On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a "provocation," and beating a woman's face in is "justice."

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.

On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react ... as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”

At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:

What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 

Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” -- though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”

The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:

I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.

 Piercedhead offered this take:

Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 

If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.

That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 

Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:

something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?

DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:

a brave man and a hero. 

There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …

It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) -- yes, that's how he writes his name -- took it a step further, saying that: 

the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.

Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan's comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)

What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 

What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 

Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

--

If you liked this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum

 

This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I've borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!

The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).

The Something Awful folks have gathered up quite a few of his most intriguing posts, and many others of equal value. Head over there now and enjoy. 

Do feminists secretly want to be Betty Draper?

Uh, shouldn't he have a desk or something?

It’s no secret that lots of women love Mad Men, and not just because Don Draper is such a handsome devil. Sure, the show focuses mostly on the swaggering Don. But it also depicts the struggles of numerous female characters as they bump up against the obstacles and issues faced by women at the time, most notably those of secretary-turned-copywriter Peggy Olson as she tries to make it in the boys club that was the advertising world of the 50s and 60s. Meanwhile, the show’s happy homemaker, Betty Draper (now Betty Francis), is about as far from happy as you can get, her life a perfect illustration of Betty Friedan’s critique of the emptiness at the heart of the lives of many middle-class stay-at-home moms of the time. 

It’s no wonder that historian Stephanie Coontz  has described Mad Men as “TV’s most feminist show,” and no wonder why the show is so popular with the feminist women in my life.(Not to mention with me.)

Just don’t tell any of this to Uncle Elmer, a regular commenter over on The Spearhead. He’s evidently never seen the show, but feels confident he knows why feminists love it so much: 

Feminists ... have a huge forbidden woodie for the “50s”. They simply cannot get enough 50s imagery and its thinly veiled implication that women should stay at home, know how to run a household, and lavishly support their man so he can go out and bring back the bacon.

I’m betting a lot of lez-couples have a secret “50s room” in their McMansion (or remodeled Brownstone) where they can act out these suppressed urges. The props must be breathtaking.

Uh, yeah. As Amanda Marcotte recently observed,“[w]hen you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.”

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Female action heroes: An abomination

Most 12-year-old girls are not superheroines.

One of my favorite dopey complaints from the Men’s Rights crowd is that action movies featuring ass-kicking women are “unrealistic” because real women are too dainty to do all that ass-kicking shit. On The Spearhead today, W.F. Price aims his withering contempt at the new film Hanna: 

The ass-kicking chick flicks are getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on. In “Hanna” a girl is raised by her father to be a vicious killer somewhere in the arctic. Hanna is played by Saoirse Ronan, an Irish girl with a sweet smile who looks about as tough as a bunny rabbit. Nevertheless, we are supposed to suspend disbelief and accept that this waif is capable of breaking necks with a single blow.

Even worse, in the trailer for the film, young Miss Ronan is depicted doing … pull-ups!  “In general, women can’t do pull-ups,” Price complains, “and the vanishingly few who can don’t look much like Saoirse Ronan.”

Price does have a point. Real women can’t do the things that female action heroes do in films. Angelina Jolie may be a deeply scary woman, but I’m pretty sure she can’t take out entire boats full of trained assassins by herself, or jump from truck to truck on the highway to escape pursuers in cars, as she did as super seekret double (triple?) agent Evelyn Salt. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Sarah Michelle Gellar has never really slain even a single vampire. And there is no such thing as an indestructible cheerleader.

But here’s the thing, guys: All that crazy shit that male action stars do? Real men can’t do that either. Matt Damon is pretty buff, and I’m pretty sure he could take Angelina Jolie in a fight, but he’s not actually Jason Bourne. Christian Bale doesn’t put on a batsuit at night and run around town taking out baddies with his bare – well, gloved -- hands. Toby Maguire can’t swing from building to building, or stick to walls; if he were bitten by a radioactive spider, he’d need to go to the hospital. Arnold is not the Terminator.

