ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Men don't matter to SJWs

Nero observes the uneven and sexist reaction to acts of violence in A GAME OF THRONES:
    D&D are trash bags go back to the sewerage where you belong
    — ziggy (@foxfeuer) May 18, 2015

    D&D are so gross I hope they burn in hell.
    — stevebucky asun (@mybaabyblue) May 18, 2015

    I AM FUCKING FURIOUS I WANT D&D TO DIE THOSE PIECES OF SHIT
    — JUSTICE FOR SANSA (@sansaslady) May 18, 2015

“D&D” refers to the show’s creators, Daniel Benioff and Daniel Weiss.

If any other group were caught making tweets like this, they would probably be labelled a hate group. But that can’t happen to feminists, so publications like Vox instead blamed the show’s creators for “provoking the ire of the internet”. It’s hardly surprising, of course. These are the same people who had nothing to say about #killallmen.

This isn’t the first time that violence against female characters in Game of Thrones has attracted attention. The first was over the graphic murder of a prostitute by the sadistic King Joffrey. Then people were upset when Robb Stark’s pregnant wife was stabbed in the belly. Robb himself was impaled with a sword before his corpse was decapitated and paraded around with a wolf’s head stuck on his neck, but no one minded so much about that.

But the latest outrage has surpassed all the others, with odious, risible “geek feminist” blog The Mary Sue announcing that they would no longer promote the series.

    Here's our new policy re: @GameOfThrones. http://t.co/OkqrSawZaI #GameOfThrones

    — The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) May 19, 2015

If these aggrieved Tumblrinas took a minute to think, they might figure out why violence against female characters seems so shocking: it’s because on-screen violence against men is so common that it doesn’t surprise us, and that in turn makes on-screen violence against women stand out.
It's no different in games. Remember all the protests against GTA because you COULD kill prostitutes in a game where you MUST kill copious men in a broad variety of ways just in order to play. Meanwhile, an SJW-approved version of A GAME OF THRONES is suggested:
Daenerys Targaryean withdraws from marrying Khal Drogo after realizing she’s a strong independent Khaleesi that don’t need no Dothraki. Daenrys still takes the dragon eggs that were a wedding gift. As she never burns though the eggs never hatch.

Sansa cuts her long red hair short and dyes it rainbow colours. Starts a social media raven campaign for the awareness of how tough the daughters of Lords have it. Spends the rest of her time telling peasant boys to check their privilege.
I've previously pointed out how the basic story of A GAME OF THRONES isn't even possible if the author had been properly feminist, and how a single change to a single character in A Song of Ice and Fire would have eviscerated the entire series and eliminated the greater part of its plot.  Consider the consequences of changing Cersei Lannister from an oppressed woman used as a dynastic piece by her father to a strong and independent warrior woman of the sort that is presently ubiquitous in third-generation fantasy, science fiction, and paranormal fiction.

  1. Cersei doesn't marry Robert Baratheon.  She's strong and independent like her twin, not a royal brood mare!
  2. House Lannister's ambitions are reduced from establishing a royal line to finding a wife for Tyrion.
  3. Cersei's children are not bastards.  Robert's heirs have black hair.
  4. Jon Arryn isn't murdered to keep a nonexistent secret.  Ned Stark isn't named to replace him.
  5. Robert doesn't have a hunting accident arranged by the Lannisters, who don't dominate the court and will not benefit from his fall.
  6. Robert's heirs being legitimate, Stannis and Renly Baratheon remain loyal.
  7. The Starks never come south and never revolt against King's Landing.  Theon Greyjoy goes home to the Ironborn and never returns to Winterfell.  Jon Snow still goes to the Wall, but Arya remains home and learns to become a lady, not an assassin, whether she wants to or not.
So, what was a war of five kings that spans five continents abruptly becomes a minor debate over whether Robert Baratheon's black-haired son and heir marries Sansa Stark, a princess of Dorne, or Danerys Targaryen.

Labels: ,

173 Comments:

Blogger Krul May 20, 2015 8:12 AM  

Sexism

Blogger Ralph Hyatt May 20, 2015 8:23 AM  

In a sane world, the response to complaints about scenes of violence towards women in a tv series that depicts a violent, brutal world where treachery and killing are common place is to ask the complainants, "are you retarded?"

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 8:24 AM  

honestly... the whole series just documents the viscous stupidity of Cersei and all the billions of lives that viscous stupidity harms.

Everything that happens falls back on her dumb selfish ass.

OpenID genericviews May 20, 2015 8:32 AM  

We already have the Bolton spawn character established as unredeemably cruel, selfish, and sadistic. It wouldn't have harmed the story line to have him treat his "princess bride" as a trophy instead of as another stable girl. his "needs killing" cred would still have been intact. Including Sansa in this role is a divergeance from the book and now we see that it is a divergeance that harms the character. This might toughen her up a little. We will see what the authors have down the road. What we won't see is the constant peril Sansa was enduring of losing her maidenhead to one ruffian or another. That at least is settled. A shame she couldn't have had a nice stable boy first.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 8:33 AM  

I know I don't agree with a lot of what is posted here, and I post very infrequently, but even as a feminist myself, I am eye-rolling over this whole "controversy". What did people think were going to happen to Sansa? It's not like she's not going to get back at him, somehow. Some people just take things way too far. FWIW, my wife, all of my friends who skew feminist, male and female alike, are also rolling their eyes at the backlash this time.

Blogger Krul May 20, 2015 8:36 AM  

t.c. - "FWIW, my wife, all of my friends who skew feminist, male and female alike, are also rolling their eyes at the backlash this time. "

I'm curious. What was your reaction to the backlash against Joss Whedon after the Prima Nocta joke?

Anonymous Morty May 20, 2015 8:37 AM  

Just a few thoughts about your comments. Cersei in my opinion is already a true embodiment of a feminist - she's a opportunistic narcissist who wont hesitate to move goal posts and paint herself as the victim of other people's oppression for her own freely taken actions. Primarily Cersei had always wanted to be a Queen both for the power and the attention, the fact that that meant there must also be a king varied somewhere between a secondary bonus and a mild nuisance. In the books she mentions how hunky she found Rhaegar and that she actually started manipulating and using Jamie for sex as a proxy for Rhaegar. When Robert becomes king she willingly accepts him as the price for getting her throne. It's only a decade or more later that she starts trying the poor oppressed damsel bullshit.

As for your interesting theory about how changing one small factor changes the entire outcome. On the face of it, I agree and it's quite fun to think about. The flaw with the hypothesis, in my opinion, is that it is a static what if scenario, where the actions that would prevent this cascade wouldn't also have other effects that might in turn start other cascades. The most important thing to consider is the active catalyst behind a lot of the instability - ie Petyr. Jon Arryn isn't killed to keep a secret, he is killed on behalf of Petyr to make it look like he was killed to keep said secret. I feel Baelish is enough of a schemer that he would find a different set of circumstances to engineer to the same effect/outcome.

OpenID genericviews May 20, 2015 8:39 AM  

honestly... the whole series just documents the viscous stupidity of Cersei and all the billions of lives that viscous stupidity harms.

We haven't even gotten to the untold thousands who will die of starvation because "winter is coming" and everyone was off at war instead of planting and harvesting. And all the men who died in the war (and the trecheries and attrocities) won't be there to defend against the ice zombies.

It would have done far less harm for Eddard to just keep his mouth shut and let Cercei win.

Anonymous trev006 May 20, 2015 8:40 AM  

The notion of Sansa as a brilliant operator scheming for revenge was just exploded, and that's the first reason why feminists hate this scene quite so much. Given what happened to Jeyne Poole, Lady Hornwood, and Reek, putting oneself into the hands of Ramsay is completely insane.

The second reason, of course, comparing Tyrion's sackless waiting for love against Ramsay's completely legal deflowering of Sansa. Watching people agree that Ramsay by definition isn't raping Sansa is a very painful moment to the liberated womyn, and I love every minute of it.

Blogger natschuster May 20, 2015 8:44 AM  

I still don't understand what is going on. Now, SJW's get worked up over fictional rape. I remember that they were falling all over each other running to defend Bill Clinton.

Blogger Krul May 20, 2015 8:45 AM  

genericviews - "We haven't even gotten to the untold thousands who will die of starvation because "winter is coming" and everyone was off at war instead of planting and harvesting. "

That's always been my biggest beef with GoT - books and movies. The fact that "Winter is coming" basically makes the entire main storyline petty and pointless.

Blogger VD May 20, 2015 8:49 AM  

I feel Baelish is enough of a schemer that he would find a different set of circumstances to engineer to the same effect/outcome.

That seems extremely unlikely, considering that there would be no illegitimate pair of non-heirs to use as a lever.

Blogger AmyJ May 20, 2015 8:51 AM  

In their rage, they don't realize that they've marginalized (their favorite word) every true victim of rape simply because Sansa - a fictional character - didn't get the wedding night they all wanted to see. Claiming that her "agency was stripped from her" and that her character arc is ruined, they've reduced rape victims to the same status - without value.

Oh, the irony.

Blogger Ron May 20, 2015 8:52 AM  

This points to a possible tactic against high value SJW targets. Act as outraged SJWs and implement social media campaigns against these targets when they invariably deviate from SJW orthodoxy. Use their own tactics against them. Divide and conquer.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 9:02 AM  

I've previously pointed out how the basic story of A GAME OF THRONES isn't even possible if the author had been properly feminist

Yeah, how was a feminist blog promoting the show in the first place? Had none of them read the books, or even read about the books?

It shouldn't still be possible for their ignorance of every topic they bray about to surprise me, but it is.

Blogger Ralph Hyatt May 20, 2015 9:07 AM  

"agency was stripped from her"

I don't watch the show, but I recall that Sean Bean's character being executed in the final episode of the first season was considered a big deal because the character was honorable and did not deserve to die.

So, was his agency stripped from him when his head was separated from his neck?

There are young men and women being killed and/or raped right this second in the real world and this is what these people spend their time and energy on?

Someone should explain to them that the there is no natural law guaranteeing them continued access to the luxury and safety that they currently enjoy and that from an historical perspective such access is an aberration that will not continue for much longer.

Blogger IM2L844 May 20, 2015 9:08 AM  

Add this to the overwhelming mountain of evidence that their minds are broken.

Blogger bob k. mando May 20, 2015 9:12 AM  

Mad Max was also not equalitarian 'feminist' in any meaningful way.

every time the chicks get into a hand to hand fight against a man ... they get their asses kicked.

every time the chicks make a plan, it's not only laughably incompetent, it blows up in their faces.

what MM:FR does do is reinforce the WhiteKnight/BetaBux meme. all of the idiotic fem plans are fixed and carried to fruition ... by men ... who then either die or fade away into the crowd.

and, of course, Max is his old sex neuter self. Max hasn't displayed any desire or interest in females since his wife and kids got killed off in the first movie.

perfect Beta Orbiter.

Anonymous Heh May 20, 2015 9:16 AM  

the whole series just documents the viscous stupidity of Cersei and all the billions of lives that viscous stupidity harms.

Viscous stupidity -- is that regular stupidity with maple syrup poured on it?

Blogger Ralph Hyatt May 20, 2015 9:17 AM  

It was a nice civilization while it lasted. Kind of like ancient Rome with the paying idle people to riot instead of letting them starve, but with a leavening of Christianity, and when that started to die we had the technology to fake violent entertainments instead of having to have actual gladiatorial contests.

But now that exposure of unwanted infants is being advocated (just don't call it that) as well as the killing of "useless eaters" I don't think it will be much longer until slavery, under some other name, will be making a come back. Hell, we already have debtors prison for "dead beat" dads.

Blogger bob k. mando May 20, 2015 9:18 AM  

Heh May 20, 2015 9:16 AM
Viscous stupidity



shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

i like Nate not knowing why i'm laughing.

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 9:18 AM  

All they want IS a Mary Sue which, of course, ends up becoming boring and dull in a story.

Which then becomes funny when they're like, "Guys wait, flawless characters are not really feminist." Oh but "realism is overrated anyway" so... basically I think the only way to be a good SJW is to just kill yourself. And make sure you leave a note blaming gamer gate.

(and yes, those last two links? written by the same person)

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 9:18 AM  

Krul - "I'm curious. What was your reaction to the backlash against Joss Whedon after the Prima Nocta joke?"

I have been angry over the backlash against Whedon - crazy angry! And, again, almost all of my feminist friends have been too. Last weekend, at the bookstore I work part-time, I had a long talk with a female colleague, probably the most hard-core feminist I know, and even she said, "Why alienate one of our strongest male allies in Hollywood?" And she had a point.

The stupidity with the prima nocta joke - this is Tony Stark talking. Of course that's something he'd say. It is entirely something he would say. So why attack Whedon for writing legit dialogue that makes sense?

I know not everyone here agrees, but I see different shades of feminism. I am a feminist, but not a militant feminist, the ever increasing extreme that keeps getting louder and calls for boycotts and shaming and whatnot. But I don't think all feminism is that way. I see the same thing for walks of life - I'm an atheist, but I get pissed off at the atheists that feel the need to sue every nativity scene or cross on public land. It's, like, seriously? Why is it worth it? My family are all evangelical Christians, missionaries, etc. I love them dearly. They're great people. But then we have the extreme side of Rev. Phelps - but he doesn't represent all Christianity. Does that make sense? Not all feminists represent the militant side that seems to be getting louder and louder.

Anonymous Jourdan #200 May 20, 2015 9:21 AM  

Justice For Sansa?

Seriously?

Good Lord, if that isn't a First World Problem, I'm not sure what is.

Blogger IM2L844 May 20, 2015 9:22 AM  

OT:

I noticed that in every single interview I've seen on the news this morning with ship's captains for Fleet Week in New York, the military officers were sure to mention "federal law enforcement" as part of their primary mission statements. Just struck me as odd. Social conditioning?

Blogger Shimshon May 20, 2015 9:23 AM  

"Had none of them read the books, or even read about the books?"

Reading is hard.

Anonymous Jourdan - #200 May 20, 2015 9:24 AM  

@ t.c. - I appreciate your open mindedness and willingness to talk and discuss rather than the usual from feminists. However, as a former Leftist, let me warn you that there is sharp difference between: 1) being a moderate adherant of an ideology that is destructive (i.e., you); and 2) being a moderate adherant of an ideology that is constructive, yet spins off the occasional destructive personalities (i.e. your family's Christianity vs. that of a Phelps).

In other words, your more strident sisters are *not* unreflective of your common ideology, while Phelps *is* unreflective of Christianity.

Good luck to you. I hope you don't find out the hard way like I did that many of the people around you you think are fighting the good fight are anything but.

Anonymous Jourdan - #200 May 20, 2015 9:29 AM  

@ IM2L844 - Could you expand on that, please? As a former member of the U.S. military, I'm not aware the military has *any* role in federal law enforcement, beyond MPs/SPs on military bases. In fact, I distinctly remember having Coast Guard officers on board when assigned to drug interdiction patrols precisely for that reason: they *do* have a law enforcement role.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 20, 2015 9:32 AM  

I know not everyone here agrees, but I see different shades of feminism.

Of course everyone here agrees (for certain generic values of "everyone"). Isn't that the whole message of #GamerGate? The SJWs ruin it for everyone, especially those for whom they claim to be speaking. If you think gamergaters were a bunch of conservative Christians, you're way off base.

Same thing here. The SJWs are just a clueless mob. Reasonable people may have all kinds of reasonable reasons for their ideology and opinions. Even those that are wrong and stupid. But SJWs have no reason whatsoever.

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 20, 2015 9:35 AM  

So, what was a war of five kings that spans five continents abruptly becomes a minor debate over whether Robert Baratheon's black-haired son and heir marries Sansa Stark, a princess of Dorne, or Danerys Targaryen.

SJW reality in a nutshell. Well done, Mr. Day.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 20, 2015 9:37 AM  

Sansa had it coming. If was her fault that lot of her family got killed.

And she was not raped. Her husband did very rough but they were married.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 9:40 AM  

Jourdan - Thanks for the reply. I get where you're coming from, I really do, but I don't know that my annoyance with the extremist fringe from my own ideology will ever... dissuade me from that ideology. Does that make sense? I will always be a feminist in the basic definition of feminism, as Emma Watson once defined it so well. I believe in equality between the sexes and I don't think it exists. But does that mean I'm going to always be on the extreme feminist agenda? No, I call out stupidity where it exists. Same for my atheism - I'm not atheist because I hate religion or religious people, but just because I love my family and am close friends with my former pastor and whatnot, doesn't mean I'm going to change my personal religious beliefs.

OpenID freeonus May 20, 2015 10:00 AM  

Jane Austin could take it from there.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 20, 2015 10:00 AM  

I noticed that in every single interview I've seen on the news this morning with ship's captains for Fleet Week in New York, the military officers were sure to mention "federal law enforcement" as part of their primary mission statements. Just struck me as odd. Social conditioning?

That is "interesting" since the only possible and permissible role they could have is drug interdiction outside the U.S. Of all the services, the Navy has the strongest tradition of order uber alles which can lead to disdain for the Constitution they swore to uphold in favor of their precious order. There is an unfortunate tendency to think that the country should be governed like a destroyer's crew. Nurse Ratched probably began life as a SWO.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 20, 2015 10:02 AM  

Social conditioning

More likely to be direct orders to mention it. The chain of command isn't very subtle, even (especially?) when they think they are.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 10:06 AM  

Sansa was a little shit, and thus far all she had to show for it is a psycho for a husband.

But hey she took actions that led to her father being killed, which in turn led to her sister and brother being killed, and her family scattered... so she could marry a rich and powerful guy who liked to brutalize less powerful women.

Well... it took a while, but wish granted.

You would think this would be a feminist success story. Don't let your boring old patriarch keep you from reaching your dreams!

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 20, 2015 10:07 AM  

I believe in equality between the sexes and I don't think it exists.

1) Equality, or egalitarianism? What exactly do you mean by equality?

2) You're right, it doesn't exist.. Women have all of the advantages in our society, and are still clamoring for more.

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 10:11 AM  

t.c. - And I get where you are coming from. It took me a very long time to see that the differences inherent in the sexes need to be recognized at a basic level in order for society to function well, but one cannot fault you for that not seeming valid from where you are coming from. However, if you are in any way more-or-less average American, I think you do know the large number of women around you on anti-depressants and with a growing feeling that something..just..ain't....right. And, of course, on our end we're seeing a massive shift among men in opposition to any real buy-in to the current culture (sharp decline in marriage, sharp decline in work force participation, sharp decline in college admissions, sharp decline in college degrees, sharp decline in military enlistments, etc.)

This is a difficult one to explain. I guess the best thing I can say that perhaps you would understand is that differently situated beings, human beings, have different roles, and no amout of ideology or biology-changing (i.e. the Pill, abortion on demand, etc.) can change that without moving civilization in an anti-human direction, which we see now across the West as we are simply not having children. Again, good luck to you; you'll be surprised how views change as we acquire wisdom and experience.

Blogger Sam Hall May 20, 2015 10:12 AM  

t.c
You can't have equality between things that are different in type.

Blogger hank.jim May 20, 2015 10:16 AM  

Violence against men is shocking for those that don't regularly view the series. That women want to protect their own in light of wanting equality is the joke. Like you said, these feminists don't care about men. They don't care about tradition that protects women.

Blogger Marissa May 20, 2015 10:21 AM  

Sansa was a little shit, and thus far all she had to show for it is a psycho for a husband.

But hey she took actions that led to her father being killed, which in turn led to her sister and brother being killed, and her family scattered... so she could marry a rich and powerful guy who liked to brutalize less powerful women.

Well... it took a while, but wish granted.

You would think this would be a feminist success story. Don't let your boring old patriarch keep you from reaching your dreams!


So true - Sansa betrayed her whole family for all the reasons a stupid teenage girl has. What's great about that, story-wise, is it sets her up for massive redemption if she can help re-establish Winterfell, as I believe Rickon Stark, the last full-blooded male Stark capable of breeding, is still alive in the North. That would actually be a cool story in my eyes. Unfortunately, I think Daenerys is just going to come to Westeros and legitimize Jon (I don't think Jon is dead). All my knowledge of the series is from the books, but knowing now that Sansa has been married off to Ramsay Bolton (ne Snow), the new Lord of Winterfell, that really changes some things for the better.

Blogger Retrenched May 20, 2015 10:23 AM  

Well to be fair, men as a group don't really matter to anyone; it's not just SJWs who see men as disposable - everyone does.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 10:31 AM  

Maybe it would help to explain a bit about why I think the way I do, why I believe in that equality, although I am fully cognizant of the fact that my opinions are directly shaped by these experiences.

My dad was an abusive alcoholic. And no, not in the current, "boo-hoo, I got spanked" abusive. As in, I've seen the pictures my mother took for the lawyers, my was a puffy, swollen, punching bag of a face. She left him when I was three, and I was raised by a single mother who worked 60, 70+ hours a week to provide for my sister and I until she finally remarried a great guy when I was 10. So, I've never seen women as the secondary role, homemaker, etc. That's just not what I saw when I was raised. My wife's story is the opposite; parents still married, mom never worked, she stayed home and took care of the kids and the house. To each their own, it makes them happy. But my own mother never could have been in that role and would never have been happy with that role. My wife wouldn't either. We both work full-time; I'm a teacher, and I work very part-time at the local bookstore for some extra. My wife is a server and a bartender at a crazy busy popular downtown restaurant. She makes great money, often more than I do, just in her tips. She would never be happy staying at home. She also doesn't want kids, and I knew that when we dated. Due to that, she is on the pill. However, for a few years we had a "whatever happens, happens" mentality and she didn't use the pill. Last Thanksgiving, we found out she was pregnant and then one hour later found it was an entopic (ectopic?) tubal pregnancy that had ruptured. She was bleeding out internally and had to be rushed into surgery so now... back on the pill.

