The Moral Equivalence of the Emoting Housewife and Her Sycophants

by Keoni Galt on February 17, 2011

Laura Wood has gained some notoriety around the manosphere for her blog, “The Thinking Housewife.” I myself have her linked on my blogroll, and I do read most of her postings. She has some good points for which I often find myself in agreement with…but one of her recent posts really irritated me, and I felt it deserved a full length response.

Since she does not allow commentary at her blog, and I know her and her sycophants regularly read The Spearhead,  I decided a little public fisking of Laura’s correspondence with one of her e-mailers and her condescending denunciation of this forum and it’s participants is in order.

First up, the title of her post: Eat, Pray, Love Syndrome and its Counterpart for Men .  This title alone is ludicrous in it’s implication. “Eat, Pray, Love” is a piece of mass media propaganda to normalize frivolous divorce as a path to female fulfillment and empowerment. It was a mainstream, commercially successful movie that millions of women across the country made it a point to go and see. It’s subversive influence on married women is quite obvious when you get the kind of results as evidenced by the comment that Bill Price featured in this Valentine’s Day post, in which a married woman contemplates destroying her family because she was influenced by this disgusting, feminist agitprop. I find the moral equivalence between what Wood refers to as  “Eat, Play, Love Syndrome” and the reaction of the commentary here at The Spearhead completely off base, and utterly ludicrous.

It is not even close to the same thing. For one, The Spearhead represents nothing more than the masculine reaction to understanding the truth about our feminized popular culture. We have a true diversity of viewpoints represented here. Other than condemning feminism’s influence on our culture and lives, we don’t agree on much else around here. To say there is an ‘ideology’ associated with The Spearhead and it’s contributing authors and it’s regular commenters is laughable. The ONLY thing that gets universal agreement here is recognizing the affects of the feminist agenda on our culture and society…and even then, we’ll disagree on some aspects of that. Even when we do agree on something, we never agree on any particular solutions to these commonly recognized problems. Suggested solutions are regularly debated, opposed, shot down or supported. There really is no consensus here to form an “ideology.”

We got men here who think Game should be universally studied by all men, versus men who think Game doesn’t even exist or is nothing more than a waste of time. We have men here that argue for a return to Patriarchal marital norms, versus men who think all Men should avoid marriage versus men who advocate marriage only for men who expatriate to countries where feminism has not gained a foothold.

We have men who believe in pumping and dumping as many women as possible; we have men who believe in lifelong monogamy is the only morally acceptable way for men to be sexually active; and we have men who are simply awaiting the convergence of realistic sex robots and/or virtual reality technology so they can ignore women completely.

We have men here who are bitterly opposed to abortion and consider it a ghastly act of infanticide, and others that support it’s legality as much as any pro-choice women’s org.

If there is one thing that can be said about The Spearhead, is that we largely agree to disagree on just about everything. To simply say this forum represents a coherent, cohesive ideology comparable to the feminist zeitgeist that underlies mass media programming like Eat, Pray, Love is an unfounded moral equivalency and is a completely baseless assertion.

Wood calls her blog The Thinking Housewife, but her marginalization of The Spearhead community as nothing more than a “counterpart” equivalent to the frivolous divorce mindset of feminism clearly shows that she’s not thinking logically about The Spearhead.  She’s emoting disgust at this entire site, as if this is nothing more than the misogynistic mirror-image of the brainwashed misandry of feminist sites like feministing or jezebel.

This is similar to the regular appearance of trolls here, in which feminist quislings denounce all the Men here for “hating all women.”

Here’s the e-mail that Wood received that got her emoting about our little “community of hateful misogyny” here at The Spearhead:

PATRICK writes:

Here is a moving testimony at The Spearhead from a man whose wife watched the movie Eat, Pray, Love. She was so affected by it she told him she no longer loved him. Eat, Pray, Love is a toxic celebration of feelings (only destructive feelings, because non-destructive feelings e.g. gratitude, are boring); a denigration of duty, and therefore a denigration of true love. The comment is a good example of a philosophy (hedonism with a dash of nihilism) applied directly and in an unadulterated form.

However, the comments from men that follow the post are disturbing.  The appropriate reaction to evil is not to become evil oneself, but to remain moral.  Simply identify and explain the evil – and pursue the good.  To wallow in resentment and bitterness leads nowhere.

First of all, “Patrick” what exactly is “disturbing?” What was said in the commentary that could be seriously considered “becoming evil?”

Is it the language you disapprove of? Well guess what, this is by and large a male space. We have salty language here as most any space dedicated to male fellowship and camaraderie. Does vulgarity in male dominated conversation offend your religious or moral sensibilities? Than don’t use such language yourself…but to say that using such language is “disturbing” or downright “evil” is nothing more than hyperbolic hyperventilating. You might want to grab a paper bag and start taking some deep breaths.

Is it evil for the men who expressed their anger with vulgarity at the woman who saw this movie and decided it was time to divorce her husband and forever alter the lives of their two boys? You think such a woman doesn’t deserve epithets like bitch or cunt to describe her? Especially when many of the men here have been similarly betrayed by their ex-wives or mothers who destroyed their families over such selfish decisions like the author of Eat, Pray, Love? What you are seeing here is not disturbing…it is the legitimate reaction of the righteously disturbed!

Disturbed by the cultural approval and encouragement that promotes this shit in the first place!

“Patrick” continues:

The “anti-marriage” ideology is deeply misguided.

Misguided? You will not find a consensus on the topic here at The Spearhead. What you will find is a universal recognition of what a scam and raw deal Marriage 2.0 has become for Men in the present day, feminist-influenced culture.

Women receive a lot of criticism for what I call lifestyle divorces, but I also think some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce. Occasionally good men will be blindsided.

Time to cue the disturbing language….

Occasionally good men are blindsided?!?!?

What the FUCK are you talking about? When a woman decides to break up her family over a “lifestyle” decision, even if the Man in question is oblivious to the ‘red flags,’ how does that excuse the immoral decision for such a woman who simply follows a pop culture movie’s example into divorce court? This looks like you’re blaming men for the immoral, family-destroying and selfish decisions women like the Eat, Pray, Love author made! What about personal responsibility? What about Ms. Lifestyle Divorce trying to “communicate” and “work it out” with her oblivious husband? What about such women actually trying to live up to her marriage vows of “til death do us part’ instead of contemplating divorcing him and upending the lives of their children so she can go and “find herself,” by fucking swarthy, handsome strangers in exotic locales?

Being a victim of betrayal, however, is one of the many possible misfortunes of life. How we react to misfortune is more telling of character than how we react to good fortune. So my sympathy is with the victims of lifestyle divorce, especially the children. But it is not acceptable to engage in immoral behavior because one has been victimized or because others have been victimized.

So let’s get this straight…it is not acceptable for Men to express outrage and anger with some curse words at this instance of a woman deciding to break up her family after seeing a fucking movie?

That all the men that saw this as yet another example of how feminist-driven divorce laws are destroying the nuclear family in Western Civilization and denouncing it in harsh, vulgar language…that is “immoral behavior?” Fuck that!

Here’s the first comment, by “BobbyL,” in reaction to that post:

Really sad. Spread the message far and wide. Marriage is dead. Feminists killed it.

Is this what Patrick calls “The “anti-marriage” ideology” that is “deeply misguided?”

Oh wait…I know, it was the very next comment: “Damn welmer we should delete that cunts post.”

Was it the “C” word that got Patrick so upset?

I could think of worse insults for a woman that destroyed her family simply because she saw a movie and decided she too was unhappy and it’s time to destroy her own family.

I normally do not use so much vulgarities in my blog posting both here and at my own blog…but I think there is a fucking point to be made here. Vulgar curse words are not evil, nor immoral.

They are rude.

They are offensive to polite sensibilities.

But they are entirely fucking appropriate in a venue such as this when denouncing self-centered, narcisstic cunts that think nothing of destroying their families because some fucking movie made by some empowered feminist twats gave them a vague sense of dissatisfaction with their own marriages.

Than we have Richard P-Man’s comment regarding the BobbyL’s comment stating that “marriage is dead and feminists killed it” -

True – but lets give credit where credit is due…

Plenty of women who did not take on the “feminist” label – also helped to kill it by silently sitting by and doing nothing while a group of sexual bigots trashed the institution.

Or worse, men like Patrick sit there and condemn other men who are rightfully disgusted with the current state of affairs for being “anti-marriage.”

Then we have Laura Wood’s response:

Unfortunately, this post at The Spearhead inspired the typical, vulgar misogynist tirades there. All men are victims. Every woman is evil. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ideology except bitterness, bile and loneliness.

First of all, this man whose wife is contemplating divorce IS A VICTIM.

He’s a victim of the subversive cultural indoctrination of this garbage that masquerades as “chick-flick entertainment.” This is the precise response this movie and the book that inspired it was intended to evoke in other women.

Second of all, while there most certainly were vulgarities – this is a male space after all – I didn’t find a single “all men are victims” type of statement in the comments, nor “All women are evil.” Where is this ‘ideology of bitterness, bile and loneliness’ Laura Wood refers to? Most of the commentary was either relating their own observations of the effects of such feminist cultural programming in their own lives, or it was direct advice on how the blind-sided husband should “use game” to mitigate the damage and repair his marriage…or to lawyer up and get ready for the divorce hell so many other men here have already endured. On balance, there was actually more commentary urging this man to “study game” to “fix” his marriage than to take divorce measures.

Is this the “anti-marriage” ideology Wood and her sycophant e-mailer, “Patrick” are denouncing?

It’s not “bile.”

It’s not “lonliness.”

It’s anger.

Anger that is entirely justified and appropriate. You know…the kind of anger displayed by Jesus when he threw the money changers out of the temple?

But Laura managed to finish her little piece with an even more amazing bit of ignorant sophistry:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

Why yes….I agree 100% with this…but she completely misses the most significant point regarding this topic:

Men have nothing to fear in marriage. It’s the DIVORCE we have to fear! We rightfully fear for the loss of our children, the garnishment of our wages, the loss of a lifetime we attempt to build for the benefit of our family!

Honor has got nothing to do with it.

{ 172 comments… read them below or add one }

Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 07:41

I don’t know about you guys, but in 2009 and the first half of 2010 almost every single cafe I entered had at least one woman reading the Eat, Pray, Love book. Young women, old women, women with kids, women with husband in tow, women on their way to see the latest Twilight. It was pretty incredible. Somebody should write a version of Eat Pray Love with underage vampires, they’d make a million dollars. But I digress.

Laura Wood seems to be the prototypical conservative female supremacist. We know the type. Lots of scorn for feminists, plenty of respect for (some) men, and occasionally laudable insights. But threaten her female pedestal, and out comes the whip. “Get married! Serve women! Serve your country that hates you! Serve your ungrateful wife! Serve the God I believe in!” Smack, smack, smack goes the whip. Laura pushes us men into the minefield, and when we get our butts blown off, she cackles and says “Man up, and get back out there!” Smack, smack, smack.

In the end, The Thinking Housewife is just The Thinking Woman, and we all know the capacities it lacks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 107 Thumb down 3
Opus February 17, 2011 at 07:46

Very odd: Surely the counterpart to Eat:Pray:Love (or at least as close as you can get to it) would be:

1. Man bored with wife

2. Man sells house (unknown to wife and family) and with said money

3. Goes to Thailand and finds (erm) spiritual enlightenment with a teenage girl he meets dancing round a pole – but she understands him! (Men don’t care much about food or prayer so that is perhaps where the analogy begins to falter).

The other difference is wondering how this could be turned into a concept which would make men look good (empowered, to use the vogue expression) rather than the selfish, whoring, deadbeat, work-shy, abusive (of the native girl) loser, that everyone would take him for.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 1
Lara February 17, 2011 at 07:53

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 129
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 07:55

Anger in the face of injustice is no vice.

Laura, and our culture are right to fear it though.

Anger is male power. Which is why the church, the government, the schools, our culture, the feminists and manginas denigrate it.

And when male power is unleashed, there is nothing that can stop it. Not female power. Not an effeminate church. Not a government. Only other male power.

Once men recognize the source of their power, it will be a dangerous time.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 3
Lara February 17, 2011 at 07:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 114
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 07:58

Want to bet that “Patrick”, like Jesse Powell, like Josh/Thordaddy, is not married, and never has been? I wonder how many of the drones that hover around that site are basically beta-orbiters, vaguely hoping that somehow “Mommy” Woods will fix them up with a date?

Note well that the supposedly “pro-man” Housefrau spent more space denouncing the anger of men than she did the evils of “Eat, Betray, Love”. We can see what truly disturbs her; not an active movie campaign to bust up marriages, but men who are angry about that campaign. Note also that she calls men who urge other men not to marry “evil”, but can not, and will not, call the women who urge other women to break up families due to a lack of “haaappeeeness” “evil”.

Why is that, I wonder? Why is it that the strongest condemnation that Woods and her orbiters can muster is always directed not at wrongdoers, but at those men who are angry about the wrongdoing?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 95 Thumb down 2
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 07:59

“The other difference is wondering how this could be turned into a concept which would make men look good (empowered, to use the vogue expression) rather than the selfish, whoring, deadbeat, work-shy, abusive (of the native girl) loser, that everyone would take him for.”

Easy enough.

1) Man rescues girl (Cinderella story)
2) Guy becomes an environmental activist/political reform or some such nonsense at the end of his “spiritual awakening”
3) Man learns that helping others is the way to selfhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Lara February 17, 2011 at 07:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 102
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 08:02

“Why is that, I wonder? Why is it that the strongest condemnation that Woods and her orbiters can muster is always directed not at wrongdoers, but at those men who are angry about the wrongdoing?”

LIke I said above its FEAR.

That is actually what drives quite a few conservatives, fear. Fear of loss. Fear of loss of power.

Male anger is the loss of female power and the very real risk when things get this unbalanced is that the scales will tip in the other direction heavily some day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
Clarence February 17, 2011 at 08:02

Laura Wood is disgusting.
Yes, it’s true a man might get over the financial rape.
But if he has kids, what about the devastation in their eyes? How can a father protect his (it’s THEIR kids, of course but bitchy or irresponsible uncaring mommy hardly deserves the title of “parent”) kids from this utter crap?

We can’t.
Marriage for men who’ve married an average or below average character woman these days is one long act of bend over and take it, esp. if he has children. Yeah, a psychopath, a rich man, or someone who has no kids might feel free to ignore her emotional terrorism but while it’s true that every man can at least TRY a little game or a little stand up for yourself in marriage (and in some cases this will work) fact is, most men have no leverage whatsoever when marriages with kids are involved. The presumed primary parent -mommy- can hold them hostage.

This is a disgusting system, and people who try to support it with shaming language are disgusting people. Try to fix the damn thing first, then maybe a man with any self respect will have a reason to consider marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 2
demirogue February 17, 2011 at 08:09

Fuck this system, the government, the shitheads that allow it, and the nation that stands by it. Fuck the politicians, the cunts, the feminists, and the manginas. Let it all collapse. Period.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 2
Lara February 17, 2011 at 08:10

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 99
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 08:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 112
Roland3337 February 17, 2011 at 08:13

Here we have it, gentlemen: Another woman who was ‘supposedly’ on ‘our side.’ But when we said something that she didn’t agree with, she defaulted to her TRUE position.

I used to be ambivalent and mildly supportive of welcoming women into the MRM. Now. Not so much.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 91 Thumb down 5
Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 08:21

paigeu-
Laura Wood’s favored religion has sold out to female supremacy. Hestia and other excellent spearhead contributors have written about this. Perhaps Laura should remove the plank from her own eye before she shames us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 75 Thumb down 1
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 08:22

@With all respect, I think that the author comploetely missed the point.