Also, and I hate to be the one who has to break this to you, guys: professional wrestling is fake.

I know it might be tough to take all this in, guys, so here’s Captain Kirk fighting a very slow-moving alien monster on planet Not-Very-Far-From-The-Studio. Kirk has a little trouble with this one but in real life, I'm pretty sure William Shatner could take down an alien monster, provided it moved as slowly as this one.

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Earthquakes and Ideologues

A scene in Haiti, after its earthquake.

Sometimes The Spearhead, probably the internet's leading angry-man site, seems like a giant interactive game of "pin the blame on the feminists." When uprisings broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt , you may recall, W. F. Price -- head honcho at The Spearhead -- suggested that the unrest in both countries was a male reaction to the excesses of feminism and female power.

Now he's returned with an even stranger article, comparing  the current disaster in Japan with the very different outcome of last year's earthquake in Haiti-- and blaming women in general and feminists in particular for the far more lethal outcome in Haiti.

You might think that the staggering death toll in Haiti -- estimates range from 92,000 to more than 300,000 --  might have something  to do with the fact that it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with a weak and corrupt government and almost nothing in the way of intrastructure.  And that Japan's relative resiliance in the face of an even more powerful earthquake might have something to do with the fact that it's a wealthy nation -- the world's third most powerful economy, with a GDP per capita about 30 times greater than Haiti's -- with a great deal of experience in handling earthquakes.

But Price has a rather different, and highly peculiar, explanation: Haiti suffered more because it's a  "matriachal" country, unlike properly "patriarchal" Japan. Comparing  "matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster," Price writes that

in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, [while] Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. ...

Price goes on to argue that Japan is doing better by its men as well. While in Haiti in the aftermath of the quake, the UN and some relief organizations targeted aid towards women -- who tend to literally get pushed aside in the mad scramble for food supplies otherwise -- Price argues that

Japanese men ... have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.

Let's set aside for a moment that it is a tad early to be declaring, er, "mission accomplished" in the Japan crisis, especially with the specter of a nuclear reactor meltdown looming. Price is a man with an agenda, and he moves fairly quickly to his grand conclusion: The two disasters, he argues,

give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

Yes, that's right. Feminism is the party of helplessness, disease, homelessness and starvation. Anyone who's just made the argument he made really shouldn't be offering any opinions on the sanity of others.

Before we get into a critique of Price's argument, such as it is, let's pause for a moment to ask how his novel thesis was received by the Spearhead regulars. While a few commenters did take him to task for ignoring economics, others took his absurd argument and ran with it. (This is The Spearhead, after all.) Alucin declared,

Feminism is a crime against humanity. What happened in Haiti regarding food distribution will be repeated again and again as long as feminism prevails. Fighting feminism is something good people do on behalf of humanity. The men and women of Japan will get their lives back together again far more quickly than the matriarchal people of Haiti.

The future is patriarchal. It’s just a matter of which form it will take and when the West will re-masculate.

Epoetker took it a step further, adding a bit of racism to the misogynistic mix:

Haiti is a land of men who look like men but think like women. Japan is a land of men who look like women but think like men.

Rebel, meanwhile, found a grim humor in it all:

The Haitian case is proof positive that feminism is exactly like AIDS.
No matter how many die, feminism will be the last thing to die.
It was planned that way.

Whichever way you look at it, the answer is always the same: feminism is a religion of death.
Feminists are death worshippers.

That leaves very little hope for the future.
Life is so short and we worry too much. And it’s so futile.
One day we will all be Haitians. LOL!!

A note: These aren't a couple of weird comments I've "cherry picked" to give a distorted picture of the discussion. In fact, these comments got anywhere from 20 to nearly 70 upvotes from Spearhead readers, and almost no downvotes. There were many other comments, also heavily upvoted, agreeing with these general premises. If you don't believe me, go take a look yourself.

