Hawaiian Libertarian: “Misogyny is the key to male liberation from blue pill delusions.”

This pedestal is a trick illusion.

It’s amazing how daintily some manosphere dudes dance around the word “misogyny.”After spewing forth venomous woman-hating filth in post after post, they turn around and equally vociferously deny that they are in any way misogynistic – after all, they can think of three or four women in their life they don’t actively hate.

It’s strange. Men whose entire political and social philosophy is based on the hatred of women aren’t willing to say this out loud.

Over on Hawaiian Libertarian, a blog with some influence within the marginal universe of the manosphere, Keoni Galt is a bit more honest: he is proudly and openly misogynist. Not only that, but he’s convinced that others in the manosphere need to fully accept misogyny into their shrunken little hearts. And he’s written a little manifesto about it:

Misogyny is the key to male liberation from blue pill delusions. Only by embracing it, can men adopt a new paradigm in which the female of the human species has forever been knocked off of the pedestal that had been erected in our minds by institutionalized brainwashing and mass media programming.

Galt starts out with a fairly standard-issue manosphere confessional. Turns out that before he saw the light – sorry, took the red pill — he was a poor female-besotted white-knight mangina like most of the unlucky males of this world:

Back in the blue pill days, I was enchanted and mesmerized by the female gender as a whole. Tell-a-Vision and a childhood steeped in Churchianity had me forever looking at the female gender as the only bright light in a world of shit. I was indoctrinated into becoming a worshiper at the feet of the pedestal of the “sacred feminine.”

The last thing I ever wanted to become, was a misogynist. No, I bought into the delusion that the key to being accepted and gain the approval of the female herd was to become the vaunted WhiteKnight-EmotionalTampon- InTouchWithMyFeelings- LJBF-NICE GUY.

Oh dear, we have to listen to the sad, boring tale of the Nice Guy once again.

All a woman…ANY woman (not just young, attractive ones)…had to do when I was younger, was smile at me or give me a pathetic pleading look, or a nice sounding request and I was ready to do her bidding. The bat of an eyelash or a supplicating sound of her voice had me ready to ask her “how high would you like me to jump?”

I helped ladies move, “lent” them money (never asked for it back, mostly never got paid back either), given them rides, helped them with homework, built them things, fixed their cars, bought them drinks and/or meals…anything any female in my life requested, I did. “NO” was not a part of my vocabulary when it came to dealing with the opposite gender.

Helping friends isn’t a character flaw. But you’re the one who made yourself into a doormat.

I also spent many a time with groups of female friends, joining in on the “all men are pigs” type of conversations. I’ve been that “one of the girls” guy on many an occasion. (“You’re so COOL! Why can’t more guys be like YOU?!” 

But, Galt assures us, he wasn’t one of those passive-aggressive, guilt-tripping dudes who tries to “nice guy” his crushes into bed.

I’m not talking about being the “nice guy” here in hopes of getting a romantic response from a particular female. These are women for whom I knew as friends, acquaintances, co-workers, colleagues etc. In other words, if it had a vagina, I said “yes dear” to any and every request, simply to live up to the expectations inculcated in my mind on how a “good man” is one who serves the feminine imperative.

My indoctrination and upbringing had trained me to seek feminine approval above anything else.

What the hell kind of “indoctrination” did you get? Did you grow up in some sort of Goddess Cult? I’ve never met a single other person who’s been “indoctrinated” in this fashion. It’s almost as though you’re exaggerating or just making shit up in such a way as to justify your present-day misogyny.

Oh, wait, you are:

I’ve come to the realization that misogyny is the inevitable antidote one must accept, after gaining an understanding of the ugly truth of the female imperative and how it works to enslave men for it’s own purpose.

Yes, the only two options for men in the contemporary world – the only two — are to either bend over backwards and do everything women ask them to do in a creepily self-abasing way while agreeing that “all men are pigs,” or to decide that women are shit. (It’s not like this is a logical fallacy or anything.)

Most women nowadays really are beneath contempt. Manipulative, conniving, self-centered and solipsistic…especially beautiful ones.

