antifeminism antifeminst women evil women MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead vaginas western women suck

The Royal Scam

Do you like my hat? No, I do not like your hat.

I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over  Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,

but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?

Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:

Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.

Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.

But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:

Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!

Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!

So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that

promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.

Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.

But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:

Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.

The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.

What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.

Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)

While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”

To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:

The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.

Equality in marriage = oppression of men.

I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.

And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .

*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.

UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.

250 replies on “The Royal Scam”

NWO: I’ll answer any question (barring personal information about myself).

And I really just have one to ask you: what’s your perfect world? What would you like to see? In what place would NWO be happy? Specifically, how would sexual assault prosecution and prevention (of actual sexual assaults, which do happen now and then, yes?) be handled?

Rachel, I provide links and you discount them.

Nobby, DV is a 50/50 split in fact even women admit they initiate violence more often, the difference is when men hit back women are more severly hurt. Plus 70% of non-recipricol violence is commited by women. You obviously know this but discount it because it doesn’t fit in with the feminist man/bad woman/good ideology.

he’s probably not a troll in the classic sense–he probably believes what he’s saying.

I’m not so sure. He (or perhaps she, who knows with trolls?) is twisting everybody’s words, using deflection, making random accusations out of nowhere, denies the obvious (possibly gaslighting), telling people what they think. These are all classic manipulative techniques, which suggest conscious calculation to me.

Possibly he is using these tactics subconsciously in order to protect ideas that he is emotionally attached to. Either way, it is impossible to reason with such a person.

I’ll answer no more questions, I’ll just “await instructions” cause thats sends a good message. Not like the bad “obey” message.


One last comment before I go, the source you provided is the same source that has young boys wearing a shirt that says “awaiting instructions” PRICELESS!!! No bias there. HAHAHAHA


I’d like to present a couple links to you:

Here’s one

And another

Aha! Links, I have provided them! Thus evil reptilian overlords are taking over politics and the human race!

Do you get it now? Links are not something you drop and suddenly your opinion is valid: the point of citing sources is to show that other credible sites share your opinion. If you can’t trust the source, dropping a link does nothing to help your cause.

So if you link to some random ravings on a couple websites, and we present governmental statistics showing the opposite, guess whose opinion is more valid?

NWO – when exactly have I personally discounted a link you provided? My point is that you generally pull stats out of your a$$ or make arguments with no citation or link at all. Also, I provided two links to “official legal documents” as you requested, and your response is, what? Nothing?

Anyway, as has already been stated, you have no desire for an honest debate – meaning listening to opposing arguments with an open mind and responding directly to points you disagree with by providing some form of proof to contradict them. You argue with false dichotomies and personal attacks. Not productive and not worth anyone’s time. I’m joining the rest of the “don’t feed the troll” crowd! Enjoy baiting the other feminists!

Had you read farther, you would see the stat was from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, not randomly made up by the site. Good try, though. I will admit the source you use isn’t bad, so yes, there is a good chance that the statistics are closer (though where your 35x number comes from is still a mystery. Can’t have it all I guess). Congrats! You’ve made one point. All that says is that they should have more women in that, though. Not that the ad is inherently flawed.

It seems as though the instructions which the wearers of the shirt are awaiting is to ‘respect girls’. Which I suppose is objectionable, if you’re the sort of person who doubts women ought to be respected.

Here’s a question for you, NWOslave: If the majority of rapes and sexual assault are perpetrated by men, then what do YOU think is the best way to stop rape from happening?

I think he believes everything he says. He has one base belief, namely “Waaaah girls sux!”, and he sees everything else as supporting his belief.

It’s pretty common, although not usually this severe. The more things you deny to defend your belief, the harder it becomes to admit–or even realize–you’re wrong.

Also, as far as your article on the matter, i see no way that this is “de-balling” the kids. As has been said many times, it’s saying little more then to respect girls, and that teenagers and younger get behavior patterns from their elders. Not objectionable, because it’s true. There’s a huge difference between “according to peer-reviewed evidence, there should be an ad for women as well” and “This add deballs kids”. One is true, and one is not.

Katz – It’s not exactly “wahhh girls sux!” Some of that, yes, but more specifically:

“Wahhh, men are the oppressed underclass and are subject to horrible discrimination by women!”