Most women have no way to understand the male experience with VULNERABILITY TO STATE BRUTALITY. Examine this sentence:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

A woman’s experiences with law enforcement, government agencies, the courts, and the law are virtually always positive. Women feel that “big brother” is on their side. Here is what almost no woman understands:

1) The same police officer that will be a chivalrous gentleman to a woman, will look for any excuse to smash in a man’s head and drag him to jail.
2) The same judge who will lower his voice and sympathise with a woman in court, will try to find any possible excuse to throw the book at a man.
3) The same social worker who treats a woman with kindness, will spit in the face of a man.

And so forth.

If it were true that the only thing a man had to loose in divorce was his feelings, there would be no “spearhead”. Who gives a bleep about feelings?

The experience of men in divorce is of alienation from children, indenture as a wage slave, and humiliating submission to a system of “be thankful for every scrap that you are thrown, or receive no scraps at all”. The experience of men in divorce is of debilitating disenfranchisement and brutal assault by a state apparatus with unlimited powers.

The problem with the “thinking housewife” is that she projects her experiences with the state (kindness) on men. What a joke. The state is an apparatus for brutalization and alienation of men. The state treats men like a farmer treats his cattle. Sometimes a “prize bull” will get lots of attention and admiration. But for most bulls, like most men, life is short, brutal, and unforgiving.

Women have no way to respond to “the spearhead” because they have no basis for shared experience.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 93 Thumb down 1
Rusty February 17, 2011 at 08:23

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 57
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 08:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 84
Rusty February 17, 2011 at 08:30

“Can we agree that 90% of the posts and comments on Spearhead are not compatible with the Christian ideology?”

With modern Christianity, certainly. But not with traditional Christianity. Christian men kicked the world’s ass for two millenia until women took it over. Most men here righteously reject the modern feminized, globalized, namby-pamby version, and I’m glad to see it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 6
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 08:30

No, I think the male equivalent of EPL is Tucker Max. The one thing men want from women is loyalty, and EPL is disgusting to men because it represents a wanton, selfish, narcissistic and flippant disposal of loyalty. The one thing women want from men is commitment, however, and Tucker Max represents, to women, what EPL does to men. Natch.

***

I guess I would say that my perspective on TTH site is based on having participated there for a while, and then backing away from it eventually for the following reasons.

First, the traditionalist ideology espoused there, and elsewhere, is problematic for guys who are dealing with the “here and now”. The tenor of the “advice” there is that men should man up, find “good women”, and assume their traditional responsibilities — regardless of the law, the culture, the social pressures and so on, because if you take up your traditional manly responsibilities properly, none of the rest of that will ever, ever impact you adversely, because your masculine magic wand will make it all disappear with respect to *your* life. And if that doesn’t happen, and you do get burned because of the law, the culture, the social pressures and so on, it’s your fault as the man because you either (1) didn’t choose a “good woman”, or (2) didn’t take up your traditional manly responsibilities properly, and, therefore, in either case, you kind of had it coming, son.

The assumption is that when something goes wrong, it must have been a case of a man choosing the wrong person to marry, or the man not living up to his manly responsibilities properly. Frankly, this is inane. I know plenty of folks who got divorced not because they married the wrong person or because they didn’t try to lead, but because the woman in question either got bored, simply wanted out, changed who she was and wanted a new life/new man, and so on. You cannot prevent someone from changing, and in this culture when people change enough in the context of a marriage, it often leads to divorce, especially with the cultural choir constantly chanting “You Go Girl” and so on. You also cannot overestimate the degree to which feminist programming has penetrated the minds of virtually all women — virtually all women, that’s right. Not all, but virtually all. Virtually all women — including Christian women, including Catholic women, including so-called “traditional, conservative Christian/Catholic women” and so on. Not *all* women, mind you — there are needles in haystacks out there that are much more common than unicorns, but still quite uncommon and downright rare in major urban centers or above a certain educational level.

And so in light of that, men are supposed to … do what exactly? March headlong into the fire, confident in their own manliness and the woman’s Christian morals, only to be chewed up by the razor blades of feminism’s maw? That’s what TTH would have men do. And if it fails, blame the man for his choice, or for his actions. But in all cases, BLAME THE MAN.

The second problem is that there is a real disinterest in alleviating the current suffering of men under some of the laws and mores that exist today. The reason for that is plain old ideology. Take, for example, what Glenn Sacks does. Glenn Sacks believes in many feminist ideas, as we know. But, he also busts his ass to work *within* the current system to change the laws so that things are more equal and fair – things like custody decisions, parenting plans, support levels and so on. The traditionalist mindset is generally that this kind of activity constitutes collaboration with the feminist enemy, rather than sensible action within the current system to affect useful change today, rather than waiting for a cultural snow crash and a hoped-for reinstitution of traditional values, as seems to be the wont of many traditionalist conservatives. To me, that is an approach that is completely useless to men living in the here and now – and beyond useless, really. I came to the conclusion after observing and participating there for a while that this kind of traditional conservatism has virtually nothing to offer most men who are living in the here and now.

Third, and finally, are the completely cooky cranks who comment at TTH. They like to throw stones at the comment strings here, disliking the anger and the heat and the cussing and so on. And frankly, sometimes the heat is too much for my own tastes as well, but I do understand very well, viscerally well, where it comes from and why it is being expressed. But, as we know, people living in glass houses ought not be throwing stones. Take “Josh”, for example, who regularly refers to MRAs as “de facto homos” who are bent on practicing “de facto homoism” just like feminism’s “devout dykes”. This guy is one of the cookiest cranks on the entire internet, and slwerner has done a great job of pointing this out on numerous blogs.
Cranks like him represent the “cooky”, “angry” side of traditionalist conservatism for all to see, in my opinion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 88 Thumb down 0
Deathslayer February 17, 2011 at 08:32

Unfortunately, this post at The Spearhead inspired the typical, vulgar misogynist tirades there.

*Translation- men understood EXACTLY what was expressed and called out the anti-MALE government run by anti-male MALES and the female parasites that leech and feed off of it.

All men are victims.
*
Funny, I don’t FEEL I am a victim. I feel rather enlightened, free, confident and able to show total indifference to women who do nothing for me.

Every woman is evil.
*
No, every woman is not evil…many just support evil by saying nothing when a woman is exposed, supporting fellow women in the screwing over of men, shaming men if they dare call out the double standards and contradictions and still expecting men to still look at them with something other than revulsion and disinterest.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ideology except bitterness, bile and loneliness.
*
Except freedom, indifference, and peace of mind.

Once a man is free of a woman’s influence, he sees no need to care or even focus on the thought process of any woman. He can enjoy time alone, focus on improving himself and unless a woman earns his respect or even attention, he sees zero need to waste time on her existence.

However, one commenter does make a good suggestion (unfortunately, with lots of four-letter words).

Like love, care, feel- man some of the WORST four letter words ever.

He says the husband in this case should simply leave the house for a few days and not tell his wife where he is going. He should then return and treat her with cool indifference.
*
Even better, go get his own place, let HER pay the bills and see if she can eat, pray or survive without him.

Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor.
*
Men have nothing to gain in marriage except massive debt, loss of freedom, restrictions under the guise of ‘maturity’ or ‘responsibility’, nagging, lack of personal space, more chores, more headaches, more expenses and finally, to end up truly alone.

I’m still waiting for women to give men a GOOD reason to get married.

That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.
*
So, if honor is THAT important, WHY should a man give it to a woman instead of keeping his honor for himself?

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 17, 2011 at 08:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 95
Paul February 17, 2011 at 08:40

<>

Way ahead of you! Already working on a move called Drink, Party and Fuck. It is a spiritual movie that is empowering for men.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ramzpaul#p/u/20/loE6b7-NJhg

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Journey February 17, 2011 at 08:49

I normally don’t give a shit about religion. I’m an atheist and my attitude is what each person believes when it comes to spirituality is up to them. Kind of like what the drafters of the US constitution believed (and they were christians). But this Laura Wood person and paigeu defending her piss me off. If this is how they want to “return society to Christian values” they can jump off a cliff. I don’t wantto be leading women or dominating the household. I just want equal respect in a relationship and if I get divorced EQUAL RIGHTS! That’s it. I have no more time for Christian traditionalist “shape up” bullshit than I have for the feminist version and as so many guys point out they seem to end up being the same anyway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 8
Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 08:53

In its heyday Christianity was a paragon of civilization and a support to good-natured men. I know we have many Christian men here at the Spearhead. I respect them and their faith, because they acknowledge the full extent of the problems even within their own community and they don’t shame MGTOWs. In fact, I just had a talk with a friend last night about the benefits of traditional patriarchal religion to society.

But as Laura does not acknowledge the extent of the problem, and can’t conceive that men should have the choice to be single, I don’t give two shakes if Laura is a “Traditional Conservative Christian.” Coming from her, that argument is simply a gussied-up Not All Christians Are Like That.” I say again, “Clean your own house, woman!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 08:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 77
alpha February 17, 2011 at 08:56

This cowardly woman does not allow comments. Is there no way to post on her blog?

However, the comments from men that follow the post are disturbing. The appropriate reaction to evil is not to become evil oneself, but to remain moral. Simply identify and explain the evil – and pursue the good. To wallow in resentment and bitterness leads nowhere.

Mr. Patrick,
You are in i-d-i-o-t. What do you think you are, declaring what the “appropriate response” is?

The “anti-marriage” ideology is deeply misguided.

I’ll ask you to confirm that belief after your 3rd divorce

Women receive a lot of criticism for what I call lifestyle divorces, but I also think some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce.

That’s right, bring the blame back on the men!

But it is not acceptable to engage in immoral behavior because one has been victimized or because others have been victimized.

Oh, I agree sir. Immoral behaviour is unacceptable. Like the behaviour of Julia Roberts’ character in EPL-or the behaviour of men who defend feminism.

and Laura’s response:

Unfortunately, this post at The Spearhead inspired the typical, vulgar misogynist tirades there. All men are victims. Every woman is evil.

Correction:All HETROSEXUAL men are victims-of feminism.
and who said women are evil? I didn’t. No one did.
Feminism is evil-and as a consequence?
it is contact with the female gender that is suicidal

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ideology except bitterness, bile and loneliness.

Wrong, there is “freedom”-freedom from women, their nagging, and everything else about them.

Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.

aaah I see-there is nothing to fear-even though the man may lose his job,property, body parts(“Lorenna Bobbit for surgeon general!” said the feminists), liberty, and even life. Right. Nothing to fear.

This kind woman continues:

As Socrates said in Plato’s Gorgias, “men are made happy by the possession of temperance and justice, and miserable by the possession of evil.” He further said,

Oh, Socrates said many great things:

By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you’ll be happy. If you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.

Socrates

I have no doubt most married men in the world today are great philosophers!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 1
Skadi February 17, 2011 at 08:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 95
Strong Man February 17, 2011 at 08:58

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 89
alpha February 17, 2011 at 09:00

Some of the men posting on her site are red blooded. :) One said that Lara Logan should be avenged.

Send him to Egypt. No one will miss him-least of all Lara Logan
His wife/gf will secretly hope he gets killed so she can get interviewed by Oprah

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 2
alpha February 17, 2011 at 09:03

Let’s stop whining and step up. Let’s make a difference in our own lives–making our own choices to raise children the way we want to, spend our money for things that are best, and make sure our wives know we’re in charge of our own–and our family’s–destiny, so we’re going to make our own good choices, not just do whatever they want.

Let’s be the kind of men that others feel they can lean on and rely on–and maybe they will.

You want to act like a pack animal your whole life , go ahead. Find some lemmings to join you. We will not!

“Let’s be the kind of men that others feel they can lean on”
lol no thank you I have no interest in supporting anyone but myself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 2
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 09:04

The TTH blog is Christians preaching to Christians…therefore the standards of behavior expected are much higher than for the general public.

Then they can leave MRAs alone, because MRA isn’t about Christianity, it’s about guys and their real world problems in this secular culture we live in. If they’re only interested in Christians, they can shut up about MRAs, can’t they?

Look, therein lies the problem. They have no interest in actually helping men who are living in this culture, most of whom are not really Christian in any meaningful sense. And in any case, being a Christian is not a silver bullet for these issues anyway.

So, yes, if you are a Christian, pray and seek forgiveness and so on. And then give Glenn Sacks some money so he can lobby for legal changes. Because neither the Church, nor God, or TTH is going to do that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
Journey February 17, 2011 at 09:06

Strong Man

Jesus you sound like one of those morons from that site a few weeks ago telling us all to “man up”. I thought we sent that crap packing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 2
terre February 17, 2011 at 09:10

“While I agree [...] that feminism has destroyed chivalry, the idea that women no longer fulfill their responsibilities needs clarification. In truth, women fulfill many of the responsibilities formerly performed by men. They do the overwhelming amount of hands-on care of children and home and yet they also support or help support the family financially. Women work harder than they ever have in the history of the West. Nevertheless, they do not perform one major task. They do not provide moral support for men as they once did or uphold marriage vows as they once did. The terms have changed for both men and women. Self-centeredness is common.”

This is awful obfuscatory bullshit. Women don’t work nearly the same accumulated hours as men and the hours they do work are overwhelmingly in desk jobs or meaningless paper-shuffling. Any man who wants to sit at home and raise his kids is welcome to read Tsing-Loh’s article to see where his fate lies.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 3
SingleDad February 17, 2011 at 09:11

Ah, young MRA trying to please women. Learning by experience is the only way for men, IMO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Rebel February 17, 2011 at 09:12

“Laura Wood is a traditionalist- which means she is fighting to see Christianity make a return to its roots.”

Once a religion has received its death blow, it sinks into the deep blue waters. I think that feminism has torpedoed religion in all its forms: please don’t bring back the dead.

No coming back. Christianity is now 2000 y.o. and its time has come to sink.

In a sense, I am glad that Laura Wood printed that article: it reinforces what I have been saying: women are not our allies: they are our adversaries, they are the allies of our enemy, the government.

They should not be allowed to post on men’s sites.
What we think of them and what we say about them is NONE of their business. They should go their own way.
Conversely, what they think of us and what they say about us is completely irrelevant to us.

Game is the name of the game.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 6
SingleDad February 17, 2011 at 09:17

@ Strongman

We have been stepping up for 20 years and are now gaining ground, you just don’t like the direction we are stepping in. But the question becomes why? Why would you try to sabatouge a bunch of guys trying to persue freedom, one of our “unalienable rights”.

We don’t espouse hatred or poor treatment of women, we wish them well, well away from us.

I think I know the answer. Do you?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 09:19

I am not sure what good it will do, but I sent a message to “the thinking housewife”:

You cannot understand the men’s rights movement without understanding male vulnerability to law enforcement, state institutions, and the court system.

Your analysis of the motivations underlying the bitterness and anger of the contributors to “the spearhead” is deeply flawed, as illustrated by this sentence:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

This analysis comes from projecting your own positive experiences with the power of the state onto men. You are wrong. If men thought that family courts would treat them fairly in divorce, men might be afraid of such banalities as heart break and loosing their sense of self. However,men have a very different experience with the power of the state.

1) When you see a police officer, you see a chivalrous gentleman sworn to serve and protect you. When a man sees a police officer, he sees a bully who is looking for any excuse to crack open a skull, drag the man to prison, and charge him with resisting arrest.

2) When you see a social worker, you see a sympathetic voice who is paid to help. When a man sees a social worker, he sees a cold and heartless enemy who does not recognize his humanity.

3) When you enter a family courtroom, you enter with the expectation that you will be treated at least fairly, and likely chivalrously. When a man enters a courtroom, he enters the lair of the Devil.

I have followed your thoughtful commentary for some time, and I admire your intelligence. However, your opinions regarding the status of men, and the men’s rights movement, often miss the target. The reason is a complete asymmetry between your life experiences and those of most men, myself included.

The experience of most men with the power of the state is dehumanization, brutalization, and finally dispossession. This is where the anger comes from.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
silent February 17, 2011 at 09:19

Hawaiian Libertarian,

Not to play Captain Obvious here, but what is she doing on your blogroll then? I can understand wanting to avoid the echo-chamber-effect of what you read, but how many times can you pay attention to someone who suggests you take the blame for other people’s mistakes?

My favorite question: Am I my brother’s keeper?
Answer: No. Especially when the legal climate is biased against you.

TTH evidently lives in a bubble in a way that AntZ at 08:22 described perfectly.

Reading/Listening to her from this point on is your bad. Divorced from Reality might be the most appropriate description of her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Anti Idiocy February 17, 2011 at 09:23

Most men in this country, and many men on this board, worry far too much what women and their sycophants think. Feminism, adopted by the overwhelming majority of American women despite what they may claim, has destroyed relations between men and women. If you get into a “committed relationship” with a woman today, you are subservient under the full force of the law and culture. There is only one sensible way for a man to respond to this.

Smile, hump, dump. Rinse, repeat.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
Rusty February 17, 2011 at 09:24

Women, this is what a rebirth of a healthy patriarchy looks like. Like seeing your first newborn baby, it doesn’t look like what you expect. Men are finally beginning to stand up to decades of abuse by feminists, and naturally there are going to be emotional releases of the pent up anger which has been gestating for the past 90 years or so. What did you expect? Didn’t you think about this when you were enjoying your “liberation”? Did you think that the natural balance could be cheated indefinitely ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 09:25

@AntZ –

I think the answer is that they tend to view this in terms of how *you* behave. So even if a crapton of objectively bad shit happens to you, as long as you have your honor and integrity intact, you are “fundamentally” ok.

That may work in a spiritual sense for Christians, but of course it ignores that the rest of the stuff is very much not ok. Therein lies the disconnect. As Paiegu said above, from that perspective it’s pointless to blame, and if things go badly, you accept that as God’s will, and are grateful that you retain your virtuous honor intact.

It”s a perspective that, while valid on a spiritual level for Christians, is more or less indifferent to the legal/cultural/social context and what we can, or cannot, do about that context, the very real risks it poses and so on.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Keyster February 17, 2011 at 09:30

Unfortunately, this post at The Spearhead inspired the typical, vulgar misogynist tirades there.

It’s like being called a racist for criticizing Obama.
We’re breaking the 11th commandment here.
Though shalt not criticize woman!
Men? Say whatever you want…everybody knows we’ve been proven flawed and therefore defenseless. But woman? NEVER criticize woman in any way, for she is eternally pure and righteous. HOW DARE YOU SIR!

May you feel the shame, wrath, scorn and banishment that will be bestowed upon you like the fury of hell unleashed….
….for revealing woman’s true nature to the indocrinated masses of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 17, 2011 at 09:33

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 82
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 09:34

@Novaseeker

I see your point, but I do not think it fully explains the housewife’s confusion. She specifically mentions heartbreak as the reason why the men of the spearhead are angry, embittered, etc. No. No way. If “the spearhead” were a heartbreak hotel, there would be 1000 visitors per year, not 1000 visitors per day.

Men here are angry because they state sanctioned feminist oppression of men, on behalf of women. If there has ever been a man on “the spearhead” whose anger came from loneliness or heartbreak, he slipped between the lines and vanished. There certainly are none today.

The men here are asking for very basic equal protection before the law.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Journey February 17, 2011 at 09:41

Skadi – “Mm, it’s nice to dream about that once in a while. That you can just lay on his big, strong chest and not worry about anything.”

Yeah and then afterwards Skadi can bring a false rape accusation if he displeased her in some way, or if it’s hubby divorce him, get the kids and money and then all “independently” find herself. Yeah! It’s equaliteee!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 09:42

@Hawaiian Libertarian

Sorry to go off topic, but you reqally cannot put robotic technology in the same sentence as computer guided dream state virtual reality:

“… and we have men who are simply awaiting the convergence of realistic sex robots and/or virtual reality technology so they can ignore women completely …”

It will be many decades before the advent of “Star Trek” like androids who are functionally equivalent to a real woman. Until then, life experiences such as washing the car, going to dinner, talking about the day, and discussing future plans will not be possible with a robotic companion — they will not be much more than enhanced blow up dolls.

In contrast, computer guided dream state interaction with a virtual companion who can talk with a man, watch TV, go on a date, or even have an argument is very close indeed.

Sorry, pet peeve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 09:44

paigeu-
“The TTH blog is Christians preaching to Christians…therefore the standards of behavior expected are much higher than for the general public.”

Um, what are you smoking? Laura Wood is preaching and shaming the men at the Spearhead. Your religious bias is showing.

Strong Man-
You arrogantly and ignorantly presuppose the men here are not stepping up to change things. We can help to change things and complain about women at the same time. We’re cool like that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 09:51

Men here are angry because they state sanctioned feminist oppression of men, on behalf of women. If there has ever been a man on “the spearhead” whose anger came from loneliness or heartbreak, he slipped between the lines and vanished. There certainly are none today.

The men here are asking for very basic equal protection before the law.

Yes, but I think their perspective is that the laws don’t matter that much as long as you (1) pick the right woman, and (2) take up your manly responsibilities. God will take care of the rest, and if it doesn’t work out, accept that as God’s will and remain virtuous and honorable. And that’s even if you don’t have a “broken heart”. In other words, she’s saying to men who have never had their hearts broken that they should trust God and take the chance and not be so worried about equal protection before the law.

As I pointed out above, I think this is flawed for quite a few reasons.

When she speaks about “heart break”, she’s speaking to those of us who are a bit older and who have been married (and divorced) here. We’re to be distrusted, in her eyes, because we’re heart-broken and bitter and give bad advice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 09:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 70
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 10:02

“Yes, but I think their perspective is that the laws don’t matter that much as long as you (1) pick the right woman, and (2) take up your manly responsibilities. God will take care of the rest, and if it doesn’t work out, accept that as God’s will and remain virtuous and honorable.”

I have done this. I am married, to a woman so wonderful, kind, generous, and caring that sometimes I start crying for no reason at all when I think of her.

But I have to live with the knowledge that at any time of her choosing, my life ends. I would be beaten to a pulp by police officers, I would be put in a cage, and I would only be released to begin the rest of my life a sycophant ATM machine that has to sit up, beg, and roll over for my ex-wife, hoping she will let me see my children.

The enemy is not women, God knows how wonderful women can be. The enemy is the feminist religion of hate, and the institutions and social prejudices that now support it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 10:08

The enemy is not women, God knows how wonderful women can be. The enemy is the feminist religion of hate, and the institutions and social prejudices that now support it.

I would say that the enemy is not *all* women, but some women are very much the enemy (I’m thinking here of the ring-leaders at places like NOW, Emily’s List, the people in left-wing think-tanks and university faculties, the people in corporate diversity departments and so on) and the unfortunately large number of women, groups especially single ones, who financially and otherwise support these groups with their money, time, passion, and political support.

Most women are feminists to some degree. Even the ones who say they are not feminists only say so because they accept and love the benefits of feminism that they enjoy already. There’s a small number of women who are not somehow caught up in the blame for this, I agree, but the number isn’t large. Most women are, to some degree, the enemy, unfortunately.

That doesn’t mean that men aren’t as well. Men are the steel girders that support the entire feminist superstructure – white knights, politicians, corporate sell-outs, the works. And that leaves out the die-hard feminist men like Manboobz and so on.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
Lara February 17, 2011 at 10:08

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 70
Lara February 17, 2011 at 10:10

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 67
Lara February 17, 2011 at 10:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 66
Poester99 February 17, 2011 at 10:20

@paigeu

I’m a Catholic, and an aspiring MRA, like Bill said, we actually have a pretty big tent here.

Unfortunately, recently, in response to cultural pressure, which they are supposed to resist, most christian sects have beaten their men down in order to make them more like women. This isn’t what Christ intended. God is greater than and encompasses both the male and the female, they are like the opposites of a single coin. They both serve critical purposes. Damage to one side will destroy balance and negatively affect both sides.

How many men raised in female-centric Christian households would be willing or able to follow in the footsteps of St. Paul, or even Christ himself? Very few I think.

It seems like the only thing that can covert the average, woman Christian or otherwise, from a shreiking harpy for the rights (without responsibilities) for her and her sisters, is resultant personal tragedy for her or the ones she loves, and sometimes not even that.

Men can be blind as well (manginas), but they are for different reasons. They are brought up mostly without any realistic insight into women, which even their mothers are frequently complicit in. They are taught to believe that women are innately morally superior. Women are not, they just have different priorities, and hierarchies of motivation, because God gave them different purposes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Poester99 February 17, 2011 at 10:26

However, I also don’t see that men gain much by spending our energy complaining, cursing, and venting our frustration toward the general direction of women and feminism. Remember–we like women! We think they look nice and can be fun to be with–and they help us feel good!

Wow, useless advice, AND sexism. Well done.

Men need to communicate the truth, keeping silent in the face of evil has allowed evil to flourish, we will no longer keep silent.
Strong and silent doesn’t cut it anymore.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Alcuin February 17, 2011 at 10:30

Eat Pray Love is a continuation of the Bridget Jones’ Diary nonsense (2 movies there) as well as Sex and the City. Bridget Jones led to the breakup of marriages as well. It too portrayed female selfishness as heroic and deep, as something Oprah would call “soulful”.

The producers of such trash are not writers so much as psychologists who know how to manipulate women. I wonder what really happens to mid-40s divorced Western women when they go the France, Italy, and India. Does the whole world just magically envelop them like some gigantic womb, carrying them along on some enchanting spiritual-sexual joyride? Do the locals really have such profundity and great sexual energy? Are they all just sitting around waiting for the next feminist bovine they can give their healing words and deeds to?

And don’t forget The Secret, a book that tells women that all they have to do is imagine and really really want it, and it will happen.

How can any man form a marriage and family with such stupid empty people? Are women children or something? Why don’t they read Dostoyevsky or someone else worthwhile?

It just goes to show that men are the real thinkers, the real philosophers of the human race.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Poester99 February 17, 2011 at 10:33

@Skadi

“I don’t want to be leading women or dominating the household. I just want equal respect in a relationship and if I get divorced EQUAL RIGHTS! That’s it.”

Ok, this is very good. Men / fathers should have equal rights. But can you also take up equal responsibilities? From day number one of pregnancy. If you can, then great, then you deserve real equality.

You’re just like Lara, except with a bit more brains. Does it turn you on to poke bears with sticks?
How about this, to flip it, “women don’t deserve real equality, unless they have the financial means to equally support said baby”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Deathslayer February 17, 2011 at 10:36

Remember–we like women! We think they look nice and can be fun to be with–and they help us feel good!

Speak for yourself. I only care about them when they bring me money for doing a job I like to do, perform a service like cooking my food, ringing up my purchases or processing my forms. Their looks, their fun potential have
NOTHING with making a man FEEL better. If a man needs a woman to feel like a man, she is a drug and he is an addict looking for his next hit.

But, remember we’re the men. We’re tough and are up to the challenge.

The best way to win is to not fight-Sun Tzu

Why should I deal with a challenging woman when I can just walk AWAY from her and any problems associated with women that more and more married men are discovering?

The ability to ignore women, walk away from them, feel nothing towards them and being indifferent to them makes women EASY to handle, not a challenge.

With so much important good work to be done, do we really want to spend our precious energy venting and complaining at women?

I don’t wate my energy complaining about women- I simply laugh at them and move on to the next task to be completed.

That’s what they’ve done in in feminism, and look what problems they’ve caused.
Yet they blame MEN for THEIR choices. I see ZERO reason to make them feel better, solve their problems or not make them take responsibility for their choices…like a man

Let’s stop whining and step up.
Once a man tells me I’m whining about my honest observations about women, he falls into the woman category…and guess what I do to women? Besides, I see no need to step up MY game to be a better man for NO ONE but myself.

Let’s make a difference in our own lives–making our own choices to raise children the way we want to,
*
not my child, not my problem

spend our money for things that are best,
*
done

and make sure our wives know we’re in charge of our own–and our family’s–destiny,
*
Why get married and have all that weight on your shoulders?

so we’re going to make our own good choices, not just do whatever they want.
*
You HONESTLY think you can stop women from doing what THEY want?

With the current legal system?

Has anyone been able to stop women from cheating?
False raype?
Lying about abuse?
Attacking men?
Getting fat?
Complaining?
Getting alimony and child support?
Needing her space?
Expecting the man to pay for everything while her money is for HER personal use?

Wow,

Let’s be the kind of men that others feel they can lean on and rely on–and maybe they will.

*
My fellow men know I have their back by my ACTIONS and my WORDS, not my ‘feelings’

That’s how men EARN respect…not just throw it away on women who expect it and rarely return it.

Deathslayer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Alcuin February 17, 2011 at 10:38

Poester99: “Unfortunately, recently, in response to cultural pressure, which they are supposed to resist, most christian sects have beaten their men down in order to make them more like women.”

Actually, the churches, including the Catholic church, have been feminizing men for centuries. The first millennium’s triumphant Christ, victor over hell and king of heaven, was replaced (by Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis of Assisi and the Franciscans, fourteenth-century mystics such as Julian of Norwich) by the ever-suffering Christ of the Passion, and his likewise ever-suffering mother. This never happened in the Orthodox Churches, which is why Greek, Russian, and Romanian men still have their balls, and why their women are, when not Westernized, a much bigger catch than our cows. The Orthodox still worship the triumphant, victorious Christ.

The New Testament reveals God the Father. The Catholic Church today has all but buried the Father, and keeps promoting Mary, again and again. This is a very emasculating situation. Is it still Christ’s Gospel?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
D February 17, 2011 at 10:50

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 64
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 11:09

This never happened in the Orthodox Churches, which is why Greek, Russian, and Romanian men still have their balls, and why their women are, when not Westernized, a much bigger catch than our cows. The Orthodox still worship the triumphant, victorious Christ.

The New Testament reveals God the Father. The Catholic Church today has all but buried the Father, and keeps promoting Mary, again and again. This is a very emasculating situation. Is it still Christ’s Gospel?

Indeed, Alcuin. These are some of the things that attracted me to the Orthodox Church and led to my being received by it more than ten years ago.

Christ in Orthodoxy is an ass-kicking conqueror — masculine, powerful, triumphant, glorious, stern, and with high standards. I think you’re correct that the medieval phase is where some of the femininity began to creep into the Western Church through the back door, and the process somehow accelerated after the Reformation. It seems to have reached a kind of fever pitch after Vatican II when, unfortunately, the Church became divided between traditional/faithful and liberal/feminist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire February 17, 2011 at 11:09

“Women receive a lot of criticism for what I call lifestyle divorces, but I also think some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce. Occasionally good men will be blindsided.

Time to cue the disturbing language….

Occasionally good men are blindsided?!?!?

What the FUCK are you talking about? When a woman decides to break up her family over a “lifestyle” decision, even if the Man in question is oblivious to the ‘red flags,’ how does that excuse the immoral decision for such a woman who simply follows a pop culture movie’s example into divorce court? ”

Women will never (NEVER) be held accountable for anything.
This is why you can’t just make women equals and have it come out that way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 17, 2011 at 11:25

Am I _one_ of the people who down vote Lara regardless of what the witless tart has whittered – YES. She adds nothing except annoyance. She’s kind of a walking example of female stupidity who witlessly helps prove the fact of wimminz inferiority. (so in some ways she’s helping the MRA cause).

Skabby – too much history, she gets down voted too.

Paigeu? I actually up-vote her much more often than I down-vote. That’s because she’s usually on topic and adding to the discussion – sounds fair.

