awesome cuteness dawgies kitties misogyny music video

Friday Fun Time Mostly Off-Topic Smorgasbord

Sorry I haven’t been around much in the last couple of days. Sometimes I just need to clear my head of all this manosphere nonsense. Regular posts will resume shortly. In the meantime, some pictures to amuse you, and a new video from Azealia Banks.

143 replies on “Friday Fun Time Mostly Off-Topic Smorgasbord”

i love how after the puffy ‘analysis’ of his first couple posts he’s worn himself down to a pattern of generic lead in paragraph, a one sentence quote, and then some variation on ‘fukkin boobz, amirite’ before stumbling off

@Molly Moon
From the table of contents:

The ovum always passive.—The spermatozoon, or sperm, always active.

Well, that does sort of sum things up nicely… Men do all the hard work, and always have. Even our gametes prove it!

Sharculese: he seriously hates hellkell, doesn’t he

He said he was going to put me on permanent moderation if I didn’t pretend he had made logically structured arguments.

I told him that wasn’t going to happen, and am no longer even trying to comment. I don’t see the point in letting him feel smug (well more smug than he does from having a public wank).

AntiMB is phoning it in: I mean, sheesh, ONE LINE taken out of context.

One line

He cannot even be bothered to cut/paste a paragraph. Lazy little creep.

And it’s funny the attempt to ‘mimic” David (taking a break? Uh huh).

Wow NWO really cannot parse conditional statements today.

“Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the “diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.”

If neither of those applies to you then you are still welcome to apply for joint custody; you though? You’re uncooperative to a silly degree.

I almost can’t believe you’re actually arguing that “violent husbands/fathers” should get de facto joint custody, but then again, you’re you. We all already knew you support abusing women and children.

“Men have no reproductive rights.”

And again I say — use a fucking condom. (Actually NWO, just stay away from women until you learn some basic decency)

Shit, code fail. “forced”,”uncoorperative” and “violent husbands/fathers” should be bolded, not the rest.

If the woman actually was the primary caretaker it makes perfect sense to give custody to her in cases where the parents can’t cooperate. The children will be so much closer to her emotionally. In Sweden joint custody is the norm nowadays, but that’s because fathers usually go on some parental leave and take a big part in childcaring. THEN it makes sense to have joint custody as the norm. But the more of a fifties-stereotype-style family culture you have, the more it makes sense to simply hand custody over to the mother, at least in cases where the parents have trouble cooperating.

You just can’t combine a fifties-stereotype-style family culture with equal rights for fathers regarding the kids after a divorce, it doesn’t make sense.

And obviously the mothers should have sole custody if the father is VIOLENT. Just as obviously it ought to be the other way around if the mother is a threat to the father and the kids – it’s just that this is MUCH RARER.
However, I did know a guy some years back who had sole custody of his child. Both he and the mother had been drug addicts when the child was born, but then he became clean and started to straighten up his life while the mother did not. When I met him he had moved in back with his mum and lived on welfare, so not an ideal life situation, but he was clean of drugs and looking for both job and apartment. And as I said, he had been granted single custody. I assume that if this could happen in Sweden, according to some MRA here on this site a “hotbed for misandry”, it could happen in the USA as well.

Dvärghundspossen — I’m not a social work expert, but yeah I’d assume in the US that the non-addict parent would get custody over the addict (almost certainly as the other option would be foster care and our foster care system is horribly over-burdened). As to the rest of your points, good luck convincing NWO of anything. (I’d honestly expect him to insist you’re a woman for the “if the father is violent” part)

Dvärghundspossen: NWO is against it because NOW is for it. It’s that simple. If a woman likes it, he thinks it’s bad.

Then, of course, he rails about how women don’t think, just do. How “the mantra is woman good, man bad” and the rest of his knee-jerk glossaglia of loathing. Never mind that the law in Michigan is (apparently) a default of joint custody; and all NOW is opposing is that default status.

Aw, Varpole’s hate crushing on me. That was the internet equivalent of pulling my pigtails and running away.

Dude, if one sarcastic throwaway line turns your crank that hard, you need to relax.


