Category: the spearhead

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism armageddon chivalry disgusting women evil women I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy it's science! MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men precious bodily fluids sex the enigma that is ladies the spearhead vaginas

Uteruses Versus Duderuses

Apparently a lot of ladies have these things living in their lady regions.

Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who  have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.

Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money  from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.

It gets worse. According to a dude called Joe Zamboni over on The Spearhead, some of these uterus-having ladies are at risk of developing something called Golden Uterus Syndrome, or GUS. First described by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Zamboni notes,

Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.

Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:

[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.

GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.

Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.

Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.

The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.

The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).

Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.

Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).

Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.

The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …

This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.

And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?

The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.

It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.

Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.

It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.

Stirring words indeed.

Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.

“Great article Joe,” wrote Pendelton.

The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.

And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.

Why do people put up with these nagging hoyhums ?

Stonelifter added:

woman have the golden everything syndrome. They think you owe them for life if you had sex with you once; sex which they also enjoyed as well as you.

They make you diner once, you owe them for life

Admittedly, if a woman builds you an entire diner, I think you probably do owe her for that.

Durandal worked in a bit of “we hunted the mammoth for you” as well:

Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.

Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.

When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.

Orecret also predicted the end of the world as we know it (and he feels fine):

Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.

A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.

Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.

As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.

Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.

The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.

The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.

It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.

It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.

Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!

 

There is some here.
Categories
antifeminism hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA the spearhead violence against men/women

Spearheader on Josh Powell: "What I don’t understand is why he didn’t take out a few judges instead of his innocent children."

The murdered boys

Last September, WF Price of The Spearhead wrote a post about a Seattle area man named Josh Powell, widely suspected of murdering his missing wife. Price’s complaint? Powell’s two boys had been removed from his custody after his father (with whom he and the boys were living) was charged with voyeurism and possessing child porn. Price excoriated the authorities for what he saw as an abuse of their powers, and concluded his piece by saying that “[t]yranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”

In the comments, there was a lot more talk about tyranny. Natalia, meanwhile, worried about the children:

The kids are already dealing with the pain of missing their mom, and now they are taken away from their dad. How can anyone believe that’s better for the children?

On Sunday, as you are probably well aware, Powell killed these children, and himself. During a supervised visit, authorities say, Powell locked himself and his kids in his house, incapacitated them by chopping their heads and necks with a hatchet, then set the house (primed with gasoline as an accelerant)  ablaze.

The regulars on the Spearhead don’t seem much interested in talking about Powell any more. But of the few comments that have been made, several have been rather telling. Responding to a feminist commenting on his original post, Price wrote:

Typical for a feminist to see this as a triumph. Josh Powell was hounded for years up to this point. If he didn’t kill his wife, and there’s still no evidence he did, does the court bear some responsibility for the outcome here?

That’s right. The court is to blame for trying to protect the children from the man who later murdered them.

And not a word of sympathy from him for the murdered children.

Meanwhile, another Spearheader seemed to suggest that the main problem was that Powell had picked the wrong people to kill:

Notice the upvotes.  And the lack of a response; the regulars were too busy making jokes about domestic violence and the evils of the upcoming Valentines — sorry, Vagina — Day.

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to Kendra, Cloudiah, and Crumbelievable for pointing me to Price’s post and these comments. I should also note that there were a couple of comments from others at The Spearhead  expressing sorrow for the murdered children. And to my knowledge no one in the MRM has hailed him as a hero, so that’s something, I guess.

EDITED TO ADD AGAIN:

Price digs his hole deeper. Responding to a critical comment by none other than Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant, he writes, among other things:

If the cops knew he was capable of real violence, and they must have if they suspected him for murder, they bear some responsibility for provoking this.

So if the cops knew he was capable of real violence (which they clearly did) … they should have let him keep the kids? That he ultimately killed?

I’ve heard this argument before from MRAs. Essentially, if a man in a custody dispute threatens violence, or is thought to be violent, the courts should simply hand the kids over to him. So he won’t get mad. That’s the logic of an abuser, or at the very least of an enabler.

