So The Spearhead has weighed in on the Cleveland abduction cases, and has not failed to disappoint.
Spearhead head boy WF Price uses the terrible unfolding drama as an opportunity to attack the notion of patriarchy. His logic: the alleged abductors weren’t rich dudes, so therefore patriarchy is a lie. No, really, that’s his argument:
Feminists love to point to these incidents and use them to discredit the overwhelming majority of ordinary men, as though they have anything in common with the Castro brothers. They are used to portray every middle class guy as a potential menace to society and freak who would keep girls in a sex dungeon. But it turns out that, in fact, the fellows who kidnapped these girls are about what you’d expect: a few disheveled, low-class weirdos.
So why is it that despite the fact that the guys who commit these crimes are almost always on the bottom of the male power and privilege scale, feminists are constantly linking abuse of women to men’s power, and agitating for stripping what remaining male privilege exists?
It’s time for the patriarchy/male privilege narrative to be exposed for the sham it is. Privileged men are least likely to abuse women; patriarchal types are most likely to protect them. It is overwhelmingly the powerless, those without privilege and the undesirable who resort to crime to obtain sex. The few others, like Ted Bundy, are simply the exceptions that prove the rule.
Price ends his post with an especially nasty bit of victim blaming that seems to be a favorite trope of MRA types:
But perhaps the real issue here is that women aren’t as interested in making up stories about guys like the Castro brothers, because those guys don’t turn them on like Christian Bale in American Psycho.
Yes, that’s right: Price thinks that women worry about rape and abuse because the thought of being raped and abused by Christian Bale turns them on.
Of course, The Spearhead being The Spearhead, the comments are even worse. Norm starts the party off with this:
The Castro bros. will have many women getting their panties wet over them, especially when their trial is over.
Daniel, meanwhile, is angry that Ariel Castro’s alleged crimes have done real damage to … men. That is, if the whole thing isn’t a big false-flag fake:
The truth is, this was the worst that could happen for anti feminist public relations at the moment. If this guy – Mr Castro – only knew how much damage he has done to men by doing this.
The case is such a gift basket for feminism, that I almost suspect it is fabricated.
Groot blames feminists for driving non-alpha men to desperate measures to obtain access to “multiple women”:
What feminists fail to see is that as men are driven more and more by their agenda to the bottom of the power and privilege scale, more and more crimes like this will be committed. Unchecked hypergamy ensures that men like these have no real chance for healthy relationships and often take through criminal efforts what alphas and the elites have access to; that being multiple women.
Heroic singles moms created most of these men, we can say that is women exploiting women. The Betas and Omega that commits such crimes are the results of 40 years of feminism raising the number if these low privilege class men.
Keyster offers up this miniature manifesto blaming feminism:
Of course feminists have been playing a game of “self-fulfilling prophecy” with regard to disenfranchising men and destroying the concept of the nuclear family. This can only manifest and perpetuate itself through more instances of disaffected and socially pathological males acting out. The male/female relationship is what tames the male. And so there will be more cases where feminists can say – “See, men are the problem.” But of course there will also be more females acting out that will not be reported or discussed – such as the recent proliferation of female teachers sexually abusing students.
I have to ask, how did three adult women with at least one child between them fail completely to make their distress known, if it ever existed, to anyone in their own street for ten years, unless they themselves had no intention of being found?
There’s a great deal more this case that we are being told by the hysterical press. Call me a trafficking apologist if it satisfies your need for drama, but I suspect we’ll find the women are nowhere near as innocent or as victimised (if at all) as the cutesy-pie pictures being plastered all over the papers suggests.
Doc, meanwhile, uses the horrific story as an opportunity to brag about his alleged success with the ladies:
The fact is that men who are desirable to women have no need to resort to these types of crimes. I pretty much have my pick of women for my bed, who will pay their own way so that they can have sex with me on trips that I take, and otherwise do whatever necessary to be with me.
So thanks to feminism I have an unending supply of 18-25 year old women who are more than willing to share my bed. Why would I want to commit a crime to limit myself to one, or in this case 3? Seems way too limiting to me – it would be worse than being married. No thank you…
That’s nice, Doc. You’re a moral monster.
EDITED TO ADD: And here’s a late-breaking extra-creepy comment from Darryl X, edited slightly (and paragraphs breaks added) because he’s not only creepy but very verbose. Also, as you’ll see, he apparently thinks Jerry Sandusky was innocent too.
I have a sneaky suspicion that these women (when they were still girls) selected these men. The same way more than half of all women in the US during the past forty-five years selected men for marriage knowing darn well they were going to divorce him later, take him for everything he’s got and then marry up. Too many things don’t add up about this case. So many that I am even willing to question whether or not these girls were even kidnapped. More likely they are runaways who thought they were getting a better deal with these men than with their own parents. And when they got old enough to realize that they can do even better still, they stuck it to these guys (never underestimate the irrational boundlessness of hypergamy). … I don’t think these men are as guilty as the media portrays them and I don’t think the girls are as innocent as the media portrays them. …
When I try to think about how I would go about kidnapping just one teenager and hold her for a decade into her early 20′s in a suburban neighborhood, I am presented with so many logistical obstacles that it would seem near impossible to overcome all of them. Just for a few months let alone a decade. Then throw two more into the mix and that isn’t just near impossible but almost completely so. Not without their voluntary complicity. None of these guys looked to be of any excessive financial means. They weren’t rich. None of them looked like Einstein to me either. There was nothing accommodating about the geography. Their home wasn’t isolated from the community. It wasn’t off in the wilderness somewhere. It wasn’t remote. Think about how hard it would be to hold just one captive for a decade under these circumstances. Then think how hard it would be to hold three. The problems with that don’t grow linearly but exponentially. The cost. The risk of escape. Many other logistical problems.
I don’t buy any of this for a second. As soon as I heard this story, little red flags went up all over the place. Same with Casey Anthony and Arias and Strauss-Kahn and Sandusky (yes, I know). Too many red flags in this culture of feminism usually means something. I’m not sure what it means here but it definitely means something.
So, yeah. Actually, the other brothers aren’t being charged, so even that aspect of Darryl’s disgusting bullshit is off the mark.
Joeb, meanwhile, has a completely surreal and fucked-up Evo Psych take on the whole thing. It’s possibly the most perverse comment in the whole thread, which is saying something.
These men picked these women as sexual companionship , Not mating stock .
If they where looking for mating stock the number of off spring would have been Higher .
I think some men today get confused with Mating and breeding . VS sexual entertainment.
These men are predators but , They have Truly deprived themselves of the one thing men should be looking at , The quality of offspring .
I know its eugenics , but we all look for the best possible outcome when choosing . We want large Male children .
These men choose what I would consider ” good entertainment” but , Not worthy of my DNA .
We make suggestions ever so lightly around the MRA , the modern Male being smallish and effeminate, But when the Modern Male chooses his stock for procreation we chose fucking stock over breeding stock .
I would consider this an evolutionary sickness . A mental illness or defect . Witch is obvious in this case but,It gives us a chance to look at The problem ” for what it is , Inferior males seeking sex . Or like we hear a lot of in the MRA , Pussy hounds , Pussy beggars , These might have been white Knights if put in a social setting that lets them flourish .
Most Likely they would have been The same ,pussy beggars :with the ability to influence any social setting .
What the hell, dude. I don’t even know where to start with this crap.