TTB #7: The Spearhead

Hello readers. Sorry for the hiatus; even trolls go on holiday! Having said that, I've actually been back for about a week, trying to catch my breath before diving into the cesspool. I've got so many blogs I want to share with you, so to get started after my brief break, we'll hit the ground running again with The Spearhead.

When a group of people decides to name their blog after a phallic symbol, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that they actually are huge cocks, should we? We're going to dive right in on a post all about whether it would be sensible to make street harassment illegal.

Once, when I was about 18, I was walking to a girlfriend’s house in an inner-city neighborhood late at night, and a woman happened to be walking in front of me, taking the exact same route I was. I kept walking, about a half block or so behind her, thinking little of it. When I had almost arrived at my destination, I noticed she had picked up her pace a bit and was looking over her shoulder from time to time. I didn’t really care, and continued on my way. By the time I was at the apartment, she was virtually running into her own place, which was directly across the street from my girlfriend’s. I stood in front of my destination, finishing a smoke before ringing the doorbell. Just as I was ready to go in, some guy opened a window several stories up in the apartment building the frightened woman had entered and started yelling at me about "stalking." In somewhat rough language, I explained that I had every right to walk from one place to another, and told him to mind his own business. He shut the window and left me alone.

If there were some "harassment" law, I imagine I could have been arrested and brought to court just because some woman was frightened that a man happened to be walking behind her at night. It wouldn’t matter why the man was walking behind her, because in the feminist world all it should take to have men arrested is a "feeling."

Right . . . so he didn't initially intend to make a woman feel threatened, but then realized he did make her feel threatened--but he didn't give a shit, and indeed deliberately continued in a threatening manner. I live in "the feminist world" and I don't want him arrested for that, but I do want to give him a stern look and remind him about human feeling and common courtesy.

I, and probably most American men, think it’s in poor taste to hoot or whistle at women. However, I’ve noticed that plenty of women rather like the attention.

Some may! Many won't. To me, the fact that some wouldn't--and you can't know which you're dealing with when you're whistling at strangers--would be enough to stop me from doing it myself, to disapprove of anyone who did it, and to support any woman who said that she'd like it to stop. So I'm not sure what he's trying to say here. It's in poor taste, yes. Some women enjoy it nonetheless, yes. Therefore it's . . . ok? What are you saying, Welmer?

[A law against street harassment] would give them [a woman] power to make the men stop in case it didn’t feel right. For example, she might not call the police if some strapping, young Navy officer propositioned her from across the street, but if a pasty, thin nerd remarked that she had a "nice dress" she’d call in the boys in blue to give him a concrete sandwich and dislocated shoulder as they wrestle him into cuffs.

I have a friend who, when we were teens, used to engage in what might be called harassment under Ms. Kearl’s definition. It embarrassed the hell out of me, because as we were driving around, he’d proposition every good-looking girl he saw. He was a good-looking guy, so they just loved it.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH I see what you're saying! You're saying that Nice Guys can't get away with that shit; therefore women are Horrible Bitches because some women don't mind that behavior when it comes from some men--not to mention that none of those men are YOU because you are so Nice! It has all become clear.

Let me just point you to this edifying read about Nice Guys, Welmer. And this one. And while you're at it, tell me more about your hunky friend . . .

Unsurprisingly, like most young rascals, he had been raised by a libertine single mother.

A SINGLE MOTHER! BURN HER!

The guys at The Spearhead have a real THING about single mothers, it turns out. But before we get to that, let's finish off this bit about street harassment:

Hopefully, people are starting to realize that if feminists have their way, not only will we be legislated into a police state, we’ll be sucked absolutely dry to accomodate the feelings of women who demand that every aspect of their lives be defended with force of arms and law. We are already starting to reevaluate out profligate consumer culture; isn’t it about time we question the voracious hunger for entitlement our women have developed?
-Legislating Propriety

Women, if you're considering asking street harassment to be considered simply harassment (because that's what it is, and because a significant number of men apparently don't think enough of women or each other to encourage each other not to do it without legislation first being put in place), you are voraciously hungry for entitlement.

Read the comments for more men who actively enjoy frightening women who are walking alone, then consider the female sense of entitlement, then let the walls ring with hollow laughter. (Let's not even discuss that "our women" bit. Oh ok, briefly: Dude, we are not "your women.")

