antifeminism douchebaggery drama kings grandiosity manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA narcissism oppressed men the spearhead white knights

Spearheader to feminists: No, YOU’RE the malignant solipsistic predatory narcissists without conscience!

And another thing …

Some threads on The Spearhead are virtual gold mines of crackpot misogyny. Today, from the same thread I drew upon for a post the other day, I present to you yet another long-winded antifeminist manifesto from a dude who doesn’t know shit about feminism. This time the dude in question is someone calling himself Darryl X.

Here’s his little screed:

There is only one kind of feminism. There is no first- or second-wave feminism. There is no ecofeminism or radical feminism or socialist feminism. There is no left and right. No conservative or liberal. (With which many feminists would hope to rationalize their egregious misconduct and criminal behavior – “Oh, but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.”) …

Feminism = the Borg

There is only feminism and it is evil and civilization depends upon its complete and utter elimination. Feminism is the product of false constructs and straw men and false flags and lies and fraud and is a political campaign of hate against men and children. Period.

And apparently Darryl loves the word “and.”

It has coopted our financial and legal and political and social institutions to affect the enslavement

[citation needed]

and murder

[citation needed]

and imprisonment and exile

[citation needed]

 of men and the forcible separation of children from their fathers. It is responsible for the collapse of our economies worldwide and the fall of civilization.

[citation … oh, forget it. Every single thing he says needs a citation.

Feminists are comprised of mostly women but there are some men (manginas and white knights and other descriptions).

Manginas represent!

Feminists are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, without conscience and driven to do evil. They are solipsistic, manipulative, opportunistic, parasitic and predatory. They are compulsive pathological liars and deceptive and manipulative. They have no empathy, remorse, shame or guilt. They have no analytical skills and cannot plan ahead and are short-sighted. They are shallow of affect and are remorseless and are insincere and disingenuous. They are faithless and in the absence of any analytical skills, they do not have faith in the analytical skills of others, no matter how much evidence there is of its benefits. They are career and life-long con-artists.

Huh. Are you perhaps familiar with the psychological concept of “projection,” a defense mechanism whereby you project some of your own characteristics – particularly your most unsavory ones – onto someone else, or perhaps a group of people?

Just curious.

No matter how we define or relate to one another as men in the MRM, understanding the distinction between men in the MRM and feminists is more important. That is the enemy which must be destroyed. The other men in the MRM from which each of us are different are our brothers and the only important difference is that between men in the MRM and feminists. That’s the difference which defines us and on which civilization depends.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the future of civilization doesn’t actually depend on a bunch of bitter, hateful dickwads grousing on the internet about how much ladies suck.

339 replies on “Spearheader to feminists: No, YOU’RE the malignant solipsistic predatory narcissists without conscience!”

Argenti: Ad triarios redisse Which is in keeping with the style of pre-Marian tactics. A sequence of units (in lines). The Hastati in front, the Triari in the rear (third) ranks.

When the fron got tired, move then back, and the second ranks up.

If that didn’t do it, fall back on the Triarii.

As to cable/halyard.

Rope is made of yarn (yarn being the technical term for a strand of twisted fibers)

To make it stronger you ply it, usually in trebled strands (three is the number for the counting today). The “lay” is based on whether the direction of twist is “S” or “Z” (if you you hold the rope up, does it look like the crossing section of an S, or a Z?).

When you ply up, you have to lay in the opposite twist of the yarn/rope you are starting with.

So, an “S” laid yarn gets plied into a larger rope. That would become “Z laid”. That’s a halyard. If you need a larger one, it become “S laid” and it’s a cable. Then it would become a larger halyard, etc.

Argenti: You need to go to the Vatican. I just found out the ATMs in Vatican City use Latin.

Deductio ex pecunia, et cetera.

Re: rope/cable — oooh, ok, interesting. And I thought the number of the counting was always to be three, never 4, and certainly not 5 (and not two, unless proceeding onward onto three).

Re: the Vatican — I wish, I’d have to be dragged out of the Sistine Chapel (ok maybe not, the neck cramp would probably force me to leave sooner or later).

Argenti: When plying yarn (all non-plied spinning is called yarn) the ply is three, the only exception is thread, which is spun double, not treble; because thread is used in weaving, and when you weave a double it’s tighter. When you knit/crochet a treble, it’s tighter (crochet is spun/plied in the opposite direction from yarns for knitting; for the best of results, though most commercial yarns are laid for knitters, and so crocheters have to make do; why yes, I do spin).

And, if one can stomach it, it does seem that perseverance, and a continuing effort to keep it to something close to a narrow line of discussion can cause even a determined troll to just go away.

Though, “that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead”

Pecunium — as interesting as yarn is, my number of the counting thing was a Monty Python reference —

Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

I tend to sew with embroidery thread pulled apart to be two threads, or regular thread doubled, so glad to have some confirmation my stitches really do hold better and it isn’t all in my head. (Though, after sewing that entire jacket by hand, I might be happy if I never touch thread again XD )

pecunium: So THAT’S why I have such trouble with my yarn when crocheting. It… doesn’t pull apart exactly, but it… kind of unravels a little bit as I stitch. I don’t have that problem so much with synthetic stuff, but the mass-made natural fiber yarns do that a LOT. Oddly (or not), the really fine handmade yarn I buy from Ursula’s Alcove NEVER does that. Maybe she spins for crochet? (if you’re in Michigan in February around Valentine’s day, Ursula is usually at Val Day in Kalamazoo. Otherwise, she’s ALWAYS at Pennsic and has an Etsy store. Her yarns have been consistently fabulous, I highly recommend her.)

A friend is starting to raise angora rabbits and is harvesting wool. Since he’ll be learning to spin, I might ask if I can poke my head in and see if being around another beginner helps me get the whole ‘fiber to yarn’ process. Because a couple of people have tried, but I really can’t grok it.

Anybody know an effective way to translate an image into a knitting pattern? I’m trying to turn a (vintage, I think? I know absolutely nothing about sports) NY Jets logo into a workable 2-colour pattern for a patch on a scarf. I’m getting frustrated enough with the various applications I’ve tried that I’m thinking I might just eyeball it — but I don’t do a lot of work with colours, I’m more into interesting stitches and textured patterns, so I think it might come out all funky if I try to do it without a guide :-|.
My biggest problem is that I wanted to make it 26 stitches wide at its widest point, and there’s a huge amount of detail that’s lost when it’s so small. I might push it to 30, 32? Anyway.

I really need to learn to crochet. It’s required in a couple of sock patterns I want to try.

Argenti: Yes, I know. I was making the same reference, hence that turn of phrase.

I tend to sew with embroidery thread pulled apart to be two threads, or regular thread doubled, so glad to have some confirmation my stitches really do hold better and it isn’t all in my head. (Though, after sewing that entire jacket by hand, I might be happy if I never touch thread again XD )

I don’t know if embroidery floss has the same properties of lock up as thread for weaving, because it’s not engaging the way warp and weft do.

Kathleen: It sounds as if you are having lay problems. I don’t crochet (I can knit, but crochet just makes me crochety).

“I don’t know if embroidery floss has the same properties of lock up as thread for weaving, because it’s not engaging the way warp and weft do.”

I don’t know the technical terms here, but it’s thicker, frays less easily. In any case, doubling even normal thread results in less “fuck, I have feet of stitches pulling out, damnit” — the annoyance of doubling it being the price I pay for doing yard+ sections without a knot. It was a nice distraction while making that jacket though, there are so many seams in that thing (it’s fully lined, and I am never working with 100% polyester again).

Argenti: I know what embroidery floss is. 🙂 What I don’t know is if the sorts of stitchwork it’s used for is affected in the same ways in terms of how the ply locks into the surrounding material.

In weaving the use of a thread made of a 2-ply yarn means the material is tighter (which is even more true with a worsted yarn, as opposed to a woolen). When one moves to knotted materials (crochet/knit) 3-ply gives the best lock, but the better lock is gained in each when the ply is the opposite of the other.

For plain sewing, yes, doubled thread will make a tighter seam, because it’s interacting with the warp and weft of a woven material; and it’s load bearing.

Pecunium — I wasn’t trying to question whether you know wtf embroidery floss is, merely expressing my frustration at having seams rip out. I’m tired, my annoyance probably came out wrong, point was that just regular single thickness thread results in a lot more swearing than is needed, and a lot more holes in my fingers. (And absolutely nothing with the poly layer went right, I ended up very carefully ironing stitch witchery into the seams because the fraying was driving me bonkers)

Ah…. I see now. I didn’t take offense, I just thought you were explaining what, not why. My error.

Yes, I know a number of people who are fond of floss for doing repairs/laying seams, because the heavier weight hold better. I suspect the spin is also a bit more woolen than worsted, and that the sizing is a lot looser, which make it grab better.

Viscaria, I usually do a 4×4 gauge swatch and print out some knitting graph paper from here when I want to make a pattern and then mess around with it by hand until it looks right. Do you have an image of the logo? Doing it sideways might help get more detail in and you’re probably better off at 32 if it’s more complicated than this one I found but I don’t know, you might be able to fit it onto 26 stitches wide if it’s one of the simpler ones. Also, what kind of color knitting were you thinking of doing? I would probably go for double knitting (even though it’s kind of tedious) myself since it’s a scarf but stranded or intarsia could also work if you’re more comfortable with those.

Thanks Snowy! That’s what I’ll end up doing, messing around with it on my own, but now I have a good grid resource :). I’ve actually pushed the width all the way to 38 stitches, and yes, I was going to do it sideways (so I guess the height will be 38 stitches, technically). It’ll be a wider scarf but who cares, right?

I’ll probably do double-knitting, since as you’ve said the back will be visible. I don’t mind the tedium because I’m only doing a couple of patches of 2-colour stockinette. The rest will be a solid-coloured pattern that looks good from both the wrong and right sides.

I’ll post forum pics if I ever get it done XD.

I am so chuffed that a bit of throwaway on etymology turned into such an interesting discussion of actual fibercraft.

Which reminds me, I need to do some more spinning, and make a lazy kate, so I can do some plying of the cinnamon alpaca I’ve been spinning.

So help me out here, what is the point of necro’ing old threads with meaningless links? Do they really hope that no one will respond to them at some point & they will be able the chalk that up as a success?

Ah trolls, they don’t make them like they used to.

I got all excited when I scrolled upthread and discovered a crafting discussion. Then I looked at the dates on the comments. 🙁

But: reminder, Manboobz Ravelry group/forum thing is now active!

This has served to remind me that I am only halfway finished a scarf that I began in the summer of 2012, holy crap.


I shall try to be an active member of that Ravelry group. The artwork looks really cool too.

Thanks for setting it up!

My pleasure! I’ll try to be active too. My activity on any site except manboobz is minimal, verging on nonexistent, at present. 😛

Viscaria – there is now! Ravelry’s free to join, and it’s got HEAPS of stuff for knitters and fabric crafters in general. I get most of my patterns there these days.

We could have a “make things for David’s cats” craft-along. Lots of jumpers and mats/afghans and toys.

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.