haven’t been keeping up with The Spearhead of late, but a commenter here drew my attention to the sort of timeless wisdom I’ve been missing from the Spearhead gang.
In this comment, DW3 offered his thoughts on how to combat the evils of single motherhood. The solution involves putting single moms in workhouses. To be more specific, in sex-workhouses — that is, whorehouses.
I think there should be whorehouses for single mothers to work at, to pay their debts to society. Such a system would kill several birds with one stone.
There would be safe and legal access to prostitution, presumably reducing the drugs and violence associated with the way the trade is currently practiced.
It would allow single mothers to learn the value of getting up and getting to work on time, so that they might aspire to a different career.
It would assist traditional families in steering their daughters and nieces and sisters in a different direction, with a very visible and well-known consequence to ignoring the families’ advice.
It would allow single mothers to give back for all the resources they consume, and ideally it could replace child support on some sort of sliding scale of pay for the workers. Perhaps starting at $50 paid per client, less $20 per child more than 1. That way, a single mother with 3 kids could still get $10, and more than that would be inclined to try to hide off the grid the way divorced and separated fathers now have to.
I have my own opinions about whether choice single mothers cause more harm than divorcees, but for this proposal I suppose that they should be treated differently. Divorced women would surrender their children to the father and have to pay half their whorehouse earnings to support the family, however they would get the full $50 regardless of the number of kids.
Perhaps the whorehouses could charge $80 for providing their services, with a modest 20% discount for married men who proved they had a family to support.
DW3 prefaced this comment with a line in which he notes that this idea might be a bit much even for the regular denizens of The Spearhead. But no one actually took issue with his proposals. Indeed, Lyn87 (a Spearhead regular I’ve written about before) noted that he’d had similar thoughts on the matter himself.
Since men are responsible to pay for the children that women they have sex with choose to bear (that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother), then it stands to reason that:
Money paid to support a child = the obligation a man incurs by having sex with the mother.
Since having sex is enough to legally entitle a woman to a man’s money if a pregnancy ensues and she elects to give birth, shouldn’t taking a man’s money legally entitle him to have sex with the mother if he has not already done so?
Fair is fair, right?
My Modest Proposal: a single-mother-by-choice who takes public assistance should be required by law (as men’s financial obligations are), to have sex with any man who can produce a 1040 showing that he paid taxes in the past 12 months (at least once for each child).
The Spearhead: As reliably awful as stomach flu.
A quick one question quiz, which all regular readers of Man Boobz should be able to ace.
Question: Over on The Spearhead, commenters have been offering their opinions about the Newtown school shootings. All but one of the following quotes have been taken word for word from the Spearhead, and reflect who or what the quoted commenter blames for the shooting. Can you identify which statement is NOT from a Spearheader?
A) “Guns don’t kill, the culture kills. A culture of out of control children. A culture of child neglect and abuse brought about and driven largely by the feminist philosophy of the fulfillment of women comes before ALL else, including their children, born or unborn. It wasn’t a hard sell because women already have a dark and selfish nature.”
B) “[A] sick person who may have been turned into monster with the help of a selfish and thoughtless woman.”
C) “I wonder to what extent did the shooter’s mom and female teachers have in motivating his actions? what if the shooter is the victim? what if more and more evidence (or strong implications) of the women using their authority as mom and teachers to manipulate a mentally unstable young man keeps coming out? … Of course it’s not actually paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you, is it?. And ‘they’ being a feminist police state, well, they really are out to get me!”
D) “Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Actually, in many ways, feminism is Munchausen syndrome by proxy.”
E) “The problem is women running things. Even after all the massacres, the dearies continue to insist the solution is to disarm all the law abiding citizens.”
F) “A Feminized Culture.”
G) “Lifelong sworn conspirators, murder incorporated, organized feminism, the police and judges, the deadly sneak parroting puppet gangsters, using all the gangster deadly Frankenstein-feminist controls—these hand and rope sneak deadly feminazi-gangsters, the judges and the police, trick, trap, rob, wreck, butcher and murder the people to keep them terrorized in in gangster Frankenstein earphone radio slavery from the Communist-feminazi-gangster government and con artists parroting puppet gangster feminist scum.”
BONUS QUESTION: Did anyone on The Spearhead blame the actual killer? Y/N
.
.
.
ANSWER: A through F are all from The Spearhead. G is the ringer, from a rant by famous paranoid ranter Francis E. Dec, Esq, with the words “feminism” and “feminazi” worked into it here and there to make it sound a little more Spearheadish.
BONUS ANSWER: Surprisingly, yes. This guy.
Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
Men’s Rights activists are constantly posting links to stories of women committing horrible crimes – what some have taken to calling “women behaving badly” (WBB) stories – and almost reveling in the fact that, yes, some women do indeed do horrible shit.
MRAs are particularly obsessed with stories of female high school teachers preying on their underage students. While this partly reflects the general MRA obsession with badly behaving women, MRAs do actually make a legitimate point here: while most people understand that female victims of predatory male teachers are indeed victims, quite a few people regard male victims of attractive female teachers as “lucky” boys who get to live out the schoolboy fantasy of having sex with a “hot teacher.”
NOTE: Man Boobz Pledge Week Continues! Big giant thanks to everyone who has donated!