Numerous other commenters, I should also note, offered frankly racist interpretations of "the tale of two earthquakes," blaming the greater scope of the disaster in Haiti on what one commenter called its "largely negro, largely indolent society." While some objected to the racism, many clearly racist comments got numerous upvotes from the Spearhead crowd.  (The comment I just quoted got 60 upvotes and 20 downvotes.)

Getting back to Price's argument, let's try to unpack the various layers of bullshit here. First of all, Haiti is no matriarchy. Yes, women often head up households there. But they don't run the country, by any measure.

Life in Haiti is no picnic for men, but women have it even worse; as one human rights group noted in a recent report, "Haitian women experience additional barriers to the full enjoyment of their basic rights due to predominant social beliefs that they are inferior to men and a historical pattern of discrimination and violence against them based on their sex. Discrimination against women is a structural feature in Haitian society and culture that has subsisted throughout its history, both in times of peace and unrest."

Rape is a constant threat, and, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times notes, it "wasn't even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago. ... Before 2005, rape was considered an offense against honor, or "crime of passion," meaning it was a minor infraction in which the perpetrator would go free if he agreed to marry his victim."

The earthquake only made the situation worse for women. Rapes are especially widespread in the camps that sprung up in the wake of last year's earthquake. Instead of "tak[ing] care of their families and communities," as Price would put it, many Haitian men have instead preyed on women and girls, sexually assaultng them and stealing their food and other supplies. This is not, to put it mildly, a country suffering from an excess of feminism or female authority.

No, Haiti is in dire straits mostly because of its extreme poverty. Anyone looking at the history of natural disasters can plainly see that they tend to cause far more chaos and misery and death in poor countries than they do in rich ones: In highly patriarchal, and poverty-stricken Pakistan, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake killed an estimated 75,000, though the quake there was an order of magnitude weaker than Japan's.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to remind readers of these basic points; the absurdity of Price's arguments should be immediately obvious to anyone not blinded by misogyny. Sometimes I wonder if Price even believes all of the shit he shovels. Stupidity would be easier to forgive than that level of cynicism.

--

If you appreciated this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. Thanks!

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Scott Adams to Men's Rights Activists: You'll never win an argument with a woman

Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert's boss.

So Scott Adams -- the Dilbert guy -- has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men's Rights. And so he did.

What they got from him wasn't quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn't what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten "a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle."

Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small  -- from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system.  Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.

We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don't know how to ask for raises.

So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men's rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others -- mangina anyone? -- but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.

But here's where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men's Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards.  It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should "get over it" is that ... well, read it for yourself.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead.  But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It's called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you're still crying about your pawn when you're having your way with the queen, there's something wrong with you and it isn't men's rights.

Apparently In Scott Adams' world, chess players don't get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine. 

After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don't make any more sense than what I've quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn't have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.

As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you'll never win this argument with a women -- you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe ... you'll get to fuck the queen? 

No wonder he deleted the post. 

Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let's see if I can get it stuck in your head:



--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Sticking it to The Woman

A "Wacky Package by Tom Bunk.

We have spoken here before about the imminent threat to civilization posed by misogynistic douchebags "going Galt," shrugging like Atlas and depriving society of their hard work and staggering genius. Indeed, in the comments of this very blog, one of our own resident MGTOWers, Cold, explained how he was sticking it to The Man -- er, The Woman -- by not paying taxes on some of his earnings, thus becoming what economists call a "free rider"on government services, and what the rest of us taxpayers call a "tax cheat."

He's not the only manosphere dude who has concluded that the best way to screw over all those evil wimminz who are leeching off the government tit is to, er, leech off the government tit themselves. The guy calling himself AfOR -- a prolific commenter and one-time contributor to the False Rape Society blog -- explained his similar strategy in a comment on angry-dude megasite The Spearhead:

The wimminz are always directly dependent upon “no questions asked” money, usually from the public purse, and even those in industry only get away with it because the way is lead by the public purse.

Starve them of cash and you starve them of oxygen, they will literally die of starvation, and raise blue murder screaming to their last breath.

