>Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum

>

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

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

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

About these ads

Posted on April 17, 2011, in antifeminism, crackpottery, douchebaggery, links, manginas, MGTOW, precious bodily fluids. Bookmark the permalink. 106 Comments.

  1. >NickI'm still waiting for you to cite evidence that 99.9 percent of the time feminists (women) do not care about men's issues. Until you come somewhat close to citing some kind of statistical data I'm going to consider you someone that is mentally ill.Fair enough?

  2. >Nick said " How and where is it evident that the majority of feminists actually care about men's issues"What do you really mean by feminist? Do you really mean women caring about men?I could cite many right wing female bloggers which mra people seems to eat up as gold. Sarah Palin is in some mra's eyes the ultimate woman (and yes I can provide links) yet she's also considered a feminist in mra eyes."I 'm unsuccessful with women hence all women/feminists are bad. Rinse and repeat with no internal pressure until my xbox (or other video gaming device) is threatened. "Nick.. you know you'll end up the loser in any of the above situations not because you're male but because the vast majority of humans are uncomfortable around you regardless of sex. Do you really think you'd do that better off if you desired to date males?

  3. >I could cite many right wing female bloggers which mra people seems to eat up as gold.And don't forget "self-proclaimed feminist" authors, such as Christina Hoff Sommers, who is highly venerated in MRA's eyes.

  4. >Nick seems to be starting with the assumption that "feminist" is simply a synonym for "world's worst poopyheads," and not really thinking or researching anything beyond that.

  5. >I must say I have never seen a person jailed for child support where the state was not actively involved in throwing a welfare fit about the mother. Seriously. Our intensely negative views of women on welfare are a huge factor here. I knew one very poor women who would joke that the only time anyone cared that her ex worked under the table so as not to have to try and help feed the kids was when she went to renew their benefits. It is sad because it is true. The Bradley Amendment actually had significant conservative anti-feminist support, because it was largely sold as a way to get women and kids off of the welfare rolls.Oh, on another note, I can't be the only one who noticed the irony of NWO's language based criticism in regards to refering to kids as women's children when he explicitly did the same thing with them being men's children ("kidnap a mans child") a few comments before, can I?

  6. >"I'm still waiting for you to cite evidence that 99.9 percent of the time feminists (women) do not care about men's issues. Until you come somewhat close to citing some kind of statistical data I'm going to consider you someone that is mentally ill."This makes me uncomfortable. There's no link between being mentally ill and being misogynist. I don't think we should attribute misogyny to anything other than what it is.And yes, I know this is in the context of Valerie Solanas who was mentally ill. However, there's no evidence that the bulk of the MRAs are, and I'd prefer not to blame their attitudes on mental illness. "Crazy people" get short enough shrift as it is.

  7. >Nick seems to be starting with the assumption that "feminist" is simply a synonym for "world's worst poopyheads," and not really thinking or researching anything beyond that.As I've noted before, the MRAs' assumptions about feminism are pure projection. Since the MRAs are fueled by hatred of the opposite sex, they assume feminists are the same way, and nothing you say can shake that assumption.They aren't amenable to reasoned arguments, as every MRA who has posted to this blog has demonstrated. That's why I prefer mockery.

  8. >NWO slave said that if I tell my husband our yard looks bad, that is domestic violence. I found that offensive because he's trying to equate occasional nagging with physical assault against a weaker spouse. They're not in the same ballpark, or even the same sport. If griping was domestic violence, almost everyone would be in jail. Also, I see these MRA's show all this sympathy for men ordered to pay child support. Why not show sympathy for impoverished single parents that aren't receiving child support from their ex wives and ex husbands? I also feel sympathy for the children that go without clean clothes and nutritious food because their single parent isn't receiving support from the other parent.

  9. >NWO Slave: One time I attempted to make eggplant parmesan. The end result looked like a watery mixture of spaghetti sauce and cheese. My husband joked that we could throw it outside to scare wild animals away. Then we both laughed very hard and I threw the horrible dish away. Life is so much easier if you have a sense of humor. It wasn't "controlling behavior". It was just funny.