If you haven’t yet, and want to, here’s the button you’re looking for:
A Brigadier General in the US Army has been charged with rape. Well, actually, Brig. General Jeffrey Sinclair has been charged with a veritable laundry list of offenses, as set forth in an Army press release, among them
forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, attempted violation of an order, violations of regulations by wrongfully engaging in inappropriate relationships and misusing a government travel charge card, violating general orders by possessing alcohol and pornography while deployed, maltreatment of subordinates, filing fraudulent claims, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and engaging in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
While details are still sketchy, the charges apparently involve misconduct with several female subordinates.
There are a lot of hair-raisingly reactionary dudes on The Spearhead, but perhaps none quite so hair-raising as the prolific commenter who calls himself Darryl X. Here are some of his pearls of wisdom, taken from a recent Spearhead thread. (Many of his comments in the thread were devoted to a sort of mini-vendetta against another Spearhead commenter, Andie, who had committed the crime of commenting while female; I’ve cut out most of that to focus on Darryl’s more timeless thoughts.) Fair warning: This is extreme stuff, even by Spearhead standards.
Since the solution for the past forty-four years was to kill and impoverish and exile and imprison men and steal their kids, I’d say sending women to live in a cave is a generous trade.
We’ve already heard from the so-called Thinking Housewife on the subject of Sally Ride. Meanwhile, over on The Spearhead, the regulars also have opinions about Ride. Regular commenter Keyster has this to say about Ride’s work in promoting science and technology education for girls:
She was supposed to have inspired a generation of girls to take science and math. While she may have inspired the “Grrl Esteem” movement, very few girls went on to get degrees in math and science as a result of Sally Ride … .
She was frustrated by the fact young girls were very interested in math and science initially, “…but for some reason we lose them around the age of 13.” MMmmm…I wonder why that would be. Because they discovered an interest in boys? Not surprisingly, Sally was able to keep her interest.
That’s right: girls are incapable of thinking about both math and boys. Lesbians are the only women who can sustain an interest in math, because their brains aren’t cluttered with thoughts of Justin Bieber. (Ok, bad example.)
In another comment, Keyster expresses his annoyance at the fact that Ride turned out to be capable of astronautery despite being a woman.
Sally Ride proved that a woman can have “the right stuff”, like Amelia Earheart proved a woman can fly long distances.
OK so now that we know she won’t become hysterical during her period while in outerspace and allow her used tampons to clog the toilet, what do we do with this information? Just because a woman accomplishes something normally associated with men, is this inspiring young girls to spontaneously excel en masse and compete against men in male dominated arenas? Or are women like Sally Ride the exceptions that prove the rule?
You know, “exceptions that prove the rule” aren’t actually a thing. The fact that Ride was a capable astronaut doesn’t actually “prove the rule” that women aren’t capable as astronauts, but instead suggests that this particular rule is not a real rule. You would think that Keyster, as a logical male, would understand this.
Oh, you ladies, why do you even bother getting educated – sorry, “educated?” Don’t you know that if you get too educated you might end up marrying some dude who is less educated than you, which is apparently contrary to the laws of nature? Or maybe you’ll end up not getting married at all? The horror.
On The Spearhead, guest poster Lyn87 explains how he dropped some “red pill” knowledge on a buddy of his during a recent outing:
One guy has teenage daughters that he’s planning to put through college. I could not resist inserting some red pill into the mix, so I mentioned that 60% of degrees were going to women, and that women prefer to marry up. Since “educated” women don’t often go for “uneducated” men, a lot of women of his daughter’s generation were on their way toward spinsterhood for lack of “suitable” mates.
So women with education are only “educated” in scare-quotes. But men who are “uneducated” also get the scare quotes, because presumably they are wise beyond their years of formal study.
Over on The Spearhead, the discussion of, er, “altruism” (and why the men who sacrificed their lives to save their girlfriends in the Aurora theater shootings were “suckers”) continues. All of the comments I mentioned in my previous post now have dozens of upvotes; one has more than a hundred. (All except for the comment praising the dead men as “heroic” which remains underwater, votewise.)
The discussion has inspired one commenter called ck to offer this rather harsh assessment of modern women:
Words cannot convey my sense of dispair, isolation, and acceptance that women are at best amoral beings and at worst imoral. I no longer look at a women and hope they may be the one who vaules a decent, kind, moral man. Instead I see a feral creature who wants to be thugf#$cked and used. They are addicted to a drug called emotion. They want the highs of being thugf#cked and the coming lows of being used and dumped. Then rinse and repeat.
[citation needed]
The stable decent man is too “boring” or “nice”. The lush sociatal enviroment we have created for them is taken for granted. It exists as does the air they breath, simply out of nothing in thier minds. They simply cannot grasp the truth of it takes good men to build, invent and maintain their “posh” world. … My eyes are sadly opened to what women are now.
ck also makes comments that suggest to me that he is suffering from depression, possibly quite severe. He gets upvotes for his misogyny, but no one there offers any comfort or help, except for one commenter who urges him, unhelpfully, to “[t]ry to get as far from feminist women as possible,” possibly by moving to another country.
Evidently the last thing MRAs ever want to do is to provide actual tangible help to fellow men who are suffering.
Meanwhile, Darryl X offers some thoughts on you, my dear readers and commenters:
I hope the posts on Futrelle’s site and others illustrates for you the cold-blooded and parasitic nature of those kinds of people and that they do not represent civilization and that as more and more honest hard-working and innocent men are killed off by them, they will be living in a cave because they have neither the intelligence nor the initiative to do anything but defraud others and they are running out of victims. Eventually they will start cannibalizing themselves. Actually they already have started.
Evidently, according to Spearhead logic, “civilization” is much more effectively maintained by demonizing half of it.