The only way to starve them of cash is to starve the State of cash, fuck the State, it can’t be fixed any other way and is now the enemy.

So how does one go about starving the state (metaphorically) and hopefully some actual women (literally)? With some slackery and/or tax fraud!

The only way to starve the State of cash is either live off welfare or work self employed and keep two sets of books, run the black / cash economy for what you can, and good accounting for what you can’t where everything is a deductible expense.

If you pay into the State, you are paying into the wimminz defence fund.

Since AfOR only rarely gets to see his kids, he figures it doesn't matter if his brand of slacktivism destroys the economy -- and possibly leads to them getting killed.

I couldn’t have less contact with my kids if we had had TOTAL economic meltdown and they had died in the ensuing chaos, so frankly speaking total economic meltdown holds nothing very scary for me, I have a set of skills that will always be in demand (a brain, two hands and a mechanical aptitude)

Nope! He's footloose and fancy free!

Freed from needing to cater to the ex bitch and freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids I can go live in my fucking car, it provides 12 VDC to power my laptop and charge my smartphone, and I can tether my smartphone to my laptop and get internet access anywhere I can get a phone signal.

In siding with the wimminz the State has made me the very thing it fears the most, the worker who can go anywhere on a whim, the worker who can work in the black (cash) economy, the worker who is very hard to track and profile ... the worker who has no interest in taking on a debt burden or otherwise “boosting” the economy, the worker who can’t be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesn’t have a McMansion, corporate job, mortgage, etc etc. ...

I guess Ayn Rand would be ... proud?

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Bond in a Frock

Sean Connery would NEVER wear a dress.

The Men's Rights and MGTOW movements are about as hetero-focused, and simply hetero, as it is possible for any large, almost exclusively male, group to be. Sure, once in a while a stray MGTOWer will joke nervously about going gay, simply as a way to get some sex without having to touch one of those evil, stinky ladymonsters, but the chances of this actually happening are about as remote as one of those "ex-gay" ministries actually making someone "ex-gay." Still, most MRAs and MGTOWers profess a certain tolerance towards teh gey, at least when it takes the form of gay men; lesbians, not so much.

But once in a while this facade of (partial) tolerance cracks a bit and we can see some of the homophobic nastiness within. Like, for example, when Daniel Craig -- the current reigning James Bond -- puts on a dress for an International Women's Day video highlighting the many injustices the women of the world still face.

On The Spearhead, head spearheader W. F. Price introduces the video to the assembled masses with something of a shudder, describing it as "an unfortunate move that could result in career difficulties down the road" for Craig.

A number of Spearhead commenters are similarly horrified about Bond in Drag, but it is the commenter called Firepower who really brings the hatred up to 11, dropping one of the "f-words" and fantasizing about some quite literal gay-bashing.

The deliberate desecration of a cock-swinging MAN icon like Bond is a calculated, deliberate move – like putting lipstick on Javier Bardem in that stupid Haitina AIDS Liberal commercial.

ANY male that subjects himself to this feminizing humiliation by his enemies deserves feminizing.

Craig’s Bond is faggy anyway.
Sean Connery not only would’ve NEVER posed for these drag pics, he would’ve told the gay publicist to “sod off and suck my knob, mate.”
Then punched him.

This sterling analysis earned, at last count, 102 upvotes and only 6 downvotes from The Spearhead commentariate.

Here's the video in question:




--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Feminists: Lizard-brained sperm-hunters

Men: Do not do this.

Our good friend Herbal Essence -- the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo -- is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women's Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. "Feminism" is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly -- a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:

Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.

I don't know about "protection" and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.

Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing -- besides sperm, of course -- that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes -- all paid for by their long-suffering husbands -- while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here's Herbal again:

The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.

And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they're either lying to themselves, or lying to you.

Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.

Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn't fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you're jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.

Be careful out there.

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Incredibly Strange Antifeminist Bedfellows: Kay Hymowitz defends her attackers

Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay!