I know there are differences biologically, I'm not naive or stupid. I know that we are not physically or mentally the same. I just think, as a society, we have progressed to a point where those differences don't always need to be the guiding force anymore. Not saying they should be done away with (see my in laws), but just not the end all or be all. Again, part of my thinking this way is shaped by own experiences and biology; I've always been the runty skinny small kid, who never enjoyed sports, etc. Any number of women could hand me my ass in a heartbeat. :)

So again, I'm not a militant "death to the patriarchy" bullshit blah blah feminist, but I am in the sense that I don't think we need to always base everything on those differences between genders anymore. Different people make different choices.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 10:34 AM  

"i like Nate not knowing why i'm laughing."

because I totally care. so much.

Blogger John Wright May 20, 2015 10:43 AM  

@ t.c.

"I'm an atheist, but I get pissed off at the atheists that feel the need to sue every nativity scene or cross on public land. It's, like, seriously? Why is it worth it?"

Take care, t.c! It was exactly that thought which started my shocking and unexpected fall from faithlessness into my current arch-paleolithic Catholicism.

I started wondering why my fellow atheists, if we were indeed the only bastion of reason in a superstitious and fairy-tale-addicted world of loons, why we were acting like the loons, whereas the believe-in-Santa-Claus dimwits like CS Lewis and GK Chesterton were men of common sense, romantics, in love with life, joyful, wise, charitable, profound, and learned.

Then, alas, I made the mistake of reading the opening arguments in Summa Theologica, and finding no mistakes in the logic.

The contrast with the atheist writers, particularly Nietzsche who did not even attempt to write logically, but merely uttered emotions, could not have been more stark.

It really, really puzzled me. And so I began to look deeper...

But that is a tale for another time.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 10:44 AM  

" I just think, as a society, we have progressed to a point where those differences don't always need to be the guiding force anymore."

They never always been the guiding force son. You need to read some real history and stop buying the bullshit naratives you've been sold.

There have always been working women. There have always been professional women. Women have always owned businesses.. land... held massive political power.

None of this is new.

The idea that it is new... is an idiotic myth perpetuated by the historically ignorant to further their pet cause.

Blogger VD May 20, 2015 10:44 AM  

I just think, as a society, we have progressed to a point where those differences don't always need to be the guiding force anymore.

Ah, you know that society is on the verge of collapsing, right? In part because those differences have not been respected.

Well, you'll learn better soon enough, unfortunately.

Anonymous Ain May 20, 2015 10:46 AM  

"Daenerys Targaryean withdraws from marrying Khal Drogo after realizing she’s a strong independent Khaleesi that don’t need no Dothraki. Daenrys still takes the dragon eggs that were a wedding gift. As she never burns though the eggs never hatch.

Sansa cuts her long red hair short and dyes it rainbow colours. Starts a social media raven campaign for the awareness of how tough the daughters of Lords have it. Spends the rest of her time telling peasant boys to check their privilege."



This clearly falls under the category of it being impossible to satirize SJW's. Is it true? Even if it isn't, it seriously could be.

Blogger Ralph Hyatt May 20, 2015 10:49 AM  

@John Wright

I started to fall away from my unbelief when I read that atheists were going to start calling themselves "brights."

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 10:49 AM  

t.c.,

Nothing personal, but honestly, I don't care. I've had enough of being told I shouldn't complain about Muslim beheadings and child-rapes because there are "moderate Muslims," or that I shouldn't say the left is evil because there are some good people there, or that I shouldn't worry about feminists wanting to turn men into draft animals because you and your friends aren't militant. I'm fed up with Not All ? Are Like That arguments. They're irrelevant. If you're being beheaded by a Muslim or having your kids taken away by frivorce, they're extra irrelevant.

Feminists are as they represent themselves as a group. It doesn't matter if some aren't militant, because they aren't the ones making the decisions. If you don't like how they represent you, you have a choice: exit the group -- stop calling yourself a feminist and oppose them openly -- or kick them out and change it. Otherwise, your protestations of NAFALT only give them cover.

And your reference to Fred Phelps is instructive for the opposite reason than you think: Christians don't let him define them. Christians oppose him openly, and you wouldn't know who he is without the media promoting him. A while back, a Catholic priest was murdered, and the Westboro bunch announced they were going to protest the funeral. Catholics and members of other churches in the town and surrounding area let it be known they'd object to that, with force if necessary, and Westboro called it off.

When I see your "non-militant feminists" rushing the stage to shut up some feminist leader who's calling for the further neutering of schoolboys (for instance) and taking over the mic to tell people about "reasonable" feminism, then I'll take you seriously. Ditto all the other radical groups who supposedly have a "moderate" core we never actually hear from. Until then, I don't care. You're one of them or you're not; take your pick.

Blogger Alexander May 20, 2015 10:50 AM  

Well obviously the daughters of Lords have it hard. Consider:

The peasants are called 'smallfolk'

Which means that the nobles are 'big folk'. What do the 'big folk' get lots of? If you guessed 'meals', you are correct.

Right off the bat, I'm calling that fat shaming.

Blogger Jim May 20, 2015 11:00 AM  

When I see your "non-militant feminists" rushing the stage to shut up some feminist leader who's calling for the further neutering of schoolboys (for instance) and taking over the mic to tell people about "reasonable" feminism, then I'll take you seriously. Ditto all the other radical groups who supposedly have a "moderate" core we never actually hear from.

I believe the term you're looking for is "willing human shield."

Blogger Alexander May 20, 2015 11:01 AM  

Cail nails it.

Where are the masses of 'moderate' feminists demanding Jackie of Rolling Stone and Columbia Mattress girl get their just desserts?

I once asked a 'moderate' feminist if, in cases where women lied about rape, they should be punished. I made it very, very clear that I was willing, for sake of argument, to exclude every marginal case, every case where it was conceivable to attribute false accusation to mistaken identity, every case involving alcohol: I limited my query to circumstances where no sex happened at all, and the woman was either picking a name out of a phone book because she had to explain her pregnancy to her husband or wanted some attention. Where no one could conclude that anything untoward had happened whatsoever:

response: that would hurt women trying to report rapes!

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 11:04 AM  

But that is a tale for another time.

John, 've noticed sometimes in talking with atheists, they don't seem to want to discuss coverts, especially ones that were formerly atheists, it's like they just want to deny it ever happens.

Anyway, I've read your story of conversion, but not Vox's (that I've ever seen). Have you guys considered doing another essay collection of atheist/agnostic conversion stories? (I think Briggs mentioned that he was an atheist once, though I could be wrong.)

Anonymous Stingray May 20, 2015 11:12 AM  

I've never seen women as the secondary role, homemaker, etc.

What do you men by "secondary"?

Anonymous Stingray May 20, 2015 11:14 AM  

In part because those differences have not been respected.

I'd say you're going to lose your misogyny card but whom am I kidding.

Anonymous Dan Hess May 20, 2015 11:22 AM  

"The second reason, of course, comparing Tyrion's sackless waiting for love against Ramsay's completely legal deflowering of Sansa. Watching people agree that Ramsay by definition isn't raping Sansa is a very painful moment to the liberated womyn, and I love every minute of it."

Yes. She consented to this one in full knowledge of what she was agreeing to. She even kissed him back in the lead up to it, and made no indication she was changing her mind.

Of course Ramsay is a fairly heartless guy and people naturally recoil at what they see, because it just seems wrong to viewers, and they are right. But these moderns have completely discarded the ideas and language that they once possessed to explain why it is wrong.

The Christian might say, "A man is called to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Ramsay takes Sansa without loving her, and it is wicked and sinful."

The modern is upset but incoherent.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 11:32 AM  

Cail - would it interest/surprise you to know that I completely agree with you? At no point, did I say that us "moderates" should allow the "extremists" free reign. I know you don't know me in real life, but I constantly call out atheists who cause problems. Hell, I feel like I spend half my time calling out the abuses of Islam and the absolute horrors they are doing to the world and to people. Do I wish that more atheists and more Muslims would stand up as well and fight back their own extremists? Fuck yes, and I say so, all the time. So... I completely agree with you! I was just pointing out my reasons for being a feminist because others had inquired or asked. I think every "group", whatever group that is, politically, religious, cultural, etc., should take responsibility for others in their group that are going too far.

John C. Wright - I am familiar with your conversion story, I've been "lurking" around your site as well ever since PuppyGate began. :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but you weren't raised as a Christian, were you? Or, at least you weren't a very religious person until later in life? I'm pretty much the opposite... I was raised very evangelically. Multiple missions trips, private Christian school, you name it. Read my Bible cover to cover too many times to count. My "conversion" to atheism was a long process born out of my personal thoughts about certain issues and about creationism, but not out of a bitterness or misunderstanding. So, I think I did the opposite conversion as you. As I said, I maintain regular communication with my pastor and many church friends, and I'm very close to my family. Hell, my former youth pastor performed my wedding ceremony.


Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 11:35 AM  

Vox,

I think you deleted your first reply to me, I tried to respond to it. Maybe I'm just missing it, now, but I'll try to reply anyways.

I am aware that in history women have often had a lot of that influence and power, I do know my history, I was just speaking in generalities, and maybe I shouldn't have. I was speaking to the more general idea that women maintain the home, men are the leaders of the family, etc. Do I know that for most history that hasn't always been the case? Of course.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 11:36 AM  

Whoops, just realized that was because it wasn't you Vox who said that, it was Nate. Sorry!

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 11:45 AM  

" I was speaking to the more general idea that women maintain the home, men are the leaders of the family, etc. "

Look mate... the problem is not that women are making a choice. They always have made that choice.

The problem is women are being told that what mos of them actually want to do... is bad... and they are to good to do it... and its just such a waste.

So instead of doing what they actually want to... they go do something they really don't want to do... while telling themselves they are just so very happy. Of course they aren't happy. They are miserable. So they drink and medicate and generally go crazy.

And they blame all of that on men.

When in reality... it was feminist women that pushed the lie on them in the first place.

Just as Margaret Sanger said... if you let women choose to stay home and be moms and tend to the house while the husband works, most of them will choose exactly that.

So she and her evil cohort set out to create a system that would take that choice away... in the name of equality.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 20, 2015 11:49 AM  

I just think, as a society, we have progressed to a point where those differences don't always need to be the guiding force anymore

T.C.-Lets say there are 2 employees hired to move bricks both with equal amounts of what feminists count, but one can move 100 bricks an hour and the other can only move 5 bricks an hour. Should they be paid the same hourly rate? The phrase "pay me for performance not attendance" is wrong because feminists want to be paid for not showing up as well.

Blogger Mark Citadel May 20, 2015 11:49 AM  

There are two types of critics who have no substance. Social justice warriors, and tone police. And unfortunately, we also have tone police on the right, who don't like how people say things, even if they agree with them, and so cometh the condescending putdowns.

I guess we just have to acknowledge that dealing with people like this is part of what we do.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 11:49 AM  

"What do you men by "secondary"?"

Exactly Stingray. The household exists for the children. caring for those children is the primary role.

The husband is the head of the household... but the wife is the key figure in the household.

Anonymous 10900209 May 20, 2015 11:57 AM  

I've seen multiple SJWs on social media remark on their delight to see Theon Greyjoy have his penis cut off on Game Of Thrones. According to them, a man being sexually maimed tv is progressive, because previously only women were victims of sexual violence on tv (clearly untrue, but this is their rationale).

It's bizarre: a man having his cock sliced off in a torture chamber elicits pleased giggles about 'progress' from these people, while a daughter of a noble house having sex without enthusiastic consent with her arranged husband drives them into angry histrionics.

Anonymous Stingray May 20, 2015 11:58 AM  

The husband is the head of the household... but the wife is the key figure in the household.

My husband equates this to the queen and king in chess and has explained it to our children while teaching them to play.

Blogger AmyJ May 20, 2015 12:05 PM  

"My husband equates this to the queen and king in chess and has explained it to our children while teaching them to play."

That's a great idea. My dad always likened it to him being the CEO and my mom as the COO. Chess is much more accurate, though.

Anonymous Bah May 20, 2015 12:06 PM  

"The husband is the head of the household... but the wife is the key figure in the household."

The husband is the key figure. Unless the household does not require his money or his authority. (Visit your local ghetto to see how well that works out.)

Anonymous Bah May 20, 2015 12:09 PM  

In chess, the king sits around passively, and everyone else's job is to protect him. Meanwhile, the queen is the active figure that leads the offense, defeats the enemy, and protects the king.

Not seeing this as a good analogy for husband and wife...

"Captain and First Mate" is better.

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 12:10 PM  

@ Stingray - Exactly, you found the point at which t.c.'s ideology shone through. To equate motherhood and maintaining a household with secondary status indicates a full buy-in to the reigning ideology and is a dead give-away. It also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the two sexes.

The problem is that so many young men think this way, and they think they are acting in solidarity with the women in their lives; it's only after the first flower of youth falls away that they begin to realize, with dawning horror, that women *resent* them for agreeing to the downgrading of their central civilizational role, as they continue to instintively look to men for social leadership regardless of their conscious ideology or wishes.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 12:11 PM  

"Unless the household does not require his money or his authority. (Visit your local ghetto to see how well that works out.)"

***chuckle***

A shitty husband that makes very little money can be entirely over come by a great wife that is excellent with finances and who works hard in the home and with her kids.

A shitty wife and mother cannot be overcome by a working traditional husband.

She will wreck her house and wreck her kids and there is nothing the husband can do about it.

Blogger Daniel May 20, 2015 12:12 PM  

I wonder if the Cersei switch dilemma also indicates a secondary problem with the series as epic fantasy: too much plot centralization on a character rather than a thematic objective. The illusion of sweep and dynamic events evaporates when you can identify not only the butterfly effect, but the butterfly.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2015 12:16 PM  

""Captain and First Mate" is better."

You mean like how the captain sits around while the first mate leads the offense while everyone runs around protecting him?

That's a distinction without a difference.

You sound like some MRA or MGTOW pussy. Mothers are the front line shock troops in the war for civilization.

Anonymous Dan Hess May 20, 2015 12:17 PM  

The modern lack of moral and religious language to talk about relations between men and women is also seen in the notorious case of the mattress girl at Columbia University, who accused a fellow student of rape.

The man in question, Paul Nungesser, was acquited using a preponderance of evidence standard, which is even more difficult to pass than the criminal standard. And the evidence, especially her subsequent communications to him, seem to tilt in his favor. His accuser still feels very wronged. And it is true that she was very wronged. But legal rape is what she is incorrectly trying to apply, when in reality she was wronged by Paul's grievous sins (adultery, not loving his partner, lust, greed, etc.) As well, she is hurt by her own sins. Since sin is gone from modern language she and those around her are incoherent, although understandably upset.

Blogger denizenofgoo May 20, 2015 12:19 PM  

There should be far more violence against them in tv shows, it's a question of equality after all!

"I just think, as a society, we have progressed to a point where those differences don't always need to be the guiding force anymore. Not saying they should be done away with (see my in laws), but just not the end all or be all. Again, part of my thinking this way is shaped by own experiences and biology; I've always been the runty skinny small kid, who never enjoyed sports, etc. Any number of women could hand me my ass in a heartbeat."

Amusing, the 'progress' of a civilization that instead of raising the sexes for what they'd be for the major portion of their lives raises them with childish fanatasies. The long human childhood is a curse in this regards.

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 12:21 PM  

@ Dan Hess -

I understand your point, and it is well-taken, but Mattress Girl hasn't experienced anything countless billions of other human beings have without making sexual spectacles or falsely accusing a man of a crime, which is itself a crime.

Blogger Hosswire May 20, 2015 12:25 PM  

Was it even rape? Did Sansa resist, try to escape or even say "no"? All I saw her do was bend over & silently take what Ramsay did.

In my interpretation she willingly married a psychopath, for her own reasons. She knew that sex with that psychopath was part of that choice. It turned out to be even more sadistic & unpleasant than she might have planned for, but she followed through with her choice anyway.

I'm not saying that what Ramsey did was admirable or acceptable in a decent society. His character is clearly a monster long practiced in rape & far worse. But without the element of resistance I'm not sure what we saw on screen was rape.

In a larger context, this internet kerfluffle shows how feminists have twisted the word "rape" from a specific criminal act to mean "any sex that a woman disliked or regrets happened".

Or even "any perceived male sexual misbehavior" such as the Columbia U's mattress girl's hysterics at not getting a relationship after sex.

I accept that men can misbehave sexually & harm women when they do. And I believe that there should be consequences for us when we do that. But I do not think that labeling every sexual harm as "rape" is the way to do it. It cheapens that charge & slanders undeserving men. (Again, not referring to the fictional Ramsay Bolton character)

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 12:28 PM  

@ t.c.

Justice Kennedy did everyone a favor with his famous "Sweet Mystery of Life" quote (as Justice Scalia labelled it). It neatly captures the essence of the Liberal Revolution's ideology and allows one to easily choose sides.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"

Left: I agree, we can define concepts of existence and assign meaning based on such concepts and context.

Right: I disagree, existence is either divine or is and eludes attempts by humans to define, and meaning in inherent and unchanging.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 12:29 PM  

Cail - would it interest/surprise you to know that I completely agree with you?

Not especially. By identifying yourself as a feminist, you give aid and comfort to people who want me destroyed. That's not hyperbole -- when someone like me is fired, disgraced, or killed, they cheer.

So maybe you won't be the one swinging the sword, but if you're in the crowd and aren't trying to stop them, your motivations just don't interest me that much. Actions interest me.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 12:35 PM  

Ugh, I am failing miserably at getting my point across, lol, which is my own fault. I don't want to keep rehashing the same points over and over because, clearly, none of us are going to sway the other side.

I do not in any way judge more "traditional" homes, with the mother as the primary caregiver and whatnot. Again, my mother-in-law. When I used the word "secondary" earlier, it was not meant how some of you took it, and I did not mean it as an insult. I meant more in terms of what many you have said in various posts - husband as primary head of household, women as secondary. Wasn't meant as a disparaging word choice, but clearly I didn't use the correct terminology to go for what I intended.

Cail, Nate, Jourdan, others - I absolutely do not agree with feminists who disparage women for choosing that more "traditional" role, as I know they've done. That pisses me off too. Women should be free to choose what they want, and if that choice leads to staying home, taking care of the house, raising the children, there should be no condemnation, no trying to push them the other side, whatsoever. I stand in agreement with you that those feminists who do so need to shut the hell up.

All I'm trying to say is I don't think the other choice should be condemned either by your side. I knew my wife would never be the stay-at-home, want children, kind of person. I knew that dating her. And it definitely wasn't because she was dissuaded or pushed out by some feminist propaganda aimed her way. I think she hates extreme, militant feminism more than I do. And it wasn't because she judged her own mother for being the stay-at-home type. It just wasn't what she wanted; she would have been the opposite of what many of your describe. Had we had kids because I wanted them, and she stayed home and raised them, she would be miserable and depressed. I know that about her for a fact, and she was always upfront about her wishes. Now, she's only 30, she could change her mind. But right now, she is very happy with working full time, couple days off a week, and whatnot. We enjoy the freedom our childless life has... we can go to the movies late, go grab a drink. Having three dogs has made the spontaneous road trip harder, but we manage.

I hope this helps to clarify my position more. Do I think the feminist movement should actively push or force women outside of "traditional" roles just because "feminism"? No. But do I think women who wouldn't be happy or aren't happy in those same traditional roles should be discouraged or disparaged for not having them? No to that as well. Again, my own example - my mother-in-law would have been miserable working full time and not being there to manage the house and kids. Good for her. My wife is the opposite. Good for her. Does that make more sense?

Big Gay Steve - I would agree with you actually on that example, but that's just one example, it doesn't represent the entire work force or job types. There are plenty of non-manual labor jobs. Besides, workplace discrepancies are hardly my main basis for identifying as feminist.

I have enjoyed this dialogue quite a bit. I've been reading many of the discussions here for the last month, when I first came around. Thanks for the honest interest in a legit back and forth... back to something we can all pretty much agree on... those crying about the Sansa plot are being stupid. As a reader of the books, and a watcher of the show, everybody had to know this was coming. And the being okay with violence against men but not against women is hypocritical and moronic! Thanks everyone!

Anonymous Bah May 20, 2015 12:38 PM  

You mean like how the captain sits around while the first mate leads the offense while everyone runs around protecting him?

Never been on a ship, I see, fuckstick. Ah well, the Excluded can't always reach the Clueless.

Mothers are the front line shock troops in the war for civilization.

Yes I have noticed how children raised just by mothers are so very, very civilized.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 12:43 PM  

I believe the term you're looking for is "willing human shield."

Right. We are where we are in large part because decent men tried to imitate God who told Lot, "If you can find me ten good men, I won't destroy the city." Problem is, being decent men, they assumed there were ten good feminists (or whatever) and didn't actually count. So they always withheld their fire, preferring compromise to open battle, and were taken advantage of every single time.

Some of us are starting to say, "Show us those ten good feminists. If the radicals don't really represent you the feminist masses, then put them down yourself, because if we have to do it, we won't be in a mood to discriminate."

As things get uglier, it will increasingly be that way -- people won't have the time or patience to parse out each individual's allegiances and say, "Oh, so you're not the bad kind of X, even though you subscribe to some bad X web sites and send checks to a couple bad X organizations? You say you're a moderate? Okay, go in peace." It never works that way. If someone like t.c. wants to separate himself from the destroyers, the time is now, with clear actions, before the battle lines firm up.

Blogger Student in Blue May 20, 2015 12:43 PM  

Yes I have noticed how children raised just by mothers are so very, very civilized.

That doesn't disprove what he's said.

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 12:44 PM  

When I watch debates about moms vs dads and raising kids, I feel like I'm watching people argue over which is more deadly: the bullet or the gun.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 12:47 PM  

A shitty wife and mother cannot be overcome by a working traditional husband.

She will wreck her house and wreck her kids and there is nothing the husband can do about it.


I know a guy who's killing himself trying to prove you wrong, but the jury's still out.

Blogger Krul May 20, 2015 12:49 PM  

Nate Winchester - "When I watch debates about moms vs dads and raising kids, I feel like I'm watching people argue over which is more deadly: the bullet or the gun."

Nice. I would've said "Which one makes the music: the bow or the fiddle?"

Anonymous Boomer "bafoon"[sic] "validictorian"[sic] May 20, 2015 12:50 PM  

Any chance you'll start posting more entries at your blog, Cail? You are one of the more cogent voices I've encountered on the net and it would be great to see you posting more in depth essays again.

Anonymous Stingray May 20, 2015 12:56 PM  

When I used the word "secondary" earlier, it was not meant how some of you took it, and I did not mean it as an insult.

I didn't think you meant it as an insult. The fact that it simply came naturally to you and to most others is even more nefarious. It is simply assumed that the role of wife and mother is naturally less.

It's not less. It's simply different than the role of men. It has been feminists or those who have been influenced and taught by feminists that have turned that role from something different to something less.

Blogger Bodichi (0031) May 20, 2015 12:56 PM  

@Bah

"You mean like how the captain sits around while the first mate leads the offense while everyone runs around protecting him?"

Are you suggesting that this is universally true across all military Leader / Subordinate situations or only aboard small ocean going vessels?

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 12:57 PM  

@t.c.

It's not that you're not getting your point across, it's that we've heard before and understand it. The problem with your viewpoint is the feminists and SJWs won't allow a middle position. They feed the so-called moderates to the wolves first. Hopefully you won't find that out the hard way.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 12:57 PM  

Any chance you'll start posting more entries at your blog, Cail?

Yes, I know I've been neglecting it. It's just so much easier to dash off comments on others' ideas than to start from a blank page. I do have some things that have been percolating to the top, though, so soon. Thanks for your kind words.

Anonymous willneverpostagain May 20, 2015 1:09 PM  

I believe t.c. is a "feminist" because his wife demands it.

Enjoy your childless freedom. At least you won't reproduce.

Blogger Marissa May 20, 2015 1:18 PM  

Just as Margaret Sanger said... if you let women choose to stay home and be moms and tend to the house while the husband works, most of them will choose exactly that.

Simone de Beauvoir, a French feminist, said nearly the exact same thing with an intended postscript of "and we can't have any of that". She wanted laws forbidding women from choosing this option and thought it would take the strong arm of the law to do so. Well, she wasn't that smart - it didn't take the law, it took the strong arm of culture. What does that matter? She was still successful. So successful she wasted her life with a perverted womanizer and helped him sexually exploit young women, sometimes on her very own--she became quite independent. Unsurprisingly, she never had children.

Why do so many feminist leaders turn out to be broken women (or men) with severe sexual and mental hangups?

Blogger VD May 20, 2015 1:18 PM  

All I'm trying to say is I don't think the other choice should be condemned either by your side.

And you're wrong. The other choice must be condemned because that way lies barbarism. I know you don't agree with that because you don't understand it. But nevertheless, you are choosing barbarism and those who wish to preserve civilization must condemn you.

Not because we don't like you or because you are a bad person. But because you are the equivalent of the innocent child opening the door to the monsters outside.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 20, 2015 1:19 PM  

"If you're being beheaded by a Muslim or having your kids taken away by frivorce, they're extra irrelevant."

Kind of stupid as a comparison. Muslims who engage in or condone of beheadings are a tiny minority. The same cannot be said for feminists agreeing with frivorce.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 20, 2015 1:26 PM  

Furthermore, there are moderate Muslims who DID kick out the loonies. One of them was hanged by America's puppet almost 10 years ago and the other one is trying to survive in Damascus.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 1:26 PM  

"I believe t.c. is a "feminist" because his wife demands it.

Enjoy your childless freedom. At least you won't reproduce."

After a great back and forth of different ideas, many of which really led me think and ponder, thanks for the general insult out of nowhere. If you read most of my posts, you would have read that I am more of a feminist than my wife is. I think I went into detail on that on a different thread, and a bit on this one. She doesn't demand anything of me in that regard, but nice job acting like you are an expert on my marriage and my wife. It's replies like that which takes away from the general level of well-reasoned intellect I've seen here. Thanks also for the comments on our childlessness, even though I said she may change her mind, or by insinuating that we would automatically be bad, horrible parents. When we found out we were pregnant, we both actually got immediately excited... for an hour, before we realized we'd already lost it and my wife was bleeding out. Thanks for being an asshole, though. Even Vox's last comment to me wasn't an insult about me, just my worldview.

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 1:27 PM  

Tommy, do surveys of Muslim countries not show a majority favor death for apostasy?

And what is with "tiny minority" business, anyway? Are beheadings put up to majority vote?

If 1 in 100 Moozies would love to behead, that is too many. Tiny minority, indeed.

Anonymous t.c. May 20, 2015 1:28 PM  

On an unrelated note, and I'm sorry for ignorance, but I don't post here often... it just started showing pictures of food when I click on "not a robot" but the screen doesn't allow me to scroll down even though I can clearly see more pictures below the ones on the screen. Any one know what I can do about that? Thanks.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 20, 2015 1:32 PM  

t.c.
I am another one who, after 12 yrs of private Catholic schooling and growing in a Catholic culture, I became a an atheist.
Skipping a lot, I became a Christian at age 25. It started with "just" contemplating a leaf and progressing to what is outside this cosmos, if anything. Either the cosmos and all the stuff that makes it is infinite and always existed or what is the alternative? After becoming a Christian, I can now understand a few events in my life that happened long before.

I am father of 4 and it break my heart to hear stories like yours. My mom lost 2 children before becoming a mother of 6.

I will pray for you and your wife, whenever I remember and maybe, just maybe, one day we can call you brother and sister.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 20, 2015 1:32 PM  

Any one know what I can do about that

Register a fake/throwaway google account and use it to log in.

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 1:36 PM  

@t.c.

After a great back and forth of different ideas, many of which really led me think and ponder, thanks for the general insult out of nowhere.

Also, get over the idea that anyone here cares about your feelings. We don't. Generally you'll be treated politely if you act politely but some people might try to push your buttons anyway. Deal with it. Reacting in a butthurt manner only makes things worse.

In other words, forget about telling us how you feel or what your background is and simply present your argument.

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 1:38 PM  

Vox - Excellent analogy re: child innocently opening a door. That is certainly what I was when I was a young man and very left. Fortunately, the monsters showed their real faces to me in a very convincing manner in one of the first Muslim mass-killings of non-Muslims in the U.S. in Berkeley way back in 1991, an event that was completely swept under the carpet.

But I was there. And I saw how my "comrades" reacted in glee on learning the dead were European-Americans and were killed for being so.

Blogger Danby May 20, 2015 1:45 PM  

@t.c.
You seem a nice guy.

But, in the end you don't matter. At all

You've exempted yourself from the great war of civilization. Which is fine. But don't expect us to care one way or the other. You really don't matter.

If it all comes down to shooting, which is a non-zero probability, don't expect us to hold our fire.

I hope there's at least someone to mourn you when you're gone.

Blogger Danby May 20, 2015 1:47 PM  

@Harsh
"In other words, forget about telling us how you feel or what your background is and simply present your argument."

He has none. He was moved to his present position by his emotional reaction to the events of his life. There is no argument involved.

Blogger Jourdan May 20, 2015 1:49 PM  

@ Danby - Predicting violent death by people who are willing to engage in discussion is not good tactics, nor manners. I certainly didn't arrive at my current position overnight. Or have you always been on the side of the angels and never misguided?

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 20, 2015 1:50 PM  

Consider the consequences of changing Cersei Lannister from an oppressed woman used as a dynastic piece by her father to a strong and independent warrior woman of the sort that is presently ubiquitous in third-generation fantasy, science fiction, and paranormal fiction.

Better by far if she had run off with Lyanna Stark to start an organic farm share.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 1:53 PM  

Ugh, I am failing miserably at getting my point across, lol, which is my own fault.

I'm reminded of a favorite quote from the classic film Tremors 2, where the girl scientist is explaining how the monsters metamorphose, even as it's happening before their eyes:

Girl: Don't you guys get it?
Guy: Oh, we get it, we just don't want it!

You're explaining yourself just fine and we understand you just fine; we're just explaining the end game and reality of the nicely moderated position you're trying to stake out. If we come to conclusions which surprise you, that doesn't mean we misunderstand; it means we disagree.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 1:58 PM  

Okay, I'll drop being "butthurt". I know this is a non-moderated open forum, I'm not asking for "tone police", I was just wondering what the purpose of that comment was in the middle of a conversation where each side was presenting their point of view. How does it add to a reasoned, logical conversation? But, whatever...

... moving on. Danby, I do have reasons why I believe what I do, I mentioned some of them in this very thread. Not all based on my own life experiences either. I believe women should be free to choose for themselves what they want out of life, or what to do, free from harassment from both sides, both the feminists and the more traditionalists. My mom, admittedly by necessity, is proof that she could work full-time (more than full-time actually) and still raise children who excelled academically and, with the exception of me, spiritually. :)

I think there are double standards in some of the workforce in terms of pay, not including the manual labor jobs that Big gay steve called me out on earlier and I told him he was right. I believe there are double standards in terms of sexuality, with it being culturally okay for men, but slut shaming for women. Despite the horrible Rolling Stone fuck up, I believe that on college campuses and in many other areas, there is pervasive sexual harassment of women, I've witnessed it personally too many times to dismiss because of some shitty "news" coverage.

Does this mine that every rape allegation is true and women shouldn't be held accountable/punished for false accusations? No.

Does this mean EVERY job should have equal pay? No.

Does this mean every book or movie or anything (see the original argument here on GoT plus comments on Whedon) should be "feminist" approved and lack anything they deem unacceptable? Hell no.

But I do have arguments for why I believe what I do. I know in posting here, I'm mostly making them to people who feel differently, but I don't mind a good debate or back and forth. Other people have said things I don't agree with, but they've led me at least consider the other side. I know if I continue to post here, I need to accept the insults that will come my way, even if I find them beneath rational, logical discourse.

Blogger Danby May 20, 2015 1:59 PM  

@Jourdan
We weren't talking to you.

Blogger Bodichi (0031) May 20, 2015 2:03 PM  

@T.C.

Did you see the name of the person who insulted you? "willneverpostagain "

In all seriousness, why are you taking what they say so seriously?

If a drunk bum called you a goat molester, would you cry for weeks and wonder what made him say such hurtful things?

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 2:08 PM  

I was just wondering what the purpose of that comment was in the middle of a conversation where each side was presenting their point of view. How does it add to a reasoned, logical conversation?

It weeds out the people incapable of separating their emotions from their argument.

I do have reasons why I believe what I do

We all do. It's tautologically true that we all have reasons for our beliefs.

But I do have arguments for why I believe what I do. I know in posting here, I'm mostly making them to people who feel differently

Feelings don't matter here.

I know if I continue to post here, I need to accept the insults that will come my way, even if I find them beneath rational, logical discourse.

You're right, insults are not part of logical discourse.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 2:08 PM  

"Did you see the name of the person who insulted you? "willneverpostagain "

In all seriousness, why are you taking what they say so seriously?"

Good point, thanks.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 20, 2015 2:09 PM  

"on-screen violence against men is so common that it doesn’t surprise us, and that in turn makes on-screen violence against women stand out."


It's fun to witness these reactions live. When I saw Wolf Of Wall Street in the theater, DiCaprio's wife was screaming, punching, slapping and kicking him for 5 minutes. He finally had enough, and slapped her once, which sent her cowering in a corner in the fetal position.

And half the audience, who had been perfectly silent, gasped out loud.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 20, 2015 2:10 PM  

The real question here is why are they so nuts over Sansa? Why do they identify so strongly with a rather dislikable Little Wounded Bird character?

Strangely enough, Sansa's real life historical counterpart, Anne Neville, (the King Maker's Daughter) was raped by her first husband, on her wedding night, on Showtime's The White Queen. I can't tell you why that's a thing now and there was no screaming over that one as I remember.

Anne's first husband, Prince Edward was killed by Richard III at Tewkesbury. In theory that means that Ramsey Bolton is due to be killed by Tyrion.

However this runs a very substantial risk of providing some measure of emotional satisfaction and payoff to Martin's audience. I just don't think Martin can stand the idea.

Anonymous Tom B May 20, 2015 2:22 PM  

I think the Book of Revelation has something to say about this....

Blogger John Wright May 20, 2015 2:38 PM  

"I believe there are double standards in terms of sexuality, with it being culturally okay for men, but slut shaming for women."

Out of curiosity, is there any reason, aside from the belief in a Christian God who holds both sexes to the same standards of righteousness, for this not to be so?

In the atheist world, all things must be judged by their real world consequences, not their obedience to a moral standard imposed by divine fiat.

If men cannot get pregnant and women can, and if an unwed pregnant mother is a greater burden to her than an unwed father is to him, why should the shame not be greater for her than for him?

A truck carrying nitro and a truck carrying pillows should both obey traffic laws, but the danger is greater for the nitro truck, therefore the shame for his negligence should be greater.

Is there an error in this logic?

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 2:48 PM  

Yes, I see the error.

It's not your fault John - like everything else the SJW touches, it's unwritten and invisible until questioned. But the SJW logic is very clear:

IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT, YOU BIGOT

Always happy to help!

Regards,
Minion #10

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 2:53 PM  

John,

The error I would see is that all women having sex are all getting pregnant, which isn't the case. Not taking into account the pregnancy rates in areas/cultures of poverty, which is a whole different topic, but just of the average person who uses birth control and is not getting pregnant, that is where I get frustrated at the double standard. Men should be able to enjoy the benefits of not being able to get pregnant, but women who do so responsibly (and not getting knocked up), shouldn't? That reeks of double standard stupidity to me. And it isn't even that people say "women shouldn't do that" but that it oh so often devolves into vile insults. Slut, really? That's just me. To bring it back to the Avengers debacle, its why I roll my eyes at the feminists who have vilified Whedon stupidly for both Stark's comment and Natasha and motherhood. But, on the flip side, I stand with the feminists who called Renner out for being a moron on the press tour.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:07 PM  

If a woman gets knocked up before marriage, some man, somewhere, might call her a mean name. He'll still make the payment transfers to support someone else's bastard and a woman who in full agency decided to have a child with a man who was not her husband, but we can definitely clamp down on the mean insult thing.

Whereas a man who gets to "enjoy the benefit of not being able to get pregnant"... will find very little enjoyment if his efforts result in knocking a girl up. He'll pay for 18 years, and/or spend time in prison.

But at least nobody is calling him a slut.

I think, if one was truly looking to make things 'equal', insults would not be the key element.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit May 20, 2015 3:23 PM  

I'm in favor of " slut" actually: the etymology is perfect. However, I am also quite willing to use the more archaic, but less culturally loaded "slattern" in a pinch.

What I do insist on is ending the egregious double standard: both men and woman can and should be slapped with it. Both men and women are rendering themselves unfit for monogamous long-term, mutually supportive marriage, and both they and their culture(s) are suffering for it.

The consequent holocaust of slaughtered babies, neglected and abused children and delinquent youth is catastrophic.

Anonymous Boomer "bafoon"[sic] "validictorian"[sic] May 20, 2015 3:24 PM  

There is more to the double standard than just pregnancy. Promiscuous people as a group impose a much greater burden on the healthcare system than non-promiscuous people, and that alone should lead to shaming of promiscuity, just like any other societally damaging behavior.

So many of America's issues are just the "tragedy of the commons" writ large, where selfish jerks dump the consequences of their foolish behavior onto society at large.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:27 PM  

I actually have more respect for those who condemn promiscuity on the part of both genders, rather than just one, even if I still personally disagree.

Blogger John Wright May 20, 2015 3:29 PM  

"The error I would see is that all women having sex are all getting pregnant, which isn't the case. Not taking into account the pregnancy rates in areas/cultures of poverty, which is a whole different topic, but just of the average person who uses birth control and is not getting pregnant, that is where I get frustrated at the double standard."

This is nonresponsive to the question. I did not ask whether most people use contraceptives.

For her, the negative side effects of the act, unwed motherhood, are so much greater than the side effects of unwed fatherhood, the act is ergo unarguably more negligent on her part than on his. She is taking a greater risk hence acting more imprudently. Do you deny this?

Given that the act she commits is more wrong, that is, more imprudent, than her male paramour, what worldly reason exists for shaming a man equally with a woman?

Blogger John Wright May 20, 2015 3:32 PM  

"Men should be able to enjoy the benefits of not being able to get pregnant, but women who do so responsibly (and not getting knocked up), shouldn't? "

Without a God who says otherwise, why not? Give me a logical argument, not merely a report of your emotion.

It is nature, not society, which decides that females get pregnant and males do not. You seem to assume society should compensate for this natural difference. If so, why so?

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 3:35 PM  

I actually have more respect for those who condemn promiscuity on the part of both genders, rather than just one, even if I still personally disagree.

Female promiscuity is demonstrably more dyscivic than male promiscuity, so treating them both as though they cause the same level of societal harm is irrational.

Anonymous willneverpostagain May 20, 2015 3:35 PM  

t.c.--You stated that you have no children because your wife would be unhappy with them, so you are childless (paraphrasing), this leads me to believe you are a feminist because she drives your decisions. Then you state you enjoy the "freedom" of being childless, and I told you to enjoy it. In addition, in your current state, you won't reproduce.

Explain the butthurt, since I only echoed your statements.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:38 PM  

Okay, let me try it this way... sure, biologically, the male cannot get pregnant, the female can, so is at more risk of being a burden. But... the male, while not able to get pregnant, is able to get the female pregnant. And if, as a society, we condemn that less, he gets to go around and hypothetically get multiple women pregnant. Shouldn't he be as equally condemned for that action, even if he is not actually getting pregnant himself? He is still just as much an equal part of the process, wouldn't you agree? Why should the female share all of or at least more of the condemnation?

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:41 PM  

Of course not.

By the very fact that many women are spreading their legs for him, women have agreed not to condemn this man.

Seriously, it's like wondering when NYC is gonna get around to condemning the Yankees for to getting too many rings.

Now, if you *want* a society where women refuse sexual access to cads and demand dads... well... you're the one standing in opposition to times long gone, not us.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:44 PM  

What you want is for men to draw no distinction between the marriage viability of the chaste girl and the slut, on the rather precarious logic that because many women are willing to have sex with a group of men who 'get around', men should be equally willing not to discriminate against promiscuous women when it comes to marriage.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:46 PM  

"t.c.--You stated that you have no children because your wife would be unhappy with them, so you are childless (paraphrasing), this leads me to believe you are a feminist because she drives your decisions. Then you state you enjoy the "freedom" of being childless, and I told you to enjoy it. In addition, in your current state, you won't reproduce.

Explain the butthurt, since I only echoed your statements."

I guess, IMO, driving my decisions would be we get married and I hear, "This is the way it's gonna be and there's nothing you can say."

Listen, we dated for five years before we got married. She never made any illusions or pretended to be something she's not from the first date on. I had every opportunity to back out from the first date if kids were that important to me but, to be honest, they never were. I never really wanted any either. Over the last couple of years, I've kind of gravitated towards being okay with the idea. And, honestly, I think she is going to reconsider as well; I saw her eyes when we were first told she was pregnant.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:48 PM  

Alex, I'm not sure we're arguing the same point. I'm not saying anything about women condemning men for sleeping with them. I'm just saying why should women shoulder the "slut" blame solely for being promiscuous and a potential drain on society.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:48 PM  

And we all know that it's a bait and switch between the sexual market and the marriage one. Because very few men are 'shaming' good looking women willing to sleep with them without expectation or requirement of future investment from said men.

That's not happening.

What is happening is women demanding to 'have fun' and 'find themselves' - with men who are not John Doe; and then expect John Doe to not factor that into the equations when he's looking for a wife.

More succinctly: alpha fux and beta bux.

Feminism can't die quickly and painfully enough.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 20, 2015 3:48 PM  

TC-it doesn't represent the entire work force or job types. There are plenty of non-manual labor jobs

TC It matters in any job beyond pushing buttons, I have seen women in their 20s wider around than they are tall in jobs that require moving patients, that could barely walk down the hall. One job I had a micromanager that stored boxes of paper in her office so people would have to "beseech mylady" for it (the secretary would have to hide paper for the offshifts) , I shifted to second shift for a few weeks and one day I was asked why I didn't put the 3 boxes of paper from supply in her office. I pointed out micromanager is gone with the door locked before my shift starts. I was told I should have gotten the cleaning lady to open it for me. Speaking out for equality I said "what if she doesn't believe that I am needed to move papers alone when there are 14 women on day shift?

I believe t.c. is a "feminist" because his wife demands it. - TC did you actually go with your wife to the hospital? Because when a woman gets an abortion the doctor will write her a note saying she had a miscarriage like that.

SJW's get worked up over fictional rape. I remember that they were falling all over each other running to defend Bill Clinton.

They still defend him for last years trip to pedo island http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2014/03/25/bill-clinton-made-multiple-trips-fundraiser-jeffrey-epstein-private-island-underage-sex-slaves-used/

I know there are differences biologically, I'm not naive or stupid. I know that we are not physically or mentally the same.

Do you know why moslems stone gays to death(with rocks) and mutilate littler girls genitals? One day Moohammad's oldest wife hit puberty and he realized the gays were right about his penis being smaller than what is now cut off little girls.

Fred Phelps blah blah blah He was a democrat advocate and if he died tomorrow Soros would hire a stawman actor to replace him.

"women could hand me my ass in a heartbeat." search youtube for "worlds strongest women loses at arm wrestling"

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:50 PM  

To me, this just screams of controlling women's sexuality, and I am fully aware that this is when I start sounding like the status quo feminist, even when I was trying to condemn some of their actions later. If women should just be accepting of those men who had their fun phase before marriage, then men should too.

Like I said, this is why I actually have more respect for people who condemn promiscuity in both sexes.

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 3:50 PM  

And if, as a society, we condemn that less, he gets to go around and hypothetically get multiple women pregnant.

Spot the logical flaw in your argument.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:51 PM  

I'm just saying why should women shoulder the "slut" blame solely for being promiscuous and a potential drain on society.

Because they are.

Put it this way - what drain on society is Roosh or Heartiste? How about single mom with six kids from different daddies? It's no comparison.

And if women think that men should shoulder some of the blame, then let them go and blame them! But... that's not happening, and that's not going to happen. Because women don't want to (and won't dare to) shame the men they want to have sex with.

But that's not my problem. The fact that women can't/won't shame promiscuous men has no bearing on whether men and women should shame promiscuous women.

Blogger t.c. May 20, 2015 3:53 PM  

BigGaySteve, not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're insinuating that my wife's surgery over Thanksgiving was an abortion cover-up, but yes I went to the hospital with her. I drove her there when she couldn't move because she was in so much pain (we found out later that was when her tube burst), I was there in the room the whole time when her results came back positive for pregnancy and I was there when we got the ultrasound results back that showed all of the internal bleeding from the rupture.

Anonymous Alexander May 20, 2015 3:53 PM  

If women don't want their sexuality controlled by others, then maybe they should stop demanding others pay the bill for their uncontrolled sexuality.

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 4:03 PM  

Nice. I would've said "Which one makes the music: the bow or the fiddle?"

My only cavet is that one can still pluck the string on the fiddle, even if the music won't be any good.

...Which is a lot like single parenthood.

Hm. Well done, Krul. You did find the better metaphor, I doff my hat to you, sir.

Anonymous Dan Hess May 20, 2015 4:10 PM  

@t.c.

"We enjoy the freedom our childless life has... we can go to the movies late, go grab a drink. Having three dogs has made the spontaneous road trip harder, but we manage."

You two aren't special or unique in this regard. Many millions of couples all over the developed world are making this same decision. The future will be much dimmer for it. Raising children is hard but important work.

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 4:13 PM  

John,

It is nature, not society, which decides that females get pregnant and males do not. You seem to assume society should compensate for this natural difference. If so, why so?

You know, upon reflection I think it society did once compensate for the difference, it was called the shotgun wedding.

For whatever reason (perhaps disappointment that utopia wasn't here, yet?) society seems to have flipped. Now instead of forcing the consequences on men to balance the scales, they're trying to remove the consequences from women.

Which is better? Hmmm... I can note which method has given us the more powerful stories.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 20, 2015 4:14 PM  

"Do you know why moslems stone gays to death(with rocks) and mutilate littler girls genitals? One day Moohammad's oldest wife hit puberty and he realized the gays were right about his penis being smaller than what is now cut off little girls"

BGS mentioning the stoning of his fellow degenerates and providing insight as to why. Classic.

And my dear nazarene fellows: they won't make halt before your sacred things either, so hush.

Blogger Krul May 20, 2015 4:18 PM  

Nate Winchester - "Hm. Well done, Krul. You did find the better metaphor, I doff my hat to you, sir."

Thanks, but I can't take credit. I believe it was CS Lewis that compared spouses to bow and violin, which I remembered when I read your comment.

Blogger Danby May 20, 2015 4:18 PM  

@t.c.
To me, this just screams of controlling women's sexuality,

Women want to have their sexuality controlled.

The reason "slut is an insult is because women find it insulting.
There are lots of intended insluts that don't count as insults because the target doesn't care. Take "cracker" for instance. "Cracker" is not an insult because no-one it's applied to finds it insulting. There is an equivalent to "slut" for men, it's "manwhore". And guess what, promiscuous men aren't insulted by it.

The biggest problem with feminism is that it requires a view of human nature, and human sexual interaction that does not in any way comport with reality. There is a difference between promiscuous men and promiscuous women, and it's not some kind of hypocrisy to see it.j

A double standard is only bad if they are applied to groups that are the same in the area and question. Men and women are very different sexually, and the double standard in how it's treated is fully justified.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 20, 2015 4:19 PM  

not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're insinuating that my wife's surgery over Thanksgiving was an abortion cover-up

I was in healthcare before the HIPAA law came into place and under the Privacy Act it was expected that the employer of a military spouse would contact the red cross on their behalf (with the doctors note for days off) for events that would allow them to be pulled back from overseas. When women got pregnant when it couldn't possibly be the husbands, and the husband came back for the "miscarriage" they would beat the their wives. I felt sorry for the guys in that situation just like I feel sorry for you. One time the husband of a co worker who allways talked bad about him showed up at work, He said "Hi I am Bonnie's husband", I couldn't help but respond "I am so sorry for you If you think you are treated bad here you should see how CHORFS & SJWs get handled over at GayPatriot

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 4:24 PM  

Thanks, but I can't take credit. I believe it was CS Lewis that compared spouses to bow and violin, which I remembered when I read your comment.

Wow, I thought I had read nearly everything by Lewis (that one's apparently slipped my mind). So I'll change my doff to besting me in a quoting the Don. Well done.

Blogger Nate Winchester May 20, 2015 4:28 PM  

There is an equivalent to "slut" for men, it's "manwhore". And guess what, promiscuous men aren't insulted by it.

I thought the equivalent was "[adj] virgin." I mean in the manner for what's most insulting in a sexual manner to a man (not the equivalent for the identical situation).

I am so sorry for you If you think you are treated bad here you should see how CHORFS & SJWs get handled over at GayPatriot

Oooo, got any examples? (I don't visit GP often)

Anonymous BGS May 20, 2015 4:31 PM  

BGS mentioning the stoning of his fellow degenerates and providing insight as to why. Classic.

Tommy Hass says in the entire world there have existed 2 good moslems over the past 10 years but doesn't name them. Even I could name 3 blacks that as far as I know are competent. Condoleezza Rice, & the 2 black Tea party candidates.

Hey Tommy, Vox provided me with wedding cakes in the captcha

Blogger Cail Corishev May 20, 2015 4:32 PM  

I actually have more respect for those who condemn promiscuity on the part of both genders

You forgot the word "equally," which is what you meant, because most people do condemn promiscuity by men and women, just not equally.

This is what happens when you make an idol of "fairness." Life isn't fair. Sometimes some people are held to different standards than others based on different circumstances -- by nature, by other people, even by God. You can close your eyes to the evidence of that and live in a four-year-old's fantasy world where everything's supposed to be fair and an Authority swoops in to fix things when they aren't, or you can accept it and deal with it.

And yes, it is about "controlling female sexuality." We're currently in the middle of a 50-plus-year-long experiment to see what happens when female sexuality is uncontrolled, and the results are coming in -- civilization falls. If you want civilization, you can't let women screw at whim. Female sexuality is a destructive, even self-destructive, force, far more so than male sexuality. It must be harnessed if you don't want it nuking everything in its vicinity.

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 4:35 PM  

If women should just be accepting of those men who had their fun phase before marriage, then men should too.

Oh no, no, no. For you see, the sexes are different.

Attractive women need no sexual experience whatever to be sexually attractive. In fact, lack of it is a plus.

Attractive men, except for the uncommon 'natural', need sexual experience to become sexually mature.

An attractive woman can find a man to have sex with her within 15 minutes. So, if she's running around a lot, she isn't very discerning.

On the other hand, a male with plentiful experience with attractive women is demonstrating that many women approve of him, which is a plus for him.

It's simply due to how the sexes are hardwired. It is never, ever going to change.

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 4:37 PM  

Basically, thinking sluts are damaged goods for marriage is never going to change, just like attractive female teenagers taking verbal dumps on awkward, shy boys is never going to change.


Anonymous BGS May 20, 2015 4:41 PM  

CHORFS & SJWs get handled over at GayPatriot Oooo, got any examples? (I don't visit GP often)

You just have to look thru the comment section but leftists and pedos show up from time to time to argue their side.

If women should just be accepting of those men who had their fun phase before marriage, then men should too.

In gay culture tops can get away with a lot more than bottoms can, but that could be a result of supply/demand imbalance. I have spent too much time on this thread.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 20, 2015 4:46 PM  

test

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 4:48 PM  

I thought the equivalent was "[adj] virgin."

Bingo. Just like slut is more harmful directed to women than men (if a negative at all), being a virgin is far more harmful to men than women (in fact, it's really a plus for women in most cases)

Don't you get it, T.C.? How many times have you spoken out against awkward teenage boys being lambasted by attractive girls, getting high on social dischord?

If you got rid of one insult...you'd have to get rid of the other too, wouldn't you?

How do you think you're going to get young attractive girls to stop being disdainful of boys they find unattractive?

Answer: You aren't, just like you aren't going to convince an intelligent man that a slut is a great marriage idea in the era of frivorce. This is the flaw in feminism and leftism. The rabbit hole never ends, and your arbitrary corrections end up chasing their tail endlessly, as the structures start falling apart from excessive meddling.

Anonymous Scintan May 20, 2015 4:57 PM  

Okay, let me try it this way... sure, biologically, the male cannot get pregnant, the female can, so is at more risk of being a burden. But... the male, while not able to get pregnant, is able to get the female pregnant. And if, as a society, we condemn that less, he gets to go around and hypothetically get multiple women pregnant. Shouldn't he be as equally condemned for that action, even if he is not actually getting pregnant himself? He is still just as much an equal part of the process, wouldn't you agree? Why should the female share all of or at least more of the condemnation?

Because they are the sex that get pregnant. This isn't some difficult argument. It's basic. It's primal. Barring force, and leaving out the religious aspects:

In order for a man to have a child, he has to find a willing mate, impregnate her, and make sure he's the only one to be with her.

In order for a woman to have a child, she just has to say "yes". She has the easier job and will have the greater consequences. It is for her to say "No" until the appropriate time.

What you are essentially demanding is that society conform to women, and rebel against nature, just so women can screw around before marriage.

Blogger Marissa May 20, 2015 5:08 PM  

If women should just be accepting of those men who had their fun phase before marriage, then men should too.