Anyway. On to single mothers.

Here in Seattle Joel Zellmer, a Kent man, is facing trial for the murder of a 3-year-old girl. He allegedly killed her for a $200,000 life insurance policy he took out on her with her mother. In 2003, the girl drowned in a pool in her new stepfather’s back yard. When the child drowned, the death was initially thought to be accidental, but prior incidents children came to light, and Zellmer was arrested in 2007. His first wife’s son had his legs broken in 1990, supposedly in a hit and run by an uninsured driver. Zellmer received a $25,000 insurance settlement from the "accident." Later, a baby somehow ended up in his hot tub, and was injured. In 2002, his fiancée left him after some suspicious incidents and his suggestion that she and her daughter get life insurance policies.

SINGLE MOTHERS! BURN THEM!

. . . but wait, you say. There's nothing there about single mothers. It's just a thing about a guy who likes hurting children for money, right? If we're going to blame anyone here, it's the guy who likes hurting children for money. Aren't we?

AHA, YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO MY CUNNING TRAP! I took this paragraph and rewrote it with the focus that a normal person who wasn't obsessed with eeevil single mothers would have employed. Here's what Welmer actually wrote:

Here in Seattle Joel Zellmer, a Kent man, is facing trial for the murder of a 3-year-old girl. He allegedly killed her for a $200,000 life insurance policy he took out on her with her mother. In 2003, the girl drowned in a pool in her new stepfather’s back yard. When the child drowned, the death was initially thought to be accidental, but prior incidents involving the children of single mothers Zellmer proposed to came to light, and Zellmer was arrested in 2007. His first wife’s son had his legs broken in 1990, supposedly in a hit and run by an uninsured driver. Zellmer received a $25,000 insurance settlement from the “accident.” Later, the baby of a single mother he was dating somehow ended up in his hot tub, and was injured. In 2002, he started dating several single mothers at once, and then got engaged to one, who left him after some suspicious incidents and his suggestion that she and her daughter get life insurance policies.

Here we can see that the problem here is not Joel Zellmer, but instead the single mothers he targeted.

The facts state that if a woman with small children is having a relationship with a man who is not the child’s father, the man is 60 times more likely to kill the children than a resident biological father. Of course, plenty of men who date and marry single mothers are perfectly decent, but sadly a lot of them are not. Some of them are downright homicidal.

Wow, that is a worry for these women and their children, isn't it?

It is every caring divorced father’s nightmare that some guy who doesn’t give a damn about his kids might soon become the “man of the house.” In these situations, the children suffer disproportionately from the choices that were ultimately made by their mother, and these choices are facilitated – even encouraged – by the law of the land.

Oh. I see. So it's not the children you ultimately worry most about here? Or perhaps even the women, who have the sole responsibility for these children for a variety of unhappy reasons? It's the weekend dads?

Personally, I’d recommend avoiding [single mothers], because in the majority of cases they chose to become single mothers. Only a fraction of them faced the kind of abuse or neglect that justified putting their children in that situation. In most cases, they either got tired of their husbands and dumped them or intentionally got pregnant by a man who had no intention or desire to become a father. A man with good sense should approach any relationship with a single mother with extreme caution. However, they are also an easy mark. In many cases, they are desperate, so some guys might choose to take advantage of that.

Oh. Right. Yes, of course. Poor old weekend dads.

. . . But. Seriously? You're not going to blame Joel Zellmer for that story up there, the killing children thing? It's really entirely the fault of the single mothers involved?

Men like Zellmer, if he really did murder the girl, are only taking advantage of easy prey.
- Worst Nightmare for Divorced Fathers

Oh. Um. Ok.

Right, I think for now these little bits are enough from Welmer and his rag-tag crew of giant cocknoses. But, as you can see from the self-congratulatory comments they get over there, there's very little dissent. All the more reason for you to Troll This Blog, if you've got the stomach for it. As always, do play nice.

(By the way: if you agree with Welmer (or if you ARE Welmer), you should just go away quietly now--not because I am afraid of the big scary logical arguments you might beat me down with manfully in the comments section, but because I'm a woman writer and you are duty-bound to avoid me.)