This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz' new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won't let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men's Right's/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a "bitch," an "entitlement whore," a "cunt," "a fugly tranny skank," and someone who "on her best day ... has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own."

Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning ... a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of "backlash" and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she's quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that's her real argument. Let's let her explain:

[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. ... That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.

At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don't know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them  ... and others don't!

Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.

As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, "that they're all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots." Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a "hotness" scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you're confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.

But here's a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don't like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don't be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women's distinct personalities ... interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.

Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating -- some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! -- even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she's not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she's so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it's a bit of both.

The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses -- it's simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it's pretty clear she hasn't revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn't a Men's Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine "coming soon" whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also "under construction.")

Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you -- which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:

I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. .... this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. ...

WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. ... Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.

Somehow, I don't think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates. 

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Ruthless Lady-People: Short-haired, smelly, muffin-eating lady-people

Women not only eat muffins -- they decapitate them!

Over on an angry-man site that would be called The Pearhead if you removed an "S" from its name, a fellow named Alcuin has a few complaints about the ladies. Let's listen in, shall we?

Western women are ruthless. They will destroy a family with a lifestyle divorce, and ruin her husband without thinking of their lives. ...

Ah yes, the old lifestyle divorce. There's little that Western women enjoy more than a nice divorce. Well, aside from accusing men of rape, and playing slutty dressup, and going to work:

They will accuse a man of rape when he did no such thing so they can get revenge for hurt feelings or to cover their own infidelity. They will dress like whores, then accuse men of being perverts and of sexual harassment. They will take all the cushy jobs and complain when men refuse to take the shit jobs, but act like “boys” instead.

But Alucin is just getting started. It gets worse:

They will cut their hair short, get fat, avoid shaving (their legs? their face?), smell, and then complain that men go for Asian women or none. They will take advantage of manginas for years, and give nothing in return for such dog-like loyalty. They will take jobs away from men, and become lazy, useless muffin-eaters.

That's right. You heard him. Women will actually CUT THEIR HAIR SHORT just to torment the men of the world with its shortness! Yet they will REFUSE to shave the hair off their legs! Which are FAT and STINKY! Also MUFFINS! They EAT MUFFINS! I'm not sure if this is supposed to be some sort of lesbian innuendo, or whether Alucin is referring to actual literal ingestion of delicious blueberry muffins, but I don't care. Either way, MEN ARE CLEARLY BEING OPPRESSED!

Why does writing this blog always make me so hungry? First, it gives me a craving for cupcakes, and now for muffins, the cupcakes' more demure cousin, the Cathy to its Patty. .

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

No Sperm for Feminists!

Don't let her have it! She reads Pandagon!

Hey, fellas, you know that stuff that comes out of your penis when you masturbate? Whatever you do, don't give it to a feminist! No matter how nicely she asks! Especially -- I repeat, ESPECIALLY -- if she wants to put it in her vagina. It is the KEY TO EVERYTHING!!! Rebel, commenting on angry-dude mecca The Spearhead, explains:

If feminists do not breed, they will disappear. ...

We have complete control over female reproduction, CONTRARILY to what most think. We hold the spark of life in our hands (polite form..)

Simple: NO DNA TRANSFER is it.

That’s why I said: don’t give your seeds.
Without them, women become TOTALLY powerless.
If we set our minds to it, collectively, two generations at most and the problem is gone.
I say:”Breed the suckers out”. Period. Don’t have sex with feminists.
Don’t have sex with those who hate you.
Breed the feminists OUT!!

Our grandchildren will then have a working society back.

I actually think this plan will be remarkably easy to implement. I don't really think many feminists are lining up to collect sperm from Spearheaders.

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Lady Killers

Feminist Training Camp

There's only really one rule to follow if you want to get upvoted on The Spearhead: make sure you say something hateful about women! If you follow this rule, you can say almost anything you want, no matter how completely batshit insane it is, and still get a couple of dozen upvotes. Works every time!

Consider, for example, this peculiar wisdom from one fellow calling himself Anonymous age 68, taken from a long, rambling comment that, the last time I checked, had 35 upvotes and only 11 downvotes. Take it away, you lovable old kook:

For 45 years, the man-haters who run this country have been saying privately they want to kill most men. I read MS. in the 80?s, and it was there. In recent years, they have shushed the stupids who have been saying it publicly, but you can be sure they are privately saying, “NOT YET, STUPID!” ...

Killing large numbers of men is the only one of the original feminist goals which has not yet been achieved. And, all the other things they have done to men were directly or indirectly in the original lists.

I subscribed to MS magazine in the 70?s and 80?s, until my stomach would not take it any more. They told right out in there, their original goals. The world cannot be safe until most men are terminated.

I tried to tell other men, who treated me like s**t. “Why do you worry about things like that? This is the USA, and nothing like that will ever happen. ...” 

Exactly what the Jew leaders told worried Jews in the 20th Century.That worked out real well.

Just in case you didn't subscribe to Ms. in the 70s and 80s, and you're wondering what the other original feminist goals were, here's the whole list:

1) Buy comfortable shoes
2) Create Lilith Fair
3) Kill men.
4) ???
5) Profit!


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Rapist babies and internet threats

How the hell did I get mixed up in all this?

The manosphere is in an uproar about a public service TV ad from an anti-violence group that portrays a baby boy as a future rapist. Some MRAs are attempting to refute the ad's implication that improperly socialized men are prone to violence by posting and upvoting ... violent comments and veiled threats online. And apparently some non-veiled death threats as well.

A few days ago, you see, W.F. Price, head honcho at The Spearhead, wrote a critical piece about the endeavors of one Josh Jasper to draw attention to sexism in Super Bowl commercials; Price also pointed out that Jasper, CEO of the Riverview Center, a nonprofit serving domestic violence and sexual assault victims in Illinois and Iowa, had put out an earlier commercial that, in Price's words, "impl[ied] that baby boys are all potential rapists."

Despite the source, that's actually a more or less accurate description of the ad, which depicts a happy little baby boy as a future rapist. I'm just not quite sure why that's so objectionable; after all, every baby, male or female, is a bundle of possibilities, some good, some bad. (Hitler was once a happy, gurgling baby.) The point of the ad is that parents can have an effect on how their kids turn out; if you raise your son to be a violent, misogynist asshole, he may well end up a rapist.

As much as I agree with this basic sentiment, I'm not going to defend the ad. It's terrible. Generally, I'm not a fan of using babies to make political points -- it's trite and manipulative, to begin with. And in this case, it's worse than that: portraying a baby as a future rapist seems rather hamfisted, given that babies are often victims of abuse themselves. 

Judge for yourself; here's the ad.




All this said, the flaws of the "rapist baby" ad in no way excuse the response it's gotten from some of the more hotheaded in the Men's Rights Movement and the manosphere in general. On his website, Peter Nolan declares that the ad "promote[s] hatred of male babies"; on The Spearhead,  Poester99 goes even further, accusing Riverview Center of "promoting violence against baby boys." Which is, of course, completely absurd. (Even besides that, as Jasper has pointed out on his blog, the Riverview Center serves male victims as well as female ones.) It's hard to know if the people spouting this nonsense honestly believe it, or if they are using the baby in the ad even more cynically and opportunistically than Jasper is.

Unfortunately, the MRA reaction has gone well beyond simple rhetorical overkill. A number of comments on The Spearhead, many of them with dozens of upvotes, are essentially threats -- some vague, some not-so-vague -- against Jasper himself. duke writes that:

Mangina creeps like Josh Jasper should suffer the same fate as Nazi sympathizers after WWII-taken out and shot after a five minute trial.

Avenger adds:

If men really were as violent as he claims they would have shut him up long ago. One good beating and this mangina would never open his mouth again.

Firepower, meanwhile, goes after Jasper's ... first name:

So long as males tolerate sissified males named “Josh” – pissing even on our SuperBowl – these gender traitors will only feel encouraged to increase their anti-male slurs.

Over on A Voice For Men, meanwhile, MRA elder Paul Elam insinuates that Jasper, far from being a sissy,  is a violent "alpha puke" -- and calls on his fans to dig up dirt on him:

This man deserves consequences for his actions.

Some history on Josh is known. We know he was a marine and we also know that he was a Los Angeles police officer. Two areas for sure where the capacity for violence is a plus. Add to that the fact that he was on a Domestic Violence task force and this bad apple starts to stink a little more. ...

Anyone want to take any bets on whether this alpha puke ever busted heads as a cop, simply because he could? It leaves one to wonder - especially given the intellectual violence he is so obviously willing to inflict on male children - just what sort of skeletons are in this douche bag's closet.

If they are there, I would love to get my hands on them and rattle them together for the world to hear.

And on Men-Factor, antifeminist blogger ScareCrow (who used to regularly post comments here) posts the email addresses of The Riverview Center's mostly female board of directors, urging readers to "vent your anger" on this "bitch-hive," adding "I aim to destroy it."

I don't have the patience or the stomach to sort through the comments on the YouTube page for the ad to see what other vile shit has been posted there.

I can only hope that most of this violent language is just standard internet tough guy  talk, and won't result in real violence in the real world. Even if you believe that Jasper's ad commits a sort of rhetorical violence against male babies -- which I think is a ridiculous reading of the admittedly idiotic ad --  it does not justify actual violence against anybody.

EDIT: I should have let this one sit a little before putting it up. I've made various changes to strengthen and clarify my argument.
--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

The uprising in Egypt: Not all about the menz

Leon Trotsky -- you know, THE Trotsky -- once said disdainfully of writer Dwight Macdonald, who'd had the temerity to actually question him about something-or-other, "everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade Macdonald abuses the privilege."

Now, Trotsky was sort of a shit, and probably would have been a worse dictator than Stalin, and Dwight Macdonald was awesome, but I've always loved this little put-down, and I'd like to update it for the internet age.  So here goes:

Everyone has the right to pontificate about shit they know nothing about on the internet, but our comrades at The Spearhead abuse the privilege.

The latest example: A short piece about the Egyptian protests from Spearhead head cheese W.F. Price. Noting that footage of the protests show a lot of angry men out on the streets, Price opines:

Governments that consistently neglect or antagonize their male populations never last too long.

Yep, no matter what happens anywhere in the world at any time, on The Spearhead it's always all about the menz. Indeed, not only has the Egyptian government been insufficiently accommodating to men, Price suggests; it's also started flirting with feminism, having "recently taken the lead in the Arab world in empowering women." But such a transparent ploy to win over the wimmenz will invariably backfire, he argues (or, rather, asserts), further angering the angry men in the streets:

Female support matters little; women shift allegiance at the drop of a hat, so any government that counts on them to prop them up is making a mistake.

Those fickle, fickle women!

In the comments, someone called Antz took this absurdity a step or two further, asking his fellow Spearheaders to

note the alpha males in battle gear, ready at the drop of a hat to open fire on their freedom loving brothers with machine guns.

Alpha males have always been the wielders of the burning blade of feminist anti-male hatred.

Yes, that's right. The Egyptian security police have suddenly gone feminist on us.

This isn't the first time Price has attempted to cast an uprising in the Arab world as a manly reaction to the doings of evil women. He titled a recent piece on the Tunisian uprising "Arrogant Woman Slaps Young Man, Brings Down Her Regime." The "arrogant woman" in question was a corrupt local official who slapped and thereby humiliated a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohammad Bouazizi; his very public suicide -- he lit himself on fire in front of a government building as a form of protest --was what set off the Tunisian uprising. (I have no idea what Price means by referring to "her regime," as the woman in question was  merely a local functionary and the regime in question was of course headed by a man.) Price wrote:

Authoritarian regimes in Muslim-majority states tend to favor women’s empowerment, seeing women as natural allies in keeping fundamentalist Islam at bay and willing participants in corrupt patronage systems. However, favoring women can only go so far, as men need a certain degree of appeasement as well, and it seems that young Tunisian men have had enough of being – quite literally in this case – slapped around.

Never mind that Tunisia's historic adoption of women's rights legislation -- abolishing polygamy, and, horror of feminist horrors, requiring men to actually get consent from women before marrying them  -- happened more than half a century ago. Never mind that the repressive Ben Ali government was actually moving backwards on women's rights. A woman slapped a man, so the uprising was therefore all about the symbolic slapping of men by an evil regime that Price has bizarrely described as a "her."

Back to Egypt, which is even less of a feminist paradise than Tunisia. Indeed, a 2010 report from the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights concluded that the country was getting worse, not better, when it came to its already dismal record on women's rights. As thedailynewsegypt.com reports (link is to Google's cached copy of the story):

The report, which is based on the findings of international human rights organizations, stated that Egypt was ranked 125th out of 134 countries regarding women’s rights, and was ranked 13th among countries in the Middle East/North Africa region. ...

The state council’s refusal to appoint female judges in February was considered by the ECWR as a major setback to women’s rights in 2010. ...  Women still suffer from inequality in the workplace ... there’s been a rise in violence against women. ...  71.4 percent of violent crimes in 2010 were against women. ...

The ECWR also highlighted the increased use of two new alarming police practices against women: the practice of holding women hostage in order to force fugitives to surrender themselves to the police, as well as the sexual violation of women by police officers.

But that's not the only thing that Price has gotten very, very wrong: As many observers far more knowledgeable than Price have pointed out -- including, amazingly, one commenter on The Spearhead -- the footage of male-dominated protests we see on TV is in many ways wildly misleading: Egyptian women have been involved in the current protests in unprecedented numbers.

As Jenna Krajeski noted on Slate's XXFactor blog,

An unprecedented number of Egyptian women participated in Tuesday’s anti-government protests. Ghada Shahbandar, an activist with the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, estimated the crowd downtown to be 20 percent female. Other estimates were as high as 50 percent. In past protests, the female presence would rarely rise to 10 percent. Protests have a reputation for being dangerous for Egyptian women, whose common struggle as objects of sexual harassment is exacerbated in the congested, male-dominated crowd.

Max Strasser, a former associate editor at Al-Masry Al-Youm English Edition in Cairo, explains the dynamic:

It is no secret that Egypt is a conservative country when it comes to gender relations. Men and women generally, though not exclusively, adhere to traditional gender roles where women stay at home. As a result, many public spaces are heavily male dominated. Moreover, sexual harassment is frustratingly common ... Big crowds, like soccer rallies, are usually the least hospitable for women.

Since this uprising began, the typical gender dynamic in Egypt’s public space seems to have been thrown out with the regime. Some have said that as many as half of the protesters are women. Moreover, as I have watched Al Jazeera it seems clear that women of all walks of life, from young girls in jeans to older women wearing niqab, are taking part.  All are chanting, pumping their fists and, at times, battling with the riot police.

As feminist human rights activist Nawal El Saadawi told Democracy Now!, "women and girls are beside boys in the streets."

Do I have any idea what's next in Egypt? Of course not. The crowds I've seen in the news coverage on CNN and elsewhere have been mostly men, and a lot of these men are fundamentalist fanatics. But I think the presence of women alongside the men in the protests is heartening, and gives us some reason for optimism.

--

If you appreciated this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I thank you in advance!

The Spearhead: You don't have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

Don't ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead

These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I'm sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there's one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that "a site called mamboobz.com" won't quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men's rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren't all MRAs and I don't identify them as such. That's not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to "a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry." Another added, "I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt."

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.

Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?

Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn't talking about me. He's talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he's a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan's posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad's threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I'm not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal "debate." Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
- being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
- is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here's what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here's what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how I'm the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some "interested third party with deep pockets" wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won't interfere with what I write in any way, I'd like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

.