[citation needed]

I now understand that this is the result of the programming most females are inculcated with from the same mass media culture that programmed me to be a pedestal worshiper.

[citation needed]

Actually, ALL women are solipsistic and manipulative to a certain degree (AWALT). It is their very nature. The real problem is that our mass media culture encourages women to embrace it, revel in it, and use their power of attraction to manipulate for their own selfish ends. It has always been like this, I just never recognized it until the hindsight as seen through the clarity of understanding that came with taking the red pill.

You realize that what you call the “red pill” is just a slightly exaggerated and updated version of not-so-good old fashioned misogyny, which has been around since the beginnings of civilization if not earlier?

But one thing this misogynist will admit: Not all women are like that. Really. I know a few.

Dude, dude, you just literally said that ALL women ARE like that. Like, in the paragraph you just finished writing.

These are women who understand that the true path to happiness is creating a sphere of nurturing and contentment amongst her friends and family. Such women are a literal joy to be around. There contentment is infectious.

“There contentment?” If these women truly loved you, wouldn’t they help you proofread your drivel?

But for most women I meet, my baseline assumption is that they are contemptuous creatures not worthy of anything other than basic human consideration…unless and until they prove otherwise.

Well, my baseline assumption is that the dudes of the manosphere are a bunch of pompous douchenozzles. And so far, I’m not altogether happy to report, not one has provided even a shred of evidence suggesting otherwise.

About these ads

Posted on July 24, 2012, in antifeminism, grandiosity, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, NAWALT, nice guys, oppressed men, shit that never happened, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 488 Comments.

  1. creativewritingstudent

    @the bewilderness

    I know precisely what they mean by ‘imprinting’. I also know what it refers to in psychology. And then I also pulled in the disturbing imprinting wtf from Twilight and oh, eww…

    It’s one thing I’ve thought a lot when reading crappy, unedited writing:
    Words have connotations. Your word choice has connotations that make what you’re saying creepy, disturbing, or just plain bizzarre. Additionally, I am confiscating your thesaurus until you learn the above, and having a long shower with a sandpaper scrubbie puff.

  2. creativewritingstudent

    @Argenti

    Twilight had imprinting as child grooming, so I really don’t know what’s worse.

    Meyer herself is Arizona LDS, which has a lot of traditional values. I’m now wondering if this has got anything to do with her use of that word (although she claims to have got it from a nature documentary.)

  3. Argenti Aertheri

    pecunium — idk that douchebag really makes for an effective pronoun, but good point. (Wtf is douchebag?! Would not get the point across the way the emphasized that does)

    creativewritingstudent — oh, right, Twilight is epically creepy with the whole werewolf and baby love thing…so no, not much better.

  4. To be fair, the term “imprinting” is used if somewhat bad old biology and misunderstood animal training as well as some evopsych shit around infants too (you’ll hear people talking about babies “imprinting” with their mothers after birth…), so it’s not necessarily the case that Twilight is the first thing anyone would think of with that term.

    I assume the term “imprinting” was picked for Twilight from misunderstandings of dog psychology and behavior. There is an untrue theory that certain breeds of dogs can only “imprint” onto one master and can never be as loyal or trustworthy with anyone else. This myth is still pretty big around Rottweilers. Rottweilers are often rather assertive, highly intelligent, pack oriented dogs, and may be defensive against unaccompanied strangers, but they aren’t actually “imprinted” on a single master and can introduced to new people and can be re-homed with proper introduction and care. A lot of people think that Rottweilers can’t be re-homed except as small puppies, but that’s not true. And they can be very wonderful and rewarding dogs with proper training, socialization, and experienced owners (inexperienced or more passive in personality owners often can’t handle more assertive, highly intelligent dogs of any breed). Rottweilers bred as guard dogs or working dogs often have excellent health, but negative traits have been bred into some show bred ones….and I’ve gone off on a tangent…I’m rambling about dogs …

  5. I hear imprinting and I think of training horses; immediately after birth that some things (clippers, having their feet prodded/smacked, things put into orifices, pressure on their ba ks, things in their mouths, crinkly things, etc) are ok.