TTB #6: Lawrence Auster at View from the Right

http://amnation.com/vfr

Girls, we all know we're at fault when violent crime happens to us, right? Sure we do. We hear it all the time: ooh, she shouldn't have walking around alone (even to the toilet in her workplace, according to Laura Wood!); she shouldn't have been dressed that way; by looking and acting like that she was asking for it.

Sometimes the world isn't safe even if you've been personally behaving like a nice girl, since all the other girls around you have been behaving badly. "Lady" Lydia's son-in-law, Aiden Humphrey, wrote an enlightening vignette for Ladies Against Feminism about this very phenomenon. The article has sadly now been removed, but I helpfully archived it. It went like this:

"Chumming" for Sharks

Yesterday I spoke with a man who spends a lot of time surfing in the ocean in waters frequented by great white sharks. He said that he did not worry very much about the sharks - except on one occasion.

One day his friend sustained a heavy cut which began to bleed into the ocean waters around them. At that point, they decided to get out of the waters quickly - because sharks can smell blood a long way away.

"We didn't want to chum for sharks," he said.

Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks - with their own bodies.

Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone.

Women who dress like harlots are not the only ones who get attacked - they draw out predators who prey on innocent girls, who just happened to be in nearby waters.

"What did I do wrong?" asks the innocent.

Nothing - it's just that the waters are chummed by your friends.

We should execute all rapists. But the waters won't be safer until we pull the chum out of the water.

Sin makes the waters unsafe for everyone.

-Aiden Humphrey, 2004

So Lawrence Auster's most recent commentary on the disappearance of a 17-year-old girl who disappeared while jogging is no real surprise.

A registered sex offender named John Albert Gardner is being held for questioning in the disappearance of 17 year old Chelsea King in San Diego. The sheriff says that numerous pieces of physical evidence connect Gardner to King, and that there is a “strong possibility” that he is involved in her disappearance. A statement by Chelsea’s parents says, “She is an extraordinary daughter and also someone who is committed to her community. She has huge dreams and wants to change the world.” Maybe she was dreaming her huge dreams about changing the world when she went jogging alone in a place that, according to several VFR readers who are familiar with the area (see comments by Scott H., Ferg, and James P.), abuts on areas populated by lawless people. Perhaps if she were an ordinary girl who just wanted to live in this world instead of an extraordinary girl who wanted to change it, she might have been paying more attention to her actual environment, or, better, not gone there at all. In no story so far have I seen any suggestion that it was not wise for a teenage girl to go running alone in a park, apparently on one of the many trails in the park. The coverage of the story, the sentimental response, and the statement by Chelsea’s parents assure that other extraordinary young women will keep doing what Chelsea did and delivering themselves into the maw of death.
-Suspect Held

Yes, yes, girls. No dreams about changing the world for you. Be ordinary, and for god's sake stay indoors where you cannot be seen. You're delivering yourself into the maw of death otherwise yadda yadda yadda YES WE KNOW THIS LAWRENCE THANK YOU NEXT.

I could spend quite a lot of time talking about "the stroll in the jungle" theory and how people who commit crimes are the people who are responsible for those crimes and all that same old tired old boring old obvious stuff that smart people already know and conservative Christians somehow struggle with.

But no, this is not the time for that. That's because there's something more interesting hiding here in the dirt.

Ladies. Now, ladies, listen closely. Did you know that there is a specific circumstance under which you can be raped or beaten or murdered where it isn't your fault? Can you think of it? Think really hard about what we know about the people I focus on in this blog.

Have you got it yet?

Yes! That's right!

You are not at fault if the person who rapes or beats or murders you . . . is black!

I am the eldest of five. One of my sisters, who was 13 at the time, was raped when she attended a party on our block. One of the blacks repeatedly asked her to go upstairs to see his apartment. After several rejections, he accused my sister of racism. As a well-indoctrinated, guilt-ridden liberal, she had no choice but to go with him. Out of fear and shame, my sister did not share her story with us until she landed in a mental ward a couple of years later.

Another sister was raped by a black open-enrollment "student" at City College in a locker room after she attended a co-ed swim class. The prosecuting attorney told my sister it was an open-and-shut case because she did everything she was supposed to do: She reported the event immediately, gave a detailed description of the accused (including a bizarrely shaped goatee), and then went directly to the hospital. However, after all the evidence was given, when the jury was polled, the whites voted to convict, but the tribe hung together and hung the jury.

Ironically, before her trial even began, another black tried to rape her in the elevator of her own building. He entered the elevator after her, and sent it down to the basement. There he cut her neck and was about to have his way with her, when someone luckily brought the elevator back up.
-Mike Berman

What black savages did physically to Troy Knapp when he made the mistake of bicycling through a black neighborhood in Charleston in 1989, knocking him from his bike and bashing in his head with pipes and trash cans until he was brain damaged for life, the congregrants of Wright's church are doing to whites with words and whoops every Sunday. The low-level blacks avenge themselves on whites physically; the "high-level" blacks do it verbally. But the motive and the emotions and the primitive mob dynamics are the same.
-Lawrence Auster

The minor incident I describe at the restaurant was just the first in a series of a painful course in education on race realism. Like when a white girl Cal student was tortured, raped, and murdered and we all organized a protest march, only for me to see my fellow socialists drop the project when two Oakland black guys were arrested and bragged (bragged!) to the TV news cameras about how much she suffered in their van.
-Kevin V.

. . . I have had a family member raped by a black. I was mugged by a black in Times Square. My father was mugged by a black. A black dragged my mother in between subway cars and tried to throw her off while the train was moving. On another occasion while my mother was waiting on the subway platform blacks threw some metal strips from a moving train in my mothers face cutting her and just missed blinding her by a hair.
-Karl D.
-The ultimate story of a liberal who was mugged by reality

There's so, so much more there if you're capable of reading through it without crying or needing a shower. But let's just have a look at what they're saying.

1. Mike Berman's sister "had no choice" but to accompany her rapist alone to his apartment. His other sister went to a locker room after a co-ed swim class, but his outrage is focused on the rape itself and its failure to meet justice.

2. Troy Knapp cycled through a bad neighborhood. Well, it was a black neighborhood, and to Lawrence Auster that's a bad place in itself--but I think we can say it's a bad neighborhood because people get knocked off their bikes there (kind of like the white neighborhood where a white friend of mine was knocked off her bike by some white kids, badly damaging her knee in the process (but I digress)). How does Lawrence react? Troy Knapp made a mistake, but the people who beat him are responsible for their crime. (He even states explicitly that "of course Knapp didn't do anything to deserve it"--though Chelsea King did, apparently. Of course, Auster's reaction is part racism, part sexism.)

3. A female student was raped, which spurred Kevin V. and others on to take part in a protest march.

4. Karl D. went to Times Square and got mugged. His father was also mugged. His mother stood (alone?) on a subway platform and was the victim of violent crime. Karl calls out none of these people for putting themselves in positions of potential danger--he quite rightly puts the blame for the crimes on the shoulders of the people committing them.

So what can we learn from this?

. . ..I was going to write a tongue-in-cheek list of principles Lawrence Auster and his friends would have us abide by, but I'm sorry--in the process of writing this, I've lost all sense of humor. I'm sure you can see where I was going. I don't want to live in a world where racist feeling trumps sexist ideology. But apparently I do. These people are sickening.

Sigh. You can troll this blog if you want to, but, like so many other right-wing bloggers, Lawrence Auster doesn't do comments like normal people. You have to email him. Honestly, I wouldn't want the Google ads in my sidebar that would inevitably result from his replies, so I probably wouldn't bother.

TTB #5: "A. Guy Maligned" at What Women Never Hear

http://wwnh.wordpress.com

You blogging? If you wanna be successful, you gotta have a hook. Any lameass who wants to start a new blog but doesn't know how (loser) will type "how to blog" into Google only to find that blogs should be centered loosely around a theme. So, for example, The Sartorialist (no, don't troll that one) (well, go ahead if you must) is all about men who wear their trousers too high and women who are apparently just about to attend niche, elaborate costume parties. And this blog is about calling out utter asstusks for being utter asstusks. That sort of thing.

It turns out that another way to be successful is to write as if you're that new kind of spam that came out recently--you know, where a bunch of random sentences from various books appear at the bottom in order to fool your spam filter.

No, seriously, right. There's this old dude (silver surfers FTW though) running a blog called What Women Never Hear. It's part anti-feminist advice column, part Faulkneresque stream-of-consciousness dream sequence.

So:

♀♂ Women reject this truism for making marriage work: Before marriage he should prove himself worthy of her. That is, she makes him the seller and her the buyer. He peddles all his strengths, and she evaluates his character and likelihood of delivery on his promises. After marriage, she keeps herself worthy of him. That is, she becomes the seller and peddles rewards for his husbanding and fathering.

♀ Pregnant women duplicate men with big beer bellies. They use tight clothing and masculinize motherhood. Fashion before sexiness, attractiveness, and femininity—not what men appreciate.

♀ Thirtysomething women without kids have no outlet for their mothering instinct. So, they parent their man.

♀ Wives treat husbands much less respectfully than they treat boyfriends, lovers, and shack up partners. Two effects: Husbands dump wives more easily. Other men see what happens, avoid marriage, and go for shack up.

♀ Women condemn the male ego, as if they have none of their own. The feminist movement made the female ego explode. Activists took advantage.

♀ Men seek a woman that accepts him as he is and wants to stay. Women nevertheless think they can or should change their man.
-206. Female malpractice — Part 5

That is the whole post. And yes, I mostly get what he's saying (what's the pregnancy bit about though?). I guess I'm mainly wondering why he used those particular words in that particular order.

Anyway, yes, when you do bother to untangle his extremely strange way of writing, and when you're amused enough to read more, you sometimes find other, less opaque posts like this:

Men receive distinct sexual messages from every woman, and it starts with boob display. Women have three options. Two accept and one resists male dominance.

The first option causes women to minimize their influence over each man they encounter. Maximum cleavage or near-nipple exposure focuses men on sex instead of the female and her other qualities. Her obvious immodesty relieves and sometimes is taken as condemnation of masculine self-restraint. It signals that she welcomes masculine-style sexual freedom—whether she does or not is moot, because he perceives it—and this shifts her into a player in the man’s game and seller instead of buyer after he conquers her. This immodest option captures a man’s attention, but sex does not bond men; it leads to temporary relationships because he never focuses on her enough to make her a keeper. This option endorses the man’s game of wham, bam, thank you, mam. By displaying her endowments so immodestly, she yields relationship control to him.

The second option causes women to discourage men or ignore messages she’s trying to send. Boobs well covered and shapeless regardless of size shift manly focus to other women. Sweatshirt-covered and other bosom-shaped displays indicate age. Other women just look better. Big, shapeless, and comfortable for her won’t reduce his eagerness for conquest, but it reduces his enthusiasm for her as keeper. Wives often resort to comfort—even to sloppiness—without realizing the impact on husband. It’s not modesty, but her shapeless boobs or breasts without ‘character’ that push men toward other women, and husbands are men.

The third option empowers women to maximize their feminine impact on men, and women need to display this way for all men in order to find the right man. Very modest cover with two, albeit small, distinct boobs pointed uncomfortably high and perky forces decent men to focus on her eyes and other qualities in order to maximize his persuasiveness. She appears not only hard-to-get, but is implying ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na to his face—look but don’t even think about touching. Her appearance and attitude force the hunter-conqueror to plan for a long campaign. This empowers her to keep his attention focused on her and not on sex and for her to dominate their relationship before his conquest. Highly stressed modesty and two high and perky boobs blended into a non-sexual ‘in your face’ attitude can easily overpower male dominance. Men wilt under this kind of feminine determination, unless they are only after sex in the first place, which should empower her to put him back in the parade.

How women display their boobs shapes whether they handle men with female bossiness or get manhandled with masculine brusqueness. Women are in charge, as always, and her well-designed offense can beat his offense most of the time.
-12. Boob language—Part 1

But. Once grown, my boobs were never small, and if I wanted to attempt to make them uncomfortably high and perky I'd need to have a personal account manager at Rigby and Peller. What do I do, Mr. Maligned? What do I do?

Anyway, he's got a whole SERIES on "boob language," folks. A series. I don't care if he's in his 70s and things were different way back when, when breasts were first discovered. You don't get to talk about "boob language." You just don't. And do you know why you don't? You don't because it makes you an asshole.

There are lots more reasons to Troll This Blog, but the boob language thing is a good start.

TTB #4: Laura at The "Thinking" Housewife

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com

WOMEN! I mean, LADIES! Here are some things Laura Wood, The "Thinking" Housewife, would like you to know about your relationship with the world generally:

1. Men deserve jobs before you do.

Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. . . . We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.
-Why We Must Discriminate

Don't worry, though, honeycakes. You'll still get a job if you really want one, because "Women even remain a majority in certain fields, such as education, low-level office work, psychology and nursing. These fields are suited to the interruptions of family life, to the years before marriage, and to the natural skills of women." (See also Jobs for Men First.)

2. Selfish feminist boastful conceited power-hungry WHORES who don't ever get pregnant (thereby increasing their risk for ovarian cancer) ruin perfectly nice days out for nice ladies by insisting on tying their gaudy green ribbons everywhere:

The town where I live is festooned with green ribbons. They are tied to trees in the shopping district, to streetlights, to parking meters and to signs. What does all this festivity signify? Ovarian cancer. The ribbons are part of a campaign to make us more sensitive to this terrible disease. They are the green counterpart to the familiar pink ribbons of breast cancer campaigns.

Cancer is evil. Everyone should contribute to the worthy battle against it. But, if we are going to express our concern for this grave matter with sentimental displays of ribbons, why not ribbons for all cancer? If we must select one, let it be a childhood cancer.

These ribbons depress me. They depress me not simply because cancer kills. They are a sickly-sweet reminder of the boastful conceit of women. Power makes women selfish.
-Tie A Green Ribbon

3. You cannot be a drill sergeant:

When women start barking orders at grown men, the delicate balance of power between the sexes is disturbed. Women are mothers and wives, lovers and friends to men. These roles are damaged by domineering bossiness. Male psychology is radically different from female psychology. After all, mothers are women. There is no more significant fact than that.
-A Woman Drill Sergeant

or a police chief:

A woman in command, no matter how likable or competent, is likely to disrupt that atmosphere simply because she is a woman. Even a woman’s voice is less authoritative. A police chief must react harshly to any infractions by officers. Men do not like being dressed down by a woman and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact of male psychology. In general, it’s impossible for men and women to interact in a neutral way. You mentioned that you’re friend was pro-life, which brings up another issue. A pregnant police chief is an affront to decency and common sense. Personally, I hate seeing police women except those doing office work or traffic control. A society that puts women in the job of defending men has lost respect for femininity and concern for its own safety.
-Woman in Chief

or a priest:

• Women get pregnant. The idea of pregnant women leading Christian services is offensive, as the pregnant woman is already engaged in an entirely different holy office. Likewise, a woman cannot be both a mother and a priest. The two roles are mutually exclusive.

• There cannot be celibate clergy living in coed conditions. Women priests necessitate married priests, changing the foundation of the priesthood in the case of Catholicism and increasing the costs of supporting priests. Estranged, separated or divorced priests, as well as priests with very large families or who use birth control, would all present complications.

• Women are different from men. They possess a different psychology, attuned more to interpersonal relations. The priesthood demands the presence of a priest at the most intimate events in a person’s life, including sickness, death, marriage and baptism. While a man can remain detached from these emotional occurrences, a woman by her very nature cannot.

• Men are better theologians. The number of brilliant female theologians is not large enough to fill a moderately-sized powder room. Even average theologians are much more often men.

• The appearance of women on the altar is distracting because a woman’s appearance is always distracting.

• Women are likely to turn the priesthood into full-time social work, in keeping with their maternal nature.

• Women do not like being led by women. This is a widely proven fact of female psychology. Whether they recognize it or not, women do not want women priests.

• Men tend to leave any profession dominated by women. Women will dominate the priesthood once it is open to them.
-Two Fools Speak on Women and Religion

4. White is Right! Wait, I mean, if you're a feminist, you've emasculated men and thereby . . . somehow . . . caused interracial marriage?

Feminism and miscegenation are interconnected. Only a society which has emasculated men would openly condone intermarriage. Let me change that. Only a society in which white men have been emasculated would see the sort of tolerance for and celebration of intermarriage we are experiencing today.
-Mrs. Tiger

And furthermore:

M., a male reader, states that he is indifferent to the personal sufferings of the famous golfer’s wife. Her choice of a husband was a form of betrayal that angers him "on a very deep, existential level." The reader’s comment illustrates something that many white women refuse to acknowledge: Miscegenation offends white men at the core of their being.
-The Golfer’s Wife

[Please note that since I first took note of this post, she has changed "white men" to "some men." Poor old offended men, though, eh?]

5. You must NEVER attempt to use an unoccupied toilet without a chaperone:

Annie Le, the graduate student murdered at Yale last week, was alone in a basement laboratory when she was attacked. This makes no sense in today’s world, even in buildings with secure entry. Young women should not be alone in isolated corridors, offices or rest rooms. Ever.
-The Undefended Annie Le

6. You are possibly entirely incapable of behaving properly when given a little bit of freedom:

Until that day when our divorce laws are reformed, men must become wiser about how to handle the capriciousness of women. A significant minority of women are constitutionally incapable of handling the marital freedoms our society has granted them. I recommend Michelle Langley’s book The Infidelity of Women, available for download on the Internet. I don’t fully agree with Langley, but she gives some good advice for men. The problem isn’t simply infidelity, but the wandering spirit of women. Our society encourages them to indulge romantic dreams of a life beyond their first marriage.
How to Save the West

7. Last, but most importantly, sweeping is SO FRICKING AWESOME:

More importantly, sweeping is fascinating, captivating, deeply intriguing. Why try to sell it’s virtues when they so clearly speak for themselves? We are alive. As we sweep, we are alive and our minds are free.
-Should Smart Women Sweep?

Screw everything else. For that last bit of absolute nonsense, I beg, I urge, I implore you to Troll This Blog. (If you decide to, be aware that you must email her your comments. She does seem to publish the occasional dissenting view.)

--------

(Oh god, there's just so much more that I can't fit in here. If you're amused, see also:

Lesbian Nation: Will It Last?
The Overly Affectionate Mother and The Well-Dressed Socialist (aka Michelle Obama is a TERRIBLE WOMAN)
Miss, Mrs. and Mizzzz
Herstory is History ("Mary Daly wasn't particularly pretty! I would now like to celebrate her death, just like my lord and savior Jesus Christ would want me to!")

TTB #3: Justin at The Truth Shall Set You Free

http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/

Hey kids! Do you like TRUTH?! How about critical thinking? If you do--and I know you do!--I've got just the blog for you!

Justin has got it all over at his blog, oh yes. He says so right there at the top, and throws in some comparative religion, contemporary culture, and history for good measure. And you can see it all in his entries, too. For example:

1. Are you at a loss for how to teach young boys about gender relationships? Justin knows what just you need:

The Little Mermaid contains everything you need to know to understand women. It is exactly the movie you would want to show your sons, and make sure they fully understand its lessons.

Why is that? Well, it seems that Ariel is "Everygirl" for various reasons, which I will come to in a moment. Let's first consider, though, what the "Everyman" concept means. He doesn't literally mean that Ariel represents every girl, no no no. Just an ordinary girl. You know, most girls. She's someone that, you know, most girls are like. Normal girls.

And what are normal girls like?

Ariel is Everygirl: flighty, dreamy, disobedient, impulsive, and shallow. On the positive side, she is innocent, idealistic, sincere, brave, fun, and charming.

Aha. Looks like Justin's got us pegged, laydeez. Yes, that's right. We are all--well, MOST of us, the NORMAL ones--Manic Pixie Dream Girls. Justin couldn't have produced a more comprehensive list of MPDG characteristics if he had been doing it on purpose

At that point I need to say that we can stop right there. We don't have to go on, because what we're learning from this particular entry is not what sort of thing people should teach their sons. What we're learning is that Justin doesn't know what actual women are actually like.

Idealizing women and/or compartmentalizing them is something a lot of conservative Christian men do, though, so I'm not particularly surprised. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

2. If you're sick of he the old said/she said, how about some science? Justin has a lot to say about evolution, but the bit about sharks is my favorite:

Ok, so puzzle me this: how can sharks have genes for fingers and toes? Of course, there is the obvious fact that sharks don’t have fingers and toes, in fact, they don't have skeletons at all… So why would they have the genes for a specialized bone structure? Evolutionarily speaking, sharks are a primitive form of life. They evolved into their present state long before land-creatures even existed. So why would sharks have genes that are only valuable to skeletal land-creatures?

According to the theory of evolution, it is reasonable to assume that mammals have some fish genes, since fish are the ancestors of all land-creatures. However, the opposite is not the case. Fish would not have uniquely mammal genes, because previous life forms should not have genetic structures that evolved only later. They could not have received the genes through their genetic heritage, nor were they able to receive finger/toe genes through a genetic inflow from land creatures. So how did the genes get there?

Again, an inability to get cause and effect the right way around is pretty standard in the fundamentalist Christian arena, so I'm not particularly surprised. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

3. I was going to talk about comparative religion next, looking specifically at the Islam tag, but I got knocked for six by this:

It is gratifying to see the Swiss beginning to fight for their own land. It is certainly the right of all indigenous people to resist displacement by foreigners.

Right, kids, I think it's time to talk about history (after all, it's one of Justin's interests). Given that Switzerland has been a country for nearly 100 years LESS than the USA, it's a bit rich to refer to the "Swiss" as "indigenous" people. Perhaps he means WHITE PEOPLE.

Once more, I'm not particularly surprised by Justin's casual, embedded racism, or his finding it difficult to look beyond his own nose. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

--------

Once you've finished laughing while shaking your head in a slightly sorrowful and entirely disbelieving fashion and wiping away the tears of hilarity, you may not have the energy to type. Regardless, I urge you to Troll This Blog.

TTB #2: Thomas Robb, National Director of the KKK

http://tarobb.blogspot.com/

When you immerse yourself in the world of right-wing blogs like I do, it doesn't take much to scrape off the epidermis of apparent righteous God-fearing acceptability, revealing quite clearly the dermis of sexism, repression, and indeed racism. And in among all this oily sebum, we get purulent, sebaceous cysts.

One such fatty pusball (hey, I'm just following the metaphor out to its logical conclusion; don't blame me for where it went) is Thom Robb. Not just the director of a terrorist group of murderers known for their hatred of and violence toward their fellow human beings, Thom Robb is also a god-fearing man and a preacher, teaching about and following in the footsteps of Jesus the Christ who loves the little children, all the children of the world. (Don't think about it too hard; you'll just end up hurting yourself.)

Oh, but read his blog. He believes in diversity, you see, because he knows the difference between Fords and Chevy's [sic] and dogs and cats. As a commenter pointed out there, to him some people are equivalent to animals and objects. Well, that explains a lot.

Anyway, have a peek through the archives; you'll have ever so much fun. And like so many other right-wingers, he probably won't publish or respond to your comment, but that's still no reason not to Troll This Blog.

TTB #1: "Lady" Lydia at Home Living

We'll start with my favorite.

http://homeliving.blogspot.com/

"Lady" Lydia at Home Living is probably the very person who started my obsession with hyperxtian blogs. When I first encountered her years ago at Ladies Against Feminism, I thought surely she was a joke. For starters, she believes all women should stay at home, never work, always wear skirts, and apparently should make very glittery (or pink) crafts out of typing paper.

Most of her posts at Home Living recently seem dedicated to doggerel and how much she enjoys cleaning, but a trip through the archives is a beautiful journey indeed. There you will learn how sinful it is for older women to cut their hair short or to wear soft-soled shoes, as well as how even women whose families desperately need a second income can live warm and beautiful lives with Mom at home, if only she'll work hard enough to make her low-earning husband's dollar stree-ee-ee-ee-tch right out.

Lydia has attracted many disdainful followers, including a blog that has been set up specifically to point out her various hypocrisies, in a kind of scary and obsessive way. I don't approve of that blog or its methods; I'd much prefer people to attempt to engage Lydia in a calm and rational way via her comments box. If you try that, though, be forewarned that she is unlikely to unscreen or reply to any comments you make. That's still no reason not to make them, so . . . Troll This Blog!

What On Earth Is This All About?

Troll This Blog is dedicated to pointing a finger at the most idiotic blogs written by hateful, ill-educated people who insist on touching the internet with their stupid dirty fingers, smearing it all up for the rest of us.

It will probably be the case that most of the people I link to will be right-wing fundamentalist Christians (especially the kind who hate poor people--you know, like Jesus did). They're my favorite. If you want to recommend other blogs, please do leave a comment.

And, in a way, I do exhort you to "troll" their blogs--by which I mean you should leave comments for them pointing out why they're wrong. Why do I use that term? Many of the people I link to see such comments as "trolling" because they're incapable of understanding that people with other viewpoints are not necessarily trolls.

Please, though, leave only well-thought out, appropriate comments using language my grandmother would approve of. (She says "shit," but that's about as far as it goes.) I do not endorse leaving abusive comments.