Spearheader to feminists: No, YOU’RE the malignant solipsistic predatory narcissists without conscience!
And another thing …
Some threads on The Spearhead are virtual gold mines of crackpot misogyny. Today, from the same thread I drew upon for a post the other day, I present to you yet another long-winded antifeminist manifesto from a dude who doesn’t know shit about feminism. This time the dude in question is someone calling himself Darryl X.
Here’s his little screed:
There is only one kind of feminism. There is no first- or second-wave feminism. There is no ecofeminism or radical feminism or socialist feminism. There is no left and right. No conservative or liberal. (With which many feminists would hope to rationalize their egregious misconduct and criminal behavior – “Oh, but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.”) …
Feminism = the Borg
There is only feminism and it is evil and civilization depends upon its complete and utter elimination. Feminism is the product of false constructs and straw men and false flags and lies and fraud and is a political campaign of hate against men and children. Period.
And apparently Darryl loves the word “and.”
It has coopted our financial and legal and political and social institutions to affect the enslavement
[citation needed]
and murder
[citation needed]
and imprisonment and exile
[citation needed]
of men and the forcible separation of children from their fathers. It is responsible for the collapse of our economies worldwide and the fall of civilization.
[citation … oh, forget it. Every single thing he says needs a citation.
Feminists are comprised of mostly women but there are some men (manginas and white knights and other descriptions).
Manginas represent!
Feminists are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, without conscience and driven to do evil. They are solipsistic, manipulative, opportunistic, parasitic and predatory. They are compulsive pathological liars and deceptive and manipulative. They have no empathy, remorse, shame or guilt. They have no analytical skills and cannot plan ahead and are short-sighted. They are shallow of affect and are remorseless and are insincere and disingenuous. They are faithless and in the absence of any analytical skills, they do not have faith in the analytical skills of others, no matter how much evidence there is of its benefits. They are career and life-long con-artists.
Huh. Are you perhaps familiar with the psychological concept of “projection,” a defense mechanism whereby you project some of your own characteristics – particularly your most unsavory ones – onto someone else, or perhaps a group of people?
Just curious.
No matter how we define or relate to one another as men in the MRM, understanding the distinction between men in the MRM and feminists is more important. That is the enemy which must be destroyed. The other men in the MRM from which each of us are different are our brothers and the only important difference is that between men in the MRM and feminists. That’s the difference which defines us and on which civilization depends.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the future of civilization doesn’t actually depend on a bunch of bitter, hateful dickwads grousing on the internet about how much ladies suck.
Like this:
Posted on June 26, 2012, in antifeminism, douchebaggery, drama kings, grandiosity, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, narcissism, oppressed men, the spearhead, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 320 Comments.
I don’t really have enough of a coherent political philosophy to call myself much of anything beyond “whatever works and makes people happy,” but my political opinions are more-or-less in line with the current platform of the Socialist Party of the USA, so I call myself a socialist.
My personal attitude towards labels:
“Nae President! Nae Congressman! Nae Caucus! Nae Party! We willnae get fooled again!”
Apologies to Pterry.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Start with wiki and pay attention to -
Darryl: I’m not sure when it was first used but it appears in text going back at least four-thousand years.
Citation needed.
I don;t identify with anything anymore.
Yes you do. The MRM.
Capitalism as it is practiced today amounts to fascism. At the same time, socialism amounts to fascism too.
No. Not to either.
But that nihilism is a convenient looking cover for what appears (apart from the hating on women being equal part) a whole lot of apathy.
And Darryl… what war did Thomas Ball fight in to protect my liberties? Why do you praise him for taking part in the oppressive military industrial machine you are now decrying?
The word “spearhead” seems damned recent — 1893 recent. Latin does have a similar concept though — “hastatus -a -um [armed with a spear]; m. pl. as subst. , hastati -orum, [the front rank of the Roman army when drawn up for battle].” — Not knowing any ancient(er) languages, I can’t help any with >3,000 years.
And let me end this Latin lesson with a joke — ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum! (you can pop that into google translate, I checked).
(Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question?
)
Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point, but another hieroglyphic based language).
So Latin having a similar concept really doesn’t help his “at least 4,000 years” claim.
Argenti: Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point
I knew that when I asked.
I also knew that the primary arm (the “units of decision”) in both those armies weren’t armed with spears, ergo such a locution isn’t likely to have existed.
Pecunium — yeah I figured you probably did, that was more for everyone else. Also, see “Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question?”
I’m guessing you also know the hastati didn’t exist for very long, making it one hell of a stretch to say “spearhead” has been around even since then (and even if it were, that’d still be only half of his 4,000 year claim).
And partly, I’m just amused by the idea of a particular word being that old — a concept sure, but the word itself? All the examples of “didn’t change that much” words that I can think of are religious in some form or fashion — Isis is that old for example, but I have to count her as a concept and not her name as a word considering the writing system in question (she’s at least 5,000 years old actually, she seems to predate writing…unlike “spearhead”…)
Question - why do so many MRAs show up here (and on other feminist-leaning blogs) and claim not to actively support the MRM, and then immediately follow up with points that make it clear that they support the MRM? I can’t figure out if they think this is a brilliant tactic that will advance their agenda because it’s MRAs as people that feminists tend to dislike rather than the MRM the movement and its core values, or if they’re just too apathetic and cowardly to actively advocate anything to the extent of admitting that yes, they are part of a movement. Or if they’re just too in love with the idea of themselves as special snowflakes to admit that their belief system actually can be pretty neatly summarised and is not all that unique.
@Cassandra
Because MRAs are starting to get a bad name. It’s like when people say “I’m not racist but…” They still want to espouse their misogynistic beliefs without being associated with a hate movement. They think they’re keeping their hands clean. Plausible denialability.
Argenti: The Hastati were the primary arm of the Roman Legions in the days before the Marian Reforms. The more interesting idea was that, as a unit of decision they weren’t well thought of, being the least experienced members of the Republican Legions. The triarii (older soldiers, in the rear ranks) were the one’s referred to in aphorism: “to go to the triarii” was a phrase equivalent to “going to the bitter end” (which is a phrase we get from the Royal Navy ca. 1800, and relates part of a rope).
Pecunium — you forgot “and the most likely to die”, though I guess that would aid his highly jumbled point about the word “spearhead”. Did not realize that “going to the bitter end” involved nautical terms though, kind of figured “bitter end” was just the logical “oh great, we’re all going to die”.
Wtf is “to go to the triarii” in Latin, that’s got to be an idiom, but gero or eo? (eo declines hilariously weirdly, makes sum look normal)
Argenti: At sea one often needed long “ropes” (most of what a landsman would call “rope” wasn’t actually rope, it was cable, or halyard. On tall ships there’s actually a joke about there being “only one rope on board” because the only lines which are rope, in the technical sense are those which are used to hoist flags and signals, and there is only one of those in the running rigging, but I digress).
Those ropes were attached to “bitts”,and so the terminus was, “the bitter end”.
As to the Latin, I don’t know. I’ve seen it referenced, but never quoted directly. Given the ways in which, “to go” is used in english, I can imagine a few verbs to use.
Wait
Endure until
Send for
Use
And for all I know, the references could have been extrapolative. We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.
“We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.” — no, but we do have Cicero, who sure loved to use slang (and some very creative insults). Gero is to carry, but it’s the verb used in “to wage war”, and “to carry (on) war” sort of makes sense. I doubt it would be wait, though it could be (the more common verbs for “to wait” are the roots of expectation and minister, not really the “we’re all going to die” sense). Send for would carry a sense of bringing them into battle, not having to fall back on them, ditto for to use, well, for habeo (to have or use) anyways…could be usurpo. To endure would be one of the many fero verbs, that could be it…Can you tell this is going to bug me now? I do hope I can answer this one without having to read Cicero, goodness do I hate his overly formal style.
Wtf is the difference between cable and rope? I’d thought a halyard was a type of rope.
No Cicero required!
“Ad triarios redisse (LA): ‘to fall back on the triarii (LA)’; to have reached a desperate situation.”
Of course it’s a participle of an irregular verb…that’s redigo, I think (I hate irregular verbs, so I may well be wrong here).
redigo -igere -egi -actum [to drive back , bring back]; of money, etc. [to draw in, call in]; in gen. [to bring or reduce to a condition; to reduce in number, value, etc.; to lessen, bring down].
…now, between the roommate and I we once owned 3 copies of Wheelocks…are any of them in the apt?
I have better than Wheelock’s, though copyright 63
(this is a better reference than the modern one, less filler)
It’s the perfect active infinitive of redeo -ire -ii (-ivi) -itum (1) [to go back , come back, return]; ‘ad se’, [to come to one's senses]; redit, [the matter comes up again]. (2) of revenue, income, etc. [to come in]. (3) [to fall back upon, be reduced or brought to].
(What’s really hilarious? I barely passed Latin, I can’t be pedantic enough without a reference book)
Argh, ignore the “better than”, that was me being a dolt about it not being the Wheelock’s I spent so many hours cursing at.