  10. >Nicko, I care about the men in my life.I have a dad I love very much, I have male professors and authority figures that I can respect and think well of, even if we don't always agree. I have several good guy friends with fun quirks and interests (one took his hair straightener to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, another will sometimes collect roadkill to make coonskin caps). I don't like to see them feeling bad, I hate it when they feel like they have to repress their emotions. I hate it when they end up saying or doing hurtful things to others, because I want to believe that, for the most part, they are not malicious, but that they just don't realize what kind of pain they're inflicting.Do you care about the women in your life? Do you care if they're hurting, do you care if you're the one hurting them? Or do you imagine their pain to be negligible compared to the pain that men feel?

  11. >This insistence that feminists don't care about men, and that they must prove it, and even then they may not be believed, is just more MRA projection. Masculinity has defined itself exclusively in contradistinction to the feminine for so long that a serious challenge to the idea of inherent male superiority has left millions of American men floundering—and the best answer most of them have found for the question "What is my role if not a keeper of women?" is "I am a victim of oppression by women." Femininity has become the center-pin around which masculinity pivots—on one side there is dominion; on the other side, subjugation.–Melissa McEwan, Feminism 101

  12. >Nicko,Another disappointing effort. I expect better from you. I'm not sure why, but I do.

  13. >And yes, I know this is in the context of Valerie Solanas who was mentally ill. However, there's no evidence that the bulk of the MRAs are, and I'd prefer not to blame their attitudes on mental illness. "Crazy people" get short enough shrift as it is. Agreed. It's entirely possible to be bigoted, shortsighted, and self-absorbed without being mentally ill.

  14. >Indeed, Sally. As it's been pointed out earlier, the entire book Stiffed by Susan Faludi would seem to refute Nick's contention. Not that he and his ilk will ever read it or stop repeating the same moronic mantras.

  15. >Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of. Now barring the high end money makers the vast majority of men make very little money. Barely enough to stay afloat, (myself included).So place the blame where it belongs- the (overwhelmingly white, straight male) "high end money makers" who have been implementing the policies that are "keeping you down."

  16. >Also, not to make light of things, but "Hagslave" would be a great name for a black metal band.

  17. >Okay, as no one else has taken the bait in regards to the obvious joke, I have to say it: Something awful visits the spearhead forum everyday, we call it "spearhead commentors". ;)

  18. >Captain Bathrobe, I gave a glowing review on Amazon to "Stiffed", which is eloquent about the pressures men face, and some guy told me that there's no way he would even consider reading a book written about men by someone named 'Susan'. The author's name is Susan Faludi. She's a pulitzer-prize winning journalist. And if Valeria Solanas is this big feminist heroine, how come the only people who ever talk about her are bitter MRAs like Nick, who I see still hasn't returned with proof of his 99.9 figure?

  19. >ginmar said… Captain Bathrobe, I gave a glowing review on Amazon to "Stiffed", which is eloquent about the pressures men face, and some guy told me that there's no way he would even consider reading a book written about men by someone named 'Susan'. The author's name is Susan Faludi. She's a pulitzer-prize winning journalist.How odd. What's wrong with "Susan," I wonder? Maybe if her name were "Valerie"…or possibly "Bubbles."Seriously, though, I think the idea of a serious female journalist who tackles men's issues in a compassionate manner is so alien to the MRA worldview that it simply doesn't compute. They are comfortable with their stereotypes–overly-emotional women, greedy gold-diggers, bitter feminists, sperm-stealing harpies, etc. The reality of "not saints nor whores, just women" seems beyond their comprehension.

  20. >@Big Bad Bald BastardYou hang around here enough, you find all sorts of good names for bands. Like the Femicunt Queens of Nofunnington, for example.

  21. >Yeah, complexity is their enemy, even while they whine for it to be used in defining themselves. It's harder to treat people badly. They want to be viewed as complicated, fascinating creatures, but they want to regard women as stupid, shallow, vicious animals.

  22. >@ Johnny Pez – Your post reminded me of this quote by Thomas Jefferson:"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

  23. >They want to be viewed as complicated, fascinating creatures, but they want to regard women as stupid, shallow, vicious animals. It all comes back to misogyny with a healthy scoop of narcissism, IMHO. They are, as you say, special and unique little snowflakes who must be understood in all their glorious complexity. A problem isn't a problem unless it happens to them or can happen to them. This is how they can dismiss rape as a concern (except rape of men in prison) while crying that false rape accusations are The Worst Problem Ever. This is why failure to pay child support is of no consequence, whereas actually having to pay child support is a Gross Injustice. It's only a problem if it affects them. And they imagine that feminists operate in the same manner, the work of Faludi and others notwithstanding. I don't imagine this is true of all MRAs, but the majority of those I've seem posting here seem to be profoundly empathy-challenged.

  24. >@kendraNWOslave is just repeating the usual anti-VAWA propaganda he's read on some manosphere website or other. He's trying to make it seem as though the VAWA defines domestic violence in such a ridiculously overbroad manner that any reasonable person should be against it. Of course, the VAWA does no such thing, but that won't stop him from repeating the lie.

  25. >NWOslave said… Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of. The real numbers :The 2001 proportion of custodial parents receiving every child support payment they were due was 44.8 percent. Among these parents, the average amount received was $5,800, and did not differ significantly between mothers and fathers.That is $5800 in total for the year.— $250 a week would be 13,000 a year in child support. Really? I mean really? NWOslave said…So for instance say both of the divorcees make $15.00 an hour for a take home of $450.00 a week. Well the man now only gets $250.00 a week, while the woman gets %650.00 a week, plus State assistance, plus she gets the child as a tax deduction.Participation in public assistance programs by custodial parents fell from 40.7 to 28.4 percent between 1993 and 2001. While the rate of program participation for custodial mothers decreased from 45.2 percent to 31.0 percent during that time.—so the majority of custodial mothers are not on welfare. Even with the scenario given by NWO, the total income would be $36,400 for the year(her income plus the child support, which is how it would be calculated for eligibility), for a woman with that income to get public benefits,she better have at least 7 kids to meet the federal poverty line. The poverty line for a family of 8 is $37,630. She would not qualify without many children.I know a woman with 5 kids that makes $20 an hour and gets no child support and she did not qualify for food stamps or child care assistance. MRA's seem to think more people can get assistance than they do in reality. Also, I know many women that get court ordered child support. The support order stipulates that the dad can claim the tax deduction for the child every other year, as long as he is paying the child support. No child expense–no deduction. I believe that is fair.

  26. >Word of general advice:When NWO says something like "all feminists hate men," don't reply by saying "I'm a feminist and I love (list of men)." That's allowing him to frame the debate, putting yourself on the defensive. You know perfectly well that he will never change his mind, no matter how many people say it.The correct response is "What proof do you have of that?" This puts him rightly on the defensive, forcing him to prove his ridiculous generalization rather than you disproving it.

  27. >@ Big Bad Bald BastardI was thinking "Yeasty Oblivion" would work, but that's probably something that female Punk bands can use very well. ;)

  28. >I've actually never met a feminist who shows even one onehundredth the level of contempt for men that MRAs show on a regular basis. To hear the MRAs tell it, all men are crude, uncivilized, hateful, bitter, selfish, incompetent losers who spend their free time raging about how much they hate holding doors open for anybody who has a vagina and how awful it is to have to financially support their biological offspring. Thank heavens I hang out with feminists, who remind me that men are actually just as capable, tender, funny, friendly, quirky, and joyful as women are.

  29. >The SCUM Manifesto wasn't satire so much as the revenge fantasy of a mentally ill person in response to a lifetime of homophobic and misogynist abuse. As for denouncing Gloria Steinem or Andrea Dworkin, there's no reason to do so as their positions are perfectly reasonable to anybody who's actually read more than the one or two snippets MRAs like to copy/paste all over the internet to "prove" how terrible feminists are.Kave said… "NWOslave Watch the movie Who shot Andy Warhal, then get back to the feminists about how she was one of their greats. (feminist producer or definitely feminist influence in the creation of this movie)"It was directed by Mary Harron, who also directed American Psycho which, ironically, misogynists generally love. Misogynists aren't great at nuance or reading between lines. That's why the book sucked.

  30. >@snobographer, off the top of my head, I can think of some hateful things Steinem has said about trans people and some really problematic things she has said about race. And, while Dworkin is not the boogey man she is often portrayed as, she had some very problematic views about sex and sexuality (as did Steinem) to say the least.

  31. >I love American Psycho. Well, the movie. Never read the book.

  32. >Andrea Dworkin lived during a time when white men could rape their coworkers, sell their wives' belongings, harass their workers, and do just about anything they want—legally. Sexual harassment was just something men laughed about, it wasn't something women could do anything about because it was part of life. Wife beating was called, "What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing you haven't told her twice already." Har har har. That's still a popular tee shirt with some people. Marital rape didn't exist. And so on. When my mother got a job and bought the family home, she had to get my father's permission to get her own credit and her own credit cards. It used to be legal for abusive men to ruin womens' credit, then leave them holding the bill. Child support wasn't required, and men could just skip off and leave their wives and kids destitute. And they did. And MRAs are angry that Dworkin wrote about this, and many other things, and that they can't get away with the shit that their daddies could.

  33. >The book is an orgy of violence that is way more disgusting then the movie. I mean WAY more. The only parts of the book that are any good are the parts that talk about pop culture.

  34. >i just wonder, sometimes, at the total lack of knowledge some MRAs have – especially of history.the Suffragette movement had some basic goals.1. get the vote2. get BC and abortion legalized – up to that point [and several decades later] birth control was ILLEGAL, and abortion wasn't illegal so much as it was Alegal – no one cared.3. change laws that prevented women from divorce in almost any case; change laws to read "child goes to best care-taker" rather than "automatically go to the father"it wasn't until the 30's that women were starting – STARTING! – to not ALWAYS automatically lose custody if they COULD get a divorce.because, for the past several thousand years, it was "children are OWNED by their fathers" of course, it was also "WOMEN are OWNED by their husbands", so there's that.today, the PRESUMPTION, unless there's some other compelling reason [like abuse] *IS* joint custody.many men don't WANT their kids around 24/7, because the don't WANT to do all the child-caring. i don't know what percentage of men this is, but it is SOME percentage. [my own father did this - while they technically had joint custody, he wouldn't take us for more than a few weeks of the year. oh, and he paid a whopping $300/month for BOTH of us. and that amount never changed, even when he started making a fuck-ton more money]and money isn't enough – but i KNOW men, right now, who bitch about paying said amount [a couple hundred a MONTH] and REFUSE to spend more than a minimum of time with their kids. is this all men? no, of course not! but MRAs ignore these men, act like ALL men ONLY want their kids, period, all the time – and i really, really doubt it's the case.raising kids is HARD.my favorite guy [other than my boyfriend] is a friend of mine who's a stay-at-home-dad. he's AWESOME with the kids, and his wife works her ass off to support them all, because they both wanted a stay-at-home-parent, she made more than he did [also, he's better with them] they rock – they're great friends, have great kids, and are all around awesome people.

  35. >@DarkSideCat – Re Dworkin's and Steinem's "very problematic views about sex and sexuality," what ginmar said.@Elizabeth – The book portrayed Bateman as some kind of antihero. The movie made him a portrait of a sociopath and humanized his victims.@denelian – It's anecdotal, but I know of one divorced woman whose ex refused to pay child support on the grounds that he didn't have custody. She called his bluff and told him since she couldn't afford to raise the kids without financial support, he'd just have to take full custody of them. He started making his damn payments after that.

  36. >Snobographer: My sister's ex was the one who asked for the divorce—-he was going through a mid life crisis and cheating on her with a twentysomething with five kids by five different fathers—–but when she put up a fight, he quit his job out of spite and then was shocked, shocked that the trial judge asked for proof of whatever excuse he came up with. Claimed he was upset about the divorce—you know, the one he asked for. My sister worked three jobs, my ex BIL worked under the table and his sons now hate him. For that matter, I've found myself dating young men whose mothers went through some very similar shit, and they're squarely on their mom's side, with the occasional truly scary exception.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,789 other followers

%d bloggers like this: