Not from an MRA website, just a regular grocery store where people buy eggs and milk. The “joke” is universal.
First off, if you need it explained to you why the health care bill is going to be a disaster, go somewhere else. Every big-name conservative pundit on the planet has already thoroughly explained this and I see no reason I should cover that ground again.
A mailing list I’m on had two different feminist posts about the health care bill early this week. (It’s not a political list, it was really off topic, but when does that ever stop anyone?)
The first one was cheering because the bill prohibits insurance companies from charging women higher premiums. Of course, they do this because women get sick more and live longer, so women cost them more. In order to charge men and women the same and not go out of business, they will have to charge men more to cover women’s expenses. As usual, men are paying women’s bills for them. Hooray for the modern independent woman!
The second one was bitching because under the bill, women will still have to pay for their own abortions except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Isn’t that terrible? Women have to pay for their children to be murdered! What terrible oppression! It’s only just to steal money from men via taxes to pay for the women they date to murder their babies!
In addition, a little dust-up on a blog I discovered about a month ago is illustrating further how liberals really feel about women.
I wanted to link to this blog before, because she has a couple of pretty good anti-feminism posts, though comparing her antifeminism and mine is like comparing a fluffy little Persian kitten with a saber-toothed tiger. I didn’t because I figured some of my trolls might go bug her, and she was obviously quite distressed when she got a few flames a while back. Well, I needn’t have worried: she got a really vicious flame all by herself, and nothing any of my trolls have ever dished out remotely compared, and I think she coped pretty well.
Here’s the post. If you read it, you’ll see that she starts by expressing worry about how this bill is going to further wreck our already crumbling economy and about how having such a lousy politician for our first nonwhite president is likely to lead to a revival of racism, and what a bad thing this will be.
Then she spends the rest of the post talking about healthy habits, and refers to Greg Critser, a liberal who wrote a book called Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. He must have had a google alert or something set up because he found the post in time to make the first comment:
I think you are perfect scum and the only thing that might help you is if you mated with a “mulatto.”
Please die an early death.
This is worse than any flame I have ever gotten. I’ve never had anyone actually tell me who to have sex with and say they wanted me dead.
He didn’t say exactly what he actually found so upsetting, but I’m going to assume he was pissed that she dared to mention that the health care bill is going to be a disaster. What’s of interest here is the attitude towards women this shows.
Notice that he says that “mating with a mulatto” is the only thing that “might help” her. He didn’t try to deal with her mind, to persuade her of the rightness of his belief (or pretended belief) that the bill is going to work out well. Heck, why should he bother with her mind? She’s only a woman! She hasn’t even asked what it would take to redeem her in his eyes, he simply appointed himself the arbiter of what she is obliged to the universe to do, and already he has ruled out any other possibility. What if she read every liberal bestseller for the last decade, worked on campaigns for Democrats, and vowed to believe that Obama is the Messiah? Nope, that wouldn’t help, off with her knickers.
To the feminists who lurk here: this is the way liberals see you. If you were ever to dare go off message, stating that one particular policy or one particular politician was a bad one, however manifest the evidence, you shall then be designated as “scum” and deserving of untimely death. The only way in which you might then redeem yourself is on your back. Liberals do not believe that you ought to have the right to choose your own sex partners, but that you are obliged to sexually service partners whose qualities prove your utter submission to the liberal cause. Withhold sex from a black man? Clearly you are racist!
He doesn’t seem to be alone, either. One of her readers, a man, went to Critser’s blog and chided him for such a nasty and brainless attack. Critser didn’t even say “I didn’t literally mean that she ought to be forced to have sex with a man chosen to my specifications and then die.” No, what he said was, “Let’s let everyone decide if you are scum. Here the [sic] post in question:” and then he quoted the first couple paragraphs, where she worried about the poverty and prejudice this bill is going to lead to.
A few of his readers commented, vaguely expressing amazement that anyone would be so deranged as to say that this bill isn’t going to turn the country into Utopia, but not in the slightest upset that this liberal is ordering a woman to sexually service a man not of her own choosing and die.
Not only was that not a reasoned argument against anything she said, apparently he believes that anyone he has classified as “scum” does not deserve to live, or to escape sexual violation. Remember that when you support liberal politicians, feminists: the minute you defy them, they see you as meat to be used sexually or put to death.