Argenti and Pecunium have done yeoman’s service in stomping the last claim you made into the ground, but I’d like to address the penultimate one. The greatest number of wartime deaths up to and including the First World War did not occur due to combat itself but to disease or famine. (Remember the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? It’s a list of everything that happens to you during a war: War, Famine, Pestilence, Death.) These hardships are borne equally by women and men, and fall heaviest upon children and the very old.
Moreover, in some parts of the period I study, actual battle was somewhat of a last resort-not only would many commanders forego giving battle as long as they could, since their armies represented a huge investment of time and capital, but one recognized strategy was to invade an enemy’s territory simply to despoil the region; since an army represented such a great burden upon the area forced to provide food for it, it’s easy to cause a lot of trouble for an enemy without fighting at all.
Finally, until relatively recently women and children travelled along with men in armies, and they were exposed to many of the same dangers such as starving to death, getting sick, or getting shot at.
It is simply not the case that the heaviest burdens of early modern warfare were borne by Manly Men.
Awesome information! I always love a good conversation on sayings/expressions and where they come from, it’s really interesting stuff.
Blarg, I used the word “represented” too damn much back there.
Argenti: Ad triarios redisse Which is in keeping with the style of pre-Marian tactics. A sequence of units (in lines). The Hastati in front, the Triari in the rear (third) ranks.
When the fron got tired, move then back, and the second ranks up.
If that didn’t do it, fall back on the Triarii.
As to cable/halyard.
Rope is made of yarn (yarn being the technical term for a strand of twisted fibers)
To make it stronger you ply it, usually in trebled strands (three is the number for the counting today). The “lay” is based on whether the direction of twist is “S” or “Z” (if you you hold the rope up, does it look like the crossing section of an S, or a Z?).
When you ply up, you have to lay in the opposite twist of the yarn/rope you are starting with.
So, an “S” laid yarn gets plied into a larger rope. That would become “Z laid”. That’s a halyard. If you need a larger one, it become “S laid” and it’s a cable. Then it would become a larger halyard, etc.
Argenti: You need to go to the Vatican. I just found out the ATMs in Vatican City use Latin.
Deductio ex pecunia, et cetera.
Re: rope/cable — oooh, ok, interesting. And I thought the number of the counting was always to be three, never 4, and certainly not 5 (and not two, unless proceeding onward onto three).
Re: the Vatican — I wish, I’d have to be dragged out of the Sistine Chapel (ok maybe not, the neck cramp would probably force me to leave sooner or later).
Argenti: When plying yarn (all non-plied spinning is called yarn) the ply is three, the only exception is thread, which is spun double, not treble; because thread is used in weaving, and when you weave a double it’s tighter. When you knit/crochet a treble, it’s tighter (crochet is spun/plied in the opposite direction from yarns for knitting; for the best of results, though most commercial yarns are laid for knitters, and so crocheters have to make do; why yes, I do spin).
I’ve got to remember yarn-plying as another great topic for making trolls go away.
And, if one can stomach it, it does seem that perseverance, and a continuing effort to keep it to something close to a narrow line of discussion can cause even a determined troll to just go away.
Though, “that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead”
Pecunium — as interesting as yarn is, my number of the counting thing was a Monty Python reference -
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
I tend to sew with embroidery thread pulled apart to be two threads, or regular thread doubled, so glad to have some confirmation my stitches really do hold better and it isn’t all in my head. (Though, after sewing that entire jacket by hand, I might be happy if I never touch thread again XD )
pecunium: So THAT’S why I have such trouble with my yarn when crocheting. It… doesn’t pull apart exactly, but it… kind of unravels a little bit as I stitch. I don’t have that problem so much with synthetic stuff, but the mass-made natural fiber yarns do that a LOT. Oddly (or not), the really fine handmade yarn I buy from Ursula’s Alcove NEVER does that. Maybe she spins for crochet? (if you’re in Michigan in February around Valentine’s day, Ursula is usually at Val Day in Kalamazoo. Otherwise, she’s ALWAYS at Pennsic and has an Etsy store. Her yarns have been consistently fabulous, I highly recommend her.)
A friend is starting to raise angora rabbits and is harvesting wool. Since he’ll be learning to spin, I might ask if I can poke my head in and see if being around another beginner helps me get the whole ‘fiber to yarn’ process. Because a couple of people have tried, but I really can’t grok it.
Anybody know an effective way to translate an image into a knitting pattern? I’m trying to turn a (vintage, I think? I know absolutely nothing about sports) NY Jets logo into a workable 2-colour pattern for a patch on a scarf. I’m getting frustrated enough with the various applications I’ve tried that I’m thinking I might just eyeball it — but I don’t do a lot of work with colours, I’m more into interesting stitches and textured patterns, so I think it might come out all funky if I try to do it without a guide
.
My biggest problem is that I wanted to make it 26 stitches wide at its widest point, and there’s a huge amount of detail that’s lost when it’s so small. I might push it to 30, 32? Anyway.
If your yarn comes loose when crocheting, you could try starting from the other end of the ball - pull it from the inside.
I really need to learn to crochet. It’s required in a couple of sock patterns I want to try.
Argenti: Yes, I know. I was making the same reference, hence that turn of phrase.
I tend to sew with embroidery thread pulled apart to be two threads, or regular thread doubled, so glad to have some confirmation my stitches really do hold better and it isn’t all in my head. (Though, after sewing that entire jacket by hand, I might be happy if I never touch thread again XD )
I don’t know if embroidery floss has the same properties of lock up as thread for weaving, because it’s not engaging the way warp and weft do.
Kathleen: It sounds as if you are having lay problems. I don’t crochet (I can knit, but crochet just makes me crochety).
“I don’t know if embroidery floss has the same properties of lock up as thread for weaving, because it’s not engaging the way warp and weft do.”
I don’t know the technical terms here, but it’s thicker, frays less easily. In any case, doubling even normal thread results in less “fuck, I have feet of stitches pulling out, damnit” — the annoyance of doubling it being the price I pay for doing yard+ sections without a knot. It was a nice distraction while making that jacket though, there are so many seams in that thing (it’s fully lined, and I am never working with 100% polyester again).
Argenti: I know what embroidery floss is.
What I don’t know is if the sorts of stitchwork it’s used for is affected in the same ways in terms of how the ply locks into the surrounding material.
In weaving the use of a thread made of a 2-ply yarn means the material is tighter (which is even more true with a worsted yarn, as opposed to a woolen). When one moves to knotted materials (crochet/knit) 3-ply gives the best lock, but the better lock is gained in each when the ply is the opposite of the other.
For plain sewing, yes, doubled thread will make a tighter seam, because it’s interacting with the warp and weft of a woven material; and it’s load bearing.
Pecunium — I wasn’t trying to question whether you know wtf embroidery floss is, merely expressing my frustration at having seams rip out. I’m tired, my annoyance probably came out wrong, point was that just regular single thickness thread results in a lot more swearing than is needed, and a lot more holes in my fingers. (And absolutely nothing with the poly layer went right, I ended up very carefully ironing stitch witchery into the seams because the fraying was driving me bonkers)
Ah…. I see now. I didn’t take offense, I just thought you were explaining what, not why. My error.
Yes, I know a number of people who are fond of floss for doing repairs/laying seams, because the heavier weight hold better. I suspect the spin is also a bit more woolen than worsted, and that the sizing is a lot looser, which make it grab better.
Viscaria, I usually do a 4×4 gauge swatch and print out some knitting graph paper from here http://www.tata-tatao.to/knit/matrix/e-index.html when I want to make a pattern and then mess around with it by hand until it looks right. Do you have an image of the logo? Doing it sideways might help get more detail in and you’re probably better off at 32 if it’s more complicated than this one I found http://wsuent.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/new_york_jets.gif but I don’t know, you might be able to fit it onto 26 stitches wide if it’s one of the simpler ones. Also, what kind of color knitting were you thinking of doing? I would probably go for double knitting (even though it’s kind of tedious) myself since it’s a scarf but stranded or intarsia could also work if you’re more comfortable with those.
Thanks Snowy! That’s what I’ll end up doing, messing around with it on my own, but now I have a good grid resource
. I’ve actually pushed the width all the way to 38 stitches, and yes, I was going to do it sideways (so I guess the height will be 38 stitches, technically). It’ll be a wider scarf but who cares, right?
I’ll probably do double-knitting, since as you’ve said the back will be visible. I don’t mind the tedium because I’m only doing a couple of patches of 2-colour stockinette. The rest will be a solid-coloured pattern that looks good from both the wrong and right sides.
I’ll post forum pics if I ever get it done XD.
I am so chuffed that a bit of throwaway on etymology turned into such an interesting discussion of actual fibercraft.
Which reminds me, I need to do some more spinning, and make a lazy kate, so I can do some plying of the cinnamon alpaca I’ve been spinning.