I don’t remember the drop kick a baby comment, but I refer you to the SCUM manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men, I believe). Endless depiction of men as morons on TV. Divorce rape laws, False Rape Accusations, positive discrimination regardless of ability…the list is endless

So you can stick your shaming language up your arse.

How far do you get posting an off-message post on a feminist blog? How long before you get banned? Whatever shameful treatment you feel that your type gets here, it doesn’t compare to what happens on teh wimminz sites.

Strong ‘Man’ is getting down voted for trying out the over tired ‘man-up’, ‘suck-it-up’ shaming language. There’re waaaay past their sell by date to anyone on this blog. ‘He’ sounds far more like a wimminz sock puppetting to me (and I doubt I’m alone). ‘he’ is getting exactly what ‘he’ expected, as trolling for offence being a female trait, I suspect ‘he’s happy to have his views confirmed (as are you).

People with delicate flower personalities should look elsewhere for blog material, might I suggest that the ‘good boy’ project is right up your street

don’t let the door hit your arse as you leave

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer February 17, 2011 at 11:27

Is it Patrick or Patricia?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Keyster February 17, 2011 at 11:38

The religious right is quickly losing it’s influence over a man’s inherent desire for individual freedom. He won’t be told how to think.
Man was made in the image of God.
God was made in the image of man.
Living a life of truth, true to himself and others of a like mind, is his only salvation. That’s what we persue here, I believe.

TTH believes in the modern Christian version of a man, which is defined by it’s women in a secular feminist world. Can’t have it both ways baby. If God is the answer to what ails us, let him speak now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Lara February 17, 2011 at 11:39

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 69
Nico February 17, 2011 at 11:41

OT: I just got my computer back after the police raided my flat two days ago – looking for pedopornography (needless to say, they found nothing).
They were apparently tipped off by a feminist woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
SingleDad February 17, 2011 at 11:47

So, Nico, are you saying it could have been retaliation from some feminist for things you write here?

I am absolutely sure there are many highly placed Government feminists in the US that can’t stand that they cannot jail us for what we say here.

But too bad for them, we still have some freedoms left.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 17, 2011 at 11:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 64
W.F. Price February 17, 2011 at 11:57

OT: I just got my computer back after the police raided my flat two days ago – looking for pedopornography (needless to say, they found nothing).
They were apparently tipped off by a feminist woman.

-Nico

Seriously?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Nico February 17, 2011 at 12:01

“for things you write here? ”

No, for things I wrote elsewhere. I have published a novel in 2007 and I still spend a lot of time writing. I published a short story on a blog (which was meant to be part of a novel) about a man going nuts after being ripped off by feminist laws (sort of Sodini-like) and who rapes a 15yo drunk teenager outside a disco. I suppressed the story less than 24hours after posting it when I saw that feminists were linking to it everywhere, but one of them apparently saved the text and sent it to the police who took the story very seriously.

Well, it’s my fault since I didn’t mention that it was part of a litterary work. I wanted to see how people would react to the story. Now I know… :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
freebird February 17, 2011 at 12:02

Eat=Gluttony
Pray=Set up your own false God
Love=Adultery/fornication

Promoting sensuality and reveling in the flesh as a “spiritual”endeavor is a lie.

I see where the spirit of anti-christ is, and it is not on the Spearhead.

I expect any response to prop up another “deadly sin” as a virtue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Nico February 17, 2011 at 12:06

@ Price
I have to leave my flat right now but I’ll tell you the whole story when I come back. But as I said above, I was a bit reckless when I posted this fiction without warnings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
TFH February 17, 2011 at 12:10

I told you!

Manginas are doubling down, and have been since the start of 2010.

But they can only double down so many times. Our efforts are causing them to crack.

They are actually turning into a ‘third gender’ in the West.

For a socialcon to be unaware of the legal incentives for divorce under Marriage 2.o is like an astronomer to be unaware of how the Moon causes tidal forces. Socons are quite possibly the dumbest group in America today.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
TFH February 17, 2011 at 12:17

OT: I just got my computer back after the police raided my flat two days ago – looking for pedopornography (needless to say, they found nothing).

How do we protect against something like this? Mainly, I have heard that there are viruses that install this on unsuspecting PCs, even if the owner has no idea.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
TFH February 17, 2011 at 12:24

The film did not do all that well at the domestic box office. But 60% of the take was International :

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eatpraylove.htm

Most of the US revenue was from alimony/CS, of course.

More and more, it is becoming obvious that :
1) Being insufficiently attractive to women is a capital offense, in their minds.
2) If a man is insufficiently attractive, many women can rationalize enslaving him at best, and exterminating him at worst.

That is why there is not enough moral outrage about misandry. Women (and by extension, manginas), don’t consider Beta males to be fully human, and thus do not believe in extending human rights to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 12:32

D
There are two ways I observe it. First is certain unpopular commenters who are habitually downvoted fairly well without respect to what a specific post actually says, i.e. Lara, Skadi, Piageu.

Perhaps you do not understand how the process of “trolling for flames” works. “Lara” and “Skadi” are not particularly good at it most of the time, but they do in some threads manage to totally take the focus of discussion away from the actual topic, and onto some other topic — almost always something trivial, often solipsistic, and always orthogonal to the original subject. They are, in essence, threadjackers.

Try to imagine a college-level discussion group, in which different people have different levels of knowledge about all sorts of things. Let’s say that one is discussing a great work of literature, not too difficult, such as Fenimore Cooper’s “Last of the Mohicans” or Mark Twain’s “Tom Sawyer”. People are reading parts of the text aloud, and discussing, sometimes energetically, what the author meant to say.

And all of a sudden, some chickie pops up, with “I think Tom Sawyer is hot!” or “Natty Bumpo is a silly name. I wouldn’t want my last name to be Bumpo. I wouldn’t marry him”. What happens to the discussion? It’s sidetracked immediately if anyone attempts to engage the airhead. The more attention is paid to the airhead, the worse things get. If this behavior goes on, eventually the serious people drop out of the discussion, because it’s not worth the trouble.

That’s what “Lara”/”Skadi” do all too often; introduce some utter non sequitur into a discussion, in an obvious attempt to end serious talk, and focus attention upon themselves. Therefore, they get downvoted.

Other times, “Skadi” drags some great big old stinky bait around, hoping to get someone to bite on it, leading to an argument on her terms. This is what she’s doing when she starts ragging on how tough life is for women in Eastern Europe, or nattering about how a real man would never be divorced because his woman would luvhimsomuch. Again, it’s an attempt to take discussion away from something serious, and focus attention on her.

Whether these two are mere attention-hounds that just want a man to notice them, or passive-aggressive threadjackers who pick a topic that they don’t want fleshed out to disrupt, I leave to the reader. But the clear truth is this: neither “Lara” nor “Skadi” add to the knowledge at this site, and sometimes they actively detract from it.

Now, why is it that you choose to defend them, eh?

It’s not quite clear what Paigeu is. But for sure she’s no Hestia. The best thing one can say is the jury is still out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 12:38

Sorry for the Off-topic, but just a rhetorical question.

I’m sure many of you are hearing about the public outcry regarding the pushback against teacher’s unions in states around the country. Does anyone here think that people would give a shit if the teachers were mostly male?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
TFH February 17, 2011 at 12:44

Does anyone here think that people would give a shit if the teachers were mostly male?

Of course not.

But the bigger story is one you did not mention…

People are actually STARTING to question the sacred cows of feminism, and confronting the fact that teachers unions are just rackets to overpay women.

Ask yourself why skilled immigrants are allowed in as engineers and doctors (to compete with men), but not as teachers and nurses (to compete with women).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 12:49

More and more, it is becoming obvious that :
1) Being insufficiently attractive to women is a capital offense, in their minds.
2) If a man is insufficiently attractive, many women can rationalize enslaving him at best, and exterminating him at worst.

That is why there is not enough moral outrage about misandry. Women (and by extension, manginas), don’t consider Beta males to be fully human, and thus do not believe in extending human rights to them.

I think it’s more that men who are not attractive to them read “blank” to women, unless they are a close relative (brother, father, son). If you read “blank” as a man you are simply off the radar screen of empathy for most women. Women have empathy for other women and for children (increasingly much more for female children than for boys, as well), but not for “blank” men (which means most of us, because most of us, in any given setting read “blank” to most women).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 12:54

paigeu
In Laura Woods defense- She isn’t simply an anti-feminist but also a Christian.

I’m not all that convinced she’s anti feminist.

Can we agree that 90% of the posts and comments on Spearhead are not compatible with the Christian ideology?

I was not aware that Christianity had an ideology. Marxism, Fascism, feminism are all ideologies. Do you even know what an ideology is?

Now, if you actually meant to write theology, you step off into very deep waters. Because there are different takes on Christian theology, and from what I can tell you are not qualified to discuss any of them. Neither is Woods.

Having said all of that, I fail to see how 90% of the articles at Spearhead are in opposition to Christianity.

There may be some subtle differences in opinions and solutions but the bulk of the opinions could be summarized as “Women are inferior and insignificant for anything other than eye-candy and a warm hole”.

Feminist cow shit. Plus an overt troll for flames. You are trying to start one of those “am not! Are too!” fights that feminists are so fond of. Note that it didn’t work, you just got downvoted to invisibility.

Hey, D, is this the kind of deep thought you are impressed by, a sweeping generalization that doesn’t hold a drop of water? Defend this, now, or we’ll all know what you are.

That said- I enjoy the Spearheads articles and I enjoy reading all the comments- even the really mean ones- because it gives me insight into what Christians are actually up against in turning the cultural tide.

Honey, just the other day you were going on about how women like you just want to please men and make babies. Then you were going on about how even though you are “thick”, you still get hit on . Now you are trolling for flames, and trotting out standard feminist strawmen, while posing as oh-so-religious…religious, but cruising for male attention, and, uh, stuff like that. Well, well, well.

Seems to me you should pick a role and stick with it. Right now you are not doing so well with the act.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 13:17

Note well that the supposedly “pro-man” Housefrau spent more space denouncing the anger of men than she did the evils of “Eat, Betray, Love”. We can see what truly disturbs her; not an active movie campaign to bust up marriages, but men who are angry about that campaign. Note also that she calls men who urge other men not to marry “evil”, but can not, and will not, call the women who urge other women to break up families due to a lack of “haaappeeeness” “evil”.

Coming into this way late but that is a very astute observation AR.

One thing that really illuminates the women who are actually pro men from ‘the others’ are their positions on this problem of Feminism. Not only does Laura Wood uphold the position of placing the responsibility on men for getting upset at this outrage and not placing any accountabilty on divorcing women whatsoever, there is one more thing.

Did she ever place any sort of responsibility on women for causing men to fear marriage in the first place?

Cause and effect, yes we know that women don’t understand it well, but for crying out loud, how many times does a man have to say “Don’t effing get married in this country because if your wife divorces she’ll rip you an new @$$hole” before women realize the threat that marriage 2.0 represents.

Naw, she, just like many other North American Women simply want one thing, for men to lie down and take it so they can continue the gravy train. I’ve never been to her site, and I do trust Keoni’s and AR’s judgement that she may not be 100% westernized, but for her to ask, sorry, demand men to continue with their ‘duties’ even if it means serious negative implications to them is utterly ridiculous.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 13:21

Seems to me you should pick a role and stick with it. Right now you are not doing so well with the act.

My man, don’t let her fool you, women are like chameloeons and will speak, talk, or act in whatever way best suits them at the time. Just like women always follow winners, it’s always about the best outcome for the given scenario. Is it really surprsing that her tone changes with each thread?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 13:28

Is it Patrick or Patricia?

It’s Patty Noplay cause that dude ain’t getting any fo sho!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 13:38

First, the traditionalist ideology espoused there, and elsewhere, is problematic for guys who are dealing with the “here and now”. The tenor of the “advice” there is that men should man up, find “good women”, and assume their traditional responsibilities — regardless of the law, the culture, the social pressures and so on, because if you take up your traditional manly responsibilities properly, none of the rest of that will ever, ever impact you adversely, because your masculine magic wand will make it all disappear with respect to *your* life. And if that doesn’t happen, and you do get burned because of the law, the culture, the social pressures and so on, it’s your fault as the man because you either (1) didn’t choose a “good woman”, or (2) didn’t take up your traditional manly responsibilities properly, and, therefore, in either case, you kind of had it coming, son.

Well put Novaseeker. That honestly sounds to me like being in a pyramid scheme. They tell you want to do, you invest with your time and money being told that wealth and extra spare time will be yours if you just work hard enough. So you bankrupt yourself, of time, money, maybe even your health and if you ever complain about your lack of success, you are always told that you are the issue, the ‘business’ always works.

You will be given examples of how business leaders where so successful ‘in the past and you can do it too’ even though things are very much different now. If you ever consider quitting, or simply hanging it up for a while to collect your thoughts, out comes the shaming tactics to reel you back in.

You really can’t win unless you simply don’t play, but that is something you will never be told.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
JFP February 17, 2011 at 13:45

Re Herbal’s first comment at the top of this thread on the Eat, pray, love book/movie.

Not long after it hit theaters my mother mentioned she went to see it with her friend and the friend’s recently divorced daughter. If I recall correctly, dear ol mum thought it was a “great movie”. The funny part was I know the daughter’s divorce was caused by a roaming (presumably), selfish husband who treated her as a sugar momma. I doubt all three women there thought there might be a wise comparison to be made by the julia robert’s character’s actions and those of the daughter’s recent ex hubby. It was an empowering film I’m sure. Grrl power!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
woggy February 17, 2011 at 14:07

@paigeu

The Christian perspective is that someone should depend heavily on prayer to make choices and then trust that whatever happens (good or bad) is God’s will for them

So, the Christian thing to do is pray harder, and in effect, blame God when your “’til death due us part” decides that you’re not suitable for continued honor.
If that isn’t a cop-out then I don’t know what is, especially in light of the fact that the Apostle Paul had plenty to say that specifically addressed married life.
Why don’t you bother paraphrasing Paul where he specifically instructs married people to not “defraud” each other, emotionally and specifically(owing to the context in 1 Corinthians chapter 7) SEXUALLY.
Ya think the smug “he’s not talking about me” feminists warming the pews in most churches might squirm at having that bit of apostolic instruction explained to them?
I’ll not stop there!
Paul also instructs the “believing” spouse to remain with the “unbelieving” as long as the unbelieving man or woman still wants them.
Gee, I guess the gravity surrounding a man or woman’s spiritual beliefs are no match for a woman’s need to reconcile herself to the rantings of Hollywood- who hate the concept of faithful, lifelong, committed marriage as much as Paul loved and championed the idea for those who had entered into the solemn contract of marriage.

Your apparent system of “Christian” belief is obviously sorely lacking in circumspect consideration of the entire subject of the whimsical destruction of a family, giving you no basis for your finger-wagging at these men, many of whom have borne the brunt of feminist hate; it’s little wonder that they have no use for modern, hollowed-out “Christianity”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 14:14

In defence of a woman who fights for traditional values:

I have stated that I believe that the negative opinion about the MRM expressed in “The Thinking Housewife” misses the point. However, in a world where every hand is turned against the MRM, I tend to see traditional religious views as friendly to the MRM.

The point to hammer home is, self preservation is the right and duty of every man. The marriage institution has three participants: the husband, the wife, and the state. Given that the state has turned itself into the poison pill in the marriage contract, it is not the duty of every man to avoid marriage.

The state has abandoned marriage and now seeks to destroy it, primarily through the humiliation and brutalization of men. It is not women who we reject. It is the poisonous presence of a state that abandoned marriage long before men did.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Moe February 17, 2011 at 14:15

In the new PC world “words” carry much more weight than “actions”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
AntZ February 17, 2011 at 14:20

Lol, I meant to type “Given that the state has turned itself into the poison pill in the marriage contract, it is NOW the duty of every man to avoid marriage.”

Typo, sorry.