I've yet to see 1) women complaining about past sexual partners their men had, 2) data showing that the same number of past sexual partners affects a man's propensity to divorce as much as a woman.

The sexes are not equal and the very same decision any one man or one woman makes can have very unequal outcomes.

Blogger Man. Cla. May 20, 2015 6:27 PM  

All you're doing is giving credence to the claims of "militant" feminists. They are the only real feminists. The rest of you are useful idiots that will try and make the ideology seem more reasonable, and allow the militants to continue unabated.

You are dealing with a political movement and ideology that has always been that. You're the guy claiming communism is all about worker's rights, and helping the oppressed with complete disregard to the actual results and actions of the communists.

Blogger IM2L844 May 20, 2015 6:28 PM  

@ IM2L844 - Could you expand on that, please? As a former member of the U.S. military, I'm not aware the military has *any* role in federal law enforcement, beyond MPs/SPs on military bases. In fact, I distinctly remember having Coast Guard officers on board when assigned to drug interdiction patrols precisely for that reason: they *do* have a law enforcement role.

Hrmm...coulda been Coat Guard, I guess. I should have paid closer attention, but I did hear one say the ship was 272 feet long and had the capacity to destroy anything in the water or air within a certain radius of the ship. Didn't seem very Coast Gaurdy to me, but maybe. A couple others were just sort of in the background and the law enforcement comments made it through my internal noise filter, so I don't know.

Anonymous BGS May 20, 2015 6:49 PM  

but I did hear one say the ship was 272 feet long and had the capacity to destroy anything in the water or air within a certain radius

That must have been the ship they sent to pick up Hilliary's server and the IRS emails.

Blogger cavalier973 May 20, 2015 6:53 PM  

"...mom never worked, she stayed home and took care of the kids and the house."

Um...what?

Blogger Man. Cla. May 20, 2015 7:13 PM  

*If women should just be accepting of those men who had their fun phase before marriage, then men should too.*

There are plenty of scientific reasons why the majority of men are far more repulsed by a woman with multiple male partners, than a woman by a man with multiple female partners.

Men are naturally more disgusted by same sex relations, meaning the idea of having sex with another man, than a woman is disgusted at the idea of having sex with another woman. So the idea of having sex with a woman who has had multiple male partners disgusts more on that level. There are biological reasons for it.

Men are also not assured of paternity. They are in competition with other men to be the one that impregnates the woman. The woman is always assured of her maternity regardless. She doesn't have to worry that if her partner had sex with a lot of women before her, the child might not be hers. Men do have the worry of the child not being their own.

Men also are different, and in being different are held to different standards. This is why people will mock a man who is a virgin and can't get laid. In fact "he must be a virgin" is a common insult thrown by feminists. Men have a more difficult time in having sex with the opposite sex. It is not as easy as it is for a woman. A woman can generally find several random men who will be willing to sleep with her, and get approached far more. She maybe just has to doll herself up a bit.

But regardless the reasons, men do not like women who sleep around with multiple men. Women do not like men who are incapable of attracting other women. So shame away.

Anonymous The Obvious May 20, 2015 7:36 PM  

“I'm fed up with Not All ? Are Like That arguments. They're irrelevant.”

There isn’t anything irrelevant when a mischaracterization of entire group repeatedly is used by their ideological opponents as being “accurate” or “truthful”.


“If you don't like how they represent you, you have a choice: exit the group -- stop calling yourself a feminist and oppose them openly -- or kick them out and change it.”


Binary thinking. A group has a common goal agreed upon by its members. Inevitably, there will be conflict over how to implement those goals, especially when there are members who act as if they are the face of the group. Depending on who are the leaders of these “rivals”, there may be visible efforts or behind the scenes maneuvers to bring under control that conduct called into question. ONLY if those efforts prove fruitless over a long period of time will members leave and create another group.


“Christians oppose him openly…”
“When I see your "non-militant feminists" rushing the stage to shut up some feminist leader who's calling for the further neutering of schoolboys (for instance) and taking over the mic to tell people about "reasonable" feminism, then I'll take you seriously.”

The same way Christians here actively oppose and distance themselves with Roissy and Roosh? I’ll take you seriously if you make consistent efforts to bring to light their anti-Godly masculinity agenda.


“Women want to have their sexuality controlled." According to who?


“Men and women are very different sexually, and the double standard in how it's treated is fully justified.”

Men who pump and dump and seek to have sex outside of a relationship or marriage are cads.

Women who pump and dump and seek to have sex outside of a relationship or marriage are sluts.

There is NO justification.


“Put it this way - what drain on society is Roosh or Heartiste?”

Actively promoting a childless, no marriage lifestyle.


“Female promiscuity is demonstrably more dyscivic than male promiscuity, so treating them both as though they cause the same level of societal harm is irrational.”

Jesus Christ already, BOTH are equally destructive from a biblical point of view. Timothy 2:22—So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Ephesians 5:3—But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.


“Both men and women are rendering themselves unfit for monogamous long-term, mutually supportive marriage, and both they and their culture(s) are suffering for it.”

Absolutely!


“Attractive women need no sexual experience whatever to be sexually attractive. In fact, lack of it is a plus. Attractive men, except for the uncommon 'natural', need sexual experience to become sexually mature.”


Citations?

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 7:50 PM  

Citation? Life. Holy Hades, how dumb are you?

Did you never grow up? Were you never around boys your age?

Did you not notice that the untouched pretty girls were considered the ultimate?

Did you not notice that the popular guys tended to attract girls like white on rice?

Citation? Try opening your eyes.

Your problem, Obvious, is that you actually think we are saying that they are ALL like that. We are not.

It's called probability. Intimidating concept, I know.

Anonymous T May 20, 2015 8:02 PM  

Hell, one of the first things you'd say about some girl was whether you're getting some other guy's 'seconds' or not. Next to the attractiveness of the girl herself, what other guys had defiled her was top on the list of concerns.

And as for males needing sexual experience to mature, it's perfectly obvious. Males are generally the driving force in early attraction and expected to be an active partner. While I'm sure you would go to ground to argue against the idea of males generally being active and females being more passive, the simple fact of the matter is that regardless of whether the female is active or passive, they're overwhelmingly going to prefer an active male to a passive male.

Being proactive socially, confident, entertaining, funny...that requires experience for most people. If you need a citation for that, I don't know what to tell you, Bubba.

The difference is, an attractive female doesn't need an active personality. She can pretty much just show up and phone it in. Let me guess, do you need a citation for the fact that most guys aren't picky about attractive poon?

Blogger SirThermite May 20, 2015 9:07 PM  

In addition to the fact that a woman can't be cuckolded into raising a child who's not her own, and the fact that most women would rather fight over (or even share) an >80th percentile social Alpha with a past than settling for a <60th percentile social Beta with a clean slate, there's the simple social math of shaming effectiveness. . If a society successfully shames 95% of men into not practicing baby-making before marriage, then the remaining 5% of men can easily pick up the slack in the single-mother-and-bastard-creation department. But if a society can shame 95% of women into only having sex within marriage, then the illegitimacy rate is gonna remain low no matter how many male players and cads are in the game.

Anonymous The Obvious May 20, 2015 9:18 PM  

“Citation? Life. Holy Hades, how dumb are you?”

If that statement I sought a citation to was merely based on YOUR experience, fine. But should you make the claim that it is unabashed truth, then you are going to have offer more than “life”.


“Did you not notice that the untouched pretty girls were considered the ultimate?”

Actually, in my neck of the woods, even the Christian boys sought a young lady who was experienced in the art of kissing and seduction.


“Did you not notice that the popular guys tended to attract girls like white on rice?”

Depended on how the popular guys operated. Some dudes were popular because they were good looking, but they were shy and eventually that attraction wore off. Other fellas were popular because they were athletic, but some of them were so conceited that the ladies were turned off by it, or had a distinct reputation of cheating that the other girls caught on.

Now, some of those popular guys who had looks, smarts, and were talented on the field, or in a couple of cases, were limited in their looks but were hilarious, so, sure, they got the ladies. The questions were could they 1) seal the deal and 2) keep them around, which involves a totally different skill set.


“Your problem, Obvious, is that you actually think we are saying that they are ALL like that. We are not.”

There is no problem on my part. Try opening your own eyes to sweeping generalizations.


“Hell, one of the first things you'd say about some girl was whether you're getting some other guy's 'seconds' or not.”

Not necessarily.


“Next to the attractiveness of the girl herself, what other guys had defiled her was top on the list of concerns.”



Concerns? Hell, it was Christmas when we found out she was "giving".


“Males are generally the driving force in early attraction and expected to be an active partner.”

Not necessarily. The girl/woman makes it known who they are particularly interested in, either overtly or covertly.


“they're overwhelmingly going to prefer an active male to a passive male.”

Overwhelmingly? From YOUR experiences, sure. From my “life”, women overwhelmingly liked the easy going, quiet types, while other women like the bombastic, over the top types.


“Being proactive socially, confident, entertaining, funny...that requires experience for most people.”


Positive experiences for most people, who have an in-born capacity to generate that interest.


“The difference is, an attractive female doesn't need an active personality.”

Not necessarily. Men also desire women who have a flair, a knack if you will, for being lively and interesting.

Blogger CM May 20, 2015 9:40 PM  

Jesus Christ already, BOTH are equally destructive from a biblical point of view.

They are having discourse with a known atheist, so they are throwing out biblical discourse and using natural law arguments.

They know what their doing.

Blogger CM May 20, 2015 9:40 PM  

They're

Blogger Harsh May 20, 2015 9:56 PM  

“Female promiscuity is demonstrably more dyscivic than male promiscuity, so treating them both as though they cause the same level of societal harm is irrational.”

Jesus Christ already, BOTH are equally destructive from a biblical point of view.


No argument with the biblical view, but my point was a secular one of eucivic versus dyscivic. Our friend t.c. seems to have completely ignored that point.

Anonymous Boomer "bafoon"[sic] "validictorian"[sic] May 20, 2015 11:50 PM  

"Both men and women are rendering themselves unfit for monogamous long-term, mutually supportive marriage, and both they and their culture(s) are suffering for it."

Exactly. The lengths that parts of the commentariat go to in order to convince themselves that cads aren't a big part of the slut problem is mind-boggling. Pretty much every inmate being housed with my tax dollars has a cad father who abandoned them at some point in childhood, stretching back to way before feminism had any real influence, but it's the feminists that are responsible for that I'm sure.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 21, 2015 12:31 AM  

Men dont matter? Ou r men do matter, we ladies must encourage and build them up - not that they need us but making your first priority along with God, health, family is King!

The men walked away from henhouses and SJW's dont want you to HAVE ANYTHING.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 21, 2015 12:51 PM  

Pretty much every inmate being housed with my tax dollars has a cad father who abandoned them at some point in childhood, stretching back to way before feminism had any real influence, but it's the feminists that are responsible for that I'm sure.

Inmates scale with sluts, not cads. So that's the bottleneck and core of the problem.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts