antifeminism crackpottery douchebaggery links manginas MGTOW precious bodily fluids

>Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum


This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I’ve borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!

The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).

The Something Awful folks have gathered up quite a few of his most intriguing posts, and many others of equal value. Head over there now and enjoy. 

106 replies on “>Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum”

>Why don't they ever post some actual thoughts and writings of MRA's? Here they just search for the most laughable commentary and ignore all of the real and pertinent issues in the MRM.

>Why don't they ever post the actual thoughts and writings of the Three Stooges? They just show them slapping and hitting each other and ignore all the real and pertinent issues of the Stooges.

>I enjoyed how Something Awful pointed out the oddity of MRAs being simultaneously anti-woman and anti-gay. They will expound for hours on how men are so woefully unappreciated, and then immediately snarl and snap at any man who appears to appreciate men too much.

>The hell? …they sure dialed the crazy up to eleven and ripped off the knob. Many thanks to the goons and David for fulfilling my lulz quota for the day. One thing I can't quite fathom is that this comment received 34 upvotes on The Spearhead. I know bigoted and violent rhetoric is pretty much the norm in the Spearhead's comments section, but they still manage to surprise me.

>Creepy is a very accurate tag here.Something else occurs to me as I read Something Awful's post, though. What kind of life is it to spend all your time wrapped in such bitterness, loathing, and hatred, to be honestly convinced that the kind of stuff they're spouting is true? It's not a life I would ever live. I find myself mingling pity with being creeped out.Even in the depths of Twisty-Faster-esque misandric non-feminism, I've never seen anything near such loathing for an entire group of people as I do there.

>These men appear to loathe women but really I think they are stuffed to the gills with abject hatred of themselves. All the ways in which they say they reject women in their lives (some of which are illegal such as discrimination in hiring) are only making their own lives harder and more miserable.

>Drew-are you going to denounce the material in the screenshot that JFP linked to? How about any of the regular MRAs or the people who claim they are not MRAs but act exactly like them? How can we take you seriously if you do not marginalize the people making such vile posts.

>What kind of life is it to spend all your time wrapped in such bitterness, loathing, and hatred, to be honestly convinced that the kind of stuff they're spouting is true? It's not a life I would ever live. I find myself mingling pity with being creeped out.They do deserve pity, if you're feeling charitable enough to feel it for them. They didn't get all the privileges they feel they're entitled to as white men, and they're looking around to see who to blame for it. Women are an easy target.

>@ JFP: That "I'm not condoning this or encouraging it, BUT it would be easy" reminds me of OJ Simpson: "If I had killed them, this is how I would have done it…"@ triplanetary: Just be clear, I don't pity them because I think they're victims, in any way; white American heterosexual men, as a group, are the most privileged people on the planet. But the way they feel is no way to live their lives, and I can't help pitying them even as I fully acknowledge they brought it on themselves. Pity is very different from sympathy or empathy.

>@AydanI pity them, too, the same way I pitied Azula at the end of Avatar: The Last Airbender, when she was paranoid to the point of delusions, unable to trust anybody, her whole sense of self shattered upon realizing she wasn't in control anymore.And there I go, confusing cartoons with real life again.

>You know, I know a lot of married people – from people my folks' age (late '50s and early '60s), to people I know who married shortly after high school (early '90s) to my friends my age who married in the last 10 years or so – and I can't think of a single marriage like the one described in the screencap. Sure, there's jokes about such things, but when one gets down to the real nitty gritty, it doesn't really take hold. I've known people in those sort of relationship, but rarely does it last into marriage. I do know of marriages wherein both participants live with a permanent loathing of the other, but never this kind of tyrannical beat-down sort of thing the guy describes. That's just weird.

>And it reminds me of studying abusers, and how they feel their privilege as a need. They don't need to suffer an abuse, or an act, to feel abused: what they whine about is the absence of luxury. They're used to and expect to be waited on hand and foot. Anything less, and they feel—and claim—-that they're being abused.

>Heres a legitimate concern of MRAs. No Fault Divorce. Women initiate divorce of married couples with children 70% of the time. The default is women get the children, this is easy to see because men have to "fight" for equal custody. Over the last 20 years around 40 million men have done this and 80% of the time they lose. At a cost of around 20k to fight for the right to retain equal custody of their children men have spent 8 billion dollars over that time and 4 out of 5 times they lose.Now for the men who lost the going rate is $200.00 a week for the child he is forbidden equal custody of. Now barring the high end money makers the vast majority of men make very little money. Barely enough to stay afloat, (myself included). So for instance say both of the divorcees make $15.00 an hour for a take home of $450.00 a week. Well the man now only gets $250.00 a week, while the woman gets %650.00 a week, plus State assistance, plus she gets the child as a tax deduction.Now say the man who is subsisting of $250.00 a week loses his job. The Bradley Ammendment states there is NO excuse not to pay. This man will now be imprisoned, further, each state recieves 10s of millions of dollars from the federal government to incarcerate these unemployed/dead beat dads. The first thing the State does is suspend his license, then jail him for 6 months. When he is released he will be jobless, homeless, penniless, no drivers license, have a criminal record and he will owe the State $5200.00, because the State paid for his child support while he was in prison. And the best part is his own taxes were used to kidnap his child, have the Stae extort his money while denying him equal custody, then imprison him.Well who lobbyed for this hideous injustice? We all know the answer. Surely men didn't run to the polls begging for the "privilege" to pay for this kidnapping, extortion, incarceration scam. Now I'm sure you'll say some men run out on their families, which is no doubt true. However, there have been and still are 100s of thousands if not millions of men in this country who HAVE been treated to this fine batch of laws. How much sympathy do you think these men will show to your vaulted feminism when you show them none?If you say well I'm not like that it means very little. When the Bolshevics starved 20 million peasants and burned their one room churches do you think the peasants said Oh well that particular communist is a good one because he or she isn't like that? Well that one didn't advocate starving me and only wants to take my freedom, or my money, or my children? So if you pluck a tastey morsel from the feminist tree like Title IX, or Gee I might like to use that holla back thingy some day. All the while claiming you would never kidnap a mans child or falsely accuse a man, it doesn't work that way.Why not bring out a few of the finer quotes from the Dworkins, Steinens, Solanos, ect. and really slice them up? I mean like 2 or 3 hundred comments to show us all the high morality and equality mindedness of feminists? Unless of course you really are like that.

>Women initiate divorce of married couples with children 70% of the time.MRAs like to cite this statistic all the time, as if it's some kind of damning evidence that women are just greedy bitches or fickle or something. What it indicates to me is that women are likelier to feel unfulfilled or unhappy in their marriages. Most MRAs would probably like to say it's because she's an entitled bitch, but I like to think of women as being actual people. Given the contempt that many MRAs display for women's emotional needs or women's sexuality, is it any wonder they end up being left by their wives? And when it comes to 50/50 custody… I've never been married or had children, but a lot of my friends growing up had divorced parents. Split custody, where they spent Wednesday-Saturday with one parent and Sunday-Tuesday with the other was actually really stressful for them. They had to have two sets of everything at each house, had to remember what belonging was at which house. It was hard for them to be able to spend time with their friends, because each parent insisted on 'their' time. So I'd say that 50/50 custody, while it might be 'fair' for the parents, is not in the best interests of the child. Truth is, *someone* has to get custody of the kids, and it's probably going to their primary caretaker. And because our society is the way it is, that's going to be the mother. I think the Bradley amendment is silly, but I also think that parents need to be responsible for the children they have. And if that means sacrificing custody of your kids so they can have a stabler life, that is a noble and meaningful sacrifice. There might be some women who get divorced and get into vindictive and bitter custody fights… but those women probably aren't feminists. I know a divorced couple, where they both identify as feminist, and they don't even *have* a formal custody arrangement – it's just whatever is best for their daughter at the time.

>So you condone and support the idea that the best solution to the issue of fathers' rights is to murder wholesale thousands to millions of women, children and men who you assume refuse to support you in your quest to slaughter thousands to millions of women and their children NWOslave?Because that is what you are saying. You think the issue of a man who has an issue with his ex is so severe women (and their kids) deserve to die by the thousands to millions over it.