I’ve long believed that the scariest belief is not “I hate X People.” The scariest belief is “X People are out to get me!” People who believe themselves to be acting in self-defense are the most dangerous ones.

I will admit the source you use isn’t bad, so yes, there is a good chance that the statistics are closer

Did you read the study? It’s just a survey. They asked people “Have you abused anyone? Have you been abused?” and the results of the study are simply the results of those questions. Both abusers and the abused cover up the abuse. That is how abuse works. In fact, a common abuse tactic is to convince the victim that they are the abuser.

Also, questions like “How often has your partner had an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because of a fight with you” that are shown in the example can include accidents. Then, the study doesn’t distinguish by frequency or scale. Someone who pushed their partner one time has the same place in the statistic as someone who regularly batters their partner and sends them to the emergency room every so often.

If you want to look at who is doing abuse, just take a look at who is getting checked into the hospital after getting beaten up, and who is getting murdered. The tings that can’t actually get covered up.

@Mish Mash Ah, fair points. I figured I had missed something, but I figured with my limited knowledge I was better talking on other points, which are still horribly wrong (again, 35x? wtf?). Thanks for setting me straight.

And yeah, the study even says that men are more likely to perpetrate worse damage. I couldn’t parse the stats in the abstract to tell how much more like, though. And naturally it doesn’t correct in any way for severity.

Holly: What NWOslave wants is for someone (preferably a woman; ideally one who has called herself a feminist) to agree with his delusional rantings. In pursuit of this arguments, nor facts, nor citations of the law, or rain, nor sleet, nor dark of night shall sway him from his rounds.

There is no truth to persuade him of, because he will not hear it. He has stopped his hears, and covered his eyes, there is no good in him.

That Title IX is gender neutral, and colleges are blaming the death of male programs on their unwillingness to match the funds, he cares not. A man has lost a precious thing, and so women are to blame.

That the Supreme Court has (time and again) said quotas are illegal, but aiming for balance is allowable… matter not. A man didn’t get the job because a qualified woman applied… it was sexism. Anyone who disagrees is a misandrist, Q.E.D.

Anyone who responds to a “question” with reason, or facts; is refusing to answer. Anyone who answers in a way which isn’t completely in accord with the script in his head, “hates Men”.

As Isaiah said, He has eyes, bit will not see. He has ears but will not hear.

And he gets his jollies by setting up situations where he can berate people for not agreeing with him. Even where there is a decent discussion to be had on the question (what makes for an equitable relationship… what should a couple which has different levels of financial contribution do in questions of expenditure. Does work in the house have a value in terms of claim on the right to spend on non-essential expenses, etc.) his model is such that anything which doesn’t equal, “The menz are better, and the women need to let them make all the decisions” is man-hating marxism.

He’s pathetic, not so much for his misogyny, but for the shrill ineptitude; and inability to see when he has been bested; thus he repeats the idiocy of his previous errors; preening in other fora that he is stomping the “feminists” in “debate” when, to quote Monty Python all he has done is engage in denial.

NWO, even by your standards that was some poor, poor debating you did there. Try to respond to particular points people make rather than constantly changing the subject and pulling new “facts” out of your ass.

darksidecat, no joke, once again I am impressed with the wealth of your knowledge. And thanks to everyone else, too, who responded to NWO with solid specific evidence.

On the DV issue, yes, some studies find that women initiate violence as often as men. But these studies do not distinguish, say, a face slapping from a serious beating that lands the victim in a hospital. When you look at the consequences of DV, women are much more likely to be injured by their partner. Men are also more likely to attack their exes after they break up; this kind of violence isn’t measured in the 50/50 studies.

Much more on these and other issues here:

In case anyone is interested, I think it’s worth discussing the situations in which women abuse men. Two things need to be true for abuse to happen:

1) Someone is an abusive person.
2) That person has power and privilege over another.

This is why domestic violence is so common, and yet it’s rare that the guy who beats his wife is also going to assault the officer giving him a speeding ticket. With the cop, the abuser didn’t have #2 going for him. That is also why men abuse women more frequently than vice versa. Not because men are worse than women, but simply because they can.

There are plenty of women out there who would be abusive but they aren’t simply because they don’t have the power to be. If a kitten doesn’t attack a pitbull, it is not because the kitten is nice. It’s because the kitten doesn’t have a deathwish.

So situations in which women might abuse male partners are going to be the situations when she has more power and privilege than he does. For example, a woman who has a disabled partner will have #2, so abuse could happen if she also invokes #1.

Holly said this earlier:

“I’ve long believed that the scariest belief is not “I hate X People.” The scariest belief is “X People are out to get me!” People who believe themselves to be acting in self-defense are the most dangerous ones.”

Its not just that. Once you are convinced that “X People are out to get me!” you are susceptable to confirmation bias in the extreme. Suddenly everything bad, everything sketchy, everything you disagree with is a result of X, and the fact that people are trying to convince you otherwise is only further proof that X is more powerful than you thought.

I’m sure NWO doesn’t care whole lot about facts here. He “knows” we are all in on the big feminist conspiracy, and thus anything we say can be immediately rejected as the result of a powerful organization’s shadowy reach. It is the very definition of a delusion, and really the only person that can convince him of anything is himself.

In that sense its kind of unfortunate that people associate with people they agree with. Websites like The Spearhead serve as breeding grounds for hatred, immune from outside influence. Any of the outgroup are “laughed out of the room” with ingroup words like “mangina” or phrases like “‘gina tickling.”

This website isn’t that much different in some ways (not to bite the hand, David). We are an ingroup like the rest, and the majority of us agree with and trust each other enough to take sources on good faith. The difference is that David and others reach outside the group for confirmation of our beliefs. We look at statistics and studies with our own eyes. Its not that we’re biased, but I’m sure that if we were introduced to reliable statistics or news stories backing up NWO and others’ claims, we would turn on a dime. I know I would.

This is probably too long and rambly already… I guess the point is that as much as we laugh and mock mysogyny, the evidence and logic people bring to the table is just as important; it shows that we are not succumbing to our own prejudices (either way) and making sure our world views are consistant with the actual world. So, thanks? I guess?


What you are talking about is, fundamentally, means and motive, which I believe is a bit more accurate. Power make sense, but privilage (as I understand it) is more along the lines of men being able to act flippantly when the subject of rape comes up (because they don’t have to deal with it usually). In other words, “privilage” is something you are almost born into, and is something to be desired. I welcome corrections on the topic though.

But you are right, it is why male->female DV is more common than female->male. On average, men do have more muscle mass (power), and do have a stronger place in culture as the “head” of the household (privilage?). Which is why its so irritating when someone like NWO comes up and says “Women abuse men too! Why no uproar over that?” Sure, it is a problem. Abuse is a problem. But abuse resulting from cultural bias is much more of an issue than abuse resulting from simple means-motive (which would happen in a fair society as well).

I haven’t been reading this blog for very long, but I’ve found it very addictive very quickly because I stare in horrified fascination. Who is this NWOslave dude who spends hours a day posting delusional stuff? Like, if his toast burned in the morning he’d probably think it was the fault of feminism.

Not to mention a number of men who commit “rape” while not realising that it is rape even such as taking “advantage of the drunk” or the emotionally vulnerable.

Education is more important in these cases as most men are not NWO…

Petra could have just left the question at “And what’s the point of Monarchy?”. Which is a damn good question in the 21st century.

Oh for crying out loud, if someone wanted me to take a class on “not making false accusations” I’d take the damned class. SO NOT A BIG DEAL. Making people take awareness classes IS NOT OPPRESSION. My employer makes me take compliance training all the time. I have to take classes about proper time charging – it doesn’t mean they’re accusing me of falsifying my time card. I have to take classes about information protection – it doesn’t mean they’re accusing me of corporate espionage. I have to take classes on sexual harassment prevention – it doesn’t mean they’re accusing me of being a sexual predator. Everyone has to take these classes, men and women. And the scenarios they provide include women as both perpetrators and victims of sexual harassment.

So quit it with the “poor men being oppressed by taking classes” crap. I’m not oppressed – my employer is just covering their ass. And every once in a while I actually LEARN something in my compliance training. And it makes me feel more comfortable that my co-workers will at least have exposure to the same idea of what counts as crossing the line as I do.

My biggest issue with NWOslave is his habit of running away when bested in debate…the big baby.

Heh, or when ever he loses a point; “Ah well, I’ll just be a good little slave and follow orders. That’s what you want, right?”


Have a little dignity, right? There’s such a thing as losing gracefully, and that can be more important than winning… -_-

Two things need to be true for abuse to happen:
1) Someone is an abusive person.
2) That person has power and privilege over another.

I don’t think this is true. My mother abuses my father. My mother is 5’4″ and weights 120lbs. My dad is 6′ and weighs like 200lbs. My dad completely supports her financially and is basically the only person she has left in her life who puts up with her shit, her mental illness makes it impossible for her to work or have friends. As far as I can tell my father has all the power and privilege over her, yet she is the abusive one. My dad never defends himself, because he would hurt her much worse. He just leaves the house when she starts getting violent. (It’s very sad but I don’t think he will ever leave her.)

On the topic of Royal marriages, it just struck me what a counterexample Charles and Camilla make to what MRAs claim are universal truths about human nature.

When Charles married Diana, she was just turned 20 and an acclaimed beauty. Camilla was 34, slightly older than Charles, and of average looks. But Charles preferred Camilla. And despite being, as far as prestige and money are concerned, probably the most eligible man in the word, Charles eventually married Camilla – when she was 58, long past any “sell by date” I’ve ever seen asserted – because he loved her and they were compatible, two concepts foreign to MRA discourse.

I don’t mean to praise Charles by pointing this out. I have no idea who in that whole situation was unpleasant or selfish or dishonest over the years – all of them, very likely. But if what MRAs say about men and women and relationships were true, that second marriage could not have happened.


The power is within her. Your father still loves her very much despite all the abuse (It’s common in cases of abuse) and/or believes that if he does leave her he will be the villain so stays out of a sense of “duty” however misplaced.

Sometimes people need patience and understanding. You cannot expect a new amputee to be a bundle of cheer and lashing out against loved ones is normal because of inherent frustration. Sometimes the right thing to do is to tough it out because people can change through that “bad period”.

Slingshot, that sounds a terrible situation. My sympathies.
Here’s hoping your father finds the strength to leave, or your mother finds the strength to get help to change.

Also, that is one fuck-ugly hat and I cannot for the life of me imagine why a young person on a happy occasion should dress up in the colour of a surgical support stocking.

NWO is right! As a mother I am tired of all this talk about child abuse. Children abuse parents too. Just this morning my 6 month old son slapped, scratched and bit me. Where are the parent protective services. We need equality!

***totally kidding, even though the bite kinda hurt a bit since I was breastfeeding him at the time. Man am I glad he has no teeth yet.***

“I forget which college it is but freshmen boys are “required” to take the infamous, “she fears you indoctrination” before being admitted to college and talk about “rape culture.””

I sure wish they were available where I live, NWO, then maybe I wouldn’t have been raped in freshman year, on my birthday. You’re either a huge boring troll or a nasty little man with crippling insecurity.

If I was required to take false accusation classes I’d take them. Who cares? Boys and girls should be taught early on about consent and respect. I will teach my sons and daughters to always gain consent before sex. I presume false accusation classes don’t exist because sssssh, rape is more common! Also retracted claims or a not-guilty verdict does not a false accusation make.

Just wanted to say that on the subject of taking (mandatory) classes like ‘she fears you’ and ‘rape culture’, people defending them are being a bit hypocritical. Much like that Superbowl ad, I can understand the intention, but I think it’s bad implementation. You don’t win men over to your side by shaming and accusing them as a whole, or by sending a message that they are the ones who need to change, because women are perfect (implied). Imagine if there was class called ‘stop spending his money’ or ‘shallow gold-digger culture’. How long would it last among the howls of outrage from feminist groups the world over? Probably less than a week.

Ion –

Having not actually taken any of these classes I’m in no particular position to defend them specifically, thus I have not. I’m merely defending the concept of taking such classes. Being made to take classes as a condition of attending a college or being employed is not oppression. Have you actually taken any of them? Did it make you feel shamed? I take “Sexual Harassment Prevention” and “Workplace Violence Prevention” every year at my job and it has never made me feel shamed.

NWO, I have had to sit through sexual harassment prevention training and racial sensitivity classes at a former job. Everyone had to do those classes, men and women, black and white, even employees that didn’t speak English. I knew I wasn’t going to sexually assault a man or use racist slurs to threaten minorities, but I didn’t gripe about the classes. I thought they had a good message, and that it could make a better work environment.

I have also had to take child abuse prevention classes during college as part of my degree program. I wouldn’t hit children, but some people do. You can’t tell by looking who would, so everyone takes the class. By your logic, do you want small children to take classes on how to avoid beating adults, just to make everything fair by MRA standards?

Ion: Violence prevention classes and sexual harassment classes don’t convey the message that “women are perfect” unless you hold the view that it’s okay to rape, beat and harass women who aren’t “perfect”. I would say, however, that anyone who DOES hold such a view, that only “perfect” women can expect to be safe from violence or harassment AT WORK, really do need those classes. If a man who thinks rape and sexual harassment are male prerogatives and acceptable instruments of social control against “imperfect” women is shamed by the content of those classes, too fucking bad.

As for anti-golddigging classes, you are comparing apples with oranges. Sexual harassment and workplace violence are things that actually disrupt the workplace, lower productivity, create a costly turnover, potentially subject the company to litigation and ultimately make the employer lose money. Marriage for money, while bad in and of itself, doesn’t impact the workplace, so there is no reason for employers to mandate classes in it. Workplace dating and romance potentially do have an impact, but you know what? Most companies today have a policy against dating among co-coworkers. And it has little to do with civil rights legislation, and a lot to do with the fact that these kinds of shenanigans disrupt the company’s day-to-day business. And by the way, anyone who reads in the employee handbook that you should dress appropriately and not date your co-workers and feels that these guidelines are “shaming”, has serious mental issues that require the intervention of a professional. Then again, if you are used to dressing like a slob and making passes at people at the office, I can see how this would feel personal.

As far as the classes go, so long as they present the potential abuse being caused by either gender then Im all for it. If it is biased in one direction only then obviously it isnt about equality.

Ion: Violence prevention classes and sexual harassment classes don’t convey the message that “women are perfect” unless you hold the view that it’s okay to rape, beat and harass women who aren’t “perfect”. I would say, however, that anyone who DOES hold such a view, that only “perfect” women can expect to be safe from violence or harassment AT WORK, really do need those classes. If a man who thinks rape and sexual harassment are male prerogatives and acceptable instruments of social control against “imperfect” women is shamed by the content of those classes, too fucking bad.

I’m… not really sure what you’re trying to say here, but I think you misunderstood me. I read a bit more about those classes, and it seems there were two separate lectures, one for the women and one for the men. The women’s lecture was some kind of skit focusing on friendship and acceptance. The men’s lecture had the speaker basically accusing men of supporting ‘rape culture’ and telling them that women fear them. In other words, that men as a group are the ones who need to change and improve, while women as a group are fine just the way they are. That’s what I meant.

And I’m sorry but it’s not the same thing as harassment prevention or racial sensitivity classes, because those do not target a certain group. If a mandatory racial sensitivity class specifically painted white people as oppressors and told them they are taking part in ‘racist culture’, it might be more similar.

As for anti-golddigging classes, you are comparing apples with oranges.

Maybe that wasn’t the best example, but the point was that, should there have been a lecture broadly accusing women of some negative behaviour that not all of them approve of, and even fewer engage in, there would have been an outcry of protest.

And by the way, anyone who reads in the employee handbook that you should dress appropriately and not date your co-workers and feels that these guidelines are “shaming”, has serious mental issues that require the intervention of a professional. Then again, if you are used to dressing like a slob and making passes at people at the office, I can see how this would feel personal.

I never even mentioned an employee handbook, nor said anything about my situation in particular. So we finish with straw-men and ad-hominems, the hallmarks of a feminist argument.

Anti-gold digging classes would be simple enough:

If people would perceive that you are paying for your date literally then chances are she has ulterior motives for being with you.

I’ve had a few peers who have gone the route of trading in their spouse for a younger model, it never ends well. I’ve never considered them to be victims, just guys who made very stupid mid-life crisis decisions. Dumb decisions have consequences.

In the opposite vein when she was single (and sometimes after) my wife has been approached by men who were old enough to be her father who she had, and should never have any attraction to.

To myself men falling for gold-diggers falls under the same category as a woman falling for a married man and becoming a disposable mistress. Both situations will end very badly and were brought on by a lack of good decision making.

Ion –

If your complaint is that these are gender-segregated classes then I actually agree with you. I am against gender segregation for any reason ever (with the possible exception of in prison, and even there is causes problems WRT for example trans inmates). I happen to think that treating men and women like completely different classes of people who can’t even learn together is a lot of what contributes to “rape culture”.

But the idea that women might be scared of men because a lot of them are bigger? That’s not societal conditioning – that’s just biological reality. It’s definitely something that’s relevant to rape prevention awareness training. Would I name the whole class after that? No. But I don’t think that name is the result of some feminist vendetta against men – it’s just bad marketing.

I do not think it was a strawman necessarily Ion.

Amused was pointing to something other then the original topic but has the same basis as the classes on sexual consent for a college as the ones on sexual harassment in the workplace. And I may not be a guy but I can see the constant imagery men have that sex is something you MUST go for without the attendant “only if she says yes” point.


Is there a rape culture? (i.e. does society make rape something which is to some degree either forgiven, or even sanctioned)?

If so, who perpetrates the the culture?

Which parts of the culture commit most of the rape?

Should such a situation exist, do we want to change it?

If we accept the first premise, we need address the subsequent question.

The answer to the first it, yes, there is a cultural acceptance of (or grave reticence to admit) rape. That so many cases of women being raped, on camera, lead to acquittals is strong enough evidence, for me, to accept that culturally we tolerate rape.

Men are much more likely to commit rape (and I am not saying women can’t commit rape, merely that the circumstances in which they do are fewer).

Therefore, when looking to change behavior, the group to target is men . Just as when the issue was equality for black, the people to target were whites.

What do you tell women? Don’t be “too sexy”? Always have a chaperone? Don’t drink too much? Don’t “lead him on”? Don’t “give him ideas”?

The problem with teaching, “defensive rape prevention” as a primary tool is that sends the message that women who do that, are in some way inviting rape. It reinforces the very things used by rapists in their defense of rape.

And it takes the agency from the rapist, and pins it on the raped.

Pecunium: “The problem with teaching, “defensive rape prevention” as a primary tool is that sends the message that women who do that, are in some way inviting rape. It reinforces the very things used by rapists in their defense of rape.”

Exactly. When we react to the threat of rape by making the potential victim primarily responsible for averting it through changing her behavior and appearance — as oppose to by pinning the primary responsibility on the rapist — we accept the use of rape as a means of social control. The threat of rape is a way of controlling female sexuality and indeed, all of women’s behavior – which is apparent whenever rape apologists equate rape with the crime of being young and sexy, and describe rape in terms of “accountability” for inappropriate behavior. And this is, of course, central to rape culture.

But the more fundamental question I have is this. MRA’s and MGTOW’s always talk out of both sides of their mouths on this one, so I would like at least one of them to settle this once and for all:

– Should women be afraid of men? Should women feel threatened by men in general?

If the answer is yes, then stop complaining about women being told that men are threatening.

If the answer is no, then stop telling women that they are primarily responsible for averting rape by acting, essentially, as if every male stranger and virtually every male acquaintance, is a rapist waiting to pounce.

I hate it when MRAs use the term “anti-male.” It’s so overused. Apparently, in this case, it’s “anti-male” if a woman doesn’t want to adhere to a tradition that makes her uncomfortable. I’m sure if William minded, he wouldn’t have married her.

And take a look at what one of those peeps over on the Spearhead said about the topic:

“Sadly for them more of us men are embracing the MGTOW philosophy.”

^”Sadly for them,” eh? I’m sure they’re happy that they don’t have to be shackled to such insecure, intolerant assholes who think that tradition is being thrown away because of one word being omitted. Also, MGTOW is a “philosophy” now? I think that’s a pretty strong word for something so lacking in thought and logic.

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.