Do you remember last year when that Holocaust denier posted angrily on his own blog because I wouldn’t post his antisemitic comments here and he insisted that feminists were joining white nationalism in droves because of the high black-on-white rape rate? He’s still wrong, but this is the kind of thing that makes him think it’s likely to happen. Though I doubt this blogger will join him even though she has just been informed that she is obliged to allow a half-black man to use her body whether she wants to or not; she’s Jewish.
I just googled to see if I could find out what kind of search brings people to this blog.
One search phrase was: “people that are agenist feminisam“.
Hanna, a Manhattan resident, alleged that after her 2005 return from her first maternity leave, Goldman demoted her and made her feel unwelcome in what had become a “boys-only” club.
She said she was fired in February 2009, a week before she was to return from a second maternity leave.
“When Ms. Hanna decided to take the ‘off-ramp’ provided by the firm to devote time to her children, there was no ‘on-ramp’ that enabled her to return to full-time employment,” the complaint said. “Essentially, the ‘off-ramp’ was a direct path to a mommy-track that ultimately derailed Ms. Hanna’s career.”
She made the choice herself. Why on earth should she have special privileges when her male colleagues have to actually show up at the office and do their jobs? Not that I would ever suggest that women are responsible for their own actions.
“It is clear that Goldman Sachs views working mothers as second-class citizens who should be at home with their children,” the complaint said.
That’s their idea of a second-class citizen? One who fulfills her responsibilities? Instead of dumping her kids on strangers being paid minimum wage so she can strut around the office having her ego stroked?
“We have seen more gender and pregnancy discrimination cases since the economy began its downturn,” Wigdor said.
Like I started saying months ago: feminism is a luxury of a healthy economy. We can’t afford to indulge these silly women’s fantasies anymore.
“I attribute it to the fact that managers are typically men who have unfettered discretion about who to terminate,” he went on. “They perceive that working mothers may not work as hard as men, and may not be with the firm as long so they can be with their children.”
I went to Google and tried that last one myself, and sure enough, those are the results I got. There are even “prank” pregnancy tests women can buy to make their boyfriends or one-night-stands think they got them pregnant. So guys, if some woman starts demanding that you marry her for the sake of the innocent unborn life she carries and wields a home pregnancy test as proof, don’t shackle yourself to her until a real doctor, with an office and everything, has confirmed it.
I found this amusing:
See? Men who marry younger women aren’t immature, they’re just concerned about their health!
Have I linked this before? I don’t think so: SAT Math Scores Reveal HUGE Gender Differences
No doubt the reason for this is “sexism”.
I read about a 2007 U.S. Department of Justice study that analyzed the prevalence of sexual misconduct in state and federal prisons and found that the majority of perpetrators were female staff who sexually assaulted male inmates. (By law, prisoners lack the capacity to consent to sex with prison staff.)
Female prison guards would rather have sex with convicts than have sex with me.
I then took a walk around my neighborhood and was accosted by a homeless guy with his female in tow who begged for change for “me and my woman.”
The homeless guy is getting laid, but I’m not.
I own a business that provides jobs. I created those jobs out of nothing. I know how to create things, build things, and fix things. Without guys like me, females would be shivering in dark, dank caves, wondering why there’s nothing to eat.
Feminists say that I’m pathetic, which is like a tapeworm calling its host pathetic. I say that a society in which females value convicts and the homeless more than they value a man who creates jobs is not only a pathetic society but a dying society.
Let me be the first to spit on its grave.
And let me be the second. Feminists believe that beta males like you – and that term is not an insult, my good man – will continue passively providing all the services that make their lives so pleasant while they have fun whoring for criminals.
Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they’ll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994….
It’s no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and healthcare. Among whites, 71% of men and 56% of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.
Obama’s brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ’s than FDR’s, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, healthcare and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs — healthcare work, teaching and the like — rather than the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.
This recession remains disproportionately a “he-cession.” Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Blue-collar men have suffered 57% of the job losses. And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11% of the workforce, constitute 36% of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession’s casualties are white men, having held 46% of all jobs lost.
In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term “angry white male” or “angry white men” was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.
On a similar note, from one year ago:
A top economic adviser to President Obama has told a congressional panel the billions of dollars in the proposed economic stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn’t go to just “white male construction workers” or the highly skilled.
Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Clinton, was speaking to the House Steering and Policy Committee Jan. 7 about funding infrastructure projects across the nation.
“It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.
“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.
Feminists will no doubt be furious at me for saying this, but white males are people too.
Authorities said Wednesday that they are “astounded” by the heroic actions of a 7-year-old boy who hid with his younger sister in a bathroom and called 911 while armed robbers broke into his home and threatened his parents.
Only 7 and he kept a cool head in a terrifying situation and probably saved the lives of his entire family.
I had intended to take a couple more weeks off, but two things happened. One you all already know about: socialized medicine has been forced, by quasi-legal means, down the throats of the American people.
Feminists, of course, are stupid enough to be delighted about this. The government has enslaved beta males even further for their benefit! Men want to be free because they know who’ll have to do the work if they’re not. Women want to get free stuff. There’s a difference.
Men consistently vote more for capitalist parties (Republican, Tory, etc.) because they are the ones who have to actually do the work and produce the goods that the government then seizes and redistributes to those who voted for them. For women, depending on work done by others is simply normal life. Married women are more likely to vote for less socialist parties because they know that it is their husbands who will be robbed. But in general, for women socialism is nifty. They still have a man providing services for them and supporting them, only since the man is Uncle Sam, they don’t have to offer benefits to any particular man in return. No fidelity, no housecleaning, no children; they can screw around, murder their children, and spend their days at a desk pretending to do a job that they got with the threat of litigation, and still men will provide for them.
(By the way, do read Roissy’s as usual excellent post about this.)
The other thing that happened was personal. Long-time readers know that some brutal real-life experience with women is what made me start to question the lies I had always been told about the nature of women, and of humans in general. Really, I likely would have gone on my merry way believing that women really were the enlightened, rational, achievement-driven, compassionate beings I had always been told they were – and wondering why the ones I encountered seemed so different from this ideal – if not for two women in particular, who gave me a practical demonstration. (Which I have since unfortunately confirmed in the research that I chronicle in this blog.)
I’m not going to inflict the sordid stories on you. Let me sum up by saying that, quite aside from the disillusionment about the fair sex these woman caused, they hurt me personally very deeply and very deliberately. And they knew it.
I haven’t heard a word from one of them in over a decade and the other in almost as long, which is how I want it. But a few days ago, out of the blue, one of them emailed me.
I wasn’t happy to see her name in my inbox, but I assumed that it was the long overdue apology she owed me. The last few times we talked, she had… sort of… acknowledged her responsibility, and even bragged about how guilty she felt.
It wasn’t an apology, it was an explanation. Two pages of blather all about her her her, telling me all about what a difficult time in her life that had been and why she had behaved as she did. Because, you know, after what she put me through and after all these years, what I really want is to listen to this little narcissist psychoanalyze herself.
It apparently didn’t even occur to her to take responsibility for her own actions; no, she had been helplessly buffeted by psychological forces beyond her control, which forced her to go to a great deal of trouble to make me miserable.
There’s a lot of comments, including some I approved the last time I posted, that I want to respond to, but it’ll take a while. I am still limited on time. My new job requires that I learn a lot of new computer software, which is eating up a lot of my time. So readers, please be patient with me. If you made comments that require replies, I’ll get to you as time allows.
Well, things are finally calming down in my life, so I dared to peek in just to approve comments.
I’ll be honest: I was seriously thinking about quitting this blog. I mean, what more is there to say?
Then I read the comments that were waiting for me, and I can’t tell you guys how refreshing it was. To know that I am communicating with sane people, smart people, people who see the same things in the world that I see.
No way will I quit now. I can’t resume this week, as I have a full schedule, but I give you my word I shall return – and soon!!!
Just stopping in to approve comments, surrounded though I am by cardboard boxes. I approved all of them, including the feminists who checked in to demonstrate that they still have no clue how to form an argument, though this time I didn’t waste my time trying to argue with these pinheads. Good grief, a couple months ago a feminist actually cited Barack Obama to me as proof that members of formerly oppressed groups could “achieve greatness”. In the latest batch of comments, some dimwit claims that homosexuality is not genetic. I didn’t bother to link her to the truckloads of studies proving that it is; she can get someone with a penis to show her how to use Google. (This same dimbo also claims that the real problem isn’t feminism or patriarchy, it’s capitalism, and when we have world communism everything will be wonderful, and that Eastern European women – coincidentally the women from the main part of the world which has actually tried the system which she claims will turn the world into paradise – are brainless automatons.)
Also, someone at my wordpress backup is pissed that I haven’t logged in to approve her idiotic screed arguing with me. See, at wordpress, the default setting is that a new commenter’s first comment is automatically moderated. After that’s approved, later comments are automatically posted. Since I haven’t logged in there in a couple of weeks, the comment hasn’t gotten approved. This so incensed her that she left the same comment a second time, and then a third comment demanding how many times she has to post it before I’ll approve it. Apparently I’m supposed to log in regardless of what’s going on in my life so she can have the ego boost of her rantings being published on my site, and also wordpress is supposed to change its policy for her. That being the case, I think I won’t bother to log in over there for a while longer. Let this entitlement princess learn a little patience.
Also, someone named Kinderling has real issues with Goths. S/he also said I would go up in his/her estimation by posting this link, so here goes:
A lesbian couple in the US have provoked strong criticism by deliberately choosing to have a deaf baby.
Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, who have both been deaf since birth, were turned down by a series of sperm banks they approached looking for a donor suffering from congenital deafness.
Tammy Bruce wrote about this pair of child abusers in one of her books. Last I heard, their baby showed signs of deafness. Disgusting.
But let’s get on to what I really wanted to post about, because this is so hilarious I had to share it right away.
Today we learned an awesome new word: Menarchy, or menstrual anarchy.
Um, yeah. Sign me up. Not.
The photograph at left is the work of artist Ingrid Berthon-Moine. It is part of a series of pictures that show women wearing the blood that was only recently inside their bodies on their lips. If you think this is gross, Germaine Greer has some choice words for you: “if you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your own menstrual blood – if it makes you sick, you’ve a long way to go, baby,” she wrote in 1970.
Oh, the horrors of patriarchy! Those mean old men conspired for centuries to prevent us women from the joy of tasting our own menstrual blood! We’ll never be free until our mouths are filled with our own blood!
1969: Men put men on the moon.
1970: Women taste their own menstrual blood.
Gee, how could I possibly not respect the amazing accomplishments of feminism?
It’s probably no surprise that we think this new found openness is pretty great. Despite the weird name, Menarchists are trying to do for periods what Oprah did for pooping.
I have no idea what Oprah did for pooping, but then, like all people more intelligent than a unicellular organism, I don’t watch Oprah. (Actually, that’s a very succinct way to prove the superiority of men over women: Which sex watches Oprah?) Anyway, pooping is about the highest accomplishment she or any other feminist could possibly hope for, so small wonder they’re glorifying it.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.
Still have a very full plate, will probably not show up here again for a few more weeks.
Am still swamped. Right now I’m waiting for some other relatives to arrive so we can all visit the one who’s now disabled together, and I decided to take a minute to check my comments.
One of them, over at my wordpress backup, was so funny I had to spread holiday cheer by sharing it. It’s on Women have a “right” to get drunk”, in which I posted an article about how the law considers sex with an intoxicated person to be rape, even if the man is drunk too. I state that this shouldn’t be the law because the woman made the decision to get drunk on her own and should be held responsible for the consequences of that action. So some dimbo replied,
So I guess that means that you believe that an intoxicated individual walking home on the sidewalk is partly responsible when s/he is hit by a drunk driver of a car? Maybe you think that when two people get drunk and one shoots the other with a gun the person who gets shot probably should be held accountable for the poor judgment of getting drunk near someone who owns a gun and the gun owner is not guilty of manslaughter because of intoxication. A person committing a sexual assault is committing a crime and a person being sexually assaulted isn’t, whether they are drunk or not. Your argument ignores this principle.
If you want to outrage a feminist, just suggest that there is any situation in which any woman might be considered at all responsible for any of her own actions.
Also, I have a new reader, J. Durden, who has a blog of his own. I’ve only read one post so far, but it’s a good one.
On a personal note, I’ve found a new apartment and will be moving in in a couple of weeks. After that, I’ll be unpacking (boy will that be fun) and job hunting, so my appearances will still be infrequent until I’m settled.
And thank you very much for all the very supportive comments you’ve left! I do appreciate it.