antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny nice guys rape rapey the spearhead thug-lovers violence against men/women

On The Spearhead, it’s always women’s fault

It wasn't me.

A sex offender in Washington state who has spent most of his life behind bars, convicted of an assortment of different crimes ranging from check kiting to child molestation, is close to his release date. Not surprisingly, given his long history of preying on young girls, prosecutors are pushing for him to be sent instead to a facility for sexual predators, as a recent story on notes.

A state psychologist has described Donald “Theo” Holmes as a remorseless psychopath and a pathological liar who has managed to rack up an impressive array of crimes, many involving underage girls, during his stints outside of prison.  As the psychologist observed:

 “He uses women and children to feed his sexual desires, and he uses other members of society to supply him with money, clothes, and cars that make him look important and fuel the grandiosity which is an ingrained part of his personality. …

“He admits to multiple sexual conquests and is proud of the fact that he has 22 children and that he has had mothers and daughters … pregnant at the same time with his child.”

Holmes, for his part, simply describes himself as a “womanizer.” Apparently 12-year-old girls count as “women” in his world.

Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price uses this case as an example of what is wrong with, you guessed it, women.

Fathering 22 children is not easy even without spending so much time incarcerated, so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.

Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.

Perhaps the most important message we can get out there to young men is that there is little connection between what turns women on and what is objectively good for society.

I don’t know any feminists who think that women only go for “good” guys; indeed, the feminists I know spend a lot of time discussing (and trying to help) women who are or were involved with not-so-good-guys. Evidently the imaginary feminists Price hangs out with, though, are reincarnations of Victorians who assume all women are perfect little angels.

Price is bad enough. Do we have to look at the comments too? Yes, yes we do. Let’s start with the very first one, from Opus, who asked:

but is he really so bad [?]… there is nothing to suggest that the minors were anything other than enthusiatic. Whatever views one may have as to the age of consent, the girls were not infants or children but adolescents.

Yep, in Opus’ mind, sex with 12- and 14-year-olds is no problem, so long as we assume (based on nothing) that they were “enthusiastic” about it. Last I checked, this comment had  16 upvotes and only 3 downvotes, so apparently he’s not the only one willing to blame underage girls for being raped. Sorry, having “enthusiastic” sex with a career criminal many decades older than them.

Meanwhile, Anonymous Reader (in another heavily upvoted comment) takes aim at:

the state of Washington. There’s no way this guy could have spawned 22 children if he had to support them on his own. How many are on AFDC, WIC or other welfare programs, paid for by ordinary, working Beta men? Yes, this is a result of liberalism but it also is a result of feminism.

AFDC and WIC are, of course, intended to make sure that the children of poor women don’t, you know, starve to death.  Now, I’m pretty sure Holmes wouldn’t have given a shit if his kids all starved. But apparently neither would Anonymous and his numerous upvoters. Why exactly should the children – some of whom may well be the result of the rape of underage girls — have to pay the price for Holmes’ despicable actions?

Yes, you can blame liberalism and feminism for the fact that these children are being fed. That’s not a bad thing. The actions of Holmes weren’t the actions of a liberal or a feminist; they were the actions of a seemingly psychopathic  sexual predator who assumed, like many traditionalist men, that women and girls are put on this earth for men to use as they see fit.

NOTE: I didn’t set out today to write yet another post about The Spearhead. But I read Price’s post and sort of had to say something. My next post will have nothing to do with The Spearhead. I promise.

EDITED TO ADD:  Picture credit: Zampieri, “God reprimanding Adam and Eve,” detail;  photo G. Piolle.

186 replies on “On The Spearhead, it’s always women’s fault”

Perhaps it is the language barrier Lydia but even in the US, freedom of religious expression does not let one have sex with minors (as Warren Jeffs found out.)

Also, I do not see how it could be the “least exploitative.” If she was 17, just about 18 or whatever the majority is in Germany, sure. That would be least exploitative. But a 14 year old who ran away from home to live with a 41 year old guy when she could not obtain her own space? Still not seeing how this could not possibly be him taking advantage of an unhappy girl.

titfortat: Are you honestly saying Ignatieff (not the most Liberal Liberals) should have been able to force the Harper Gov’t (which, in a minority, and about to lose a vote of confidence managed to engineer a minor constitutional crises and force the Governor General to allow the to prorogue to avoid losing, or invoke her authority to prevent it and almost certainly losing the ability to do it on something more important: yes, I count it a fault of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, etc., that the issue wasn’t something they could keep a coalition together on) to do something?

And, since this is a poke in the eye to, “feminists”, why wouldn’t Harper have just done it on his own; to show up the Liberals and the NDP?

Lydia I’m still not getting the Goethe reference. I know Faust, and The Sorrows of Young Werthre, and the general run of his poetry. I am aware of (though I’ve not read, his, “Theory of Colors” and his political beliefs (his idea that a benevolent despotism is the best form of gov’t. He might be right, were it not for the question of succession).

But I don’t see the connection between Goethe and “guidos”, nor to May/December romances. I’d like to. I suspect it’s actually important to your point, but I’m completely lost.

You don’t get me, Elizabeth.

I didn’t say she RAN AWAY FROM HOME, I said she MOVED OUT AND IN WITH THIS GUY that she would probably call “her boyfriend”. Her mother knew where she was, and she was not happy about her daughter’s relationship either.

But still, apparently things like this seem to happen quite often in these snakeskin-mother-families. Maybe the snakeskin mother had a new boyfriend herself and the girl didn’t get along with him, whatever. For me, the only really abusive aspect about this whole story is that the girl was born into that family in the first place.

About that religious child abuse: I was referring to outsiders commenting the police raid. Said outsiders, probably newspaper commentators or other media people, I don’t remember, mentioned that these people are protected by religious freedom. I didn’t say it was legal in the US to do this, just that some commented on it that way.

Yeah, NWO, and then there are people who parade around looking deliciously murderable, so unapologetically alive in front of other people who are just dying to murder someone else. Then, if that person ends up getting murdered, is it that person’s fault? Some would say yes, some would say no. Of course, the only people who would say yes are fucking psychopaths.

In short, your analogy is fucking stupid. The only way it would make any sense at all is if you view women as objects, not people. Of course, that is how you view women, so I’m not surprised.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are objectively pro-rape. And dumb as a bad of hammers.

Thanks Pecunium, I was trying to figure out the reference. Outside of his being a guy who had a mistress (and marrying her) I did not see a connection at all.

And Faust did not have, well at least I do not think it did, anything about a poor mother causing her daughter to run off with an old man.

*facepalm* Goethe, Schiller, Hölderlin, whoever, it doesn’t matter, I meant these people are simply TOO DUMB AND UNEDUCATED to know them.

Don’t make things more complicated as they are.

If the young girl left her family’s home to live with this guy because the home life was bad, then she was running away. She may have had reason but she was, none the less, running away from home.

And the fact that her family was or is poor is not a reason to view her as being abused.

Meaning: The children are born into a family with a serious lack of education, and in Germany that almost abways means a “broken” family, and that is the issue. Of course the daughter of an unemployed mother who’s having a different guy every week would eventually leave home. In the past they did so by getting married to the next best guy.

@Elizabeth: Her family probably wasn’t poor, but I guess you simply don’t know about these kind of neglected families we have here. See above.

In fact, some years ago, a priest wrote a book about “sexually neglected” children. Stories about 15-year-olds wanting a baby so they have something to love and the likes. That is indeed abusive, but the real problem lies, obviously, in the families. THEY are abusive.

So please, don’t say that family was poor. I don’t get where you came up with that anyway.

In other words Lydia-you think someone being poor or uneducated is abusing their children by their being poor or uneducated so a 41 year old man is not exploiting this 14 year old who, like most kids, wants to get away from her supposedly rotten home life.

Then when he gets tired of her, and he will, she gets thrown on the street. Maybe her mom will let her come back home or maybe not. But the damage will have been done by then.

And no, I do not know about Germany’s issues with neglected or troubled or broken families. But I certainly know about the US’s and there is a reason we put into place the consent laws that prevent girls from being exploited like this one is. I grew up in one of those families and yes, *I* wanted to leave when I was 14. I would not be where I am now if I had though.

Generally if you are calling someone low class and uneducated, you are referring to their socio-economic status and that status is not that high.

I know about the young girls wanting a baby of their own-but the solution is not to have some old guy take advantage of them. Geez!

“Generally if you are calling someone low class and uneducated, you are referring to their socio-economic status and that status is not that high.”

That is true indeed. In fact, I’m a member of such a low-class family. And yes, I believe the true abuse is happening in the families. Because a girl doesn’t want to leave home at 14 for no reason. Also, I wasn’t saying low-class families are all abusing their children. I was saying that in Germany, as well as in other European countries, there is a social environment in which children grow up in neglected families, become delinquents, can’t get a job, etc. and that these families almost always happen to lack education. I’m glad if it isn’t that way in the US, but it is like that in Europe.

And yes, I wonder whether a higher age of consent is actually helping people like you. Maybe one of said residential groups would be better for people in you situation. This goes true for the girl aswell, but you didn’t even mention that. Instead, you said she should either get a f-ing expensive flat or stay home. Neither is a good idea in my eyes.

Shortly put: If your daughter is behaving that way, it is a sign that something is going wrong AT HOME. So the only way is to get her away from home and under supervision. And you can also do that with the age of consent being 14.

And again: I blame the mother. Girls raised in proper homes don’t behave that way. IT IS ABUSE, AND NOT FROM THE GUY.

Child abuse is just more prevalent than you’d think it is.

Lydia-I know very well how much child abuse is out there. I know this from bitter experience as a child. I also know that after I got out of the abusive home life, I was living with a poor, uneducated mother and I wanted out.

If Arizona had laws that said a 14 year old girl could go live with a 41 year old, then I probably would have because I hated my home life. But here is the kicker-my mom’s home was not abusive. At 14 I did not understand that. At 31, I do. Having a mother who is poor and uneducated is not being abused. I was an immature person who had no idea what was best for me. That is why we have things like consent laws to prevent young girls like I was from being exploited by men who know how to take advantage of a girl who is unhappy.

Also, plenty of girls in proper homes do that.

@Beth, I just wanted to second your statement and thank you for taking a stand against the exploitation of children.

@Lydia, the man who molested me had complete financial control over my family. Are you saying that, had they known, it would have been okay for the adults around me to allow him to sexually abuse me on the grounds that my family would have been homeless and starving otherwise? Did the fact that I kept my mouth shut out of just that fear make the situation non-exploitative? Of course not, the argument is absurd. A system that puts a child in the situation of having to choose between being sexually exploited and homeless or abused is a broken system-not a justification for sexual exploitation.

Beth, Lydia, and, well, anyone here: Have you seen the film Fishtank? It’s a pretty bleak but very good British film dealing with the dynamic between a troubled teen girl, her extremely young working-class mother, and her mother’s new boyfriend. Netflix has it; you may need to use the subtitles because the accents are so thick.

NWO, do you feel like it’s normal to have this reaction to women who are/you personally find sexually attractive?

I see people who are sexually attractive all the time, it’s great! I actively enjoy seeing people I find attractive (not that I care if they’re not my cup of tea, but you know).

I dunno…most guys I know watch porn, and they’ll never have sex with those women, who couldn’t really ‘rub ‘it’ in their faces’ anymore, strangely they don’t rape anyone as a result.

Not everyone sees sex as this sordid power display that you describe it as, the woman choosing an ‘alpha’ or whatever. I like people to think I’m attractive because it makes me feel confident. I’m not a supermodel and doubtless not an ‘alpha’ lady by your definition, but I do alright. I’m in a monogomous relationship happily, so I’m obviously not looking for sex. How does this work?

Also, why don’t I feel the urge to rape a super hot guy with his shirt off at the beach? Or that guy out of ‘Thor’? I mean, they would never even have sex with me probably, why are they shoving their abs in my face?!?! Oh wait, that’s supposed to be bad.


I’m not sure if you are still reading this post, and my response to you is apparently way off the topic that the comments are currently on, but I did want to respond.

You posted “I mean, obviously women do pay SOME taxes, and alphasshole men do too. But men are clearly the primary earners in the workforce (dollar by dollar), and thus pay the most taxes. This is another way the women exploit the betas and omegas, but that’s another topic. Thus, men pay the most taxes and are mostly supprting alphassholes like this guy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that omegas and beta men pay most of the taxes (as opposed to alphassholes), because we all know that women often get as much alpha cock as they can when younger, and when their looks/status fade they use a beta or omega as a husband/checkbook, who will accept them because they know they can not get anything better in their misdandrist society. The alpha men are thus free to continue dodging taxes and being single.”

Ok, so multiple things. First, you mentioned that men are the primary earners in the workforce, dollar for dollar. So by this, I take it that you mean that the wage gap is not a myth, as most MRA’s claim, and that women do actually earn less than men. And this is something that feminists actively advocate against.

You are probably also talking about the fact that some women don’t work. Which is true. Some women are stay at home mom’s and/or housewives. And isn’t something the MRM movement wants is a push back to the “better” times when all women were stay at home mom’s/housewives? You know, when women “knew their place” and didn’t take all of those good jobs away from the men who “deserved” them? So, if your complaint is that too many women stay at home now, thereby making men the people who pay the most taxes, it seems like supporting the MRM would be contrary to what you want.

Finally, you talk about “Alpha” men who dodge taxes. In previous threads you have talked about how “Alpha” men are those men who are good looking and have good jobs, and how, in fact, the majority of CEO’s and other people in power (president) are “Alpha” men. Considering that the “Alpha” men are also the men who are in the highest income brackets, they would actually be the ones paying the most in income taxes, not the omega and beta men.

As for your other comments about what kind of “cock” women want, or that women only get married when they are too old to be sluts anymore, I assume your goal here is to merely be inflamatory. I think many people over the course of your time posting on this blog have responded to these type of remarks from you, and I doubt my response will effect you in any way. I will say, as I have said before, that as long as you consider women “sluts” and judge them merely by the way they look, taking nothing else into consideration, and feel a sense of entitlement to have sex with them, and consider their withholding of sex as them “spitting” on you, you will probably continue to be rejected by most women.

NWOslave, you got it all wrong. It’s milkshakes that bring all the boys to the yard, not sandwiches.

Oh, and seriously, a sandwich? Women’s sexuality is a sandwich, and men are starving hobos incapable of making or buying their own sandwiches? Worst. Analogy. Ever.


Iggy, seriously? The leader of the party (more Right of centre than Left, by the way) John Reilly belongs to? You know, the one who said some sexual assaults shouldn’t receive jail-time? No thanks.

As for the Left parties, such as green and NDP, I believe I already mentioned that the Left is not adequately feminist. Plenty of Canadian feminists and crisis centre workers have been pushing for a higher age of consent, but who listens to them? Harper? Harper doesn’t actually give a shit about adults exploiting fourteen-year-olds; he only raised the age of consent to fit the whole Right-wing agenda of keeping sex within marriage. Total coincidence. And this is why I think we need a Feminist political wing if the Left won’t improve in that regard.

I’m new here and this may be off topic but…

There is a guy over at Spearhead who is posting about how to murder women and cops that answer domestic violence calls.

I’ve read a lot of their articles and comments and it is so over the top that I almost think its a joke.

Do people really think this toxic garbage? I was flabbergasted by the intense hatred. It was like looking at a pot of acid and if you touched the computer screen, it would burn your hand right off.

It is a little frightening that such psychopaths exist and are out there walking around and not locked up.

Hey, MuchMore, do you have a link for that? I remember one discussion there along those line; I’m wondering if the one you’re talking about is that one or a new one.

And, yeah, these guys aren’t joking. They really believe the shit they’re saying.

Ah. Yeah, that guy is, yeah, let’s just say a very very angry dude with some very very troubling views. He’s one of the most extreme commenters on The Spearhead (there are several others about as extreme). But the other people at the Spearhead, even if they don’t post stuff quite that violent, are happy to upvote even his craziest comments, suggesting that they share a lot of these views.

I can’t remember if I wrote about that particular comment of his, but I probably should have.

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.