Category Archives: gloating
School buses: “A symbol of women dominating men and boys.”
Evil gynofascist propaganda
Does anyone still doubt that we live in a gynofascist lady-tatorship? Some guy who calls himself Davd – because there’s no “I” in Davd! – has posted a sharp analysis of one of the most insidious tools of the matriarchy: those flashing lights they put on school buses to try to stop people from running over kids getting on and off the buses.
And no, I am not making this up. Here’s Davd, explaining it all to you:
Anyone who thinks that the women of North America were subjugated by some kind of patriarchy back between 50 and 100 years ago, need only look at the traffic on rural roads in the morning, to know better. …
Those school buses have been running mornings and afternoons for as long as i can remember—and i’ll soon be 70. They are a symbol of women dominating men and boys [and perhaps girls as well, though girls seem more able to wheedle adult women than we are]. …
[W]hy do Canadian and US school buses have big bright flashing lights fore and aft, and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side? I don’t remember the children who rode on them, including four of my sons, being all that grateful for the fuss; and i don’t remember them being all that frightened of the traffic. … It was obvious enough to me and my sons, that the School Buses were babying the children.
So who babies children—Mommies or Daddies? …
The School Buses with big bright flashing lights fore and aft and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side, are the spoils of political victory for babying Mommies, well over half a century ago, not anything remotely patriarchal.
So Davd suggest we go whole-hog and just paint the things pink, to remind us of who really runs the world:
Pink school buses will be truth in packaging: School biases against boys are more important than the babying bus lights and STOP signs, and a larger reason to paint school buses (and school doors) pink.
Naturally, most of the commenters on The Spearhead found Davd’s concerns to be completely reasonable and in no way exaggerated. Firepower, in the very first comment, one of the most heavily upvoted in the thread, Godwinned it out of the park with these observations:
Tolerating pink gear on NFL players gets you pink buses. Accepting pink buses gets you pink uniforms in the future concentration camps.
Babying and coddling American kids/boys – gets you the youth you see today.
Meanwhile, Keyster suggested that the fact that school buses are painted yellow was itself evidence of an insidious conspiracy. For, you see, that color was set as the standard for school buses after a conference in 1939 that was funded in part by a grant from – cue dramatic chipmunk! – the Rockefeller Foundation.
And yes, that’s the same Rockefeller Foundation that funded and continues to fund feminism. No surprize that they’d fund a centralized government standard for the color of a gasoline consuming conveyence meant to transport our future proles. It’s important they identify school with safety as part of the indocrination process.
Much of the rest of the thread was given over to guys gloating that the girls they used to have such crushes on when they were in grade school had now all become old and fat. Nugganu —who recently informed me that he’d like to see me “anally raped by ten well endowed black men” — got the most upvotes of any commenter in the thread with this observation:
For whatever reason I still see alot of the girls I grew up with in the 80′s fairly often. They’re all serious boner-killers now. I suppose it doesn’t help that they’re all varying degrees of fat, uglier and have the look of having had 100+ dicks stuck in them over the years. All of them are single too, surprise surprise.
Naturally, aging Spearhead dudes remain just as handsome and appealing as they were in their salad days. Everyone knows that ladies age like mayonnaise in an tuna sandwich, while Spearheaders age like fine whine wine.
Dudes’ Republic of China
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
I may need to reconsider my attitude.
IncrediblyFatMan added:
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
Revorob joked:
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Speaking of which, here’s a more balanced look at the issue on China.org.cn that examines some of the consequences of the new ruling for Chinese women.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
MRA Peter Nolan on Anders Breivik: “In different times … he would be called a hero.”
The work of a "hero?"
Some in the manosphere have been quick to label mass murderer Anders Breivik a “madman,” trying their best to pretend that his noxious misogynist ideology bears no resemblance to their own. Others, while endorsing at least some of his ideas, have distanced themselves from his actions.
As for MRA loose cannon Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), well, I’ll just let him explain himself. In a comment on The Spearhead, which naturally earned him multiple upvotes from the assembled mob, the man with the strangely punctuated name offered this take [LINK FIXED] on the killer:
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country. Women and leftists then make him out to be “insane” and are looking for “who is to blame”. Well they might start looking in the mirror. The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. I know. I used to be a father and a husband. I have never experienced hatred in my life as vehement as by women in divorce.
And then the justifications began:
It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization. Men often see that some things are worth fighting for. Men often then take action to fight for what they believe in.
Anders Breivik is not crazy. He’s as rational as the next man. He sees that his country is being destroyed. He sees that the people responsible for that destruction are the left of politics. And he would be correct. He took action to stop what he believes is the destruction of his country.
Followed by a smug told-you-so:
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.
Of course, when Nolan refers to “telling women” that angry men will erupt in violence, what he means is “offering guys on The Spearhead specific tips on how exactly to kill innocent people.”
I’m not going to repost the vile suggestions he set forth in a now notorious Spearhead comment some months back, but I will note that they included handy tips on how to efficiently kill police officers, as well as specific advice on the best ways to take out large numbers of people in “malls … girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.” He ended the comment with a not-terribly-convincing attempt at plausible deniability:
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things? I am not recommending them or even condining them. But if a man got into the frame of mind of Sodini and was actually SMART about it. There are PLENTY of ways he could attack women and manginas and their cop protectors with NO CHANCE AT ALL OF BEING CAUGHT as long as he kept his mouth shut.
Naturally, this comment got dozens of upvotes from the Spearhead regulars.
In a followup comment on The Spearhead last night, Nolan mocked another commenter for offering words of sympathy to the “innocent victims.” That last phrase seemed to send him into a fury:
Those who were killed were not “innocent victims” in the main. Anders Breivik is as sane as the next man. …
This was an act of war and he considers himself a soldier. In different times, as in WW II, he would be called a hero.
The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians. I would put forward the opinion that the political leaders are responsible for the war on men and the destruction of the families of men. What could be more “an eye for an eye” than to kill the children of those who were so willing to destroy mens families and destroy the homeland of men?
In killing children of those who are betraying men? He is sending a very clear message.
“You may think you are protected by your police and your security…..but we can find your children…and you can not protect them except by locking them into a secure area.”
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters; I won’t repeat it here.
Then back to the “innocent children” remark:
These “innocent victims” of whom you speak are the children of those who are criminals. And since Anders Breivik could not get to the REAL criminals he went after the children. Is that such a bad idea? Are they not legitimate targets if the primary targets can not be reached?
This also received multiple upvotes from The Spearhead crowd, and a much smaller number of downvotes. [UPDATE: The post has now started attracting downvotes, but the upvotes still outnumber them considerably.]
Yes, it is truly strange that anyone could possibly associate the MRM with violence in any way.
>Living Bitter and Alone is the Best Revenge
>
 |
| Soon you too will be able to snub women LIKE A BOSS |