Categories
$MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism crackpottery evil women manginas marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men oppressed white men racism reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead

“The dried-up vagina is a tool of the state, and population control.”

Marriage: Not an effective form of birth control.

When we first met Spearhead commenter Rmaxd, he was raving about how our technological society had rendered women obsolete. He’s back, this time taking on, well, women again, and welfare, and declining birth rates, and, well, it’s all a little bit hard to follow.

Let’s start with Rmaxd’s basic premises:

Women are serially monogamous or hypergamous & are infertile for the majority of their lives

While men are polygamous, & FERTILE for the majority of their lives

Marriage has always been used as the earliest form of birth contraception, limit the amount of children a fertile male can have, by forced mating with a single infertile woman for the rest of his life.

We are off to a bad start here. Is there anything in all that that’s correct? Among other things: marriage is most decidedly not a particularly effective form of birth control. (The show Eight is Enough was based on a real family, and I suspect we’ve all met people with enough siblings to fill a bus.) But let’s continue; Rmaxd is on a roll:

As the government can no longer force this sort of mating on infertile womens, especially in the lower moronic, under educated peasantry states,

As women want alphas,

Obviously sluts & whores, are simply mimicing infertile women, as only infertile dried up vaginas, can afford to sleep around with hundreds of men

This is why we have sluts & promiscuity, marketted to young girls today, imitate infertile women, imitate their habits, destroy your fertility, destroy your youth

A childhood of std’s & yeast infections

Yeah, I’m not even going to try to parse all that.

In any case, as Rmaxd argues, these “infertile” ladies somehow still manage to pop out a few kids when they’re young, and the evil welfare state rewards them for it:

It’s essentially birth control by sponsoring infertile women, most women have a couple of kids, basically enough to live off the welfare & free housing

As we all know, single mothers live lives of untold luxury and indolence.

What we have here is essentially welfare for infertile women, as they’re no longer able to siphon cash from enslaving men into walking wallets & their magical vagina’s a pit of std’s & warts

In the past, you see, women could enslave men by marrying them. Now they can’t get dudes to stick around, so instead they enslave men by not marrying them, raising their kids on their own with the help of welfare money. It’s all very devious.

Rmaxd would prefer that the welfare money go to the fathers:

If we had welfare for men who had kids, with different women, we would have a healthy birth rate, instead of the declining birth rate we have now … this is all about rewarding & protecting a womans sexuality over a mans sexuality

It all leads to what Rmaxd calls:

The new another dark age of female fanatical male hate,

sponsored & policed by the church of radical feminist mangina, & government

The dried up vagina, as a tool of the state & population control

This barely coherent spew of woman-hatred – and it’s even less comprehensible without my edits and annotations – still managed to draw a few upvotes from the regulars, proving that internet misogynists will upvote pretty much anything so long as it contains the requisite level of anti-woman vitriol.

In case you’re feeling especially bored this lazy Sunday, the whole Spearhead thread is a trainwreck of misogyny and racism – including some fairly obnoxious discussions of black “Welfare Queens” and Mexican immigrants from a fellow called Keyster. Does that (fake) name sound familiar? You may know him as a fairly regular contributor to A Voice for Men and the producer of the AVfM internet radio show.

 

Categories
antifeminism evil women false accusations MGTOW misogyny MRA rape the spearhead

The Spearhead accidentally gives men some good advice about rape

"I cannot fucking believe I'm reading this on The Spearhead." "I know, right?"

You know what they say about stopped clocks – they’re right twice a day. The same is true with MRAs, though it happens a bit less frequently. Consider a Spearhead guest post from a while back titled Caveat Amator: Strategies for Men Before, During and After False Allegations, recently brought to my attention by Manboobzer extraordinaire Ami Angelwings, whose Escher Girls blog you should totally go look at.

The post, by Ken Kupstis, is mostly a bunch of standard-issue MRA hysteria about false allegations and evil false alleging ladies, complete with a bunch of possibly dubious legal advice.

But mixed in with the paranoia there’s some advice that is actually quite sensible and that, if followed, will not so much help men avoid false rape accusations as help keep them from raping women.

In the section of the post dealing with that supremely fraught all-caps moment BEFORE HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN, Kupstis recommends that men stop and ask themselves a few questions:

Is she SOBER? Very inebriated women may claim to want or even demand sex, but it may be wise to see if “that was the alcohol talking”.

Good advice! Fact is, seriously inebriated people cannot consent to sex! If you have sex with someone who’s wasted (or unconscious), that is actually rape, and you may well find yourself the target of a real rape accusastion – nothing false about it.

Has she verbally consented to sex? It is better to ask “Do you want to make love?” and receive a positive response then to merely assume she’s consenting to sex via body language.

Also good! Consent should be crystal clear. People who actually do want to have sex with you will not be offended if you ask to make sure! If you’re worried that someone will say no if you ask them directly, you should not be having sex with that person! If you ask and they do say no, respect that no. If your idea of “seduction” means pawing at and pressuring a woman until she gives in, you’re not a master of seduction. You’re a rapist.

Does she display or claim enthusiasm for BDSM (bondage and sadomasochism) activities? As exciting as it may seem, do not permit a barely-known woman to handcuff you to anything (that you can’t break loose from on your own)!

Also good advice! Don’t let someone you barely know anything about put you in handcuffs! (No ethical BDSMer will try to pressure you into anything like this.) Here’s the thing: Because of the inherent dangers of bondage and whipping and other such activities, BDSM has the potential to go very, very wrong very, very fast. BDSMers know this.

And that’s why the BDSM community has set in place safeguards to try to prevent this from happening  — essentially codifying an explicit bunch of rules and practices to make sure that everyone involved in a BDSM session has consented at every step of the way.  (This can sometimes mean literally filling out a checklist before the start of a session.) The slogan? “Safe, Sane and Consensual.”

Which is a pretty good slogan for sex in general. As sex blogger Clarisse Thorn notes, even those who would never dream of trying anything kinky can learn a lot from the ways in which the BDSM deals with the issue of consent — and incorporate this into their own sex lives. (Even the checklists, if you so desire!)

Kupstis continues on with this theme:

Does she claim to ‘like it rough’? Even if so, that claim does not obligate you to play rough. No matter how insistent she may be, you should not bruise or break the skin.

Also good advice. You are not obliged to “play rough” with a partner if you don’t want to. (That’s how sexual consent works: everyone has veto power, at any point in time.) And you shouldn’t leave bruises,  not with a first time partner and not unless you know they’re ok with that. Plenty of BDSM submissives don’t mind, and in some cases actually like bruises. But you need to ask first. See my comments about BDSM above.

During foreplay, or before or during coitus, does she ‘tense up’, act frightened or apprehensive? Does she cry? If so, she may have been previously raped or molested. Her sex drive still exists, but she may psychologically equate sex with pain, servitude or dishonor.

If a woman “tenses up,” seems scared, or otherwise freaks out during sex, STOP IMMEDIATELY. Aside from the reasons already listed, there are any number of other things that might cause someone to react like this. For example, you could be raping her. (Did you remember that bit above about getting clear consent?)  Or, even if she did consent at first, she may have changed her mind (consent is an ongoing thing, and anyone can remove consent at any point for any reason). Or you may be hurting her. The list goes on.

Whatever the reason, STOP AT ONCE, comfort her  (don’t confront her), and try to figure out what is going on.  (This all applies regardless of gender and/or sexual oriantation.)

Other advice in the Spearhead piece doesn’t really bear on the rape issue, but is simple common sense:

Are you using Birth Control? Note that while she may claim to be using birth control, it does not automatically mean that she is…she may normally be on birth control but has forgotten to take it, or is experiencing a false period, or is using a form of birth control with a lower rate of effectiveness. Most of these factors have not legally excused men for having to pay child support, although they should.

Using birth control is good! If you are having sex with someone you don’t know well, you should use a condom, no matter what birth control they are using (or say that they are using).

Do you know her FULL NAME? (Thousands of men have only needed to hear “Hi, I’m Bambi”, and it’s good enough for them.)

Another good question to ask yourself! (Though admittedly some of us have probably broken this rule once or twice.) Knowing a bit about your sexual partner is always good!

Also, if she’s named Bambi, ask her if she’s an entomologist, because entomologists are cool.

My favorite Spearhead comment for this article comes from intp:

Geez. After reading this article I’d rather play catch with a beaker of nitroglycerine than get near a woman.

How about this? Until all the Communists, corrupting our institutions in the West, have been identified and expelled or executed just avoid women in the West.

Treat Western Women like the malignant cancer they have become.

Intp, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS STRATEGY FOR YOU. At least the part about you avoiding women (not so much the executions thing). Stay far, far away from women. And the rest of us, too, while you’re at it.

Oh, and in case anyone is keeping score, intp’s comment (including the murder) got two dozen upvotes and no downvotes from the Spearhead crowd.

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women gloating MGTOW misogyny MRA that's not funny! the fucking titanic the spearhead

MRAs and Children First: The Spearhead on the Costa Concordia disaster

From The Spearhead, where feminists dying is HILARIOUS.

Most of the coverage of the Costa Concordia disaster at the moment seems to be focusing on the Italian cruise ship’s captain and his douchey behavior, which involved not only running the ship aground but also abandoning ship prestissimo while passengers remained trapped on board.

MRAs, by contrast, are using the tragedy as an excuse to rail against the notion of “women and children first” and, of course, to make jokes about women drowning.

Now, the Titanic aside, “women and children first” isn’t now, and hasn’t ever really been, the standard way to evacuate those on a sinking ship, though many in the public — including some of those who were on board the Costa Concordia – seem to believe that it is. (See here for more details on how evacuations are typically handled these days; generally only those with mobility problems are given special treatment.)

In the case of this particular evacuation, some on board apparently tried to enforce an informal “women and children” policy, but many men weren’t willing to wait.

What’s got some MRAs in a snit is that some people, in the media and online, are calling these dudes cowards. In The Daily Mail, a right-wing British tabloid, A N Wilson wrote:

[I]n our day, with the advent of feminism and  the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned.

As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.

But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing.

And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.

This is not what you’d call a feminist argument; it’s a traditionalist argument, published in a tabloid rag that’s generally quite hostile to feminism.

Nonetheless, some MRAs are using the Costa Concordia disaster as an opportunity to deliver a big “told you so!” to the … imaginary feminists who live in their head.

Over on The Spearhead, where one familiar commenter actually described Wilson’s Daily Mail article as “feminist,” guest poster Lyn87 wrote:

The MRM is getting more vocal, and a lot of guys are now saying, “You wanted equality. This is what it looks like.” And they are saying it aloud and in public. Even a few women chimed in, saying that men have no obligation to die for women if women want equality. (Somehow I suspect there wasn’t much, “I am woman, hear me roar, watch me drown” on the Costa Concordia itself, but hey, it’s a start.)

MRAs: Always up-to-the-minute with their pop culture references!

This post was helpfully illustrated with a stock photo of a woman drowning.

Commenters got in their digs as well.

Keyster riffed on Lyn87’s incredibly au courant Helen Reddy reference:

I am woman hear me…blurp….rah…gurgle…raha…ffftt…orr…roar…gurgle…help me…somebody…fffft…please…blurp…help…help me please!

Aharon told both ladies and fish what’s what:

I eat fish. Fish don’t eat me. My life is too precious to sacrifice it so some spoiled bitch can have a pussy pass into the life boats.

Anti Idiocy got all hypothetical-cruise-ship tough guy on us:

Anyone who attempts to keep me on a sinking ship because of the genitals with which I was born is attempting to murder me. I have the right to respond accordingly.

And Thomas Tell-truth kicked chivalry – not to mention basic human decency — to the ocean floor:

Equality means that when the ship is going down and you are a woman, you had better get out of my way or you are going to drown with my footprints on your back.

Apparently Thomas Tell-truth is actually George Costanza:

Jeb, meanwhile, offered a more scientific rationalization for being a complete douchenozzle:

As far as I’ve heard, the one and only sport in which women naturally out-do men is endurance swimming. Women are also more bouyant, and as survivalists will explain, women float easiest on their backs (making it easy to breathe while expending minimal energy) whereas men float easiest in “the dead man’s float” (ie. face down, head in the water) and must expend more energy to stay alive. Furthermore, women have more body-fat than men which insulates them better against aquatic dangers such as hypothermia.

Given all these factors it is quite rational for men to pick women up by the seat of their pants and toss them overboard to make way for men and children to safely be rowed ashore on the lifeboats.

It’s all about doing the right thing and saving lives, after all.

MRA humor is very sophisticated indeed.

EDITED TO ADD:  The Spearhead has put up a followup post, once again taking aim at imaginary “lifeboat feminists,” though the only person the post cites lamenting the end of “women and children” is Rich Lowry from the National Review (not a feminist publication).

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women homophobia misandry misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead

BREAKING: Dudes on The Spearhead aren’t big fans of Glee

Other people have also noticed a lot of gayness on Glee

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!

Categories
antifeminism evil women manginas misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit the spearhead

Spearheader: Put American women in Burqas “for their obese figures and even more obese whining mouths.”

Religion needs more of this dude.

Reactionary and “traditionalist” Men’s Rightsers tend to share a lot of the anti-Islam prejudices of the American right in general. When they talk about Islam it’s usually in vaguely apocalyptic terms, and usually with a side of anti-feminist conspiratorialism thrown in for good measure: Feminists are destroying Western Civilization and making the Muslim takeover inevitable!

But I’ve run across a few highly upvoted comments on the Spearhead recently which suggest that the generally less than warm feelings about Islam found in the Manospehre may be tinged with a certain amount of envy and even admiration.

Take this Rapses fellow here:

It is high time papa (patriarchy) take some harsh measures to discipline her little naughty girls (feminists). Papa has yielded too much to their tantrum and whining. Spare the rod and spoil the child. Western papa has to toughen up a bit and tell them that their stupid whims would not be met. These little girls are really not that tough as they show and still need papa to provide and protect them. See how Saudi papa deals with his girls and still his girls are not complaining.

51 upvotes, 10 downvotes, last I checked.

And then there’s Aharon :

I think there are many American women that American men would prefer to burqad up for their obese figures and even more obese whining mouths. Perhaps we can customize the burqad in America to include a dog muzzle. …

Feminism along with its allies has been very effective the past 45+ years in decimating the nuclear family along with traditional American values and ethics, and loyalty to church and synagogue. Most religious institutions are failing men in America. …  Men leave liberal places of worship because they can’t relate to the female-value emphasis. …

American men have been living – for generations – in a post Judeo-Christian modern American misandrist society that for the most part sold men out. Islam comes along and teaches Sharia Law will not discriminate against men, and that men are respected in Islam, etc. Bingo. … I can see American men in the future becoming increasingly interested in Islam.

He adds this bit of speculation at the end:

I can also see new pro Men’s religions being created and taking hold. I see them mostly as manly without the provider/protector/chivalry crap, and not mangina metro-sexual in their beliefs and values.

30 upvotes, 1 downvote.

Apparently any religion is okey dokey with this crowd – even one made up on the spot – so long as it’s butch enough.

Categories
evil women grandiosity men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead vaginas

Vectorman vs The Space Libbers

Superman was an MRA!

Never underestimate the grandiosity of an MRA in a snit. Here, from The Spearhead, is some dude called ConShawnery suggesting that dudes grousing about women are basically the equivalent of superheroes facing down the evilest of supervillains. He also has some thoughts about cunts.

To women, a man who has seen the truth about them is a dangerous animal, a vector of viral information that, if allowed to spread, will bring their matriarchal palace crumbling down. A man like that is literally the most dangerous thing to women and they know this. This is why 18-year-old daughters will abandon their fathers, mothers their sons, wives their husbands, sisters their brothers – as soon as it becomes clear that he’s taken the red pill.

This is also why “cunt” is such a dirty word while “pussy” is not. “Pussy” is adoring (whether it’s derogatory doesn’t matter), “cunt” is not. A man who uses the word “cunt” is a man for whom the magical hold of vagina has worn off, and he must be excluded from polite society at all costs, lest he infect other men.

59 upvotes, 0 downvotes, last I checked. Nothing more courageous than telling a gang of grumpy misogynists exactly what they want to hear.

 

Categories
alpha males antifeminism kitties links men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA MRA paradox the spearhead western women suck

Links: Jezebel on MRAs and American-woman-haters. Plus: a fan in Brazil!

This picture has nothing to do with the post, but, come on, it's fucking adorable!

Some links for Friday night:

Jezebel’s Anna North takes up the question “What Should You Do When Someone You Love Becomes a Men’s Rights Activist?”

North quotes me and Hugo Schwyzer on the topic. Here’s the extended remix of my remarks:

Unfortunately, in most cases, I don’t think it’s possible to talk someone out of a Men’s Rights obsession. For most of them, it seems to be driven not by facts — they’re happy to simply make up facts to fit their worldview — but by feelings, most obviously by rage at women. If they were driven by actual interest in issues, they probably would have accomplished something by now; in reality, only the overlapping but more politically focused Father’s Rights movement has actually had much of an effect on the real world, for better or worse. For most MRAs, the closest they come to activism is leaving angry comments everywhere online — or harassing individual women online in a manner similar to the ways abusers stalk the objects of their obsessions.

The one argument I think you can make to MRAs who are not too far gone is this: it’s not healthy for you to spend so much time stewing in your anger online. Instead of trying to help men work through their personal issues with women, the MRM encourages men to cultivate their rages and hatreds, to remain stuck. That’s not healthy for them, or for society at large.

North’s post was inspired by a recent Dear Prudence question on Slate from a girl whose dad had recently gone all MRA on her. (It’s here, scroll down a bit to the question that starts “Dad-Related Dilemma.:)

The guys at The Spearhead also had a whack at the Dear Prudence question here. Needless to say their perspective is a little different than mine or Hugo’s.

And while I’m doing links, here’s another misogyny-related post on Jezebel: Founder of Possible Sex Tourist Website Creates Elaborate Ad Campaign Telling Men to Beware of Marriage

It’s a lot of the same old shit we’ve seen before from marriage-hating MGTOWers and Western-women-haters. But entertaining nonetheless.

And last but not least: checking my traffic today I discovered that Man Boobz is big in Brazil! By which I mean, a professor at the Federal University of Ceará is a fan, and has started making fun of obnoxious Brazilian misogynists on her blog. Olá Lola!

As far as I can tell from the badly Google-translated version of her blog, the Brazilian versions of Man Boobz (Homens Idiotas?) are pretty much identical to our Man Boobz, right on down to their obsessions with alphas and betas and all that crap.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women hypergamy I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit the spearhead white knights

Misogyny to the Maxd: Women are “liabilities in our technological culture.” Also, they’re fat.

Eeerything started going to hell when we let them wear bloomers and ride bicycles.

Oh boy. Over on The Spearhead, the good old trusty Spearhead, a fella called Rmaxd has some bold new ideas to share with the world.

Well, they’re not really new, or bold, or true, and some of them kind of seem to contradict each other. But they are, indisputably, ideas. And because he’s a dude, they’re automatically good, because dudes are the dynamic, creative force behind all historical progress. So it’s no wonder this comment of his got more than two dozen upvotes.

Rmaxd starts off by addressing the manginas of the world, and every man who might be considering the benefits of manginahood:

Grow some balls, be masculine, & these so called feminists have zero power

Because NATURE.

We always revert to our biology & nature, over idealism, this is why feminism is dead in the water

And NATURE says women should stay home and cook and pop out babies.

Women in our society are so fucked up, precisely because they rejected their biological need to be part of a society, through their children, husbands & a family

It’s time for a little thought experiment.

Imagine if men were no longer engineers & soldiers & scientists, imagine the biological havoc they would cause on society, all that intellectual brilliance channelled on society, on the loss of their biological roles, instead of as engineers, soldiers & scientists

I’m having a little bit of a hard time imagining, because that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Is he suggesting that the world would collapse if more dudes stayed home and tended the kids?

But never mind, because Rmaxd is on to his next point, which is that women are terrible at math and this makes them OBSOLETE!

In a technology based society, women are the first to be discarded, their lack of scientific & mathematical skills are a liability to our technological culture

Also, they’re lazy and don’t invent shit. Even though by keeping them at home and denying them education the men of the world gave them ample opportunity to invent all sorts of shit, they chose instead to sit on their fat asses and eat bon bons.

Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history

& what did women do with that leisure, with all that time & opportunity to progress science?

 Women became biological luddites, they became entitled, inbred & backwards & technologically liabilities in our present technologically based age

When women should’ve been developing technologies to makeup for their inability to logic & reason, in the same way men developed music & art in order for men to experience emotions, all they did was call for young men to destroying their own futures, to be used as walking wallets & chattle

You can tell how innovative Rmaxd is, because he’s totally just innovated a new way to spell “chattel.”

Anyway, QED, fuck women.

Women are liabilities, we no longer need women to maintain our social networks, we have everything from mobile phones to the internet

Huh. Declaring half of humanity expendable. I was under the impression that MRA dudes considered that sort of thinking to be the equivalent of committing GENOCIDE. Seems some of them were making a big stink about that the other day, when a couple of ladies made some similar remarks about men.

Weird. Because MRA dudes are upvoting this, instead of gathering together in angry mobs on the internet to EXPOSE this dude’s personal information and talk about Fucking His Shit Up.

Never mind, though, because Rmaxd isn’t done with his case against ladies.

We no longer need them to maintain morality, as theyre incapable of morality, a womans ability to destroy herself, in the same fat women destroy their own bodies, is unprecedented, give a woman enough leisure & freetime, & all she’s capable of is how to enslave all of society, to ensure society does the same for women everywhere, irrespective of the results

Damn. So women getting fat is part of a sinister plot to enslave mankind?

This all sounds pretty dire for us civilization-creating dudes.

Happily, as Rmaxd explains in another comment, the ladies are so crazily self-destructive that they will fail in their evil designs, despite “being bankrolled by the rich upper class.” Just like the evil radical blacks back in the 1970s:

[W]omen are following the black activism handbook of the 70′s. …

[N]ear the end of the black movement, as the more mainstream, publicly accepted part of black militancy was rejected & debunked, the more radical components of the movement, began attacking its own supporters, in particular the white supporters of black rights, & they also started attacking blacks who were sympathetic to white males

We see the exact same thing happening with feminism, as the more popular & acceptable parts of feminism have now been rejected by popular culture, ie the colossal failure of stayathome dads

Because nothing is more evil and against NATURE than stay-at-home dads! It’s like sodomy squared.

Anyway, the evil ladies are doomed.

They now start becoming more radical, their antagonism & alienation of men, especially manginas & feminists will inevitably destroy them

As we all know women & especially special rights movements, are always self destructive, as the solutions are never radical enough.

So back to the homes, ladies, where you can return to fulfilling NATURE’s role for the females of the species: sitting on your fat asses and eating bon bons and being terrible at math. Because that is nature’s way.

I had a