  6. sooooooooo

    back on the subject of prideful mary- does anyone actually still do the ‘you cant wear white unless your a for real virgin’ thing still. i could have sworn this wasnt the eighteen fucking fifties.

  7. And here I thought the can’t wear white thing was only after labor day! But now it’s virgins? Ok then

  8. sooooooooo

    back on the subject of prideful mary- does anyone actually still do the ‘you cant wear white unless your a for real virgin’ thing still. i could have sworn this wasnt the eighteen fucking fifties.

    The white wedding gown meme did not, originally, have anything to do with virginity.

    And, as someone who knows a lot about wedding gowns, the answer to your question is “Hell no.”

  9. The only time I’ve seen people get all up in arms about a woman wearing white is when it was a second or third marriage. They’re the same people who mutter to one another about how you shouldn’t have a big party the second time, because you had your chance, and you’re not 22 anymore, and it’s just all so unseemly. Suuuuuuper petty.

  10. you’re not 22 anymore

    lol, wut?

    i’m sorry. what i meant to say was- what the fuck?

  11. One example of that attitude I’ve seen, among several: My mom, I know, thought long and hard about wearing white for her second marriage, lest she scandalize anyone’s sense of propriety 9_9. And when she did, there were… words. But there were already words floating around. How dare she prioritize her own happiness above letting everyone believe comfortable lies! /old wounds

    Anyway. She looked beautiful, fuck the haters.

  12. my mom got married in a sundress. my dad wore a sport coat.

  13. I’m not positive if you’re making fun of me for pointless personal stories or not XD but that sounds really nice! I’m going to a boho-themed wedding in a little less than a month, very excited to see what the wedding party will come up with, clothes-wise.

  14. Um, historically, the color for the Virgin Mary in artwork is a rich shade of blue (by historically, I mean like medieval and shit). Isn’t the white wedding dress a fairly modern custom (with a certain limited value of modern…industrial era)?

  15. If I remember my fashion history correctly, women used to just get married in their best dress, whatever color it happened to be. Black was not uncommon. Sometime in the late 19th century, white became a popular color, probably due to the invention of the washing machine. Therefore, white became the color of wedding dresses and it stuck for some reason.

  16. Deranged Counter-Troll

    The wedding dress thing originated in medieval Europe, though it wasn’t just a “wedding” thing – rich people would show off how rich they were by wearing extravagant clothes for special occasions (weddings included), but only for that one occasion – it was never touched again, and in some cases, destroyed outright afterward. The peasants usually just wore their normal clothing, maybe with flowers in their hair or some cheap decoration tacked on or whatever the local custom was (it varied considerably).

    Then in the mid-19th century it became in fashion among some wealthy people who weren’t royalty to copy well-known royals. The “traditional” white wedding dress design on the first wedding (and only the first wedding) became a thing because it resembled the dress that Queen Elizabeth wore on her first wedding.

    Even so, it didn’t fully catch on in most places until about a century later, at which time some people basically pulled out of their ass the idea that it was all about purity symbolism (ideally, one would be a virgin during the first marriage and not one at the second onwards). Because, you know, it makes a good sound bite, and it’s way easier than researching history.

  17. IIRC, white wedding dresses mostly became a thing because Queen Victoria wore one, and then all the fashionable brides of the era wanted to dress like the queen. So, basically, it’s got about as much inherent symbolism as getting your hair cut into “the Rachel” back in the 90s. :-p

  18. Deranged Counter-Troll

    I should add that back before Elizabeth, there wasn’t any particular “traditional” design or color for wedding dresses, or for any other “wear only once” events either – individual families might sometimes favor a particular style, but it was essentially “whatever the hell I feel like” (or whatever random thing their costume maker comes up with), as long as it’s really expensive doesn’t too closely resemble something they’ve worn before.

  19. Deranged Counter-Troll

    Wait… (looks up) oops, Victoria, not Elizabeth. Dammit.

  20. My wife deliberately got married in scarlet second time round. She looked magnificent.

  21. i got married in a hot/deep pink shot silk corset, which laced up at the back), with a knee length hot/deep pink mini (ish) skirt, trimmed with pink lace. i had big platform heels that i cross laced the leather ties up to mid calf and then i backcombed my hair into a tousled mess. when i put it all on, i had a moment of self doubt then i drank some more champagne and whooped the night away…so.much.champagne.

  22. haha burka = wedding gown

  23. howardbann1ster

    And… there’s Epiphany! again.

    Dude.

  24. MorkaisChosen

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

  25. Epiphany!, I’m willing to grant that you didn’t express yourself well, and that maybe this conversation has made you more aware of the way requirements for women’s dress are used as a way of attacking Islam, while similar requirements in other religions are totally ignored, or even encouraged. But maybe that would be easier to believe if you… shut up about it, now? Now that the conversation is entirely shifted?

  26. howardbann1ster

    I mean, the core of Epiphany’s mockery goes like this:

    Haha! You’re actually just like [group you hate]! Suck it!

    But… if you want us to believe you’re playing on her xenophobia and Islamophobia and not agreeing with it, then you actually have to think about ways to communicate that.

    Because as it stands? Well. You sound more like Mary than somebody arguing with Mary. You get that, right?

  27. Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel

    And here I thought the can’t wear white thing was only after labor day!

  28. Weirdest unsolicited fashion critique I ever received: “Don’t you know your shoes should match your purse? You look like you got dressed in the dark, sweetie.” But at least no celebrities hit me in the face, after?

  29. Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel

    With a payphone receiver. After which Patti Hearst’s character is not seen again. Don’t fuck with serial mom.

  30. Aside from the fact that white isn’t really a necessity to get married, and was something only popular fairly recently in the history of weddings, uh, it’s not like there are dress sellers out there who are going to refuse to sell you a white dress if you don’t still have your vcard. Or at least, I imagine, not many. Especially in this economy, I feel there are few people out there who will blow a sale by calling their customers sluts who are undeserving of that pristine whiteness. And realistically speaking, how the hell would they verify that you’re still a virgin anyway? (I mean, aside from forcing potential customers to be examined beforehand. Which is probably the best way to ensure your business FAILS before it even begins.)

    Besides, I’ve got a pretty kick-ass pale gold dress I think I might rather wear anyway, if I got the chance to. And gold is way better than white, at least with my coloring :)

  31. As far as I understand it, the tradition of wearing white at one’s wedding began with Queen Victoria. Her choice of a white wedding gown was actually criticized at the time, as it was considered insufficiently festive. For European royal weddings, red and purple had been the most popular colors for centuries. Among the nobility and wealthy merchants, the emphasis was always more on embellishment — i.e. jewelry and furs — than on the color. Black was a popular color for a wedding dress for a long while, because until about the 19th century, black fabric dyes were very expensive and unstable (and hence, black clothes were both expensive to buy and delicate to maintain). White is not a particularly traditional color for weddings; in fact, for a while, it was considered the color of penitence and mourning, and remains so in some cultures even today.

    At the same time, there are still, sadly, some people who expect the bride to produce a bloody sheet at her wedding, and for that sheet to be passed around among the wedding guests. Gross. I bet our friend Mary is in that camp.

    (And speaking of Queen Victoria — although she was probably a virgin at marriage, she was hardly the type to believe that women should only have sex for procreation, and that this is a “sacrifice” that a wife performs for her husband. Her popular reputation for prudery is completely undeserved. She loved sex for its own sake — which is obvious from the fact that she was known to comment publicly on her enjoyment of it. For the birth of her ninth child, Victoria used chloroform, which was EXTREMELY controversial at the time. Most doctors and moralists then agreed that women — at least respectable women and good mothers — should not have any pain relief during childbirth. Thus, what Victoria decided to do was very contrary to what her contemporaries believed to be appropriate for a proper woman. And she didn’t just do it quietly — she made the fact of her use of chloroform public by writing a pamphlet in praise of the drug. It’s hard to describe today just how progressive that was at the time. Victoria lived before the advent of pharmaceutical birth control and industrialized manufacture of condoms — but based on her attitude to sex in general, and to chloroform, she probably would have been all for it. Bottom line, I think it would be hilariously wrong to take Victoria as a symbol of “proper” womanly modesty and self-effacement.)

  32. Talking as a person who has had lots of one-night-stands, I do think, in hindsight, that there’s at least a potential moral problem here. Looking back, me and my equally slutty friends tended to objectify potential and actual sex partners a bit. There’s a kind of PUA-like thinking that might sneak up on you if you sleep around a lot, and if you always go clubbing with the intention of hooking up with someone hot.

    I’m not saying this inevitably happens, and I’m certain there are people out there who sleeps around plenty while still being all respectful towards others. BUT my personal experience is that you easily slip into a kind of objectifying way of thinking, discussing your latest sex partners with your friends as if they were things rather than people.

    I don’t want this to sound worse than it is either… We weren’t horrible people, we weren’t like female Heartistes or anything, but we should have been better.

    An interesting thing though is that this is NEVER mentioned as a reason for women not to slut around too much. It might be for men, but not for women. With women, it’s always just “nobody will marry you if you’re a slut” or “you’re gonna get EMOTIONALLY DAMAGED”. Also from personal experience; it’s perfectly possible to do plenty of slutting around, NOT getting emotionally damaged and then still marry a great guy. And you know, if you have a great marriage you have a great marriage. What went on before is completely irrelevant. You can be a virgin and marry somebody great, you can be a slut and marry somebody great, the important thing is THE PERSON YOU MARRY, not what you did before. Some people, like Sunshine Mary, has the idea that you gotta be a virgin, others argue that you gotta “play the field” first; both are wrong.

  33. Amused: Victoria was, so far as can be seen, pretty lusty. Albert was the one with the repressive tendencies. Victorian attitudes toward sex were conflicted, and our understanding of them (as with our understanding of the Puritans) is flawed by what we think we see from here.

    They were (in the upper classes, from whom we take our ideas of what they thought) more interested in decorum. Things ought to be done in the proper way, in the proper place.

    But in those places… go for it.

    I have a book I really recommend for those who are interested: When Passion Reigned (Anderson, Patricia: Basic Book 1995).

  34. And Mary had this to say, over at Complementarian Loners (another of her fav Christian blogs), about her experience here yesterday:

    I was arguing about submission with some feminists online yesterday. In true feminist fashion, they were calling me all sorts of names and suggesting that my husband must be abusive (he isn’t) and I’m like his slave. I mentioned that submitting to your husband is not much different than how you have a boss at work and you are free to do your job and have your thoughts and be yourself BUT you do have to work within his leadership and authority. It is the same in a Christian marriage. Not so scary. They went nuts, though.

    What big ole meanies we feminists are!!

  35. this was always about being able to claim she tried to reason with those mean nasty feminists so she can stumble around thinking she’s confirmed everything she wanted to assume. i love how she still doesnt get how nasty she sounded.

    I mentioned that submitting to your husband is not much different than how you have a boss at work and you are free to do your job and have your thoughts and be yourself BUT you do have to work within his leadership and authority.

    holy shit, i missed that, did she really say it?

  36. The difference in dynamics between a boss and a quiverful husband is so huge the comparison is noteworthy only in demonstrating the dishonesty of the one who made it.

    And yes, she was fucking hilariously horrid. She doesn’t get what a bigot she was to me, personally, on top of the rest of her jackassery. I mean, it was hilarious because she was an incompetent, cowardly bigot, but it was still terrible of her. And you know, everything else. My favorite of her statements was when she dismissed the first set of composite data on depression because ‘it comes from a non-profit organization’. Apparently, the only NPOs that are acceptable are the right sort of church.

  37. this was always about being able to claim she tried to reason with those mean nasty feminists so she can stumble around thinking she’s confirmed everything she wanted to assume.

    Yeah, I kinda figured it wouldn’t be long before she posted about her “bad experience” at either her blog or one of the other Christian blogs (ones that typically cherry pick scripture in order to support the righteousness of male dominance and male supremacy) that I know she frequents.

    holy shit, i missed that, did she really say it?

    To be honest, I looked through the comments from yesterday and did not find one from her that even remotely resembled that. Perhaps I missed it, too.

  38. holy shit, i missed that, did she really say it?

    Pretty sure I saw that on her own blog, but not here. In any case, I don’t think that anyone suggested her own husband was abusive, just that many women in her situation are abused by their spouses and there’s very little recourse available to them.

  39. Well okay, if she really wants her marriage to be on the model of a boss/underling relationship, then I’d suggest that:
    1) She be free to “quit” any time she likes, without the fear of Eternal Damnation, and
    2) There be some objective rationale for who gets to be boss (like years of experience), with the opportunity for any underling to become boss in turn.

    …just for starters.

    But really, how does anyone manage to say “there’s no potential for abuse, just like a employer relationship!” with a straight face?

    And while we’re at it, did anyone say that sunshinemary’s own husband was abusive? (Because all I saw were people saying that, if he were, she’d have no recourse, and that cases of abusive husbands were far from unheard of.)

  40. Well okay, if she really wants her marriage to be on the model of a boss/underling relationship, then I’d suggest that:
    1) She be free to “quit” any time she likes, without the fear of Eternal Damnation, and
    2) There be some objective rationale for who gets to be boss (like years of experience), with the opportunity for any underling to become boss in turn.

    …just for starters.

    But really, how does anyone manage to say “there’s no potential for abuse, just like a employer relationship!” with a straight face?

    She hasn’t really thought it out to that extent. All she was doing (as a “reformed feminist” who, I’m willing to bet, is looking to validate that she made the right choice in eschewing feminism for the quiverfull lifestyle) was regurgitating Christian Manosphere talking points in order to preach about how we feminists are “doing it wrong” and/or “viewing it wrong”.

    And while we’re at it, did anyone say that sunshinemary’s own husband was abusive?

    No, but that’s another common whine from anti-feminist women in the Christian Manosphere, “They’re calling me a slave and a doormat and saying that my husband must be beating me into submission ‘cuz there’s no such thing as a woman who would choose to be submissive to her husband!!”

  41. We shall see if they allow my comment to be posted.

    Anyone who cares to see what was actually said can read the exchange (which isn’t quite as she puts it, not least because she didn’t make that argument, and started her engagement by agreeing with someone who said Most women nowadays really are beneath contempt. Manipulative, conniving, self-centered and solipsistic…especially beautiful ones.

    Her first comment

    There was also a significant amount of discussion of how to interpret the scriptural verses she chose to us, as well as the broader context of the gospels.

    But she chose to leave that out, rather saying, “they went nuts”.

  42. ShadetheDruid

    “reformed feminist”

    I wonder if that’s anything like the people who say they used to be non-believers, but got faith and converted, when in fact they just switched denomination/sect and consider their old denomination/sect to not be the same (or even a valid) religion.

    In her case, this would be her conflating being for women’s rights with being a feminist.

    (I could be wrong and she could have once actually been involved in feminism, but I don’t really have the energy to look through her site to check D:).

  43. About weddings in general-there are hundreds here monthly and mostly people just dress up in something nice. There are occasions where I look at someone and want to say ‘really? flipflops to a courthouse for your wedding?’ but not my business really.

  44. And it’s up, and the only response to date is an ad hom about the harridans and white knights here who are foaming at the mouth.

  45. this was always about being able to claim she tried to reason with those mean nasty feminists so she can stumble around thinking she’s confirmed everything she wanted to assume. i love how she still doesnt get how nasty she sounded.

    Yeah, I too kinda figured that it was going to go down like that. You know, I really am pretty pessimistic at times, but I do kind of hate it when people fulfill my worst assumptions and are boring about it to boot.

    Not to mention, she never really did bother to acknowledge that she got such a negative response because she engaged in bad faith from the very beginning. Even though several people told her “look, when you come into a feminist space and call feminists 40-something spinsters who write dull, bitter essays, you should expect to be told to shove it.”

    If I’d gone over there and said, “In my experience, submissive wives are bitter people who tend to have to criticize everyone who isn’t like them in an attempt to convince themselves that they aren’t missing out on a world beyond whatever it is their husband wants for them” I’m pretty sure I would have gotten a pretty negative reaction as well. Maybe there wouldn’t have been as much swearing, but anyone who thinks all it takes to be “polite” is passive-aggressive words carefully omitting the naughty ones is a fool.

    Maybe I could go over there and engage in bad faith like that, but I won’t because I’m not an asshole and I don’t have the time or enough of a persecution complex. Doing that is the equivalent of stomping on a wasp’s nest and then going “Y U MAD WASPS?” Fuckin’, duh. It doesn’t prove your point, it just makes you look stupid.

  46. If I’d gone over there and said, “In my experience, submissive wives are bitter people who tend to have to criticize everyone who isn’t like them in an attempt to convince themselves that they aren’t missing out on a world beyond whatever it is their husband wants for them” I’m pretty sure I would have gotten a pretty negative reaction as well. Maybe there wouldn’t have been as much swearing,

    Probably not as much swearing, but plenty of people I’d wager would tell you that they would be praying for you, which is a way of judging someone while getting to pretend, because they’re using socially-approved language, that they totally aren’t judging you, while being plenty aggressive to boot.

    They’d probably also say, “bless your heart,” which means “fuck you.”

    But you probably already knew all that.

  47. Yeah. Oh I know that kind of ‘”bless your heart”.

    Also, fucking blockquotes.

  48. To go offtopic again (I’m working through a backlog of posts and comments) about imprinting, I got two words: Angelo d’Arrigo. I love me long-distance fliers and I’m forever jealous to a man who migrated with the birds around the world.

    And yes, MRAs, this is a feminist praising a MAN! Must be MISANDRY!!

  49. Imprinting is code for trauma bonding?!

    *holds back nasuea*

    My God…

    Anyone have stuff they’ve written to supprt this?

  50. @pecunium,

    And it’s up, and the only response to date is an ad hom about the harridans and white knights here who are foaming at the mouth.

    I hope you didn’t expect that a discussion of scripture and the gospels, rather than a flamefest, would follow. Unless you are eager to discuss the gospels concerning the righteousness of male domination, female subordination and Christian Domestic Discipline, you’re pretty much SOL. I pretty much just lurk and lol at those sites, though will occasionally poke their hive.

  51. no, I didn’t expect any such. I am familiar with the environment.

    I went, said my piece, and left.

    My blood pressure isn’t helped by seeing so many being so “hardened of heart”.

  52. Pam: To expand. A serious discussion of the underlying tenets couldn’t happen. That would require some level of open mind; or a lack of emotional involvement.

    Since they, and I, have radically different understandings of those texts; and largely irreconcilable; barring a complete change of heart, the first isn’t really an extant condition. It’s not that my opinions on texts can’t change; I’ve become more reconciled to Paul, as I’ve had the chance to read more recent translations from the Koine; I still have troubles with him, and the Deutero-Paul is troublesome, not only for what it says, but for what the acceptance of it in the present day says, and for how it has to be reconciled to the rest of the Pauline and Evangelical teachings.

    But we really part ways at the application. I think religion is personal. They think it’s political. That I think it personal is a radical (from their POV) political statement. They thikn it oppresses them; because I don’t think society needs to look the way they think it ought.

    They don’t believe in not doing unto others, and for that I disdain them; clapping my shoes free of dust as I leave them.

  53. I love how they’re upset at people calling mary out on passive aggression, but not this other phrase by a commenter:
    “There are few ironclad sociological rules, but one is: Most Women Are Mediocre.”

    Also, Keoni is there getting his pats on the back. I wonder if they agree that virtually all women are beneath contempt?

  54. Ugh: That doesn’t matter. Keoni is fighting the good fight against feminism, and the enemy of their enemies is their friend.

  55. Man, Complementarian Loners had this to say to defend Keoni:

    Before you claim that chauvinism is the same as misogyny, be careful. A dog is inferior to a human and we treat it as such, but do we hate dogs or treat them poorly as a kind of family member? Bear in mind this is a proposed antidote to the rampant misandry in our current culture. Often the pendulum must swing an equal distance in the other direction before coming to its equilibrium. Or another analogy could be, if you have a cancer that is killing you, you take the poison (chemotherapy) as a last resort attempt to kill it before it kills you, with the risk that you may die anyway.

    That’s right! Chauvinism isn’t hateful because it’s just the same as treating women like dogs!

    Fucking priceless.

  56. Also, women are like cancer, so it makes sense to hate them, apparently.

  57. Treating women like shit is like chemotherapy??

    Wut the mother loving hell?!

    File this under : men hate you.

  58. I think the takeaway from that statement is that men will die slow painful deaths unless they transport their women in a soft-lined kennel.

  59. Aaand I’m on moderation.

    It’s sure terrible how people keep going to CL’s blog to quote what Keoni says, I guess!

  60. That’s right, women are free floating cancers looking for a man to suck the life out of. Take the red pill.

    Or,you know, pull your head out of your ass.

  61. Ugh: You are on moderation because they are interested in discussion, and they are sure of the rightness and rectitude of their positions.

  62. ShadetheDruid

    I keep going to these places people link to and I don’t know why! Someone commented on the topic of Manboobz:

    I shall add one remark only. I only glanced at the commentariat on the Manboobz site, if that is its name. But the hysterical, low and vulgar tone fully supports my point about the mediocrity of women in every respect. If women learned to write like grown-ups, they would get more true respect.

    “I only looked quickly so I don’t know if the name of the site is accurate, but I know it sucks and totally supports my point.”

    Yeah.. *wipes tear*

  63. yeah, cuz the pretentious, gasbag tone garners so much more respect

  64. I’m guessing it would be gauche of me to mention to mary that most of my realworld activism outside of feminism consists of trying to eliminate the boss/employee relationship and replace it with egalitarian, workers-managed workplaces…

  65. @Pecunium,

    no, I didn’t expect any such. I am familiar with the environment.

    Good, I hated to think that anyone here forayed unwittingly into a lion’s den.

    And thank you for your ‘expansion’. It is, in my opinion, difficult to reconcile oneself with Paul, as what he says in some of his
    letters appear to contradict what he has said in others. What I find troubling about its acceptance and application in the present day
    is that it is often paraphrased and not attributed to Paul but, rather, is pronounced as commandments from God.

    They don’t believe in not doing unto others, and for that I disdain them; clapping my shoes free of dust as I leave them.

    Well said!

    Ugh,

    I wonder if they agree that virtually all women are beneath contempt?

    Yes, they do, save for the few women who eagerly join them in their contempt for “those other women”….they are the very rare jewels.

    You may have been surprised that there were women there who agreed with Keoni’s hateful sentiments, but bear in mind that they believe that there will be an MRA apocalypse of sorts, and when the dust has settled, there will be scant few women that will have been allowed to survive virtually unscathed … they want to ensure that they are one of those scant few women.

    @ShadetheDruid,

    Ah yes, that be David Collard. “If women learned to write only what good men (like me!) told them they were allowed to write…”
    This is a man who believes that, if women are to engage in any form of conversation/discussion in mixed company, they ought to have a man publicly sponsoring them, because that would give them the credibility that they would otherwise lack by virtue of being mere women.

  66. I mentioned that submitting to your husband is not much different than how you have a boss at work and you are free to do your job and have your thoughts and be yourself BUT you do have to work within his leadership and authority.

    holy shit, i missed that, did she really say it?

    Yeah, she said exactly that, in the midst of one of her longer rants.

    Mary, if you’re still reading this (and I’m sure you are), that arrangement does indeed sound scary. One of the good things about working under someone at a job is that at the end of the day you can go home and be your own person. Laboring under a boss’s authority 24/7 would be incredibly stressful.

    Beyond that, though, it just sounds silly and pointless. Do whatever makes you happy, but it doesn’t strike me as an especially mature way to live.

  67. CassandraSays

    WTF is a Complementarian Loner?

  68. Shaenon – Also, it’s rightly considered a huge conflict of interest to have sex with your boss.

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 4,802 other followers

%d bloggers like this: