The general line amongst manosphere misogynists is that American women are a bunch of stuck-up princesses whose “ginas” – that is, vaginas – tingle only in the presence of “thugs” and “alpha males.” But one YouTube ranter calling himself LogicJunkie has a somewhat different theory, as he recently explained in a note to the moderator of the Happier Abroad forums. American women, it turns out, are basically all Nazis at heart, “preoccupied with … eugenic perfection in males.” Let’s follow LogicJunkie’s, er, logic:
American females regard as a “creep” any guy who isn’t at least six feet tall, with a pronounced chin, a jock physique, and, in general, Ken doll good Aryan looks. And money is important, too, but not nearly as important as the physiological eugenics. So, in good Germanic fashion, I think what they’re mainly concerned about, is somehow being contaminated by the mere presence of the inferior. …
America is, now more than ever, a Germano-eugenicist death camp, wrapped in the facade of “capitalism” and “corporatism” and “pop culture” and blah, blah, blah. But it’s all about covertly advancing the genetic omnipresence of the Teutonic physiological ideal.
I hate to poop on LogicJunkie’s logic here but, dude, if all the women you’re meeting turn out to be eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis, it does not therefore follow that all American women are eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis. It may just mean you should stop cruising for chicks at Klan meetings.
@Captain Bathrobe
“Um…OK.”
“(Backs away slowly)”
So after all the answers I’ve given thats the best you can do? C’mon, with all that knowlege in liberal arts and other good stuff from higher acedemia I expected the Latin/Greek expletives to be flying. I wouldn’t understand them and would probably take it as a compliment. Hehe, wouldn’t that be funny. Stupid slave.
WHy do MRA’s hate abortion and single mothers? NWO, I’d love to hear your thoughts on what we should do with men who don’t stick around when a child is born. Do you have any thoughts on forcing men to marry women they impregnate and to provide childcare for children they don’t want?
Hooray for martial arts related derail.
our instructor brought in one of her friends, a Judo Black Belt, to start teaching ground fighting (which I have to start learning as a requirement of my level) and although I am a large guy, those judo black belts tossed me around for a couple of hours.
I loved it. I was very sore afterward, but I loved it.
Of course, give me the opportunity to deliver a boot to the head….
So after all the answers I’ve given thats the best you can do?
It’s the best decision for me to decline to argue with someone who makes no sense, yes. Also, you seem to be in it primarily for the attention.
@darksidecat…”this includes the 20-30% of queer couples who have children”
Sourse…certainly with a bold statement of 20-30% I’m guessing you’d have loads of sources.
Or does only the slave need sources?
Sourse…certainly with a bold statement of 20-30% I’m guessing you’d have loads of sources.
Look, dude, all mocking aside I’ll give you a pass on the Latin, But can’t you even check Wikipedia?
@Captain Bathrobe
Ahh, I see I make no sense. Oh hell, just blame it on the patriarchy, cause that works in 50% of the cases. The other 50% is, thats what feminism is trying to fix.
No, it’s not for attention, I’m just calling out the hypocracy and lies. Ya know like you try to do with the evil MRAs. Because we’re all the same, right?
Ok first of all, wikipedia is worthless, you must know this. It’s a collection of answers from whoever writes in.
If we contacted everyone tommorow and told them to contact everyone they knew and so on and so on. We could have everyone write in to wikipedia and say the moon was made from pepperjack cheese and thats what it would say.
C’mon, you must know that.
“Ahh, I see I make no sense.”
Beginning with the fact that MRAers constantly lament about how repellent women are both morally and physically, yet said repellent women won’t sleep with them. Not even aforementioned teenage girls are that self-contradictory and absurd.
C’mon, you must know that.
Here’s what I know: It’s an excellent first or casual resource, and if you scroll to the bottom, there are multitudes of further outbound links giving further, in-depth sources.
In my own areas of expertise, I have found it to be basically sound; I have sent them a couple of corrections or refinements that made their way into the entries.
So no, it is not a repository of “whoever first writes in” but is enthusiastically policed and continually refined. And if everyone tried to do what you say, they would lock that entry down until it could be cleaned up.
And considering the level of the support you have brought forth for your laughable claims, it is far beyond what you deserve.
Actually, one study conducted by “Nature” determined that Wikipedia tends to be as accurate as your average mass produced encyclopedia.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
@Kave
I’ll answer again while none of my questions are ever answered.
The result os an abortion is a dead baby, contrary to what you TV tells you, many men prefer to have a live child. Like being a father means you need a child.
Single mother is pretty much the same answer, when you are forbidden by law from seeing your child. Or having visitation right, sometimes supervised, it could kinda stick in your craw.
@Johnny
Cruise on over to “butterfly kisses.” Which is an organization; basically the female counterpart to NAMBLA and I’m sure you find a study that says female on female pedophelia is just whiz bang good stuff.
@zombie rotten mcdonald
And isn’t that exactly the point. YOU sent over a coupla “corrections” and it changed. As if a fact can change because of an opinion given by a random person. Yea, that makes for some fine fact gathering.
What does that have to do with wikipedia? There is a difference between a self-governing open source website where information is regulated by a multidirectional discourse and a website promoting an organization that has no real discourse to speak of.
And anyway, as I said, peer reviewed journals have verified the general reliability of wikipedia. Most prominent wikipedia articles concerning the hard, soft, and social sciences provide sources.
Not to say that I would use it to source my thesis or anything. But for constructing ad hoc arguments, it seems pedantic to discount reliably sourced information simply because it comes from wikipedia. Frankly, the discussion here is not worth sifting through Academic Search Premier.
And anyway, if they did go search through something like Academic Search Premier and find the direct source from the peer reviewed journal, you’d probably still discount it as ivory tower hokum and feminist claptrap anyway.
@law1204…”Beginning with the fact that MRAers constantly lament about how repellent women are both morally and physically”
I’m an MRAer, have I done any of these things? I have legitimate concerns. When things are written into LAW that usurp a persons rights, I find that a problem.
Feminist whine and cry how they’re not a monolithic block, yet here you are calling ALL MRAers a monolithic block. Smacks of hypocracy doesn’t it?
Then again, my limited intelligence surely negates anything I say. Ahh, the poor slave, doesn’t even know he should be apologizing for his white male privilege.
Speaking of privilege, wanna hear my retirement plan? It goes like this. Having little choice but to continue doing the manual labor I now do, I plan retiring the day I die. But since my job is dangerous I might die on the job and get to retire early. Sweet. Damn I’m so privileged. Again I apologize profusely for not even knowing I’m privileged.
Johnny, the WikiWakiWoo link came up to support the original contention on the first page of Goofle hits.
Of course, I find no surprise in that our Friend here instantly derided the source, especially since he adamantly refuses to provide sources “just because”.
Yeah, I submitted corrections that were incorporated after being reviewed for accuracy. Not quite the same as Conservapedia.
Then again, my limited intelligence surely negates anything I say. Ahh, the poor slave, doesn’t even know he should be apologizing for his white male privilege.
jeblis, dude, drop the passive-aggressive bullshit, if you want anyone to take you seriously. It is SO whiny, like a second-rate Morrissey wannabe on a bad day.
Yes NWOslave you have a reasonable good grasp of sexual dimorphism. Saying that it covers behavior is however an oversimplification. It covers inherited or instinctual behavior, but not learned behavior. A large portion of human behavior is learned and that is where gender roles come into play.
to further what Fatman said, “gender roles” are not the same thing as “gender”
@zombie rotten mcdonald
Ahh well I guess my sarcasm is below par.
Just one question for any of you really.
Are you innocent until proven guilty?
Ahh well I guess my sarcasm is below par.
yes it is.
@Bee – No, sorry I don’t go by that name anywhere else. I use a few different names in other places. Usually these names have wings or stars in them, but I have never used butterfly wings.
For what it’s worth, I don’t mind short men. I actually had a crush (way back in highschool) on a guy who was much shorter than me. And by much shorter, I mean much shorter. He was pretty petite (especially for a guy, given the average height of males) and I found that cute, plus he was a nice guy. Too bad he was already taken.
I wish I had more to add, but I don’t have the time to go through every comment after mind.
No answer to my question. It’s always the same I answer countless question yet not even one of mine.