Let’s try this primary care thingy from a different angle. Now let’s pretend for a moment, which really wasn’t all that long ago, that the State didn’t have the authority to intrude into the personal business of the family. Now a man and a woman get divorced citing irreconcilable differences. Could the woman say these are my children and just up and take them? Of course not, that’s kidnapping. Could the man do the same. Most certainly not. Could either of them kidnap the children and further demand extortion fee to simply have contact with the children? Most definitely not.

There’s no place a man or woman who kidnapped children could go for refuge. Even their own relatives would shun them. Would you harbor a kidnapper? What could the excuse be? I put in 10% more time doing personal care? The amount of personal versus non-personal care has no relevance. So the custody, which is ownership, always stays the same, 50/50.

So what’s changed? How is kidnapping and extortion accepted? State intervention of course. The State has been given authority it has no lawful right to assume. Without the State no man or woman would even think of kidnapping children. Everyone knows it’s wrong and you would be the enemy of every person on the planet. The State says the exact opposite, what was wrong is now right, and to compound the wrongness of the State we’ll demand extortion fee’s for kidnapping. If the extortion isn’t paid you’ll be placed in a cage.

No one would endorse or accept ordinary people kidnapping children, extorting funds and caging them if they failed to pay their extortionist. Yet everyone of you endorses the State to do the exact same thing. The only time the State should ever be involved is if someone does kidnap children. You’ve been feeding off the government teat far to readily once you begin to believe the State has the right to enforce kidnapping and extortion.

@Argenti Aertheri
“Men have no reproductive rights.”
“And again I say — use a fucking condom.”

Using a condom is to not reproduce, which is the opposite of reproducing. For a man to actually have reproductive rights he would have to have the right to reproduce. As long as a woman can slaughter his unborn child a man has no right to reproduce. If a man has no right to reproduce, he has no reproductive rights.

By contrast, a woman has the right to not reproduce, (use contraceptions), to reproduce, plus, under current legal statute, she also has the right to end the life of someone else. A woman has far more than just reproductive rights, she also has the legal right to kill. If anyone here had been successfully aborted as a fetus you would be dead. That’s a fact.

But you must live in a seriously weird neighbourhood if children go around dressed like porn stars where you live.

He’s previously state that all women wear see-through blouses, micro-miniskirts, and no panties.

The continued financial success of Victoria’s Secret is very confusing to him given the no-panties issue.

Sharculese wrote: “my sister is the same way. in her case it’s a symptom of borderline personality disorder.”

I’m sorry to hear about your sister. My brother-in-law sounds a lot like her, the way he tells a lie and then convinces himself it’s the truth.

The worst example of this was when my sister died and we were planning her funeral. Everything my mother suggested (minister, organist, flowers, etc.) was rejected by him. He claimed that two days before my sister died, they had a long conversation where she told him how she wanted her funeral. No one believed him, because she was receiving massive doses of morphine to control the pain. The times I saw her, she would surface for a minute or so at most, barely conscious. There is simply no way they could have had a conversation at that point. But he convinced himself they did and he went against my mother’s wishes, saying he hated to do so, but had to honor my sister’s last wishes.

And reading all the cute comments about conehead cats made me think about what a cat-hater he is. When he was younger, he said that he tried to run over every cat he saw out in the road when he was driving. Maybe there is something about cats’ independent natures that infuriate certain men.

Slavey, the minute you figure how to grow a baby in your abdomen, you can decide whether or not to let it stay there. Until then, boo-fuckin’-hoo. You have the right your body, women have the right to theirs. Deal with it.

Ithilana – his hair gets longer every time he tells a lie? So, how many times has it wrapped the globe by now?

One of my dogs had to wear a cone for several weeks after abdominal surgery, mostly because she popped all her stitches the first day and rather upset the vet. (“All of MY stitches? No dog’s done that before . . .”) She was very good at using it as a weapon by the time we took it off her. We all had bruises.

For a man to actually have reproductive rights he would have to have the right to reproduce. As long as a woman can slaughter his unborn child a man has no right to reproduce. If a man has no right to reproduce, he has no reproductive rights.

No, reproductive rights does not mean having the right to reproduce. It means the right to have control over your own reproductive organs that are inside your own body. You do not have the right to control other people’s bodies. It’s not that complicated.

Wait, why am I trying to explain anything to Mr Slave again?

“You have the right your body, women have the right to theirs. Deal with it.”

If it was the womans body that died that’d be suicide. It’s a body that she chose to kill that died. Women just want happy words like pro choice instead of truthful words like premeditated murder. Kinda hard to spin that one into a righteous cause, or relieve women of accountability. “Big Daddy, make it all better!” The patriarchy is there to serve your whims.

I was issued with a womb at birth, and I’m pretty sure it only gives me the right to reproduce if I do it by parthenogenesis. I don’t get to demand that anyone provides me with sperm: not a random person off the street, not a friend, not a partner, not a spouse. We might decide to reproduce together, but it can only be by mutual agreement.

Sure, I could go to a sperm bank, if I like the “random person” option best. But I don’t have a right to the existence of sperm banks. And if I hadn’t been issued with a womb, I’d have exactly the same rights: I can find someone to reproduce with by mutual agreement, or I can not reproduce.

The asymmetry comes in when fertilisation occurs and a mutual agreement does not exist. Preference in decision-making regarding gestation and birth is then given to the person whose body is required for gestation and birth, because forcing someone to spend months with another lifeform growing inside their body without their consent is sick and wrong, and forcing someone to take drugs or undergo surgery against their will is also sick and wrong. After conception, bodily autonomy trumps the desire to not be a parent.

In summary:
Everyone has the right not to be pregnant if they don’t want to be. Everyone has the right, if they are pregnant, to remain pregnant if they want to be. Nobody has the right to become pregnant without the consent of the other person involved. Nobody has the right to force someone else to become pregnant without their consent. Nobody has the right to force someone else to stop being pregnant without their consent.

Slavey, even if I accept your premise (I don’t), don’t insult me by pretending you’re morally opposed to murder.

NWO — I see Ithiliana has already tackled the “fathers never got custody” lie. So I’ll take on some of the others.

“There’s no place a man or woman who kidnapped children could go for refuge. Even their own relatives would shun them.”

This is also bullshit — perhaps most relatives would shun them, but enough don’t that this is actually a common problem in cases involving international relatives — one parent will flee the country and move in with *gasp* relatives in their home country. Oh and these cases are actually called parental kidnapping, because a court order was violated. Getting a fucking court order isn’t kidnapping.

“Using a condom is to not reproduce, which is the opposite of reproducing.”

Which is exercising his reproductive rights — if he had none sperm-jacking would both be a thing in the real world, and legal (do you try to be obtuse or does it just come naturally?)

“If anyone here had been successfully aborted as a fetus you would be dead. That’s a fact.”

Nope, you’d have never existed, just like if your father had worn a rubber. Or if your parents had married different people. Or if your mother had miscarried. Etc.

“If it was the womans body that died that’d be suicide. It’s a body that she chose to kill that died.”

Legalese time! A quote from a case involving a fetus in a freezer (yeah I’m serious) — “But later, Lt. Daniel Herrmann said the abuse of a corpse charge applies only to human beings. Under the law, he said, a fetus is not considered a human being.” Wrong ethically, wrong legally, any other scale you’d like to be wrong on?

Oh and suicide isn’t a crime (in most places) btw. Further, what Dracula said — you’ve made it clear you’re okay with murdering born women, so why are unborn fetuses so special? Adult women have thoughts and, importantly, an ability to survive on their own. Fetuses have neither — they can neither survive without another person’s organs, nor are they capable of wanting not to be killed. Meanwhile you’re just dandy with the idea of killing adult women who would, presumably, be begging for their lives.

And you want to argue about moral superiority? That’s nearly funny.

I am fucking tired of anti-abortion people who don’t even NOTICE (or blatantly intentionally misunderstand) teh arguments that fetuses are not human, and I am also to a lesser degree fucking tired of pro-choicers who don’t even notice the anti-abortionists claim that killing fetuses is murder. It honestly sometimes looks like from their own point of view pro-choicers are advocating kiling for The Greater Good. Not that the greater good is a bad thing, but it still makes us look bad.

Where does he get off claiming that feminists are advocating sexualizing children? That’s pretty far out. Mostly they oppose that stuff, while advocating for the right of adults WHO WANT TO to sexualize themselves.

and I am also to a lesser degree fucking tired of pro-choicers who don’t even notice the anti-abortionists claim that killing fetuses is murder.


We certainly notice when someone walks into a church and shoots an abortion provider in the face. We notice when someone firebombs or just regular-bombs a Planned Parenthood. We notice when Susan G. Komen Race for the Money severs all ties with Planned Parenthood because a small percentage of their clinics offer actual abortion services.

You seem to agree that killing fetuses is murder. Is chemotherapy murder? Are radiation treatments for cancer murder? For a lot of their development, fetuses are masses of cells and tissues. They generally can’t feel pain before 20 weeks, and their brains aren’t anywhere near fully developed even when they’re born. And yet, somehow, this clump of human cells is so important to some people that they kill other people in order to protect it. Nobody bats an eye when someone takes chemo for cancer and starts shooting oncologists.

See? We address the claims that abortion is murder. They’re generally highly exaggerated appeals to emotion, as are most of the claims of the forced-birthers.

Nobody bats an eye when someone takes chemo for cancer and starts shooting oncologists.

Made a hash out of the grammar on that one, what?

“Nobody starts shooting oncologists because people take chemo for cancer.”

How’s that?

@Engineer Krause: It honestly sometimes looks like from their own point of view pro-choicers are advocating kiling for The Greater Good.

Citation totally fucking needed.

From my point of view, it looks like a fucking scary amount of conservative people are trying to control women’s access to health care and the ability to make choices about their own bodies.

I don’t ‘debate’ the claim that “abortion is murder’ because there’s no way to change the mind of anybody who is making that dribble of a claim (also, I don’t debate creationists).

I also think it’s fucking arrogant of you to claim some “Greater Good” crap–when in 40 plus years of tracking these debates, I’ve never seen a feminist make this claim.

Maybe you have, in which case, as I said, citation fucking needed.

Cassandra: Again? I think it’s a never-ending game, they just tag team in new players, while we have to make do with the same old string.

Which puts the ball in our court, because it’s really rare for them to actually have anything new, and we have veterans to their rookies.

I know this is super late but I’m slowly catching up on what I’ve missed.

As for girlwriteswhat (what does girl write?? XD ) — “Nature serves the female. That’s really all you need to know.” in reply to “Why must this be a fight for dominance instead of a fight for equality?” o.O?

Nature erves the female? Right, because bleeding from your vagina and being in extreme agony once a month is a real fucking cushy gig. Oh, and then having to squeeze a baby out of a hole ten times smaller than it is is wicked fun too. Oh and being built on the smaller side so that the opposite gender can more easily overpower you totally gives you a leg up in the world.

How many ways can I list which nature specifically screwed women over?

i assume it’s whathisname, that ‘incel’ dude who settled here for a night asking for boner advice and threatening to start his own blog

Oh I hope so. Woe is that guy for not being able to get the woman of his dreams. Watch what would happen if I went into a men’s rights forum and complained that I was incel. Instead of just being told “this is not an advice column” I would be blamed for it. They’d either say I was fat, ugly, a bitch, etc, and side with the guys who refuse to date me. Seriously, someone go test out this little experiment pleeeassee.

Sexualized drawings of children? Women are running the show in the modern matriarchal family, and they delight in dressing up little girls to look like animals in heat. As the little girls grow up they delight in acting like animals in heat.


According to NWO, this is what an animal in heat looks like

Who gives a damn what a feminist want’s to discuss. How many eons do we have to listen to the blatherings of the most privileged class to ever walk the planet? Gee, tell us your thoughts on gender, victimology, the patriarchy. It’s all so progressive and deep.

OBV a lot of people did seeing as she raised $150,000+.

I’m saying that banning child porn drawings seems a moot point since feminist theology encourages dressing up children as porn stars in real life.

Oh right. I forgot. The first rule of feminism is to dress your child like a porn star.

Men have no reproductive rights.

The day that elected officials try to ban condoms and visectomies, your health care doesn’t cover visectomies and people working at stores can refuse to sell you condoms for “moral reasons” you can complain to me about you lack of reproductive rights.

And if you’re really so eager for reproductive rights, put your time and money where your mouth is and start campaigning for a pill for men. Better yet, fund the research that will allow men to become pregnant. Then YOU can have all the fun worrying every month if you’re pregnant, facing the terrifying reality of a child you’re not ready for, and choosing whether or not to get an abortion. Please, take that burden off my hands.

And there is seriously no reasoning with someone who thinks that child support is extortion and being granted custody by the courts is kidnapping. I think we’re done here.

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.