The point is, I can forgive Laura Wood’s lack of vision about the conditions facing men today. I believe that the world she wishes to bring back to life is forever gone. Feminists did not try to destroy marriage, they have succeeded. However, I wish her God’s speed in her (hopeless) quest to bring back a good thing.

Men and women, working together, transformed Human existence from a condition of scratching a living from dust and rock, to the pampered existence of today. The failure of the state to protect the basic institution that has proved so durable over 5000 years is shocking.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 14:27

@ AntZ – I think that the author comploetely missed the point.

Actually AntZ, I did not completely miss the point. I merely missed including your very well-stated point. Your point works very well in addition to the arguments I put forth…and I didn’t even think about it. Probably because it’s never happened to myself.

@ Silent – Not to play Captain Obvious here, but what is she doing on your blogroll then? I can understand wanting to avoid the echo-chamber-effect of what you read, but how many times can you pay attention to someone who suggests you take the blame for other people’s mistakes?

I don’t find all of her postings irritating. IMO, there are times were she does live up to her blog title, and she does offer some good food for thought. This was not one of ‘em.

@ D – Meanwhile there is another notorious comment post on an old thread where the poster claimed he’d drop kick a baby if a coworker brought it to the office to breastfeed it.

I give you “evil” in increasing order of severity:

1. The comment itself
2. That 20 people had voted “like” while only a few voted “dislike” by the time I read it
3. When I called this out, another commenter had the brilliant sense to defend the indefensible and behave/argue as if I were out of line

D, you’re trying to say that The Spearhead’s “evil” can be measured by the comment voting? LOL

First of all, the voting system was simply instituted so as to free up Welmer from having to waste time moderating comments.

Second of all, I would guess most readers here even bother voting. I know I don’t. I very occasionally give a thumbs up for an exceptional comment – but by no means do I vote on every single comment.

So the drop kick a baby comment got 20 ‘likes?’ Big deal…I think most men like myself that found it objectionable simply ignored it and kept scrolling, rather than take the time to “vote.”

Finally, the entire voting thing is certainly a form of a popularity contest rather than a value judgment on the content of the comment itself. I’m well aware of the fact that I’m not the most well liked Spearhead contributor, due to my interest in “conspiracy theory” and pro-marriage/pro-game topics. I have my own contingent of haters that will down-vote my commentary no matter what I actually write. I find it mildly amusing.

Judging the overall morality of this forum based on the popularity contest of the moderation mechanism is just silly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Keoni Galt February 17, 2011 at 14:27

@ AntZ – I think that the author comploetely missed the point.

Actually AntZ, I did not completely miss the point. I merely missed including your very well-stated point. Your point works very well in addition to the arguments I put forth…and I didn’t even think about it. Probably because it’s never happened to myself.

@ Silent – Not to play Captain Obvious here, but what is she doing on your blogroll then? I can understand wanting to avoid the echo-chamber-effect of what you read, but how many times can you pay attention to someone who suggests you take the blame for other people’s mistakes?

I don’t find all of her postings irritating. IMO, there are times were she does live up to her blog title, and she does offer some good food for thought. This was not one of ‘em.

@ D – Meanwhile there is another notorious comment post on an old thread where the poster claimed he’d drop kick a baby if a coworker brought it to the office to breastfeed it.

I give you “evil” in increasing order of severity:

1. The comment itself
2. That 20 people had voted “like” while only a few voted “dislike” by the time I read it
3. When I called this out, another commenter had the brilliant sense to defend the indefensible and behave/argue as if I were out of line

D, you’re trying to say that The Spearhead’s “evil” can be measured by the comment voting? LOL

First of all, the voting system was simply instituted so as to free up Welmer from having to waste time moderating comments.

Second of all, I would guess most readers here even bother voting. I know I don’t. I very occasionally give a thumbs up for an exceptional comment – but by no means do I vote on every single comment.

So the drop kick a baby comment got 20 ‘likes?’ Big deal…I think most men like myself that found it objectionable simply ignored it and kept scrolling, rather than take the time to “vote.”

Finally, the entire voting thing is certainly a form of a popularity contest rather than a value judgment on the content of the comment itself. I’m well aware of the fact that I’m not the most well liked Spearhead contributor, due to my interest in “conspiracy theory” and pro-marriage/pro-game topics. I have my own contingent of haters that will down-vote my commentary no matter what I actually write. I find it mildly amusing.

Judging the overall morality of this forum based on the popularity contest of the moderation mechanism is just silly.

Jim February 17, 2011 at 14:31

“A strong southern woman with Spartan mothe tendencies, I like her. ”

Oh really, Rusty, you like that? A worthless coward of a chickenhawk who sends men off to die and stays her pussy ass safe at home? You like that? Thatb si in fact exactly what Southern women did in the Civil War too, come to think of it – there are thousands upon thousands of leters on record imploring, demanding, screeching to their men to go off and fight.

Spartan values that I would respect would be if that worthless, cowardly sack of filth picked up a weapon herself and did some fighting. But she’s too lazy and weak for that; she’s much happier telling men how to be men, something that stupid breeder can never, ever do herself.

She is worthless, untouchable filth. She should have been aborted with a chainsaw.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 15
Moe February 17, 2011 at 14:40

Damn, all this talk and yet no one has posted what REALLY matters, what does she look like???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 14:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 54
RMM February 17, 2011 at 14:45

Since it’s the theme, I will reference another book to the original complaint about a book. Basically the housewife character is complaining about misogynism and anti-marriage:

“”There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ideology except bitterness, bile and loneliness.””

To that, I’ll counter this:

“Freedom is a lonely state.” – Frank Herbert.

Sure, that’s not necessarily the case, although I suspect that the realization of this is what scares some of these women: women who are not strong enough to handle the potential loneliness of their own freedom. But as things stand, and when the chips are down, some of us men will choose freedom even at a very high price. The threats of loneliness (that’s essentially what all these “you’ll be alone forever!” variants are, emotional threats) are simply ineffectual. What comes to mind is a simple “is that it?” instead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Will S. February 17, 2011 at 15:05

Paigeu thinks we should be like St. Paul.

A man who chose not to marry.

Not a bad idea…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 15:09

paigeu
There are a lot of posts directed at me…it seems.

No, only a handful. Believe it or not, this thread is not All About You.

If I were a troll I would be anonymous.

If you were a troll, one of the things you would routinely do is insist “Oh, no! I’m not a troll!”…

For those who say the “jury is out” on me… here is some information if it helps you decide.

Astrological sign: Sagittarius sun, Cancer moon, Capricorn rising

So you are a pagan…

Myers-Brigg: INFP
Temperament: Sanguine-Melancholic
Religion: Roman Catholic (lean traditionalist)
Political affiliation: Registered Republican but lean Libertarian
Other: 29, mother of 5, married 10 years.
Paige is my real name.
As far as the whole MRA thing- undecided.

So ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 15:12

Keoni Galt, I’m thinking that D is another one of Wood’s beta orbiters. Between the passive-aggressive writing style, and the use of comments as a means to judge Spearhead, it fits in too well with the Jesse/Thordaddy/”Patrick” style to be a coincidence.

Prediction: “D” will not come back here and defend the claims made.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 17, 2011 at 15:24

Paigeu,

you take astrology waaaaaaay too seriously!!

FIVE kids! and you have time to post?

I wish MRA wasn’t necessary, but it damn well is.

Game is of interest in that it enables men to go from not understanding females (usually including classic pedestalisation) to MGTOW / PUA / whatever you want to do with your improved knowledge of how women work (yeah, yeah NAWALT).

Me? I’m MGTOW inclined by personality, plus I don’t believe that I can game any woman I’d be really interested in (so I’d rather not bother). Women bring far, far too many downsides to compensate for occasional good company and a warm, wet hole.

I don’t hate women, but I’m past putting up with any shit from them, manginas and white knights. I started out too nice for my own good and have learned better through experience ( I am NOT alone!).

Been married, escaped with a payment I consider fair for ‘services rendered’. She was a ‘good woman’ when we met, she turned batshit after 5-6 years, very fortunately without having kids.

Never again

This xtian crap about choosing a good woman and it’s your fault if she shafts you – utter effing bullshit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1
Gunn February 17, 2011 at 15:24

Novaseeker February 17, 2011 at 12:49

More and more, it is becoming obvious that :
1) Being insufficiently attractive to women is a capital offense, in their minds.
2) If a man is insufficiently attractive, many women can rationalize enslaving him at best, and exterminating him at worst.

That is why there is not enough moral outrage about misandry. Women (and by extension, manginas), don’t consider Beta males to be fully human, and thus do not believe in extending human rights to them.

The rules of game, 101:

1. connect with yourself, and say what you want

2. do it with a huge shit eating grin on your face that exudes confidence

3. profit.

Seriously, you can talk the utmost shit with pretty much anyone (male, female, working relationship, personal relationship, fucking milkman or whatever) if you do it with complete and transcendent disregard for what they think of you. Beta is a state of mind, easily fixed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Keoni Galt February 17, 2011 at 15:30

So TTH and Patrick have responded:

Patrick – [I think the use of pejorative terms such as “cunt,” “bitch,” etc. is evil. Not as evil as murder or other grave sins, but evil nonetheless. Therefore the use of profanity is legitimately characterized as “becoming evil.” The use of such profanity demeans not only the intended target but also the user. It also denigrates all women, not just the women with whom you are angry.

As I thought. I disagree thoroughly with this. Calling a self-centered woman who would destroy her family after seeing a movie a “bitch” is not evil, nor does it denigrate all women…anymore than calling a single man an asshole, denigrates all men.

I found it particularly offensive Patrick that you would equate the evil of a selfish women destroying her family with the use of profanity. It is a false, superficial moral equivalence.

While the use of profanity is not the gravest of all evil, it is still evil. I therefore do not think I am overstating things or engaging in hyperbole This makes you no better than a feminist-marxist who rigidly adheres to political correctness speech codes. Context, Patrick, context.

Calling this woman who would divorce her husband after seeing the movie a “cunt” is not evil. It is purposely denigrating her by pointing out her decision making is based on her base desire to cater to the cravings of her nether regions.

She would destroy her family because she no longer has the tingles in her nether regions by her husband. She is indeed reducing herself to nothing more than following the dictates of her genitalia. To point this out is not evil.

It may be coarse, off-putting, and debasing…but than, it is an accurate description of her own actions. It is calling a spade, a spade.

Yes, it is. It is always evil to use such pejorative and offensive terms. Would you use racist terminology to describe a black person who committed an immoral act?

Hilarious. Patrick, why are you more concerned with the language used to denounce immorality than the immoral actions themselves?
Profanity is merely a societal convention. One that changes over time. Words and their meanings change all the time….like the word Gay.

Please Patrick, show me where in the Bible it says the use of pejorative, vulgar terms are evil or a sin?

Offended sensibilities are the only thing hurt by vulgar obscenities. I fail to see the equivalence with that and true evil…like the kind of evil that would influence a bitch and a cunt to destroy her family over a whim.

You are conflating modern speech conventions with actual evil.

paigeu February 17, 2011 at 15:30

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 53
Keoni Galt February 17, 2011 at 15:45

As for Laura –

Spread the message far and wide. Marriage is dead. Feminists killed it.

[In other words, don't marry. No woman is worth marrying because some women are not worth marrying.Tough luck for children, for the old and for the vulnerable of society. Tough luck for civilization at large.]

Laura, MOST women are not worth marrying in this day and age. But even when you do find one who is worth it…the State is definitely not worth marrying…as marriage is no longer about the merger between a man and a woman to form a family…it is now the merger between the man, the woman and the State.

Tough luck for civilization? That milk already got spilled.

And I say this as a long married Husband and Father myself.

[This man will never trust a woman again because he was betrayed by one woman. In other words, all women are evil.]

No, in other words, all women have the full backing of the institution of the State to aid them in committing evil if they choose to do so. Like avoiding STDs and unwanted, out of wedlock pregnancies, the only 100% means of avoiding the evil is abstinence.

The only way men can nowadays avoid the evil of the State is to abstain from making that commitment to the State – aka marriage.

This leads me to think that probably all women can be that “volatile”. Today’s women make me think of a crazy killer with a machine gun in his hands. Amazing how toxic they have become in one or two generations.

[Again, all women are the same and they are killers.]

This here is the biggest problem I think. Men can speak in general terms, and all women…even “good” women like TTH, immediately default to “NAWALT – certainly not myself!”

Yet…Laura, you yourself responded earlier -

Ninety-nine percent of women are materialistic whores.

So does this mean whenever men wish to refer to generalities here at The Spearhead, we must always, painstakingly point out that only 99% of women are like this…otherwise we are doing nothing more than promoting a hateful, evil ideology?

Innocent Bystander February 17, 2011 at 15:45

Minor quibble

Possessive of “it” is “its” not “it’s”. Just as you say “his” not “he’s” and “her” not “she’s” and “their” not “they’s”

You use “its” as an abbreviation for “it is”.

I love your blog – it’s always the first one I read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Lovekraft February 17, 2011 at 15:46

In light of the severity of the current situation of the “Average Guy” who is trying to live the NOBLE life and refrain from doing harm or indulging in, ahem, evil, reacting to sycophantic defenders of a vile ‘film’ like Eat, Pray, Love (starring America’s sweetheart?? Julia Roberts!!!) is beneath us.

The MRM has many faces and D hinted at the primary duality of it: group therapy, and pioneers. He also categorized the resident trolls very well: mischief-makers – to be ignored or mocked for our amusement. The MRM has its philosophers, generals, scouts etc etc and is its greatest strength, for no matter what angle the ENEMY attacks us at, we can rally any number of forces to deal with the threat at hand.

The feminists, their enforcers and their manginas are morally and spiritually vacant. They have ‘shot their load’ and the result is moral apathy, immigrant dominance (soon), economic/cultural lethargy etc etc etc. They have nothing to offer and even have the nerve to attack the few remaining icons of masculinity (i.e. NFL’s PinkMonth).

Can you not see that they know this and are actively trying to bring the system to a resounding crash, so that they can hopefully divert attention from themselves?

The MRM, as far as I am concerned, is about redirecting the blame, controlling the focus, coming out on top. It isn’t so much about putting heads on spikes, although it may be necessary to serve as an example to others, but we really just desire a New Tomorrow.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 17, 2011 at 15:46

Keoni Galt

I think you’ll find that it’s fairly standard PC practice that if you can’t argue the facts you have to find specious reasons to shift the subject away from the argument. (or, ad-hom). How can you argue that their delicate sensibilities have been harmed? It leaves me wondering how they cope in the real world.

Patty – ‘the good boy project’ – you’ll fit right in.

Why go looking to be upset?

tele-sales / phone helpline operators are the worst, but then they have a shite job with no power – it’s their only fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft February 17, 2011 at 15:51

Just to follow-up on Keoni’s message:

because of No-Fault divorce, Marriage 2.0, the stat that 70 – 75% of divorces are initiated by women, I have concluded that, from my perspective, a man is responsible to be financially stable, have a good home, be…good (world’s away from being the romantic, charming B.S. that feminists/hollywood lunatics say we need to be to keep her love/interest).

So, once a man have established these ‘credentials’, then the ONUS is on the woman to prove she is worthy; that she renounces DEMONSTRABLY the above-noted perils of state-sanctioned marriage.

Sadly, women are still deluded and deny this, and their hamsters keep telling them that ‘there just aren’t any good men out there’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 17, 2011 at 15:51

Paigeu,

I’m happy that you’re happy.

I couldn’t conceive of living my life in the standard wimminz fog of illogic, emotion, drama and offense seeking – I’d rather be a man.

But as I said NAWALT, just the vast majority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 17, 2011 at 16:13

[This man will never trust a woman again because he was betrayed by one woman. In other words, all women are evil.]

Well, having been hit over the head once and discovering the lack of morality (IMHO) of most women…what kind of effing wazzock takes the gamble again? (sorry to the multi-divorced).

Having found out how badly the deck is stacked against the man, it is clear that marriage is ‘a very bad idea indeed’ if you have a willy.

And most men have enough morality that they’ll even tell men they don’t much like “watch out! marriage is a catastrophically bad idea” – it’s the decent thing to do.

Why don’t you manginas face the facts and fight to right the reality?

Stop trying to shame men to man-up / step-up when it’s tantamount to leaving the trench to march towards a machine gun nest – men are wising up, deal with it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Denis February 17, 2011 at 16:14

These traditional women are a real problem for the MRM. They are fair-weather friends who want to maintain maternal supremacy and use men to provide and protect them. They are feminists greatest ally in creating a system of male slaves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Robert February 17, 2011 at 16:15

@ AntZ February 17, 2011 at 09:19

You hit alot of nails squarely on the head. You might have had her rationalization hamster dying from a coronary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Keoni Galt February 17, 2011 at 16:16

Innocent Bystander – lol

And to you think, I used to work as an English writing tutor in college. It’s a bad habit of mine…especially when I’m writing a stream-of-consciousness rant like this post. I’ll try to be more conscious of that in the future.

ChewyBees February 17, 2011 at 16:23

As a thinking housewife (a stay-at-home dad for those that can’t wrap their brain around the stupidity of labels) I can say that first mistake that anyone can make is going to watch a movie in the first place, followed up with applying its ill effects as if they were based in any way as truth. Get this straight in your heads boys and girls, everything produced for a movie or television is a commercial tool of manipulation for the weak minded. It is for profit and effect, and rarely if ever is that effect positive.
Were my wife (or husband now that I called myself out lol) to up and leave me because of something she saw on a movie, then good riddance because all she really did was expose herself as a simpleton moron. Who wants to be partnered up with that?
We tell our kids (and ourselves) emphatically that absolutely nothing on TV or a movie screen is real. We make them repeat it to us. It must be comprehended that all those pictures and sounds are no more real than a comic book. Then we remind them that because of that it all is really just a giant waste of time.
If T and A is the goal of a temporary or life partnership then don’t expect any tangible brainpower to be along for the ride. But then again, if T and A were all that mattered, TV and movies have already ruled the day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 16:32

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 49
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 16:46

Many women have found themselves single parents of a large family they can’t possibly provide for because their hubby took off with the secretary.

And many more are in the same situation because they attempted to EPL they way to a better life only to find that the screenplay of their lives was ill-funded.
Only 25% of divorces are initiated by men, so a minority of men are doing what you posted about. If you are a smart as you say you are, place responsibility where it squarely belongs, yeah?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 16:48

paigeu
No-Fault divorce is a huge problem for traditionalists.

Yes, it very much is. But not the way you mean…

When you have a ton of kids no amount of state-mandated child support is going to be enough.

But that won’t stop a “good, church going, traditionalist” woman from shoving hubby out the door and collecting chilimony for years, if she decides that she ‘loves him, but is no longer in love with him”. Don’t tell me it does not happen, because it does.

You NEED a two-parent home.

Children need a two parent home, but they need a two parent home that is not centered upon them. They need a two parent home that is centered on the marriage, because hopefully the children come and go, but the parents remain man and wife.

Many women have found themselves single parents of a large family they can’t possibly provide for because their hubby took off with the secretary.

And many more women have found themselves single mothers because they got bored with their beta husband and ran him off. Your “argument” had some validity and even novelty back when “One Day At A Time” was a brand new sitcom. However, given the fact that 2/3 (66%) of divorces are now initiated by women, you are revealed to be once again trolling…

Yes- a traditionalist wife expects to be provided for and protected…but in turn she *submits* to her husband.

She is supposed to submit to him. But as many of us can see, sometimes rather close up, what is supposed to happen, and what actually happens, are two different things.

That isn’t alway a very easy burden to carry either.

So? I thought that Christianity taught this world is a vale of tears, are you now complaining about something? Or just trolling again?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader February 17, 2011 at 16:53

So called “no fault” divorce is actually unilateral, one sided, divorce. And when it was enacted into law back in the 1970′s, precious few traditionalists complained or protested or objected, from what I can tell. And how many traditionalists today stand up and try to push back? I don’t me writing some words on a low traffic blog, I mean get into the arena of politics and try to make something happen?

There was some attempt in Missouri a while back to modify marriage law, no doubt it failed, and I don’t have a link handy. Good on whoever tried that. But I don’t see any push to roll back one-sided divorce on the part of socons and tradcons. Too busy with abortion and homosexual marriage, clearly.

So yes, unilateral divorce is a problem for traditionalists. They didn’t fight it 40 years ago, and they don’t fight it now. They just tell men to “man up”…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Snark February 17, 2011 at 16:57

Meanwhile there is another notorious comment post on an old thread where the poster claimed he’d drop kick a baby if a coworker brought it to the office to breastfeed it.

On second thought, I might not dropkick it. Just eat it maybe.

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez D lighten up. If you take everything you see online seriously, then the internet is going to be a strange and wonderful place for you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Denis February 17, 2011 at 17:18

No-Fault divorce is a huge problem for traditionalists. When you have a ton of kids no amount of state-mandated child support is going to be enough. You NEED a two-parent home. Many women have found themselves single parents of a large family they can’t possibly provide for because their hubby took off with the secretary.

Don’t worry paigeu, the system is set up to protect deadbeat baby mamas by extorting money from good men. If I want to hire a servant then I’ll make sure she can be fired for misbehavior without costing a fortune.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
sharp February 17, 2011 at 17:31

The male equivalent of Lara, Skadi, and paigeu would have been banned on a feminist site in two seconds. Here, they’re free to post, and one of them is definitely a troll.

crella is a women, yet she gets many up votes.

The other 3 get down voted, even when they do by rare chance say something reasonable, because most men here don’t really care what women have to say, particularly if it’s an antagonist opinion. Women are free to say whatever they want in public, including misandric comments. Men: nothing. If a man steps foot off the feminist plantation, he’s done. That’s the difference. The Spearhead is a place for a man to speak his mind, for once.

At the bottom of the Mad Men article, a poster named “Kathy” vomited forth a load of clichéd shaming language. Yet she is still posting. On a fem site, a man making equivalent posts would be banned. In a newspaper, school or government position he’d be fired. Kathy would be still writing at the New York Times happily spewing her garbage.

So, if there is some vulgarity towards women here occasionally, and the worst thing that happens to female posters is they get voted down… too god damn bad. Deal with it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Tom February 17, 2011 at 17:50

Men maybe pissed off by we aren’t pissed off enough. Yet

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Laura Grace Robins February 17, 2011 at 18:07

Glad this was covered. I have yet to read any of the comments, but I want to be sure I do. Just want to get a few thoughts out for now (and I apologize if this was already covered:

I. I thought the original EPL article was one of the most startling pieces of truth I have seen. How you can take such a story and DEFLECT it back to men is amazing. I covered this phenomenon in this post:
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2011/02/men-do-that-too-mdtt.html
Whenever women do awful things, it has to be pointed out that men do equally or sometimes worse things. It is tactic to distract off of the original awful doing of the women, by bringing up men.

2. LW mentioned, “Outrage and anger is a justifiable reaction. The use of profanity is not.” That makes me wonder then how does one express anger? Is it just a very stern tone; “I am sick and tired” type of talk? A man’s anger is now forced to be feminized. Men can be angry, but they first have to have the female stamp of approval as to how they express that anger. I don’t think the language necessarily makes anyone here less moral. That is not for me to judge. Plus, anger expressed via profanity is indeed just “reaction” or an emotion. Just thinking out loud here, but it seems if we must judge people in whether they are moral or not, basing it on their “actions” rather than “reactions”, may be a better measuring stick. Otherwise, we are basing whether one is moral or not, based upon their emotions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Höllenhund February 17, 2011 at 18:11

Most women are feminists to some degree. Even the ones who say they are not feminists only say so because they accept and love the benefits of feminism that they enjoy already. There’s a small number of women who are not somehow caught up in the blame for this, I agree, but the number isn’t large. Most women are, to some degree, the enemy, unfortunately.

I think it’s beneficial that one of the most reasonable voices on this site has also articulated and explained this obvious fact as well. I’ve seen bloggers complain that misogynist loudmouths are chasing away moderate readers from this site, but now we see a dispassionate expression of a fact that 99% of people would dismiss as “misogynist”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
paigeu February 17, 2011 at 19:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 59
Lara February 17, 2011 at 19:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 56
Herbal Essence February 17, 2011 at 19:23

I would not worry about scaring off people with naughty language. If people are ready to hear the unvarnished truth and words spoken from the heart, they’ll stick around. If people aren’t ready, they’ll leave regardless of the language.
Provocative material is polarizing and that’s a good thing. It attracts attention much more efficiently than mediocre material.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner February 17, 2011 at 19:31

Dear All:

Much for which to be thankful, both male and female, on this site: So, I say, thanks to so many.

In particular, thanks to discussants who expressed critical reflection on matters of religion, especially as per those who claim to be of Jesus Christ. A few thoughts here.

In expressing just opposition to religious authorities or claimed authorities, customers/adherents, etc., the expression of foul language, etc., perhaps more consciously, one must keep in mind that, in addition to the viscerally acceptable double positive being a positive, one does have the righteous phenomenon of a double negative being a phenomenon.

One must keep in mind that in expressing unwelcome disapproval, Jesus Christ focused so very much of his opposition to the religious leaders of his day as well as its adherents. Consider the Chief Priests, the Scribes and the Pharisees, virtual synonyms for unrighteousness. Recall that it was at the supper table of such that his religious enemies decided to have Christ killed.

Did Christ/God the Father/The Holy Spirit use, “profanity?”

Consider the following account as per the OBJECT of the negation and the FORM of the rebuke:

Malachi 2:1-3 Revised Standard Version) (the major capitalization is mine) “and now, O priests, this command is for you. 2If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart to give glory to myname, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. 3Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and SPREAD DUNG UPON YOUR FACES, THE DUNG OF YOUR OFFERINGS, and I will put you out of my presence.”

The context of the above quote is that the Law of Moses was in operation and that being ceremonially clean was a requirement for the priests. Being covered in animal dung, and most especially of the offering would have been a severe degradation of the priests.

In terms not generally appreciated by Gentiles in general, the utter degradation would have been much more than that imposed from time to time by British officials during the 1930s strikes of the Hindu protesters who laid down on railway tracks and had had the pails from public toilets thrown onto them.

The objects of the British force (cultural/religious in nature) was in contrast to lethal, armed force, for sure, but it was discouraging, as intended, to ensure the continued functioning of India.

What was different between such Hindu caste members and the Hebrew priests was that the Hebrew priests (the male descendants of Levi via Aaron, the brother of Moses) was that the objects of degradation were ELITES.

In today’s lingo, in its improper construction, one could account that God’s imposition to the priests was, “I’m going to shit on you.” (The preposition properly should have been, “onto” because of the transience of the movement.)

As one experiences various language concepts of vulgarity, one quickly learns that what is held to be of religious value, when, “improperly” used, constitutes offence. For example, in French Canada, passing reference to Roman Catholic wafers the the box which holds them for the purpose of, “communion” is held to be what would be called in English, “swearing.” For example, the wafer is called, “Ostie” and one’s use of that word with a visceral emphasis is held to be quite an offence.

Christ himself used the Law of Moses as a source for what one would consider to be vulgarity or, “swearing.” For example, he called his religious enemies/enemies of God by way of Law-of-Moses vulgarity. Snakes were unclean, and remember, Satan himself was the snake in the Garden of Eden. In that context, recall Christ’s Gospel-truth words in opposition to religious leaders: Matthew 23:33 (RSV)”33You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”

And how are those who claim to be followers of Christ to be respond? The answer is as follows: Ephesians 5:1 (RSV) “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.” Christ badmouthed religious leaders and included what was considered to be vulgarity in so doing: those who claim to follow Christ (Emmanuel–which means, “God is with Us”), are to do the same.

Related to the top of the day is a VCR tape I saw during 3 periods in the Feminist Government Schools today. It was entitled, “TOUGH GUISE: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity” (“with Jackson Katz”).

It was about 3 h long. It was spure hate against men and boys. Females were all good: males all bad, same old, same old. At risk to my meagre income, I spoke against it during three classes. I’ll be brief.

The misandrist condemned masculine physical strength both in practice and as a goal. I told the entirely male, Junior High audience that men/boys should be complemented for bieng strong and well built (body builder images were shown, including how male-figure toys have become more muscular from the Adam West Batman of the 1960s, to the 1970s Superman to the 1990s GI Joes.

In contrast to the couch-potato phenomenon, the images showed meales being responsible with well exercised bodies, IN CONTRAST to the pervailing phenomenon of the couch potato. Gunmen and gunboys were depicted from the USA but no gunwomen nor gungirls. I told the students about the two gunwomen who shot at Gerald Ford in c1975 as well as the gungirl who killed the male principal and shot up other males at a government school in the USA about 30 years ago about which Bob Geldoff wrote the popular song about, “I don’t like Mondays.” I told the boys that almost 100% of discoveries and inventions were male, including various things in the classroom including the TV, VCR, lights, etc. Perhaps most of all, I told the boys that father absence is the no-1 cause of poor educational performance, higher crime rates, low self esteem, low bith weights, etc.

What the bigot of the presentation called, “hypermasculinity” was not hypermasculinity but rather anti-masculinity. I told them about the US Army study about the landing at Normandy in which most soldiers did not fire on the enemy (unless fired upon first), that latent, “pacifism” was EVIDENT in those men’s doings. I told them that that study was foundational to the training for the men FORCED into armed service for the Vietnam war. In contrast to the WWII training in which the men shot at targets (and, as such were skilled marksmen, but not killers), the Vietnam-War training was as per stimulus-response and the objects of shooting were images of people (all men), which was designed to make them killers IN CONTRAST TO THE NATURE OF MEN NOT SO TO BE—OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR SUCH TRAINING.

I told them about the British 1930s Royal Commisison on Corporaral and Capital Punishment and the 1940s Canadian Royal Commission on Corporal and Capital Punishment and Lotteries (and the subsequent Parliament hearings related to it) which showed that men (guards, etc.) did book off sick when executions were to be done, that they went into depression as execution dates came up, etc.

I prayed against the teachers, school district, Ministry of Education, etc., and asked the God of Abraham, Isaach and Jacob to protect me from those viscious women and their property, spineless men. The presentation was such hate. That is why I wrote in today’s Spearhead. This is somewhere to go to oppose the utter Feminazi hate of the Hitler Youth of Feminism, the, “public” schools.

I hope I don’t get my ass kicked this time: that continues to be my prayer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Omnipitron February 17, 2011 at 19:45

That isn’t alway a very easy burden to carry either.

You know what, I agree with you Paigeu, and I’m not being an @$$ about it either. Men are supposed to lead and women at the end of the day respect a man who does so. This does mean the submitting can be a very hard thing to do and it is very clear that women have chafed under this for quite some time. Men have to kiss @$$ at work to get the job done and then come home and have to be the CEO of their household, and yes, this is the role they are supposed to hold down. Women essentially answer to everyone.

Does it blow chunks, you know what, I can’t see how it wouldn’t sometimes. However…….

I have never liked when women have simply told me to ‘just deal with it’ so I wouldn’t say this to women either. The truth of the matter is, what is a woman’s recourse? Not to be glib, what is it really? Women follow or if you haven’t seen what’s going on, they will wish they did. Does anyone remember Laura the first? Not Lara but another earlier female poster who freaked on a post regarding women in Sweden.

She freaked out when she saw an older bartender pick up a woman less than half his age and she clued in what sort of trouble women could look forward to in the future. This is what I mean, at the end of the day, and maybe at this juncture I won’t be so blunt but what choice do women actually have? Men have the choice to rescind their support from society, women have NEVER been in that sort of position, and from the looks of it, never will be. They married or they aged alone and broke, possibly dying prematurely never having achieved their biological imperative.

Yeah Paigeu, it can suck being a woman, I can’t imagine it but at the same time, what is better? Submission to a man who (if you choose right) will most likely take care of you, or living alone broke with your cats wondering how the next week will play out financially? The reality is that some of the older men on this board do not face this sort of future unless they previously got married, and this is what old matriarchs tried to teach their young women.

One thing I can promise; over the next decade the horror stories of older women going broke because they are alone and unwanted are going to pile up and go from something which happened to a friend of a friend to something that seems to happen with alarming regularity. By that time it could be far too late.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
SingleDad February 17, 2011 at 19:58

Gender Foriegner

That was inspirational. I have rarely read such an excellent post.

Thank you sir.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Nemo February 17, 2011 at 20:07

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.”
- Sun Tzu

This is why the forces of collectivism and socialism have chosen to attack Western civilization through our women rather than our men.

Imagine if a time traveller went back to 1961 and told the men that in fifty years, the following would occur in the USA:

The illegitimacy rate would be 41% and climbing.

Most women would have a venereal disease of some sort by age 25.

Marriage rates would be cut roughly in half.

The federal government would be so broke that for every $1 it raised in taxes, it would need to borrow 90 cents to spend (mostly on women), and that China would be its primary creditor.

The laws regarding employment would make men second class citizens, heterosexual men third class citizens, and heterosexual men who were white, Asian, or Jewish fourth class citizens – in the name of “equality”, no less.

College students who preach chastity and sexual foreberance until after marriage would lose their right to free speech but advocates of “free love” could speak freely.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11043/1124857-192.stm

They would have thought that the time traveller was lying.

If he showed them proof, they would have waged war to stop this from happening.

We’ve lost a war without even realizing that we were fighting one …

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner February 17, 2011 at 20:11

Dear SingleDad:

Thanks for your words: they are heart-welcome. I am deep in the enemy trenches: I have been kicked cruelly before and I remain. I was as a MIA who was still in action, unexpectedly caught in an a trench of such absolute hate, government-funded and government designed. Typical. The schools and their players are criminal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 17, 2011 at 22:10

@Snark

On second thought, I might not dropkick it. Just eat it maybe.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez D lighten up. If you take everything you see online seriously, then the internet is going to be a strange and wonderful place for you.”

Or cause Drain Bamage….

TOO LATE!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Poester99 February 17, 2011 at 22:33

@paigeu

Lara oozed:
“I like paigeu. I think her comments add to the discussion.”

There, now your credibility is all shot to hell. 8)

“My husband says that only .02% of the population appreciates my sense of humor. Sadly, I think he is right.”

No, I think everyone “got it”. Just so many here have been force-fed so much of feminist culture’s horseshit AND state sponsored abuse, that they will not give any women the “benefit of the doubt”, which I’m sure you gotten an inkling of (tidal wave of).

I just think that the Apocalypse is on it’s way, and everyone feels it, so start stocking that bunker. (my GF thinks 2012)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire February 18, 2011 at 00:11

Nico

but one of them apparently saved the text and sent it to the police who took the story very seriously.

Nice to know tax dollars are spent on intelligent police. Not some dufuses who would earnestly think that a guy who would do all that stuff would actually write it all down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
The Caliph February 18, 2011 at 00:15

@Poester99 February 17, 2011 at 22:46

Women are what they are, aren’t we making that point all the time around here?

How does that change the value of her writing unless she is explicitly judging someone else based specifically on the weakness of (possibly excessive) vanity?

While what you say with regards to her writing may hold true, it does make one (at least myself) question her ethics.

I personally can’t take someone seriously, whose self esteem is so questionable (in my opinion) they send a picture of themself over the ‘internet’ to a stranger.
Makes me really question such a persons overall judgement and guiding principles for decision making.

I made the uniqueness of that train of thought very obvious in the comment.

I’m sure we would all like to know if any contributors on here are sending photos of themselves to any of the ladies at jezebel, ofcourse we can all agree it won’t change the value of their contributions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14
andybob February 18, 2011 at 03:33

It is clear that the likes of Laura Wood will comprehend little of the concerns of the men who post here, and care even less. Why would she and her sista lurkers even bother to troll here? Is it a vain effort to try to understand what makes today’s man tick so they can manipulate us more effectively?
Whatever their reasons, it must truly make them piss their panties to read just how little regard men across the spectrum hold today’s women. As Welmer points out, there is no one single type of man who reads and appreciates ‘The Spearhead’. What binds us together is the awareness of the true nature of women.
As the scales have fallen from my eyes over the years (it took a while), I have come to realise just how deceptive, selfish and vicious women really are.
It frightens women like Ms Woods to know that so many men (even young ‘louts’, as she calls them) are beyond their control. Hmmm, a bit school ma’amish don’t you think? I just love a shrill, finger-waving, censorious rousing from an upright Christian woman. I’m certainly hard (where’s my Palin doll?)
Once-decent men no longer give a shit about women. Neither desired nor respected. Scary stuff for princesses – and dowagers like Laura – who are left to eat, pray, love and feed their cats on their lonesome.
Did anyone actually expect any woman to give the manosphere a genuine and repectful hearing? The closest any of them has come isin the endlessly entertaining musings of our Lara (she of thumbs down fame). Keep posting away sweetie. You really do represent the pinnacle of female intellect.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
cracker February 18, 2011 at 04:42

How about this as an idea for raising funds for The Spearhead – set a goal amount and, if you reach it, promise to get rid of Skadi, Lara, and the newest pain in the ass paigeu.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Robert February 18, 2011 at 05:34

Nico February 17, 2011 at 11:41
OT: I just got my computer back after the police raided my flat two days ago – looking for pedopornography (needless to say, they found nothing).
They were apparently tipped off by a feminist woman.

I do not mean to instill any paranoia within you but, I would have the hard drive and memory replaced ASAP. Take the hard drive that is presently installed on your computer and smash and burn it and do the same with the memory. I do not trust the government or law enforcement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Robert February 18, 2011 at 05:41

There is no telling what they could have installed/downloaded onto your computer and imbedded into the hard drive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Jay Hammers February 18, 2011 at 06:58

That review was hilarious, Paul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
aharon February 18, 2011 at 07:11

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

What about men fearing false domestic violence accusations against the wife and fearing false claims by the wife that the man threatened the children? Some innocent men are in prison because of such claims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 18, 2011 at 08:23

Welmer.

ABSOLUTELY……FUCKING…….BRILLIANT!!

STANDING OVATION!!

I’m really busy but I can not let the best ever spearhead post go past and not congratulate you. Damn! Write ‘angry’! It is brilliant!

I 110% agree you should allow ‘swearing’ in a male space. If women are ‘upset’? They can fuck off. If a ‘man’ claims ‘upset’ at swearing? He’s not a man. He can fuck off too.

Welmer. Much of what I learned about how to be a man and how to motivate men I learned in the ‘huddle’ at the quarter time breaks in my brand of football. Australian rules. Australian rules, the way we used to play it, was one of the toughest sports of all. It’s a girly sport now.

The best example I ever saw of motivating men on a football field happened when I was 15. I was injured and not able to play my own game so I went to the seniors game with my Dad. It was a game we really needed to win. We were behind by 50 points at three quarter time. The men were playing like women. I had never seen our men play so badly. Never.

I went into the ‘huddle’ at three quarter time. The coach was apopleptic. He screamed at men from an inch from their face. He screamed out examples of their failings. He shoved a few around in the chest and called them a bunch of fucking girls. He told them he’d seen girl guides play football better than this. I will never forget how much cussing and swearing went on. It was the harshest diatribe I have ever seen in my life. I’ve never seen one quite that harsh. I was also very surprised he pushed and shoved the players around so forcefully.

Well? I don’t know who the fuck was playing in the first three quarters but there were 18 different men on the field for the last quarter. To this day I have never seen a team of men play football as well as that quarter. Not even the final quarter of the 1989 grand final between hawthorn and collingwood (universally agreed to be the most exciting final quarter of a grand final in modern times) was as good as what I saw on the field that day. Somehow we kicked 10 goals in the final quarter having not kicked 10 goals in the three quarters before. We won by 2 points in the dying minutes of the game if memory serves me. We went on to win the premiership.

Being a coach is an art form. Sometimes screaming blue murder at men is what is needed to get them going. Sometimes it’s a quiet kind word in the clamshell and a pat on the back.

Maybe we need a little more ‘screaming blue murder’ in the MRA area?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
slwerner February 18, 2011 at 08:24

Denis – ”These traditional women are a real problem for the MRM. They are fair-weather friends who want to maintain maternal supremacy and use men to provide and protect them. They are feminists greatest ally in creating a system of male slaves.”

[Wow take a day off, and you miss all the action]

Denis,

I was one of those who, at one point, thought I could “talk some sense into” Laura Wood. And, at the time I was actively doing so, it seemed as thought she was beginning to come around. I (and a few others) had gotten her to consider non-state sanctioned/controlled marriages, and the idea that the (Anti-)Family Courts need to be reformed if there is to be any hope of convincing men (as a class) to return to marrying. She even offered, of her own accord (in response to the challenge put to her regarding the courts tendency to deprive fathers of their children) that there “ought to be” a return to “father custody”.

She even seemed to soften her anti-MRM stance (a bit).

But, then, she did something of an abrupt “about-face” and stopped directly addressing the issue pertinent to men. She then seemed to embark on a new tact of trying to argue that men (white men) needed to simply assume the risks inherent to Marriage 2.0, considering it more important to be part of something bigger (the continuation of White-Western Society), ignoring the personal risks, with her talk of holding their heads high, and suffering in silence should they find themselves screwed-over, as they could then maintain their “honor” and know that they did nothing wrong.

It’s simply the new shaming language, suggesting that “honor” for men comes from fulfilling their “societal duties” and being themselves, above reproach.

Rather than continue to argue against the MRM, she seems to have also take the new tact of allowing that it is “okay” if men wish to seek legal reforms. But, my take on this is that she has simply decided that the MRM is no real threat of achieving meaningful change (I may have helped this along by repeatedly pointing out the relative lack of success that the MRM was having – thinking that she was actually in favor of the same goals, and would see the value of joining with those of the MRM, at least on specific “shared issues” so as to get more people behind legislative efforts).

I’ve since come to feel that I’ve been badly duped by her “lip service” to men’s real issues. I believe that she only agrees with such things as reforming the courts, fixing anti-male laws, and treating men as being valuable as individuals (regardless of their lack of commitment/enslavement to a woman) simply because she feels that there is no realistic chance of those things coming about. Thus, she can posture as not being a gyno-supremacist, while still trying to shame men into marriage (for society, fro the White-race, and for “honor”).

To a lesser extend, Mark Richards (OZ Conservative) has also adopted the same approach, although, when “pushed”, he does relent and admit that men shouldn’t marry women who show themselves unworthy of such. But, he still maintains this call for men to sacrifice themselves for some greater good, for being part of something much bigger than themselves, irrespective of the personal risks to them.

He has even gone so far as to construct an argument against what he calls “(Radical) Personal Autonomy”, which he decries as the liberal (in the classical sense, that is) ideas of personal freedom and detachment from men’s “societal duties” [Josh F/Thordaddy tries to blend his personal misunderstanding of Mark’s construct into his own “men who aren’t pussy beggars are de facto homos/anyone who disagrees with me is a ‘fag’” (empty) rhetoric].

Unlike Laura Wood and her band of female-attention craving mangina orbiters, Mark Richards and some of his more frequent commenters seem to be more open to the message of the MRM. There’s hope for Richards, but I’ve decided to write of Wood as a disingenuous luke-warm poser, who only snarkily says, “Yeah, sure, go have your little Men’s Rights Movement if you want to. Who cares?”; as she continues to enjoy the rise of gyno-supremacy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
paigeu February 18, 2011 at 08:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 44
slwerner February 18, 2011 at 09:39

So now Laura Wood, who detests the fact that (some) here tend to perceive women, as a class, by the actions of the worst of that class, hypocritically “cherry-picks” a choice comment with which to label Spearhead posters, as a class, based on the actions of (what might be considered) the worst of that class.

The Bullies Speak

I also note her continuation of the “men can still have their ‘honor’ if they are quite while being walked all over” meme:

”The greatest losers in the world are those who commit evil, always and in all times, not those who are the victims of it. That does not mean injustice should not be resisted.”

Perhaps she might have said, ”The greatest losers in the after-life so as to be (Christian) theologically correct.

Her shallow words are, of course, zero comfort to men (and woman, as well) who find their lives ripped apart by the spouses they chose to commit to (but, who refused to be reciprocally committed). Too many people have had to witness the ex who blind-sided them apparently “living it up” to be anything but insulted by Laura’s empty pseudo-empathy.

No. Laura’s still peddling the “suck it up, take it like a man, you still have your “honor” “ pabulum in the hopes that more young men will accept the risks of Marriage 2.0.

I’d also note that, like most “Traditional Conservatives”, while she pays some lip-service to “resisting injustice”, she never gets around to how she envisions this “resistance”.

In reading over the comments in this thread, I think Novaseeker hit on it early-on – she advocates that men pray and trust in God’s Will. Thus, if they end-up screwed-over, they must have “failed” to do this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
paigeu February 18, 2011 at 09:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 44
slwerner February 18, 2011 at 10:32

paigeu – “She advocates that men AND women trust in Gods will. Sometimes bad stuff happens to women too. Regardless- bad stuff happening doesn’t mean someone failed.”

Paige,

In the broader sense, you are correct. Yet, anyone who’s been around the Manosphere for any time can tell you that “SocCon-types” like Wood have long proffered to men that if they were “done-wrong” by a woman, it was their fault in having picked the wrong sort of woman.

After enduring that rhetoric for the 53,213th time, members of the Manosphere started calling them on that BS – pointing out that woman who were likewise “done wrong” by their man must be guilty of having picked the wrong type of man. And, some also made a point of the fact that the woman who divorced them was NOT at all like the woman they had previously fallen in love with. It sort of shut them up, for a while.

Having seen the “victim-blaming” applied so flippantly towards men’s plights, I thus tend to see ideas like expressed about relying on God as little more than a back-handed way to resume the “victim-blaming” of men. It implies that if a man ends up with a bad woman, he must have either not followed Gods leading in choosing a mate, or that he subsequently failed to assume his God-given leadership role over his household, and thus his wife lost respect for him/cheated on him/divorced him.

To be fair, Wood’s does decry female evils as well. She also sees this as woman failing in their “duties”. The issue for me comes down to her idea that marriage and procreation are men’s “societal duties” which must be fulfilled regardless of personal risk.

As she responded in her recent post, she doesn’t “demand” that all men marry. But, her “punishment” for those who do not marry is that they should be celibate. the intent of her “no-sex-without-marriage” stance is little different from the so-called “marriage strike” by men in it’s intent. Yet, she calls the efforts of men to dissuade men from marrying (the state, along with a woman) given the inherent risks thereof, “evil”; despite the fact that for many such men, not marrying will also involve abstaining from sex as well (see MGTOW).

She couches her vilification of not marrying on sexual/moral grounds, but even when such men are celibate, she is still not satisfied. This is, to me, demonstrative of the fact that she is only considering the end result of “pushing” men to marry, instead of actually pushing for morality.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
mgtow February 18, 2011 at 11:06

Most women are feminists to some degree. Even the ones who say they are not feminists only say so because they accept and love the benefits of feminism that they enjoy already. There’s a small number of women who are not somehow caught up in the blame for this, I agree, but the number isn’t large. Most women are, to some degree, the enemy, unfortunately.

I think it’s beneficial that one of the most reasonable voices on this site has also articulated and explained this obvious fact as well. I’ve seen bloggers complain that misogynist loudmouths are chasing away moderate readers from this site, but now we see a dispassionate expression of a fact that 99% of people would dismiss as “misogynist”.

Another problem is that people can’t, or won’t distinguish between hating women, versus having a low regard of women. They don’t think, and the M-word is just so convenient for use as shaming language.

And no, this is not a popularity contest that aims to please and placate the ‘moderates’. All this movement is about is using TRUTH against feminist deceit and hypocrisy. If folks find the truth too hard to swallow, too unpalatable, too insensitive or too ‘extremist’… they can scoot. They will not be missed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Migu February 18, 2011 at 11:35

With modern Christianity, certainly. But not with traditional Christianity. Christian men kicked the world’s ass for two millenia until women took it over. Most men here righteously reject the modern feminized, globalized, namby-pamby version, and I’m glad to see it.

This needed a repeat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Migu February 18, 2011 at 11:47

You could always take the St Paul route.

MGTOW is that route. Don’t pay attention to what preachers say about ole paul. They pretend he was a saintly chaste mangina. Paul was a mean son of a bitch. He use to Saul, and then quit fucking over his fellow men thus Paul.

He saw what rome had to offer men, and gave them the bird. Weather they be christian or not. MGTOW are modern day Pauls.

Paul was a smart dude. He was able to do what??? Go down in history without a child. Why??? He never got married. Paul was a very wise man. Reminds me quite a bit of the Buddha, The Christ, Mohamed, and the Krishna.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Migu February 18, 2011 at 11:51

it just means Gods plan involved some suffering

God’s plan is free will, and the consequences thereof. Job could’ve taken his comforts at any time, he chose not to. That was the lesson there, not Gods plan involves x,y,z. God’s plan is free will. Nothing more nothing less.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Nergal February 18, 2011 at 15:02

Astrological sign: Sagittarius sun, Cancer moon, Capricorn rising

So you are a pagan…

She isn’t, but I am,and I think the bulk of astrology is complete bullshit. The only useful thing astrology did was metamorphose into astronomy.Astrology is useless for predicting the future or making observations that aren’t directly related to heavenly bodies themselves, such as eclipses.

As far as Laura Woods’ article goes… What did you expect from the traditionalist crowd? More shaming language, more “man up”, they can’t offer us solutions. All they offer us is the nebulous promise that if we’re all good boys,some day God will square up our problems for us. That doesn’t cut it for me, that’s why I became a Pagan in the first place.

I’m looking for permanent solutions,now, and I think human beings have the potential to make that happen. I believe in my fellow man. That’s why I’m not going to give them “take it like a man”, I’m going to give them a hot meal and then ask them what else I can do for them so that they can do what they need to do. That’s what I’m about.

I personally don’t care if they find my comments disturbing or evil, I find theirs disturbing and evil as well. I think it’s evil to stand there before a man in chains with the key to his liberation in your very hands and offer him platitudes instead of freedom. Laura Woods could be helping to free men from oppression, instead she locks the chains with a double-lock, binding the man from outside (the state) as well as inside (mental manipulation,i.e. the “take it like a man” bullshit).

No amount of misogyny here or on any other men’s rights blogs could ever top what has been done to men. They beat us down, chained us, mocked us, tortured us, and now they’re asking us to “turn the other cheek” and “tone down the rhetoric”.

FUCK YOU.

We are coming for you.

Your time is over.

Isaiah 31:4

For thus hath the LORD spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the LORD of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
scatmaster February 18, 2011 at 15:37

She really is evil personified.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader February 18, 2011 at 16:11

This latest posting by Woods includes the following amusement:

Paragraph 1, sentence 3 says:
I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it.

Paragraph 2, sentence 3 says:
He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not, though readers do occasionally send me links from there.

So let me get this straight: Woods has read part of this entry, but is not a reader of Spearhead. She both reads this site, and never reads this site.

It is not often one sees such a blatant self-contradiction in two paragraphs. Let’s all get screenshots before she changes it and pretends this never happened. It’s a succinct summary of the “thinking” housewife, who is clearly unable to think at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Skadi February 18, 2011 at 16:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 34
Hawaiian Libertarian February 18, 2011 at 17:24

I have just submitted a response to her entire post, and merely awaits Welmer’s approval for publishing.

No screen shot is necessary, as I’ve omitted none of her words.

I also purposely left out any vulgarities or curse words, and avoided any personal attacks so that she cannot use those as an excuse to marginalize and ignore the substantive criticisms.

Let’s see if she deals with it honestly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 18, 2011 at 19:38

Hey, HL, make sure that you get all your words pre-approved by Laura Woods. Here’s an excerpt from her first attack on men who dare to defend themselves:

Hawaiian Libertarian wrote:
So let’s get this straight…it is not acceptable for Men to express outrage and anger with some curse words at this instance of a woman deciding to break up her family after seeing a fucking movie?

Woods replies:
[As I stated earlier, no it is not. Outrage and anger is a justifiable reaction. The use of profanity is not.]

Got that? So now every single man around the world is not to be allowed to express a single word of anger, until it’s been approved by the Schoolmarm of the Planet, Laura Woods. What an ego! What audacity! How dare this woman demand that every man must check his anger, until she approves that it is acceptable for him to say anything, and that she and only she has the authority to decide what is and what is not “appropriate”.

My gosh, is this a housewife, or “The Great And Powerful Oz”, I ask you? The sheer arrogance of this farrago of nonsense is breathtaking.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader February 18, 2011 at 20:53

Here’s another one, from Woods posting “The Bullies Speak”.

Incidentally, since Woods has made it clear she will not post any criticisms of her at her website, while she is perfectly free to post any time she wants here, who is the bully, eh? Woods is free to slander any men who dare to disagree with her latest queenly statement, but none are to be allowed to reply. Meanwhile she refuses to ever deign to actually “woman up” and post here, leaving that work to paigeu.

So here is what Woods wrote:
However, because I refuse to say that even involuntary divorce and harassment by the state cannot destroy a man’s integrity and his honor, I am the object of withering hatred and threats at The Spearhead. The men’s movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims.,

This is a strawman argument. No one here to the best of my knowledge has ever claimed that all men are “holy victims”. In fact, I’m not aware of any postings here claiming that all men are victims of anything, although I could be wrong on that (note to Laura Woods: this is called “admitting error”, something you might want to try some time. It certainly would be a new experience for you).

What has been stated here is the plain and simple fact that every man in the US is a potential victim of each and every woman he encounters, each and every day. A man can be falsely accused of sexual harassment on the job, even if he is a perfect gentleman. A man can be falsely accused of rape just by walking down the street and refusing to give beer money to a female panhandler, or even just by being the unlucky man who walked past a group of young women who were in need of an “cover story”. As many of us know, both of these cases are from real life.

And of course, every married man, or man who is cohabiting with a woman without marriage, is one telephone call away from jail if the woman in his life decides to drop a false charge of Domestic Violence on his head. Furthermore, as Laura Woods (and Jesse Powell) full well know, thanks to Slwerner taking them to school about the real story of VAWA, anything and everything can be considered “Domestic Violence”, including shouting one time at a woman.

Laura Woods evidently finds these truths to be inconvenient to her. So she ignores them, and makes up something no one has said to attack instead. As noted before, this is the “straw man” fallacy. It proves nothing, except the intellectual laziness of the person deploying it.

That’s you, Laura Woods. You have made up a false claim and attacked that, rather than deal with the righteous anger of men.

Woods goes on:
Even a woman who repeatedly stands up for the rights of men is hated if she does not agree that men are doomed and have lost everything.

No, a woman who tepidly stands up for some rights of men, some of the time, but who regularly makes a habit of talking down to men on this site as if they were little boys, a woman who routinely writes in a condescending way, and a woman who writes about men only in so far as they are of use to women — that woman is criticized for her errors. Among those errors are the repeated use of the strawman fallacy: no one here claims that “men are doomed and have lost everything”, that’s something that Laura Woods made up inside her head, and is pretending someone here said.

Laura Woods has stood up in favor of some men, some of the time, and she’s criticized some feminists, some of the time. This is more than most women are willing to do. For that I had some respect. But this latest barrage of half truths, falsehoods and strawmen has eroded my respect considerably. Her hypocritical game of taking a handful of comments and asserting they are typical of Spearhead, while insisting that men who take their own personal experiences with women as examples of what women do is somehow “evil” is likewise eroding my respect.

Laura Woods condemns all men on this site for the actions of a few. Very Christian of her. But when some men on this site are justifiably angry with women, because of the actions of a few, she screeches and rages, and calls them “evil”. The word for this is hypocrite.

Laura Woods is a hypocrite. She holds the men of this site to a higher standard than she holds herself.

I suppose that’s something of a compliment…to Spearhead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Höllenhund February 18, 2011 at 21:48

Beware of socons like Laura Wood, for they are much more dangerous and insidious than feminists. Feminists have declared themselves to be enemies of (non-feminist) men and openly attempt to marginalize them in every conceivable way. They make no secret of their true intentions and views. Socons, on the other hand, verbally condemn feminism (without actually doing anything to destroy it) and claim to be the allies of anti-feminist men, when in truth they are simply female supremacists. They are like sirens leading clueless young men into ruin by paying lip service to right-wing views.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
woggy February 19, 2011 at 05:31

@paigeu
Regardless- bad stuff happening doesn’t mean someone failed..it just means Gods plan involved some suffering

Wrong!
Judas Iscariot, for example, was an instrument of evil-and Jesus plainly said so as Judas walked out the door to betray Him…”the Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. It would be better for that man had he not been born”.
Jesus said Judas was failing, because Jesus KNEW that Judas was not trying to fulfill God’s plan of salvation at all- Judas’ only conscious goal was thirty pieces of silver.
Of course, the Apostles, in their writings, later referred to Judas as “the son of perdition”. I detect, in those words, an accusation of failure on Judas’ part.

Whenever I have wronged someone, my first and last thoughts are NOT that my actions- as an instrument of evil- were part of God’s plan of misery/eventual triumph for someone else, and I certainly don’t accuse someone else of being ill-tempered when they point out my wrongdoing.
Is your doctrine so void of practicality that you don’t understand this?

Further-and I only dwell on this subject because you profess Christianity- one day those who’ve caused this misery/testing will be held accountable. God will NOT excuse them for their evil as if they were mere puppets on a string, and He’ll hold accountable those who didn’t hold accountable those “instruments of evil” IN THIS LIFE.

If you believe as I do (and frankly, I’m skeptical concerning the depth of your belief, because of the way you’ve argued here) then you must agree that the most misogynist thing a person could do is not warn women that they are courting evil, and acting as instruments of it, when they ignore the evil and injustice latent in feminism- preferring instead to chasten a man who screams an obscenity while he’s slowly being castrated (figuratively and sometimes literally).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
New Guy Part Deux February 19, 2011 at 08:46

Many men have pulled the pin on a hand grenade and were not-so-shockingly surprised when the damned thing blew up!

Now men don’t trust hand grenades. Go figure….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:07

Many men have pulled the pin on a hand grenade and were not-so-shockingly surprised when the damned thing blew up!

Not really a big deal. Problem is someone convinced these men they did not have to throw the grenade after pulling the pin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Migu February 20, 2011 at 08:09

If we are going Isaiah go 1:14. It talks all about what happens to dishonest prostitutes. Oh yes it does. Sores on their forehead and such. Herpes anyone??????

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
A Man February 20, 2011 at 14:53

Actually Michael Cooper, the ex-husband of Elizabeth Gilbert, wrote a book about his “journey” called “Displaced”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jul/26/michael-cooper-eat-pray-love

His publicists changed the title to “One Husband: Moving In, Moving Out, and Moving On”, and asked him to make it “racier”. When he declined they pulled his book.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner February 20, 2011 at 20:46

Dear Migu:

Thanks for your contribution. I checked up Isaiah 1:14, and it read (Revised Standard Version): “Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am wearing of bearing them.”

As a result, I am sure you meant to reference another line of Scripture, but which one?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Alphabeta Supe February 21, 2011 at 02:34

“Can we agree that 90% of the posts and comments on Spearhead are not compatible with the Christian ideology?”

@paigeu

No, we cannot. Everyone who posts here is angry and hurt about injustice. The only Christian ‘ideology’ that matters is that we love one another as Jesus loves his disciples. Jesus encourages his disciples to hear each others pain.
Thus, 100% of the comments by those who feel the pain of injustice are welcome here. I’d say that’s about 90% overall, not 10%.

It is a Christian mandate to “admonish the sinner…”

No again. The Christian ‘mandate’ is to love one another the way Jesus loves his disciples. This encourages Christians to admonish each other when they sin, but not sinners in general.

The Christian perspective is that someone should depend heavily on prayer to make choices and then trust that whatever happens (good or bad) is God’s will for them.

No, yet again. A Christian perspective this may be, but it is an incorrect one. A Christian is to pray, certainly, but to depend only on God.

Also, God’s will is never bad. ‘Good’ means God’s will, so your sentence is meaningless.

She used Spearhead as an example of what Christian men should not do..in HER blog.

Christ teaches that men should not take spiritual advice from a woman. Why? Because women cannot fathom a man’s relationship with his God or his brethren. The same is not true the other way around. God leads Adam. Adam leads Eve. There’s a reason for this, and both you and Laura are proving why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner February 21, 2011 at 08:19

Dear Alphabeta Supe:

Thank you for your commentary. You address important matters. There is a division in Scripture in which believers in Christ are supposed to address the sins of the church (that is to say, those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and, as such, adopted by God the Father) and those who are not.

Rebuking those within is certainly juxtaposed with rebuking those outside of the church, for sure (and by church, I do not mean some government-subsidized religious business which is actually the enemy of God). Various Scriptures can be referenced as per such, but in the end, the church with Christ’s authority will end up judging the whole world (that is to say, the nonchurch).

As such, at some time in the FUTURE, the following has implication: 1 Corinthians 6:1-3a (Revised Standard Version)

“When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we are to judge angels?”

There are various Scriptures which indicate that the believer is supposed to stand up for what is right in general and oppose what is wrong in general. Because of shortness of time, I will not particularize here but I can tell you that I have come across such Scriptures. Nevertheless, I will mention the following general Scriptures:

Proverbs 31:9 (RSV) “9Open your mouth, judge righeously, maintain the rights of the poor and needy.”

Proverbs 22:16 (RSV) “16He who oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to want.”

As per insider offences, the following certainly apply (and notice the objection to the sin of the collection plate):

Micah 3:5 (RSV) “5Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry ‘Peace” when they have something to eat but declare war against him who puts nothing into their mouths.”

Micah 3:11 (RSV) “11Its heads give judment for a bribe, its preats teach for hire, its prophets divine for money; yet they learn upon the LORD and say, ‘Is not the LORD in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us.’”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner February 21, 2011 at 08:32

P.S.:

Notice that the collection-plate false prophets declare WAR AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT FILL COLLECTION PLATE. Even though the Scriptural (God’s Instruction) is as per INSIDER OFFENCES, the collection-plate fillers patternistically state objection to those who RIGHT AND WRONG OUTSIDE THE, “CHURCH.” Such constitutes further evidence of their being false prophets. They are spiritual prostitutes, doing it for money. The church is supposed to be the Bride of Christ, not a prostitute for hire (which those collection platers are).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mike from Toronto October 14, 2011 at 07:01

“some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce” > so it’s ok because there is an assumed risk, so the man cannot be victim.

let’s change the words and see if this applies another way.

“some women are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a man who will use her or rape or sexually assault her” > ergo when a woman is raped, it’s her own damn fault.

Patrick you’re a fucking idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 10 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: