Saturday, January 27, 2007

Wake up

I was going through my "Recent Came From" list to see where I had been getting my hits from, and one URL stood out - it was a blogsearch on "misandry" and I found this blog when I went to the search results page.


But then, like a pubic hair on the side of your coffee cup, comes a patronising article on DIY.
What's wrong with that I hear you ask? What's wrong with it was that it was how crap men are at DIY and how they should leave it to their mothers-in law. Ha ha ha ha. MEN-ARE-CRAPTM. Isn't that so funny? Don't you just love those ads on telly where the man (read football shirt wearing loser with pitiful expression and strangely perfect skin) gets something wrong. Like trying to make dinner, or get the kids ready for bed, or come up with a good reason for increaseed troop numbers in Iraq. But he can't do it, Because MEN-ARE-CRAPTM.
He then gets patronised rescued by his wife/mother/random-passer-by-woman. Who saves the day with whatever product the sexist lazy ad agency is trying to sell. We then all have a good laugh and go back to watching Emmerdale and wallowing in the nauseating stench of our own self pity as if nothing had ever happened.
If this was the other way around (see 1950's) there would be uproar (oh hang on a second, there was!). But Misandry for advertising is just fine, because apparently MEN-ARE-CRAPTM sells product.

Looks like another man has woken up to the culture of man-hatred that is completely in-your-face right now. Of course, for every man who opens his eyes to the misandry, there are plenty who willingly avert their eyes or keep them closed out of a misplaced sense of chivalry and 'being a man.' After all, many men (and tons of women) make it a point to imply you aren't a man if you complain.

Being a man = marching mindlessly to his certain death.

Here's a quote from Warren Farrell in the Why Men Are the Way They Are preface:
I didn't realize it wasn't just sexual desires that make a man vulnerable in a world that treats sex as dirty. Little makes a man more vulnerable than "whining" (when whining means blaming a woman) in a world that says he is powerful and she is vulnerable. True vulnerability involves acknowledging the whining side, the helpless side, the blaming side. There is no sex appeal in this side of men. Which is why it requires such true vulnerability.

Technorati Tags: ,

Friday, January 26, 2007

Wackjobs say the damndest things!

Looks like the wackjobs at FSTDT haven't been able to stay away from my blog. Sure there were a few fucksticks who came to troll, but I've been getting a steady stream of hits from their page and it looks like a lot of the visitors are repeat customers and come to stay for a while. The truth is light, in a world of darkness made darker by feminist lies.

Anyway, there's still some activity going on in the original FSTDT post, check it out here.

Why Men Are The Way They Are

I just got this book from the library after a two-month wait. I'll be reading it avidly, I've gone through the preface and I like what I see so far. If anyone wants to read books about the men's movement, be sure to look at your local library if you don't want to buy. Membership is most likely free, and a lot of libraries seem to have these books - at least Warren Farrell's most famous ones.

I think Dr. Farrell is a really great writer for the MRA movement. He is tempered, even and I think his style of writing appeals to women a lot, so his writing is good for recommending to others who are interested in listening to our message.

While there is a place for more anger-fuelled and vitriolic writing, the more toned down version is great for reaching a wider audience. Unfortunately, misandry sells a lot more than reasoned debate, which is why pretty much any book relating to gender or relationships written by a feminazi (which included Warren Farrell before he "turned") is so full of man-hating and man-blaming, and leads to a lot of man-blaming and man-shaming. Says something about women doesn't it, when pretty much any trinket, card or book that sells itself on the basis of hating an entire sex pretty much has a guaranteed audience... its sickening, just how much misandry is instilled in people - both men and women.

I've also been meaning to read the two books by Christina Hoff Sommers and one by Judith Levine that I have, hopefully I will get around to those soon.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Thursday, January 25, 2007

California to make spanking illegal

Should Spanking Be Banned?

Should Spanking Be Banned?
By Carolyn Sayre

Need a lesson in parenting? If you live in California, you may have to take one from the government whether you like it or not. Next week, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber will introduce a bill banning the practice of spanking children younger than four. If passed, the state will become the first to make the corporeal punishment of infants and toddlers a misdemeanor — punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine — along with more than a dozen countries, mostly in Europe, that have laws against the practice. "Young children can't run or speak for themselves. They are sitting ducks for abuse," Lieber said. "And it is just not true that the current law protects children well."

She's not the first American to argue that legislation is the answer. The town of Brookline, Mass., successfully passed a resolution against spanking in 2005, although similar statewide efforts have failed. Last year in Massachusetts and 15 years ago in Wisconsin proposed anti-spanking bills did not get much support in the legislature; critics feared that it would be impossible to enforce a ban against such a common practice. According to the American Demographics' 2004 data, nearly half of parent-age Americans think it is an appropriate mode of discipline for children 12 and younger. Even more surprising, only 27 states have actually banned corporal punishment from their public school systems.

For critics of the ban, the current law — which states that parents, guardians and relatives can use any form of physical discipline that is necessary as long as it is not unjustifiable — is enough. But for Lieber, who hears criticism daily from prosecutors, judges and pediatricians that children are being beaten and their parents are getting off on a technicality, the law doesn't even come close to being enough.

"By law you would have a hard time differentiating between a responsible parent who thinks about parenting and then hits and one that does not," Lieber said. "Responsible parents have to give up the privilege to physically discipline their children for the sake of protecting children that aren't being hit once in a blue moon or in a light way, but are really being hit day after day, many times a day."

But new California bill may have a better chance of success. Unlike previous attempts, the age restrictions will make the bill more palatable to many. "We are talking about babies," said Nadine Block, executive director of the Center for Effective Discipline. "People know that babies don't understand right and wrong. Hitting them is ineffective and can lead to injury." Another plus is that Gov. Schwarzenegger has already noted that he is receptive to the bill. Although the Governor recalled being hit by his father, he said that he and his wife, Maria Shriver, did not practice spanking and preferred other methods of discipline, like threatening to take away playtime. "I think any time we try to pass laws that say you've got to protect the kids, it's, in general, always good," Schwarzenegger said in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News. "I just want to find out from her exactly the way she envisions it and to enforce it and what the whole thing is about."

While the assemblywoman has outlined a proposed punishment, she has yet to address how the bill would be enforced. In Europe, most countries consider the ban on spanking an educational law, which means that on the first couple of offenses parents receive a fine and attend mandatory parenting classes on discipline. "I don't know how the European laws would really translate in the U.S.," Block said. "But I do think an educational law is a good way to go." Like child abuse, unless the child reports it or the spanking leaves a mark and is reported by a relative or teacher, it will be very difficult to detect when parents are violating the law.

"A hundred years ago it was considered a novel idea for the law to say you couldn't hit your wife," said Block. "Today, we can't hit slaves, wives or military personnel. Children are the only class that is unprotected."

Discipline your kids and cool your heels for a year in jail - the state exerting its monopoly on violence. I really don't understand why corporal punishment is seen as so bad - hell, a lot of kids need a thwack now and again to keep them in line. A lot of these nutjobs confuse proper child abuse level beatings with the amount of force and violence that is needed to discipline kids with a spank or a slap.

I'm very much against using belts, paddles or other implements, especially in schools, but bare hand slaps should be allowed. It is our jobs as adults to shape our children into functioning members of society, and you can't just sit and reason with a kid like you can with an adult. Children are not mini-adults.

I also like the throwaway reference to wife beating, as if domestic violence was not only allowed, but encouraged in those times. I like the South Park episode dealing with the child abuse hysteria - Cartman and the rest of the kids of South Park call the cops on their parents, leaving the entire town's adult population locked up. Chaos ensued, of course.

This quote is also telling in who is not included... "Today, we can't hit slaves, wives or military personnel. Children are the only class that is unprotected." Open season on men!!

Technorati Tags: ,

Birth control not that effective

New Rules for Birth Control Are Examined

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 (AP) — The government is considering raising
standards for birth control drugs, saying new pills appear to be less
effective at preventing pregnancy than those approved decades ago.

The Food and Drug Administration asked a panel of experts on Tuesday
whether it should require new contraceptive drugs to meet a standard of effectiveness before approving them for sale. The panel is to meet
again on Wednesday.

In documents on its Web site, the F.D.A. says newer contraceptives
appear to be less effective — with twice the failure rate at
times — than previous products, most likely because manufacturers
have started using lower doses of hormones that stop ovulation.

“The very first pills were very high dose and carried risks of
blood clots and cardiovascular problems that would be unacceptable to
most women,” Amy Allina, program director of the National
Women’s Health Network, said. “Today, most birth control
pills are very safe for the vast majority of women.”

The original pills approved in the 1960s allowed on average fewer than one pregnancy for every 100 women taking the pill for at least a year, the drug agency said. But in the last decade, the government has approved pills allowing more than two pregnancies for every 100 women.

And here I was thinking that the reason most birth control fails is because the woman has baby rabies and has secretly stopped taking them and is not held accountable, in fact rewarded with attention and money. Oh wait, that is probably part of the reason, its just that no one wants to acknowledge it.

Birth control is a big issue for tons of people. My girlfriend has been on the Patch (Ortho Evra) for a few years now, and just recently her doctor advised her to consider the Pill, because the patch can be fatal in some circumstances. Now, the pill is really shitty primitive birth control in my book - you have to take it at the same time every day, and if you miss a day or just take it at the wrong time, that can reduce its effectiveness by a lot. Plus, with the Patch you know its on and working, not flushed down the drain.

Still more choices than the average man, but I wish something more long-term and less invasive would come out - the Mirena IUD isn't very widely available, and Norplant was banned a long time ago.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Female skydiver charged with murder after love rival fell 13,000ft to her death

Skydiver charged with murder after love rival fell 13,000ft to her death

A married woman who was having an affair with a fellow skydiver plunged 13,000ft (4,000m) to her death after her love rival and best friend tampered with her parachute, police say.

Els Van Doren, 37, fell to earth in a garden in front of a group of onlookers. Els Clottemans, 22, has been charged with her murder.

Minutes earlier the pair had joined hands in a star formation with two other skydivers including Ms Clottemans’s boyfriend, a Dutchman named only as Marcel, who police say was having an affair with Mrs Van Doren.

While he and Ms Clottemans broke away at 4,000ft when their parachutes inflated, Mrs Van Doren, a mother of two, was unable to open either her main parachute or the reserve and crashed to her death in the town of Opglabbeek, Belgium.

Her final moments were filmed by her own head-mounted camera.

Wally Elters, a witness at the aerodrome from which the fatal flight departed, told Le Soir: “I was working on my plane when I heard someone on the ground screaming and pointing to the sky.

“I looked up and saw a black spot falling quickly to the ground. It was wriggling about and it was pretty obvious it was a person.

“Above it were three people in parachutes coming down slowly. Then it hit the ground. It was an appalling moment.”

Police say that video footage taken by Mrs Van Doren as she tried to open her parachute provided evidence that led them to suspect that a fellow club member had sabotaged the equipment. A spokesman said: “A close inspection of the parachutes leads us to believe they had been meddled with.”

An employee at the airfield in Zwarteberg added: “It is very rare for one parachute not to open, but for two to fail is virtually unheard of.”

At Mrs Van Doren’s funeral, about 1,000 people heard her sister deliver a bitter eulogy. “You did all you could during that final jump to save yourself,” she was quoted as saying in the Belgian press. “But someone did not want you to live.”

Ms Clottemans was arrested and charged after a two-month investigation. She denies the allegations but is being held in custody before a court appearance later this month.

Police became increasingly suspicious of Miss Clottemans after discovering the affair between Mrs Van Doren and Marcel. All three had skydived togther for several years.

Ms Clottemans, a secretary, is understood to have attempted suicide hours before being brought in for questioning by detectives for a second time last month. She is said to be suffering from a personality disorder and is receiving treatment.

Police have also disclosed that Ms Clottemans had previously been arrested for attempting to run over an American boyfriend. He escaped injury and she was released without charge.

According to the Belgian media, Marcel tried to arrange his liaisons so that neither woman found out about the other. His affair with Ms Clottemans began a year ago and he would spend Friday evening through to Saturday morning with her.

In the afternoon, he would meet Mrs Van Doren after she had spent the morning working in her husband’s jewellery shop. Their relationship had begun some years earlier and the two would spend the night in nearby Eindhoven, before returning to the skydiving club the next day.

Despite Marcel’s precautions, Ms Clottemans appears to have found out about her rival, although Mrs Van Doren was unaware that he was also involved with her close friend.

A statement from the public prosecutor said: "A thorough investigation of the available evidence and analysis of the motive provide sufficient reason for arresting the suspect." The investigating magistrate charged her with murder, issued an arrest warrant and had her locked up in Hasselt prison.

"In order not to jeopardise the smooth running of the investigation, no further information will be supplied. As has already been suggested in the media, the motive for the crime is most probably in the passionate area. The accused denies the charges."

One thing strikes me - they waited two months to arrest this woman. And even now, it seems they are treating her with kid gloves. Of course, since this is a crime with a female victim, expect some sort of justice to be served eventually. If it was a male victim, she would have been awarded a medal or something.

Anyone remember the story a couple of months ago about the male professional skydiver who gave up his life to protect that of his female student when, for some reason, both their parachutes didn't open? This happened in Australia I believe.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

You must be deluded

I've been noticing a new trend lately in the insults hurled at most Men's Rights Activists. Most people who are opposed to men's rights still use the age-old insults - living in mom's basement, virgin, psycho, etc, but there's something I noticed in the FSTDT website comments section. Of course, most of the posters were extremely biased against one of my commenters because of his age, but still. Idiots or not, we still have to deal with them.

The insult I'm talking about is "deluded" - as in "You must be sick and deluded if you think that women falsely accuse men of rape."

"You must be deluded if you think that women are gathering round a table to discuss ways in which we can demean men in the media and scheme to keep dads away from their babies." When women talk about it, its called a patriarchy and they can join NOW about it, and when men talk about it, they are deluded conspiracy theorists.

"What a sick deluded fuck."

The objective here is to make the reader think that the men who disagree with feminism and female supremacy are not only crazy, but living in another dimension. As if misandry is not readily apparent in the media, as if NOW has not stated that its completely against a father's rights to his child, as if leading feminists have not said that its their goal to break up families and kill/disfigure/mutilate men.

The most effective tactic against this insult, as with pretty much any insult, is to "throw facts at them." Show them studies that prove a majority of rape accusations are false, that a majority of child abuse is committed by females, that women are more violent than men in intimate relationships, and that fatherlessness is the leading indicator of whether a child will turn out antisocial or criminal.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Google Reader RSS Update

I saw an article today which talks about the effect RSS will have when combined with the clout of Internet Explorer, since Vista is the first OS to have IE7 and RSS support built-in. While I think that the writer is overstating the impact RSS will have on computing and the Internet with the launch of Vista, there will be a little effect I'm sure. Most of the computer-savvy people out there are using Firefox anyway. The rest of the article talks about neat stuff you can do with feeds. Here's the link to "Supersize your RSS."

There are also Firefox extensions for RSS, including Wizz RSS which I just installed and am playing around with.

Someone asked me what feeds I subscribe to. Well, I don't have a lot of blogs subscribed just yet, but I am slowly but surely getting a list of blogs and will be adding them to my RSS list as well as my Links sidebar. I took this screenshot right after I saw that first comment.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Google Reader

I just came across a really nice Google Labs product - Google Reader. I know a lot of sites use RSS feeds, but I never bothered to make a Live Bookmark for Firefox, because I'm on different computers all the time and Live Bookmarks didn't seem like what I wanted.

Well, I just saw Google Reader yesterday, and I've already added most of my favorite Men's Activism blogs to it. What you do if you want to start using Google Reader is just visit this URL: Here you sign into Google if you're not signed in already, and then just click "Add Subscription" on the left hand side, and enter the URLs of the sites you want to subscribe to.

After you're done adding, it gets the last 10 postings for you, and then you can read them at your leisure.

Why is this so brilliant? Well, once you subscribe, you can basically stop going to your favorite blogs to see if they have an update - as soon as they update, whether its twice a day like the Eternal Bachelor or once in a month like M is for Malevolent (j/k), it'll show up on your Google Reader page. So you can catch new posts as soon as they come in.

The best part is that you can add the Reader module to your Personalized Google Homepage, so you can have updates to your favorite blogs whenever you go to

If you use Firefox 2.0, which you should, its even simpler - sign into your Google Account, go to your favorite blogs, and click the RSS icon in the address bar. (RSS 2.0) It gives you a few options, you just select Google Reader, and then it adds the blog/feed to your Google Reader page.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Are We Not Men?

I saw this article and thought I should post it for the benefit of my readers:
But be warned: This guy is a complete and utter fucking cock.

In a 1963 account of his visit to the Chicago Playboy mansion, Nelson Algren wrote, "However paradoxical it may appear, the young male who assumes early that physical relationships with women are part of life is more likely to develop respect toward women than is the young male who abstains from such relationships." He meant it as no compliment to his host, adding that Playboy "does not sell sex. It sells a way out of sex." I take his point now, but I hadn't heard of, much less read, Nelson Algren when I was a young male, and it was precisely my dad's Playboy magazines that helped me early on do a lot of assuming about my physical relationships with women.

Algren deserves credit for being perhaps the first person to walk right into the woo grotto and-figuratively, at least-yank down Hef's pajama bottoms. His criticisms were the more damning for coming from just the sort of worldly tomcat Playboy sought to publish (and did), and the more bold for coming at a time when Hugh Hefner was a much tougher figure to take lightly than he is now. With the golden anniversary, in 2003, of Playboy's founding, and with Hefner having just turned eighty (surrounded by a platoon of bottle-blonde girlfriends whose combined age, depending on troop strength, may or may not exceed his own), a lot of ink has recently been spilled on the man, the magazine, and the myth. Not much of it very flattering. Everyone from The Washington Post to The Weekly Standard has gotten in punches or, at best, backhanded praise. There's been the predictable fun (Slate's David Plotz hilariously referred to Hefner as "the human bellbottom," a walking bit of retro kitsch for the nouveau swinger set), and also the obvious criticism that the Playboy lifestyle was a marketing sham, and the even more obvious observation that the magazine's centerfolds have hardly represented la femme moyenne. In a New Yorker review of The Playmate Book: Six Decades of Centerfolds, Joan Acocella wrote that "there is one basic model. On top is the face of Shirley Temple; below is the body of Jayne Mansfield." Which is a wonderful line, and also as cute and exaggerated as Acocella claims the women in question are. It's the sort of remark that's only true enough to satisfy those who need no convincing, proving that The New Yorker, too, knows how to meet reader expectation with a shrewd blend of verity and pretense.

But was there ever a time-at least in a long time-when we didn't already know all this about Playboy? Even at thirteen I was aware that I was in the presence of the purest fantasy. (Having locked myself in a bathroom, I could hardly pretend otherwise.) Then again, I also fantasized about becoming a wide receiver for the Minnesota Vikings, understanding full well that that was never going to happen, but that there would soon enough come a time when I'd have relationships with women, and that until that day, I could do worse than read Playboy. And yes, even then I read the magazine-a little. Specifically, the Playboy Advisor. I admit I was lured in only by the dirty talk, and skipped all the letters on stereophonics and the proper care and storage of leather loafers. But over time these exchanges left me with the distinct impression that love-or even just good sex-was often quite complicated, requiring of its participants an almost unnerving degree of trust and vulnerability, patience and negotiation, all of which could lead to unimaginable thrills or horrible disappointment. Or anything in between. It was here, in the Advisor, where Playboy willfully undercut the silken ease and bachelor suavity it projected elsewhere in the magazine. It was here where bodily matters went unairbrushed, where seduction proved beyond one's skillful way with imported vodka, where men would not infrequently be scolded for treating their girlfriends or wives shabbily. (The cynical reading of this phenomenon has been that Playboy very astutely sows the seeds of male anxiety, the better to sell itself and its glossier fare as a necessary diversion-if not the solution. Which is true only to the extent that every magazine, from Martha Stewart Living to The New York Review of Books to the one you're holding now, survives by suggesting that you need what it offers. Again, it's true enough to convince those who need no convincing.)

In the October 1973 Advisor, a man on the verge of marrying a small-breasted woman wonders if he can honestly go ahead with the nuptials, given his fears of desiring more-ample women. To which he gets, in part, this response:

In the February 1976 Advisor, a woman writes in that her boyfriend, who's miffed that he can't bring her to orgasm (though he claims he's successfully done so with every other lover), has tried to pressure her into a threesome with another woman as a remedy. The response reads in total:

Thirty years on, in March 2006, Playboy was still at it, offering this response to a writer who defended (on grounds of "intimacy or commitment issues") another man's reluctance to label his partner a girlfriend:

(This last exchange can be found in Dear Playboy Advisor, a recent collection of zesty give-and-take from the column's past ten years.)

Yes, however paradoxical it may appear, I developed a respect toward women in part by reading Playboy as a young male. What's more, I developed an interest in women that went beyond the sum of their anatomical parts, and did so at first out of sheer boyish faith in that supposedly bogus Playboy lifestyle. During my countless sequestrations with the magazine, I took in not only the powdered limbs and bedroom eyes but also the general atmosphere of adult men engaging with adult women. There they'd be, nicely-if, in hindsight, absurdly-dressed men and women, together at a housewarming or a holiday party or a favored night spot. (Picture, on the guys, Dingo boots, LeRoy Neiman–hued vest suits, and a glimpse of woolly chest hair that hinted at unabashed back shrubbery. And on the women, strategic cuts of every unnatural fiber known to man, all of it somehow unnaturally fetching.) Or maybe a lone couple would be smoking Viceroys and picking out some unfinished furniture, or tickling the ivories during a relaxing evening for two. Or groups of couples would be skiing or having a clambake. (In a scene of homely domesticity, there's even an October 1970 pictorial featuring the hirsute Elliott Gould-wearing nothing but a big black watchband-laughing, nuzzling, and smoking with Paula Prentiss in a dingy bubble bath, while an equally hairy Saint Bernard looks on.) Call me naive, even romantic, but I was quite moved by the notion that someday I would-or should-enjoy trading tales of whimsy around the fondue pot with female acquaintances as much as I was currently enjoying riding my bike and grab-assing with my buddies.

The typical Playboy guy-arm candy, sports car, Canadian Club, pinkie ring-may or may not have been an exponent of marriage (I knew some who were), and certainly his getup wasn't complete without a cool splash of patriarchalism, but it's just as certain that girlfriend didn't threaten him. So when, at nineteen, and living in my very first apartment, I cleared out half my medicine cabinet and half my closet, and gave them over to the California blonde who'd just moved in with me, it felt as true to the life I'd seen and imagined as my red Camaro and my Brutini Le Sport shoes. This was no capitulation; this was part and parcel of the dream. She and I would get dressed up (in ensembles no less silly in hindsight) and go to classy restaurants. Or we'd cook in and watch a movie, and drink wine and grown-up cocktails. We went to clubs on Sunset, hit the slopes in northern Arizona, caught a striptease act in the French Quarter with another couple, and spent a night among friends hot-tubbing and sipping daiquiris in the Santa Cruz Mountains after a day of crabbing near Half Moon Bay. This was, it seemed to me, exactly what Playboy had espoused: finding a nifty chick and sharing the good life with her. Not that it was all good, of course (the Advisor had prepared me for that, too). We had our fights, fretted about school and work, nursed each other with less and less sympathy through various hangovers, moved into separate places, lived together again, got furious, got bored, and after five-plus years and a long, cold decline, gave it up. At the age of twenty-five, I felt like I'd been divorced but never married.

All in all, not a bad start.
Looking back, I realize it's not only the clothes that make me laugh. The restaurants we went to were "classy" at best. And none of us particularly enjoyed those New Orleans strippers (one looked like a rheumy sharecropper's daughter). But there was, in all of it, a deliberate effort at contemporary maturity, an effort that was encouraged by Playboy magazine. Maturity was the key to that great Playboy Club of life-your all-access pass to the jumping realm of adult pleasures and preoccupations. We may have come of age clumsily, but no one doubted that it was the thing to do.

Where did those days go?

Several new men's magazines-led by the laddie triumvirate of Maxim, Stuff, and FHM-have been eating into Playboy's readership for a decade now, and what they primarily encourage is a lot of boyish grab-assing. (A recent headline from FHM: "Stooge Luge! Now people can ride something dumber than your sis." And one from Maxim: "Man Punks Nature: Yes, Mother Earth, we are the boss of you." Stuff, for its part, has offered such puntastic fare as the Yo, Bitchuary! and the Bro-file.) Incidentally, all three magazines are also great advocates of the sort of lite lesbianism that the aforementioned Playboy Advisor discouraged. Even still, they do bear a faint resemblance to Playboy. There's hardly a trace of the old journalism, and no fiction, but there are the numerous girlie pictorials, in this case teasingly non-nude; the gadgetry and the spiffy autos; the obligatory fashion spreads. However, where the sexes are concerned in lad land, it's almost completely separate but equal, which is to say equally puerile. These mags are full of bravado (not limited to the guys) about hooking up, but otherwise, basically, the twain never meet: you might score with the opposite sex, but you hang out with your own-which perfectly captures a sensibility people my age (fortyish) tended to ditch before they left their teens, and which indicates that the average lad finds girlfriend scary.

What made Playboy novel in the beginning wasn't only the newsstand nudity; it was that a men's magazine would bring the proceedings indoors, in urban (and urbane) settings, and include women in the action as well, as critical players in the social (which is not just to say "sexual") mix. Many have had an easy laugh at Hefner's claim that he and his ilk liked "inviting in a female for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." One can imagine that after "Nietzsche who?" and "Never mind," a lot of jazzy sex ensued, and that the Continental touches were a mere "Let me show you my etchings" come-on. But Hefner wasn't the only American editor partying hearty to the Euro beat. Read Gay Talese's 1960 essay "Looking for Hemingway," on George Plimpton and the Paris Review crowd. This sort of multicultural dilettantism was like catnip in those early days of the UN-and, of course, still is in some circles.

When Playboy was establishing itself, most men's magazines, as revealed in The History of Men's Magazines, Vol. 2, were still heavy with adventure (war, gunfights, outlawry, cannibalism, man-versus-beast encounters, lots of Nazis). Women, if present, tended to be either damsels in distress (rescue fantasies loom large) or vamps-or else they were mere cheesecake intermissions, like Helen Petroff in the July 1956 Man's Life, situated as she and her bikini and her stuffed tiger are between "Attacked by a Giant Boa" and "25 Best Fishing Spots." This class of magazine advertised everything from rifles, knives, fishing tackle, trusses, accordions, and high-paying jobs in meat cutting to Charles Atlas body-building regimens and careers in accounting and real-estate brokering (the March 1958 See even has an article on how to ask for a raise), all of which suggests a readership that ranged from Sam the butcher to Walter Mitty.

Playboy, exhibiting little interest in "Jim Bowie's Big Knife" (Argosy, August 1956), instead gathered the ladies and set a tone of cheerfully mixed company and sleek cosmopolitanism. The April 1962 issue, for example, has a classic photo essay showing handsome couples out and about in Paris, part of which is reproduced in The Playboy Book: Fifty Years, a gorgeous sampling of illustrations, covers, candids, travel photos, and concept photography as well as the requisite figure studies. It's an intoxicating collection-provoking no small amount of loopy nostalgia. But that's all part of its charm. There may be poignancy in Hefner's bourgeois midwestern dream of the luxe life; witness the stilted grooviness of the old Playboy's Penthouse TV show, now available on DVD under the blanket title Playboy After Dark, in which Hef, a polite young man turned psychology major, does his best impression of a tuxedoed hipster-host. But is this any more quaintly touching than Plimpton and company's Ivy-abroad, shabby-chic attempt to relive the Lost Generation? At least Hefner, against all odds (many, many odds), seems to be held in high regard by just about every woman who ever knew him, including ex-wives and ex-girlfriends and all manner of coworker. The Playmate Book has an air of lighthearted reunion, only so much of which can be manufactured. Many of the former centerfolds have submitted biographical updates and family photos, and over the years have returned to the mansion on occasion to see old acquaintances and even pose for reunion pictorials-sometimes decades after their initial appearance, and looking better than ever. (This bonhomie is borne out in testimonial after testimonial in the documentary Hugh Hefner: American Playboy. Yes, it's an obvious brief for the defense. But still, no one's forcing first wife, Mildred, or ex-girlfriend Barbi Benton to recall fondly the man who cheated on them prodigiously.) Compare all that with what Patsy Matthiessen, the ex-wife of one of the Paris Review founders, said to Talese about that milieu:

One might argue that the average Playboy belle isn't sophisticated enough to register such pique, but that would seem only to make Matthiessen's treatment the worse.

Who would ever have thought that where rude male self-indulgence is concerned, Hefner could be outdone by a bunch of patricians? Apparently so as not to suffer the same emasculating fate in their day, the laddies at Maxim, Stuff, and FHM take every opportunity to nudge readers, with eyebrows dancing, and ask (actually shout), "Aren't we just so naughty?!" Which can only be answered, "Not really." To open these magazines is to walk into a teenage boy's room: the air scented with dirty socks and the contents of wadded-up Kleenex; the walls decorated with pictures of swimsuit models and he-man athletes and sports cars; the desk barely visible under piles of video-game cartridges, action figures, and forgotten junk food; and all of it colored by the boy's glee in knowing it exasperates Mom. In fact, that phantom mom (or equivalent mother figure) is just about the only palpable female presence in these magazines.

Sure, there's the cheesecake, all of it daintily low-cal. And it's intriguing, if unconvincing, to learn that many of these lasses are part-time sapphists (which is meant, I suppose, to suggest a sort of compound interest). It's equally intriguing-again-to discover that the theme of juvenile swinishness that pervades these magazines is celebrated without regard to gender. In the September 2006 FHM, a toothsome female wrestler informs readers of her signature move: "The Stink Face," which involves her rubbing her butt in the face of a cornered opponent. In the February 2006 Maxim, in the Free Upgrades feature ("Dump Your Girlfriend for Me!"), one of the selling points of said upgrade is that "She's Raunchy!" "It's totally cool to burp," says our next girlfriend.

Assuming this is what fires the loins of today's young men, it's worth mentioning as an aside that whereas Playboy suggested affecting Euro-sophistication as a way of landing women, these guys share somewhat the taste of a famous mid-century Euro-sophisticate whose truest sexual fancy was a crass American tween. In the words of Humbert Humbert himself:

Elsewhere Humbert cursed his powerlessness against Lolita's mixture of "charm and vulgarity" and her "diffused clowning which she thought was tough in a boyish hoodlum way."

It's just such boyishness in the females of lad land that's most striking (or, rather, it's that the lads seem to desire it so much). Aside from the C-list starlets, who come off like well-bred dames in this context, the majority of laddie girls profess exactly the interests of the lads themselves: roughhousing, football, beer chugging, FHM readers to "Stay Single!" His sermonette to the boys' choir, which captures perfectly the laddies' acute fear of girlfriend, was about the closest thing to the Playboy Advisor I could find in the lad mags-not counting columns in which Ted Lange (Isaac from The Love Boat) and Heidi Fleiss (the Hollywood Madam) answer delicate questions as only they can. And for comparison's sake with the Advisor, here's Roeper's tongue-flaccidly-in-cheek list of the advantages of single life:

What sort of man reads FHM? Apparently the sort who fetishizes his own headgear and hasn't charm or confidence enough to negotiate the tricky ritual of breakfast for two; the sort who gets a licentious thrill from not having to ask permission to stare at his TV all weekend. In short, a weird little nebbish.

As in so many circumstances, we do right to consult a man who was, by some accounts, himself a weird little nebbish with women: George Orwell. Sixty-five years ago, in [a href="">"The Art of Donald McGill," Orwell turned his eye to a genre of postcard that specialized in vulgar humor, from marital to sexual to scatological. "They have an utter lowness of mental atmosphere," Orwell wrote. "But," he added, "at the same time the McGill post card ... is not intended as pornography but, a subtler thing, as a skit on pornography." Which nicely captures laddie fare, and the childlike tone of the mags in general. But rather than see malignancy in McGill's work, Orwell felt that it was nothing but "a harmless rebellion against virtue," and that such relatively timid rebellion in itself pointed up the sturdiness of the virtues being mocked. The postcards, with their ceaseless portrayals of browbeaten husbands, clapped-out wives, and despotic mothers-in-law, inadvertently demonstrated, according to Orwell, "a stable society in which marriage is indissoluble and family loyalty taken for granted." In other words (and coming at it from a different direction), since men and women had by and large submitted, and committed, to the hard work of relationships, they'd earned the right to do a little bitching and belittling-and McGill's postcards gave a safe outlet to these collective moods.

Of course, marriage these days is as soluble as cotton candy, and family loyalty has less opportunity to prove itself (or not) when so many people shy from starting families in the first place. But the lads aren't really flouting that old convention. That was more Playboy's beat, decades back. The laddie burlesque of male chauvinism is almost purely a reaction to feminism's ascendancy, which people of both sexes have long taken for granted. And feminists are quite right to feel unthreatened by the lads' rebellion. Because in fact, it isn't a rebellion at all but, rather, a capitulation. It's as if American masculinity has finally surrendered to decades of feminist criticism, criticism the lads have assimilated fully, because-unlike the Playboy men of yore-they've known no other world. One can wish that the lad shtick were subversive minstrelsy of a sort, an absurdist attack on unflattering male stereotypes, but more likely, and all pretend insensitivity aside, the laddies are sadly sincere in their embrace of buffoonery. They're adopting-before the fact, and with the cold comfort of intent-the very characteristics that would most ensure further criticism, further rejection, which is essentially to take control of defeat by forfeiting the game rather than risk another losing effort. It is, in short, to take control by running away.

In this-paradoxically-the lads' behavior is much more closely connected to that of the sensitive, New Age, pantywaist male than to that of the devil-may-care rogue of old. Along with most of their critics, the lads have preferred to think that they represent a male backlash, a testosterone-soaked atavism, a rude if somewhat ironic return to the pre-James Taylor days. But their fear of women is nothing but a rueful extension of Mr. New Age's obsequiousness, their pantomime of sexism nothing but utter compliance with the harshest feminist critique-nothing but a dancing-bear routine in the feminist tent show. It's enough to put a real man off his popcorn. The Playboy guy of old didn't fear women; he surrounded himself with them. And where the battle of the sexes was concerned, he gave as good as he got, not by running from or validating the criticism directed at him but by refusing to let it define him, one way or the other. To borrow some New Age jargon, he knew who he was-he was comfortable in his skin-and if certain people found him abrasive at times, so be it. He made sure to have other qualities that recommended him, qualities that included a social seriousness that was reflected as well as cultivated in the pages of Playboy magazine.

This current state of affairs is a sorry one for all involved. Women understandably wanted to fend off, or reform, that lecherous Playboy man. And no matter how pointed their criticism may have been, implied in it all was a belief that men could, well, take it like men. The typical guy might have chosen to see it as a compliment, an endorsement of the competitive spirit, an invitation to some social and intellectual roughhousing, as it were. Yet if the man-children captured in the lad mags are any indication, the typical guy has chosen instead to fly off to a laddie Neverland where he amuses himself with boys (and maybe the occasional Tinkerbell) and refuses to grow up. Wendy Darling, Peter Pan's girlfriend manqué and Neverland's own ultimately exasperated make-believe mother, knew well this boy-on-boy dynamic, more than once exclaiming (albeit with a mother's good humor), "I'm sure I sometimes think that spinsters are to be envied."

You said it, Darling.

Like I said, this guy is a complete and utter fucking cock.

Not only does he himself start the article reminiscing about this glorious past, of those hours spent with pornographic magazines (I'm sure your hand thanks you for the exercise, bud!), but now has the gall to call out men who enjoy magazines different from what he enjoys/enjoyed.

In the Starbucks-sipping, carefully-cultivated expression and turtleneck wearing crowd, magazines like FHM/Maxim or TV shows like The Man Show are strictly verboten. They look down at such boorish things with expressions of distaste and revel in their own superiority.

Youthfulness is apparently boorish in the eyes of "wife/job/parent", but authority coupled with distaste just comes off as domineering.

There's something else at play here: Feminists have long embraced Playboy as liberating, possibly because it holds women up on a pedestal behind fuzzy lenses, soft lighting and a bush that is carefully photoshopped so you can't see the rude bits behind it, possibly because on that pedestal, in those pages, they are never subjected to the impossible horror of a man's penis inside them, possibly because women recognize the power they have over men, whether they "read" Playboy or not.

Here's a good response to the article:
The thing that strikes me as sad about the whole thing, and which the author of the Atlantic article brings out really well in his prose, is that maturity can never happen without a loss of youth, innocence, or lust, both for (idealized versions of) life and sex.

The whole point of that long, wistful remembrance of Playboy in the beginning of the article is not just to show its sophistication over FHM et al., but also to bring back the author's, and hopefully the reader's, youth. That, in turn, should keep the Algren quote from the very first lines of the article fresh in mind. In some English-major dorky sense, the cultural / socio discussion that grows out of this is a lot like growing up, in a sense; the article can't dwell in that wistful style for long, or it would become a memoir piece.

Anyway what I am building up toward is my own anger toward those, in this thread and in the wider debate, who are so very quick to demand that maturity happen instantly, earlier and earlier in life, and without remorse. Women are painted as the crusaders of this movement, both by "ignorant" men (I use the term very lightly because I can't think of a better one) and by women's supposed champions like Andrea Dworkin. Whoever the masterminds are, they have done a bang-up job at connecting youthfulness to other stereotypically masculine things which they find boorish. Gone are the days when "mature" men read / look at porn, Dworkin will tell you. Likewise with video games, etc.

I agree with the article that Dworkin-ish feminism has a sinister hand or two in this. It's too general to say that they want men to think and act and grow up like women, though I don't doubt that there are many who wouldn't object to that. Say instead that there are many parties who want to reform masculinity. The article holds up FHM et al. as examples that some parties are succeeding in hooking masculinity to boorishness and petty youthfulness, as shown by the general trashiness of these magazines compared to Playboy. In that sense these magazines are nothing but a capitulation, and they say, implicitly, "youthful masculinity is trash." We need better media representations of a masculinity that can retain its lust for life without being trashy or capitulating to those who would kill masculinity or at least make it a puppet.
(Emphasis mine)

You said it, Darling.

Cheat and get life in prison

Adultery could mean life, court finds

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. (Only on cheating men.)

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony." (No mention of what happened to the gutter slut who traded sex for drugs. She probably got taxpayer funded therapy and a free house.)

Cox's office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor's behalf, insisted that the waitress' consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex "under circumstances involving the commission of another felony" -- the delivery of the Oxycontin pills.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached. (Look at who else decided to interpret the law literally when it would have meant putting a child-molesting female behind bars.*)

Needless to say, adultery will only mean life in prison if you are the politically incorrect gender. Remember, this is the same state that has already decreed that if a woman you are living with falls pregnant, you can not kick her out for any reason. No matter if she slept with the entire football team 9 months ago, if she's living with you and gets pregnant, you are left to foot the bill. Now if you cheat on her, you will be thrown in jail. Wonderful!

Footnote: Can someone send me the link to the case of the 40-something California female who flashed a 14 year old boy? In that case, the judge said that he wouldn't prosecute because according to the language in the statute, the law was only meant for men who exposed themselves. I read it on MANN a couple of months ago but I can't find it now.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Domestic violence - comedic genius or just hilarious?

I was on a forum today and saw this post on the front page. Normally I stay away from the huge threads, they're usually laden with drama and in-jokes, but this one was interesting... it was about how this guy got stabbed.

I went in thinking, well its probably some mugging or something, but hey - surprise! Its domestic violence! And no, its not a woman posting - its a man, stabbed with a fork and a knife by his oh-so-gentle and kind, member of the caring sex wife.

So, I caught my wife fucking around with some douchebag on World of Warcraft again.
(I'll start with the quick version, since this is all anybody will see in the long version any way.)
We argued a lot, I pushed her on the bed because she tried to hit me. She cried on the bed the for a bit. I screamed at her for a long while. She got up tried to charge me again. I pushed her back. This went on for a bit. She sees a mystery fork on the ground, charges, stabs at me with it, and runs out of the room. She calls her mother, says she's going to kill me, and this is the result! Enjoy!

(clarity edit) She grabbed a kitchen knife.
So she grabbed a knife and fucking stabbed him, and he is posting on some forum?

Oh wait, here's another reply from him:
I know, I guess the retard in me has been trying to get her mental help. She got really drunk tonight, on her meds, blah blah blah. I'm a helper type. I don't know, she's normally a good person. Oh and tonight was her birthday.

She tried to call 911 to report herself. I took the phone from her. In this locality, I'd be the one to go to jail no matter the situation. She could have had me half dead, and I'd be the one they'd charge some how.
So he knows what's up and still has no power to do anything about it, or feels that he has no power, which is the same according to feminazis when applied to women.

The replies if the sexes were reversed would invariably be about how she needs to call the cops, many many fat nerds detailing how they would like to skin the filthy abusing male alive, take out his kneecaps and make him choke on them etc etc. Maybe there would be a few posters telling her where the nearest Battered Women's Shelter is. (because men's shelters are the prisons and graveyards)

But because its a man, look at the responses...

Did her skill with forks go up? (Probably a World of Warcraft reference)

So wait, this is not the first time she has brought home some random nightelf to fuck?

World of Warcraft cheating leads to fat husband getting stabbed with a fork. This is truly the limit (Yes, his weight matters a lot. No mention of her weight)

I hope you guys can work through this little bump in the road. You seem like a great couple. (Probably sarcasm)

fooling around with a nightelf from wow was the biggest mistake of my life man. you think theyre crazy in game? tends to be a bit worse "irl".

Stick a fork in him, he's done!!!

The guy who got stabbed posted:
Here's a great one:
She said the guy, in real life, looks like I did when I was in shape.
I think she's trying to tell you something, stabbing notwithstanding.

I bet you've already used that fork to eat something.

Not to mention that it seems like he's the aggressor here when he grabbed the headphones off her. She turned aggressive after that but, I can see how he probably frustrated her and intimidated her. Doesn't excuse her from stabbing him but, they're both maniacs in my eyes that need to grow up and stop being violent with each other.

Someone making a little sense: Are there people here seriously saying that he was in the wrong by pushing this bitch away from him when she charged?!


When she is pissed she stabs people! Why the FUCK would you turn your back to her so you can't see her grab something sharp to insert into your body. So what if he may have been blocking the door? You don't turn your back and just walk away from a person who has a history of stabbing you.

And the asshole defending the bitch: She didn't just randomly stab him, he escalated it to the point of violence. The OP is a rather large guy and started being violent by destroying her headphones over something stupid and harmless, I can see why a smaller woman would want some sort of additional protection like a fork with a violent man who physically has the upper hand flies off the handle over something small like that.

It made me sick as I was reading the thread. It literally is the case that no one can find sympathy in their heart for a man. I am convinced that if it were a woman who got stabbed (likely got pushed and scratched herself, because a far higher percentage of women feel comfortable with all-out violence to get their SO's to "listen" to them), the responses would be completely the opposite, and anyone making fun of her or the situation would be banned pronto.

But hey, its a fat dude! Make fun of him for getting stabbed even though you'd probably call the cops yourself if he even raised a hand in response!

Rarely is any situation in a relationship as simple as, "She's just totally crazy, I'm innocent and didn't do anything but try to protect myself!" Her side of the story would probably sound completely different than the OP's side. They both sound off their rockers to me, especially since he has all kinds of excuses for why he won't leave her.
This is great - when a man makes excuses for why he can't or won't leave an abusive relationship, people assume he's either mentally retarded or has some ulterior motive. Of course, when its a woman making excuses for why she doesn't want to leave an abusive relationship, she's obviously sick from the abuse, needs help, and he's controlling her with mind rays and probably committing emotional, spritual and financial domestic violence. When the woman could be at fault, you'll find everyone will minimize her violence and psycho-ness by saying they're both crazy or they both need to go to the hospital and such, when its obvious that were the situation reversed, he would be in prison and on to Duluth model brainwashing camp, and she would be in feminazi heaven, aka a taxpayer-funded women's shelter or her own home, since the abuser is locked away from his own house with a restraining order or is in prison.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Men and Retirement

Retirement is pretty much what we men have worked for since the Industrial Revolution came about and the lady of leisure was born. Once we get our degree and leave our heady college days behind, the sceptre of "getting settled" and buying a home and a wife to put in it comes up, as well as the children that will follow to ensure us a place in society. What's left for a guy to do but pine for retirement? (Of course, women still won't let us have peace in retirement - look at Japan - now that the workaholic men are retiring and actually staying at home with their wives, all of a sudden the bitches don't want them around. Experts are also predicting that later this year, when pensions will be split up between the man who worked his ass off and the wife who stayed at home and chilled in the case of a divorce, there will be a big rise in divorces. Proof that if you want to break up families, just give the women a monetary incentive to walk.)

Now MGTOW tells us to follow our instinct and go our own way, which is great. But still, for any office worker, heck even a self-made entrepreneur, a time will come when we won't be able to work as hard.

That is what savings and retirement are for. This post was precipitated by the last issue of Money magazine, which I got yesterday from the library. The cover has a headline, "Why Men Get Retirement Wrong."

I flip through the magazine, read the article, and then I'm idly perusing the rest of the rag when lo and behold, here's another article which on some level proves that its not the men who should be worried about being stupid with their retirement! I'd never have guessed that the sex with the least responsibility to save and invest would not be the one admonished for not doing it the right way!

Age 50, and Far Too Little Saved. The article is about a Barbara Huarte who has evidently been self-employed and a career grrrl, and at 50, is realizing that the knight in shining armor she was waiting for has shacked up with a younger chick, and she needs to sock away some cash for a rainy day.

At 50, she has "roughly $30,000 split between a 401(k) and an IRA, and not much else." The Money article was far too charitable - it didn't go into her wardrobe, her shoe closet, her home decorations (she still rents, can you get any more stupider than that?), or her car(s).

But here's the rub - in the same magazine as an article called "Why Men Don't Know Jack about Retirement" they have the gall to have an article that looks at a woman who is 50, who hasn't saved up for retirement, and blandly say, "Well this could be you. This article is gender neutral. Her sex doesn't enter into the equation when it hurts her, but it sure as hell does when she's being an empowered grrrrl or a victim."

But man oh man, those stupid guys - they don't know jack about retirement, do they.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Women like to eat babies

This is the only logical conclusion I can draw from the fact that within the space of just weeks, two women have attempted to murder their babies with ovens - one with a microwave (she succeeded, sadly) and this one with a conventional oven.

After all, what would make them think the oven is such a great idea if on some level they didn't think of babies as supple flesh ready to be eaten with a light roasting? Disgusting filthy creatures, these child-killing females.

But of course the questions we'll be seeing asked in the press and in the courts will be more along the lines of, "Where is the man, I need to punish a MAN for this" and "What drove her to do this? We MUST find something/someone to blame, an imaginary being will do just fine."

Its a pity that women get off scot-free for killing defenseless infants.

UPDATE: Oh lookie, she was released from jail. That was quick. I guess they don't really care about murderers as long as they have a vagina. Jails are for men, not princess angels am I right?

EDIT Jan 14: You can read the opinions of the FSTDTers if you want to - link here. The same old tired shaming language, must be misogynist, can't get a woman in the same room as me, etc etc, oh there's a new one - they want to "take away" my reproductive rights! I'm a man, I don't got no reproductive rights - can't take away what I don't have bitches!

Fundies say the darndest things LOL!

Here's a comment I saw on a website discussing our awesome commenter, Anonymous age 64:

"Age 64...might be a little late to educate him in such practises as "tact" and 'decency'"

"I would like to toss anonymous into prison for a few months and see if his attitudes towards rape don't change."

"This guy is 64, which explains quite a lot. Yaweh, please, LOOK FOR REAL FUNDIES, NOT FOR GRUMPY ALZEIHMER GUYS."

"Die in a fire before you see 65."

"I hope, even at the age of 64 that you learn all about what rape really prison."

"You're an asshole. Maybe a stint in prison with your cellmate, "horny Bubba," would help you understand rape a little better."

Now, this website is full of self-categorized liberals - I never considered myself a conservative, but I guess here I am, being quoted on a website that purports to making fun of conservatives so I guess me and Anon age 64 should just accept the pigeonholing and stereotyping eh? How about that Anon, the very people who claimed to be for all groups are the quickest to demean them on the basis of age and whatnot. Next you'll be telling me the white members of the NAACP are the quickest to use the term "nigger" behind closed doors!

Nevermind that the majority of prositutes are not the "Hollywood stripper" portrayed in popular culture media.

Most prostitutes were sexually abused as children and have low self-worth, drug addictions because of it. They often get into prostitution because they are poor, lack education, or are forced into by a pimp who often threatens them with violence. The woman's lack of education and self-esteem are used against her, as well as the threat of being thrown in jail and being ostracized by society.

Sorry to ruin your "porn fantasy" image of prostitutes, but what I described is the sad reality. So the rape of prostitute is not "less" damaging or traumatizing than the rape or anyone else.

Misogynist fuckwit.

Check out how, in the last comment, Ms. Demenor has a ready-made excuse for women behaving badly - they were sexually abused (fault of a man), addicted to drugs (those damn male pushers), oh and here's a good one, forced into it by a pimp with violence. Yeah ok. I can tell you why most prostitutes go a-prostitutin', and its all about the money. The EXACT SAME REASON men go into high-risk, high-pay occupations - because of money.

But that's anathema to a keyboard fucker who can only excuse women for their behavior.

Here are the links where I got these comments:

Why do I find these things?

Why do I find these things? - this was the name of a blog entry I found recently, discussing li'l ol' me, of all people. Here's the link. Well dear, you better deal with the fact that you'll be "finding" a lot more men like me who refuse to bow to the feminist juggernaut and are going their own way and blasting feminism and feminist laws and the women who use/abuse them.

Now we know these stupid cat herding feminazis can't stomach a contrary opinion no matter what, and the comments section proves that with the very first comment.

2007-01-10 10:12 am UTC (link)
Dreadful link. I hope its still up to be admitted in his trial.
Ooooh, a feminazi kangaroo court is going to try me for remote control trolling and castrate, draw and quarter me!! Ooh, I'm so scared!!

But wait, I thought I hated men too??! What now? Oh, now come the predictable fembot bingo game - I'm a loser who sits in his mother's basement (never the father's basement, probably because I'm a product of a feminazi domineering mother who divorced as soon as she felt she could get the maximum reward), I have a small penis, et cetera.

And its scary to like children if you're a man, because you obviously are going to molest and abuse them.

Go away you goddamn troll. Oh, and I put a comment on her site, let's see if the bitch posts it.

EDIT: No, not only has she not posted it, she has also IP-banned me from the site as evidenced in the comments. I didn't expect too much of feminists like her in this regard and she delivered, in spades.

Anyway, here's another comment: "Why do they think it's so funny to joke about violence against women (hey, it's not like it's common compared to female violence against men!) and at the same time shame women for reporting it?"

Hey, its not like DV against men is underreported and underacknowledged! Its not like mandatory arrest laws ensure that the man gets a rap sheet no matter if he's bleeding, missing vital organs or body parts! As long as there's a female and a male in the situation, its clear who will get hauled to prison. Its not like feminazis like her would be the first to say "loser, no balls, pansy" if the man actually went to the police to report his SO's physical, mental and verbal abuse (hitting and nagging). And here's the strawman of shaming women who report rape. Needless to say, just like anything that comes out of a feminist's mouth, this is pretty much the truth turned 180° - i.e. the complete opposite of the truth, which is that females shame men who report rape.

" That's the thing that gets me about the, "Can't you take a joke?" thing. Um, rape is funny, huh? Bend over, let's see."
I won't bend over, rape is making me bend over. See, this is why false rape accusations are so common - consent is taken to mean rape by females.

"They (sound like) they're really hoping to be able to rape someone, only they don't wanna call it that"
Like I said, I'll rape whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want! So how many women do we rape this Friday night, Patriarchy? Let's make it a game! Instead of cooperating, we'll compete, because that's what males do, am I right? I really hope I can rape a few bitches and get a good score, man!

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Rape Rape Rape

Sarah just left a comment on the Rapist checklist article here. Since this article is a couple of days old, I thought I'd make a new post instead of commenting on an older one.

You know, I have a big problem with "If you are [x] then you must act like [z]." Really gets my goat. I'll act how I bloody well want bitch, why do women try to control how we should act by saying, "Well you're a good boy and good boys don't act like that do they now?"

Well hon, guess what. I was the sort of nice guy who'd prefer not to place my orgasm over the risk of raping someone, whatever the hell that means. Loony sentence fragment anyone? Now I just am not so sure. Who knows? Maybe someday I will put my orgasm over the risk of raping someone! Unpredictable! Exciting! I'm such a badboy!

Maybe I am sexist against men! Maybe I'm a MHMRA - Man Hating Men's Rights Activist! Look at my blog, its clear that I hate men!

In short, I don't need your laundry list of admonishments. I'll rape whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want.

And I have lots of friends who rape, in fact that's what we do on Friday nights, the whole Patriarchy dresses up and rapes the town red!

Who have you raped today?

Sarah, make up your mind.

Sleep/unconsciousness is not consent, though prior arrangement in the context of an ongoing relationship is obviously an exception.
Consent to previous sexual activity does not entitle one to future sexual activity.

So which is it, Princess Want-it-All?

This bit is great, "Yes after extensive nagging and duress is not true consent." So when the girlfriend nags me into an engagement ring, and then nags me into a marriage, what does that make the marriage contract, that agreement to provide for her through sickness and health? Null and void, right?

NOT. (Borat)

Oh wait, I bet the only thing that counts in your mind is the woman, and since she controls the sex, that's what you'll latch on to. Men who are beaten and mugged, err falsely accused of rape can learn through the experience, right?

No sane man has anything against rape the way it is clasically defined. Get that into your thick skull, which is probably filled with used motor oil and dead chipmunks. In fact, the only reason men are so quiet about the ongoing criminalizing of basically any sexual contact is because they are giving women the benefit of the doubt.
Lord knows that any man who is not a rich frat boy is thinking over and over with his new squeeze, man I hope this one doesn't turn on me, I'd be like a gerbil in a cobra's cage.

"May I squeeze your breastesses ma'am?"


Sunday, January 07, 2007

A wonderful change

I was at the local Asian grocery store and saw this and had to take a picture. What do you think, I think I'll have Thai for dinner and a Thai for later!

Thursday, January 04, 2007

There may be some justice in the world

Unrelated photo
I saw this news article from CNN just now.

Mom arrested after toddler wanders onto highway

Story Highlights
• NEW: Mom whose toddler wandered onto highway is charged with neglect
• Motorists saw Damon Dyer, 3, barefoot, wearing diaper, T-shirt
• Police say mom, Nancy Dyer, was asleep in nearby apartment
• Her kids were taken into protective custody, authorities said
This case is strange because not only was the cow charged with neglect for letting a 3 year old kid (a boy, incidentally) go wandering off, her other kids were taken from her. Of course, its debatable whether "protective custody" is any safer than an apathetic mom, but of course they couldn't hand the kid to his father, now that would be a far far worse crime!!!!

Stunned motorists found Damon Dyer, barefoot and wearing only a diaper and T-shirt, early Saturday while his mother slept in a nearby apartment on Indianapolis' west side, police said.

At least half a dozen cars and a semitrailer swerved into other lanes on I-465 to avoid the child, who was not hurt, authorities said.

Drivers pulled over and took care of him until officers arrived. (Watch how a motorist plucked the boy from traffic Video)

Nancy Dyer, 30, whose son and a 2-year-old daughter were taken into protective custody, was charged with four counts of felony neglect.

"A couple of the charges are related to the condition of the home and another child that was still in the apartment," said Helen Marchal, a deputy Marion County prosecutor.

I didn't watch the video because I have a slow connection, but I'm betting that it was a man who rescued the boy. The judge also set the bail at a pathetically low $3500, but hey, its not like a female could actually be punished by the court system, right? She should have just killed them all, they would let her off scot-free for that!

The Rapist Checklist

The last post was about how to know if you're a player... now, this was actually a find-stupid-and-replace-with-hilarity counterpart to an article actually written by a feminazi, one we bloggers may be familiar with. I won't give her name or link here, but the list was actually called the Rapist Checklist.

With a name like that, you can imagine the vitriol it must contain, and the sad sad person who would have written something this deluded and stupid. Anyway, this is how feminists are, and this kind of utter bullshit is what we're fighting against. The feminazi army is not worried about little things like facts and the truth, emotions is their game and they play it well, thanks to that whole "humans evolved to protect women" thing.

The Rapist Checklist

1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.

3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is no excuse.

4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

5. If she's alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you're a rapist.

6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.

7. If she's unconscious and you have sex with her then you're a rapist.

8. If she's taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.

9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.

10. If you drug her then you're a rapist.

11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.

12. If you don't bother to ask her permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.

13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.

14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.

15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.

16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a rapist.

17. You are a rapist if you don't immediately get your hands off of her when she says 'no'. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually 'gives in' to this tactic.

18. You are a rapist if you won't let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.

19. If you're necking with her and you're naked and you've already gone down on her and she says 'No' to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you're a rapist.

20. If you're engaged in intercourse and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't immediately stop then you're a rapist.

21. If she said "Yes" to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you're a rapist.

22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn't WANT sex and you continue then you're a rapist.

23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don't immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you're a rapist.

24. If you don't hit her and she says 'No' you're still a rapist.

25. If you don't have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says 'No' then you're still a rapist.

26. If you're a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.

27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn't want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you're a rapist.

28. If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.

29. If it's your wedding night and she doesn't WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you're a rapist.

30. If she's had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn't want to on the 101st time then you're a rapist.

31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.

32. Women do not owe you sex.

33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.

34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.

35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.

36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn't mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.

37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.

38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.

39. If she 'turns you on' you're not entitled to sex.

40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn't want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you're a rapist.

41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she's wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.

42. If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.

43. If she's a stripper and she says "No" then you're a rapist. Likewise, if she's a stripper and she's been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.

44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you're as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.

45. If you don't fight rape then you accept rape.

46. If you don't believe a woman when she says she was raped then you're encouraging rape.

47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.

48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.

49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.

50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won't know it.

51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn't trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don't wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.

Sickening shit. Looks like feminism hasn't progressed far beyond "All sex is rape" yet.

Thanks to VT for the .gif, and LB for the "You may be a player if..." list. You guys rock.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

You may be a player if...

Now, I usually hate lists of this sort, but this is too funny to pass up. I'll explain the meaning behind this list tomorrow. Till then, enjoy!

1. You are a player if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

2. You are a player if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.

3. You are a player if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness is your excuse.

4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a player.

5. If she's alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you're a player.

6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a player.

7. If she's unconscious and you have sex with her then you're a player.

8. If she's taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a player.

9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a player.

10. If you drug her then you're a player.

11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a player.

12. If you don't bother to ask her permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a player.

13. Players do not 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not game. You are not a player.

14. You are a player if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a player.

15. You are a player if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a player. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a player.

16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a player. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a player.

17. You are a player if you don't immediately get your hands off of her when she says 'no'. You are a player if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually 'gives in' to this tactic.

18. You are a player if you won't let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep deprivation is a form of torture and YOU are a player.

19. If you're necking with her and you're naked and she's already gone down on you and she says 'No' to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you're a player.

20.If you're a man and engaged in intercourse and say 'No' at ANY point then you are not a player.

21. If she said "Yes" to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you're a player.

22. If she picked you up at a bar then you're not a player, pussy.

23. If you change your mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don't immediately back off or slap her in the face then you're a not player.

24. If you hit her and she STILL says 'No' you're not still a player.

25. If you don't have a knife or a gun or a garrote then you're not a player.

26. If you're a friend of hers you can still be a player.

27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn't want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you're a player.

28. If you're her husband you can still be a player.

29. If it's your wedding night and she doesn't WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you're a player.

30. If she's had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn't want to on the 101st time then you're not a player.

31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a player. (congrats)

32. Women owe you sex.

33. Buying her dinner entitles you to sex.

34. Paying her mortgage entitles you to sex.

35. Buying her clothing entitles you to sex.

36. Buying her lingerie entitles you to sex. It also means that she has an obligation to wear that lingerie around you.

37. Spending any amount of money on her always entitles you to sex.

38. Seeing her legs or cleavage entitles you to sex.

39. If she 'turns you on' you're entitled to sex.

40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn't want to fuck you, be glad because thats some funky pussy.

41. Her clothing is a reason for you to game her. Her LACK of clothing is a reason to game her. If she's wearing a thong and panties you BETTER game her.

42. If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're definitely not a player.

43. If she's a stripper and she says "Yes" then you're a player. Likewise, if she's a stripper and she's been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her then you are ALSO a player.

44. If you watch a woman being played, and don't go over and step the game up, then you are not a player.

45. Don't hate the player hate the game.

46. If you don't believe a woman when she says she was played then you're encouraging game.

47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who played a woman you are encouraging game.

48. If do not you confess to the authorities that you played a woman it WILL exonerate you. You are suddenly a model of good behavior.

49. If you ‘only’ played one woman, you’re STILL a player.

50. You cannot tell who is a player by the way they look. Players are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won't know it.

51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn't trust you. SHE already knows that players don't wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying. So stay sharp!

Oprah hates children (well, boys)

So it turns out that Oprah the fat old cunt is opening up an awesome new school in South Africa. She is doing this in South Africa because she is sick of the materialism in the US. Dead serious. No cognitive dissonance there, no siree. Oh, and South African boys don't need luxuries like school.

The fat old cunt is spending or has already spent $40 million on this new school, handpicked 152 to-be bitches out of thousands of applicants, and the school features a fucking yoga studio and beauty salon. Oh, and a fireplace in all 28 buildings, I'm sure that's a necessity in South Fucking Africa. I'm sure she'll teach them to get in touch with their vaginas and talk to their cunnys and whatnot. We already know she is a bloody child rapist supporter when the victims are members of the evil patriarchy. The school's name? Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls.

Now, some people say that its Oprah's right to spend her money however she sees fit. But only the extremely spineless would be blind to the fact that not only is this bitch selecting students based on genetic, unalterable criteria (hello, back of bus anyone??) but she is being fucking lauded for it. The message to boys is ultimately "Go and die in a war or something, you useless wastes of skin." And don't forget, $40 million for 152 students a year. Yeah, that's called spreading the seed of education far and wide. Any bets that it turns out to be a profit-making venture with exclusive admission for all the daughters of rich people?

Her supporters are all predictably gung-ho about spreading the virulent pox known as feminism to a third-world country. Nothing new here, the rich bitches will taste the heady potion of feminism and demand traditional privilege when it suits them, and feminist grrrl-powarrr when it suits them.

Here's a great post by someone on a forum discussing this news.
It is inherent in religions to persecute women (mainly Christianity and Islam; insert DaVinci Code here) to the point where it is law in many parts of the world to prevent women from receiving education. In Afghanistan now the Taliban extremists are targeting Women's educational institutions because it is against their religion. Women's rights in the western world was made possible by the separation of church and state. (Notice how he immediately jumps from Christianity to the fucking Taliban, painting them all with the same brush. I don't even need to go into how every religion holds women as sacred and to die for, literally die for.) Religion is far more prosperous in developing countries than in the first world. (Here's a clue, sucker - power is held by a few. They are the religious heads/kings in developing countries and politicians in developed countries.) So, if a country does have primary education, it is most likely limited to men who traditionally do not look after the health and nutrition needs of the family. (Uh, what the fucking fuck? Since when are men not responsible for the entire fucking family, including their parents in third-world countries without fancy Medicare and shit?)

Of the sick and dying in the world, 55%ish (ie noticeably more than half) are women. (Care to take a look at the goddamn population figures? You'll find that 55% of all people are women. And the women who are sick and dying are more likely to be old, compared to the men, who died long ago. A teensy weensy side effect of women living a lot longer than men.) Furthermore, the most statistically reliable predictor of violence and crime in an area is the percentage of the population of men between 15 and 35. (Guess who benefits from the spoils of war, it ain't the men who died. Its the bitches who were at the sidelines when the bullets were flying.) Add in all of the "moms are more caring" arguments and the common knowledge that men like breaking shit and it makes sense to educate and thus empower women over men. If women gain the knowledge to allow them and their children to live healthy around the world, sickness among women will slow faster than men and coincidentally dampen total violence. (Women live longer than men pretty much everywhere people aren't living in mud huts, fat lot of good that's doing us - they might find a cure for prostrate cancer in between their breast cancer marches and lifespan gloating.)

Less violence allows for the rule of law. Once law is in place to the point where contracts are legally enforced (after the whole "you can't randomly kill people" phase is over of course) then industry and economy can and will emerge. Another interesting point is that women in developing countries are many times more likely to begin an entrepreneurial endeavour then men, (Oh reaaaally. Or would they rather use their beauty to snare a successful businessman.) but they have a hard time opening stalls at flea markets because rampant violence means men will burn them down and take their shit. (Of course, those pesky men!) This is a whole other problem, but take a look at the Grameen bank to see an effective form of bottom-up development for entrepreneurs.
So basically, the modus operandi here is to blame men, rinse, repeat as necessary. Oh, and the Grameen bank was founded by a man. Predictable.