>Matt, I agree that normal marriages are nothing like what was described by Aker's story. My husband and I live like best friends with romantic benefits, and neither of us worry about who has more power. Some of those MRA's obsess on who is dominant and submissive in a relationship. Why not have a normal marriage where both are equal partners? I am guilty of occasionally nagging about the yard or taking out the trash, but I would never say anything rude around his friends. I don't consider the statement "Hey our yard looks like a jungle, honey" to be the equivalent of Chinese water torture. During pregnancy, I would whine about my husband eating food I wanted from the refrigerator. Sometimes my husband gets grouchy too but it is only rarely and it never leads to personal insults or either of us feeling beat down and despondent. I suspect that because Aker posts at the Spearhead, he is greatly exaggerating the marital problems of his friends. Even if what he is saying is true about the mean wife in the story, he shouldn't generalize that to be the case about all wives. I've seen men and women hurt each other in relationships. That's just life and it's not a gender issue. His comments about the Chinese water torture and calling husbands "hag-slaves" make me think he is a major drama queen.

>@Lady Victoria von Syrus…Your comment proves my point. Not one iota of sympathy for the millions of men who have been and are in prison for the crime of being poor.You say men aren't meeting womens emotional needs, yet men apparently don't have any emotional needs. I guess women have met their husbands needs and HE is a failure.SO if a man works and a woman doesn't, she is the primary caretaker, if they both work, again, she is the primary caretaker, if she works and he doesn't, once again SHE is the breadwinning primary caretaker.That "silly" Bradley Ammendment. Who was it that lobbyed for that winner I wonder?It seems men are broken, arent they?

>@Elizebeth…I don't understand your comment. How does equal custody translate into murdering women and children?Funny also how you say women and THEIR children. Are men just a financial tool for women and THEIR children. Why not say men and children for a change?

>@Kendra…You say you occasionally "Nag" your husband with the example, "Hey our yard looks like a jungle, honey"Now imagine if he said, "Hey our sink looks like a cesspool honey." Tell me would you find this hurtful?Also according to VAWA this is considered controlling behavior. Domestic Violence. I wonder who lobbyed to have that law?

>NWOslave:Women are considered the primary caretaker because we still live in a society that considers child-rearing to be the woman's job and money-making to be the man's job (that is, a patriarchal society).Feminists are trying to change that.If you actually cared about custody law, you would support feminism.

>NWOslave – Okay, first of all, "millions" of men aren't in jail for nonsupport. (And you generally won't go if you can prove you don't have the income.) Like, "thousands," tops.That said… I'd feel a lot more comfortable if some MRAs were willing to come out and say "of course we respect women and understand that we have to work with them to achieve our goal of changing divorce laws." Not just talking about something other than misogyny, but actively denying it while talking about real issues.As it is, when you don't criticize the misogyny you create the impression that you think divorce laws justify talk about removing women's larynxes.

>Or let me put it this way: I'm a feminist blogger. I am not a misandrist. I think men are no better and no worse than women. People are just people, good and bad. There are certainly lots of individual men that I like (or love) and admire. And in general I don't judge someone by their gender.I don't advocate or tolerate misandry on my blog. I don't think that "well, this issue is so bad that it makes me really angry" justifies misandry. Even the rape and murder of women–even sexism against myself–even violence against myself–has never pushed me to judge men as a gender, much less advocate for discrimination against them. Much less cheer on or make light of violence against them.I don't think this is saintly of me; that's not my point. I think it's, you know, normal of me.So… Where the fuck is my MRA counterpart?

>@cboye…If we lived in a Patriarchial Society, men would be given default custody. Patriarchy meaning men are oppressors and women are the oppressed. A Patriarchy would have Title IX for men, VAMA NOT VAWA, default male custody, 10 federally funded mens health centers and 0 for women, men would have the "right" of abortion NOT women, quotas, less than 1/2 the sentence of men for the same crime, ect, ect, ect.So unless Patriarchy disproportionally benefits women over men, your use of the word is incorrect.Also if feminists are trying to change that, why did they successfully lobby to install all these laws? Isn't this the exact opposite of what you just said?

>@Holly…I'm right here. I advocate the same things. Men and women who act honorably should be treated as such. Men and women who act poorly should be treated poorly. The LAW however treats men harshly while allowing women free reign for virtually any behavior when concerning men. And thats wrong.

>NWOslave – Okay, that's partly true but overstated–they do have women's prisons, you know, and women definitely can lose custody. But women are treated differently under the law and I agree that's wrong.Now get those fucking creepy larynx-removal-dudes out of your movement or at least work a little harder to distance yourself from 'em, kay?

>NWOslave: Look at the link that JFP provided. Do you or do you not support such kind of action against women for the problems you claim there are?As for your claim that all of these that help women are so bad: what do you think was the situation before they were enacted? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only had women added to ensure its defeat. It had nothing to do with helping any woman.

>@Holly…I am talking about something real, and yes millions of men HAVE been incarcerated for the crime of being too poor to pay child support. This denial on your part is hurtful. It's no different than an MRA saying ALL women lie about rape. The Bradley Ammendment makes it quite clear there is NO excuse not to pay. Men HAVE been imprisoned after being released from POW camps, coming out of coma's, released from prison and then being thrown back in prison. This isn't imaginary it happens every day.I do NOT respect women by default, respect is earned. I do NOT respect men by default, respect is earned. I advocate none of the evils you speak of, yet even you, who say you aren't misandric accuse me of wanting to remove a womans larynx. Tell me what have I written that is misogynist?

>@Lady Victoria von Syrus…Your comment proves my point. Not one iota of sympathy for the millions of men who have been and are in prison for the crime of being poor.I doubt that millions of men are in jail for lack of ability to pay child support. Some men are probably jailed because they *refused* to pay, not that they were unable. Please find me a reliable statistic indicating how many men (per capita, in a given year, as a percentage of the prison population, etc) are put in jail over child support, and ONLY child support. No fair giving me a guy who has a felony or DUI and the D.A. decided to tack that on at the end. You say men aren't meeting womens emotional needs, yet men apparently don't have any emotional needs. I guess women have met their husbands needs and HE is a failure.Your logic fails. If a man is not meeting his wife's needs, yes, that's probably a reason why she decided to file for divorce. In that case, of women filing for divorce, I think it's fair to venture that her needs were probably not being met. But many woman are not married, or happily married. I assume that a happily married woman, or even contently married woman, is having her needs adequately met by her husband. Yay for the both of them! The world needs more happy marriages. If the statistic was reversed, and 70% of men were the ones who initiated divorce, I would certainly wonder why it seemed that more men were unhappy being married than women. SO if a man works and a woman doesn't, she is the primary caretaker, if they both work, again, she is the primary caretaker, if she works and he doesn't, once again SHE is the breadwinning primary caretaker.I make no assumptions about primary caretaker. But the truth is, when it comes to taking care of a newborn, staying abreast of doctors' appointments, going to parent-teacher conferences, cooking healthy meals, etc., it's likely to be the mother shouldering those responsibilities. Not because women are inherently better or anything, but in our culture, it's just assumed that women do most of the parenting. I would say that if a stay at home dad divorced his wife, he would be entitled to primary caretaker custody and child support from her.That "silly" Bradley Ammendment. Who was it that lobbyed for that winner I wonder?Feminists disagree with each other. It happens. I disagree with this. It seems men are broken, arent they?I'm certainly sorry you feel this way. I certainly don't. Scenario: Man is a stay at home dad, and is the one who stays up late at night, makes midnight pharmacy runs, keeps his children fed and happy, takes them shopping for clothes and school supplies and generally does most of the parenting work while his wife pursues a career. The marriage fails, and he files for divorce. The judge, recognizing that he is the primary caretaker, awards primary custody to the father and orders the mother to pay child support. But the mother does not provide child support. It doesn't really matter why, but now the stay at home dad, who stopped developing his own career to take care of his kids for ten years, has to fully support his children on a meager income. Should she be thrown in jail? Is it fair to keep her from her children, that she worked so hard to support when the marriage was working?

>@Holly…I went to the link and saw the comment. Advocating killing is fucking horrible, no doubt about it. But as I said your own house is a pig sty, shall we cruise on over to femenisite and perusue the comment section?This entire site is dedicated to finding and exposing the lowest common denominator in the MRM, yet not a peep about the lowest of the feminist low. Again I wait for THAT to even begin to show feminism isn't the Marxist hate ideology it has PROVEN itself to be.I said it in my first comment. Get the Dworkin, Steinen, Solaras, ect, ect, ect. comments out here and start tearing them to shreds. Until then I simply can't see how I, MYSELF, could possibly ally with a movement that cannot critically examine it's own version of equality.

>@Lady Victoria von Syrus….Your last comment again proves men are to blame. Men DO NOT get costody for being a stay at home dad. You know this, why do you persist acting like the LAW is in any way eqitable.Every comment here says the same thing, a woman can never blamed.Men are imperfect women. Men are broken.Men are the burgiousse oppressor class.Women are the peasant victim class.Man = Bad.Woman = Good.

>Then do it NWOslave-find the posts that advocate slaughtering millions of women. Then show us.If you cannot, shut up about how evil or wrong feminists are for trying to achieve equal status.Also, the number of men getting primary custody is rising. Which also disproves your claim that men DO NOT get custody for being a stay at home dad.In addition the SCOTUS is grappling with the issue of court appointed attorneys for men (and women) facing jail time in child custody issues right now, although in that case the father was a drug addict (I think he has cleaned up and is now simply unable to work.)

>Yes! Cruise over to Feministe! Check out their comments!Report back with all the feminists applauding or advocating violence against men, I double dog DARE you!

>You are failing to answer my question. Let's assume that this is a perfect world, and you have gotten every iota of social change you could ever hope for. Does this deadbeat mother deserve to be thrown in jail or cut off from her children?shall we cruise on over to femenisite and perusue the comment section?Please, please show me the comments at Feministe or any other blog to the left of this post under 'Antidotes to Boobery', and indicate where the commenter is advocating non-consensual and crippling surgery on male infants, where they say that having a relationship with a man is a worthless pursuit, where they say men are unworthy of friendship or deserve to be punished or killed. They might get angry at individual men, but never the gender, or even large parts of the gender, as a whole. I think women can be blamed for a lot. I mean, not as a whole gender. But as individuals, women (even feminist women) can be selfish, shortsighted, greedy, mean, vindictive and deceitful. Just like men can also be selfish, shortsighted, greedy, mean, vindictive and deceitful. Women (and men) can also be altruistic, compassionate, trustworthy, brave, talented and insightful. No one is insisting that men are imperfect or broken except for you, and for that I feel extremely sorry for you.

>@Holly…Wasn't all your "greats" in feminism that proudly declared the population of men needs to be reduced to 10% if the planet is to survive. Those particular men I believe were to be kept as slave labor and the handsome ones as stud service?Again I wait for the Dworkins, Steinens, Solaras, ect, ect, ect to be denounced. But none of you can do it can you? C'mon show me the brilliant nature of women. The "caregivers" of THEIR children. Show me you know the definition of equality by merit. Show me the feminist "honor."

>What are the particular quotes by Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem or Valerie Solanas that you find so objectionable? These women have quite a body of work, and it's the pursuit of an entire career to study all of it. But if you found some correctly sourced quotes, I'm sure we could have quite a discussion about it. Emphasis on 'correctly sourced.' If these women are really as awful as you claim, then you shouldn't have to make anything up or use dodgy quotes, will you?

>Seriously, show me the Feministe post–or ANY popular modern feminist–that says anything of the sort.Also, I can't show you the "honor" of women as a whole because there's three billion of us and some of us are assholes. We don't exactly move as one. But, shit, the only reason I can't point you at every woman who's a hard worker and good mother and all-round decent person is because there's like fifteen or twenty on my street, you know? I don't know what the hell street you live on.

>@cboye…If we lived in a Patriarchial Society, men would be given default custody. Patriarchy meaning men are oppressors and women are the oppressed.A patriarchy doesn't mean that in every possible instance, things always work out better for men and worse for women. If you have highly regimented roles, then on rare occasions when the less desirable role becomes more desirable, the empowered person will be at a disadvantage to the unempowered person.So usually being expected to have a high-paying job puts you at an advantage over being expected to stay home and take care of kids. Until something gets decided based on your perceived ability to take care of kids.If, as feminists want, there were no gender-based expectations about who would be better at taking care of kids, then there would be no bias in custody cases.Therefore feminists are working to solve this problem. You just don't care because you don't actually want equality–you're just angry that there's any area where women have a societal advantage over men.

>Also (and I believe this is important), I would like to publicly declare, silly as this is going to sound, that I think men should have all natural human rights and if anyone is advocating this wacky 10% plan, they're completely off their nut and I don't like or agree with them at all.

>She was not, is not, and should not be ever considered one of the "greats."Instead, she hurt the attempt for equality because she made women asking to be treated equal look like they were loons.Which is why we tell you to shun those who say such nasty things on your side. But you refuse to. It was not until I boxed you completely in that you finally said "advocating killing is horrible." Then you immediately jumped into claiming we never criticize, denounce our own radicals which we have, repeatedly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.