Missed a spot.

The ugly feminist compulsion to mark all things masculine as feminine knows no bounds. As single mother Emily McCombs at The Huffington Post explains, now ugly feminist mothers have turned to marking their own sons as feminine in a futile attempt to assuage their envy of men:

All the moms at my son’s school have been gushing about the Cat & Jack line for kids since Target released it last summer. Now there’s an additional reason to love the brand: their “Strong Like Mom” T-shirts that are grabbing the attention of feminist moms everywhere.

That’s right. Strong… Like Mom. Not like Dad or any other boy. Strong like a girl.

The coming backlash will be fun to watch, and if T shirt vendors aren’t already printing up “Strong Like Dad” shirts they should be.  While publicly marking their own sons as mama’s boys doesn’t bother these ugly feminists, they aren’t considering the status assault they are opening themselves up to from married mothers.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Envy, Motherhood, Status of marriage, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Missed a spot.

  1. Minesweeper says:

    ” if T shirt vendors aren’t already printing up “Strong Like Dad” shirts they should be”

    they cant do that – its be sexist, and Target would have to chase all the trannies out of their toilets.

    who could stand for such a thing ?

  2. Gunner Q says:

    First they say schoolyard bullying is horrible and shouldn’t be encouraged. Then they make “Strong like Mom” shirts? Talk about mixed messages.

  3. Pingback: Missed a spot. | @the_arv

  4. Okay, then Mom can take out the garbage and move the refrigerator and unload the barbecue grill from now on. Because she’s so strong, you know.

  5. Oscar says:

    “… if T shirt vendors aren’t already printing up ‘Strong Like Dad’ shirts they should be.”

    Cafe Press makes them.

    http://www.cafepress.com/+strong-like-dad+gifts

    [D: Good find.]

  6. Fred Flange, der kommisar says:

    Once the boys are of a certain age I should think they would not be so inclined to obey any direction to wear any shirt like this – strong like a GURL? I can hear the schoolyard taunts now. (When I was a boy we did hear taunts like that).
    RUDE LANGUAGE ALERT–
    The most appalling T shirt I ever saw was in Malmo, Sweden some years back. My young’un was on a park playground when a little 2-year old blond boy named Sebastian walked over towards me, looking like he wanted someone to play with and I seemed friendly enough. Then I pinned his T-shirt, which said:

    MY DAD IS A FUCKING ASSHOLE

    All I could do was stare and sputter “Charming!” before his bespectacled single mom came over to fetch him, clearly embarrassed that an English-speaking tourist saw the shirt. Couldn’t grab my phone to snap a pic before she snatched him back. The most sickening thing: he seemed to be a cute good-natured kid, he could not possibly have known what his shirt said. But I cringe to think what he must be like today.

  7. Damn Crackers says:

    Which of the kid’s two Moms is the strong one?

  8. Lost Patrol says:

    Based on sparkly material and choice of font, I’ll say that shirt is from the girls department, but it’s being modeled on a boy (I’m fairly certain I can still tell the boys from the girls in most cases, though it’s getting harder in some parts of the country).

    The article talks about shirts for girls, and shirts for boys at Target. I heard Target had abandoned segregation of toys based on any notion that some were intended for either boys or girls specifically. Haven’t gotten to the clothes yet I guess.

    I keep thinking no one will be happy once the women-are-men and men-are-women transition is complete. But sometimes doubt creeps in. Millions of young people are being bred to accept that transition and embrace it. Will it override the biological imperatives instituted from on high at the very beginning? *insert sardonic laughter*

  9. Lost Patrol says:

    Which of the kid’s two Moms is the strong one?

    Well done.

  10. Mark MacIntyre says:

    Social programming disguised as “cute” slogans in an advertisement disguised as an editorial article. It’s like a nesting doll of Trojan horses.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol

    The article talks about shirts for girls, and shirts for boys at Target. I heard Target had abandoned segregation of toys based on any notion that some were intended for either boys or girls specifically. Haven’t gotten to the clothes yet I guess.

    I was curious so I checked out Target’s site. The description specifically says for boys.

  12. BillyS says:

    I haven’t been in a Target for a while, but they had a very pink aisle last time I was there. It does not matter who it is labeled for, an all pink aisle will not attract many boys.

  13. Lost Patrol says:

    The description specifically says for boys.

    I know. That’s what makes it doubly sad that it even looks like a girls shirt that they put on that poor kid. I need to write the word sarcasm into the comment, instead of just thinking it. Internet.

    Thank you for repairing my earlier misplaced comment on the other post.

  14. @Fred Flange, early siting of Anders Brievik?

  15. Fred Flange, der kommisar says:

    Sadly, no, maybe the no-one-wants-to-see-it sequel though.

  16. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Dalrock
    The coming backlash will be fun to watch, and if T shirt vendors aren’t already printing up “Strong Like Dad” shirts they should be. While publicly marking their own sons as mama’s boys doesn’t bother these ugly feminists, they aren’t considering the status assault they are opening themselves up to from married mothers.

    But will the married mothers actually be willing to take that shot? I’m a little doubtful about that prospect. You’ve written before about how feminism hasn’t managed to make marriage obsolete or superfluous for women because women still desire the status and legitimacy that comes from having a strong man that is publicly committed to them. You are not wrong about this. But there’s also another aspect to consider, and that is that feminists have positioned themselves as the champions of opportunity for women to such an extent that many of the same married “traditional” women that you’d think would be the feminists’ natural enemies will instead go out of their way to avoid being seen as enemies of the feminist cause. For visual proof of this, just take a look at the women of the modern American church. Mary Kassian might praise women who find a good man and stay faithfully married to him, but she’ll also take great pains to emphasize that this does NOT mean being a submissive 1950s housewife, and make a few snide quips about June Cleaver just to let you know how much disdain she has for that backwards, pre-feminist past. This extends to the single women of the church as well. In my past I’ve been pretty exclusive about dating only women who at least claimed to be Christian believers, and it is not uncommon to hear these same women tell you that while they personally don’t like abortion, they still consider themselves to be pro-choice.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing women strike back against a shirt like the one you mentioned. And if they’re using fashion as a weapon to do damage to the feminist cause that opens all kinds of interesting possibilities. May I suggest a rival line of anti-feminist T-shirts with a catchphrase of their own? Perhaps something that proclaims how much better life is when spent with a happy family instead of a bitter and kvetching mob: I’D RATHER BE HIS WIFE THAN YOUR “SISTER.” But will “traditional” women wear a shirt like that? My guess is . . . probably not. Direct opposition to the movement would open them up to some angry shots from the feminists themselves, which will be uncomfortable enough. But consider also that stopping feminism limits a few of her options as well. For example, if this “domestic wife” thing doesn’t work or gets old, a girl is going to need a backup plan — and how convenient then that feminists have been in the business of offering “alternative lifestyles” to women for a long time.

    The fact that there hasn’t been any kind of significant counter-movement to modern feminism should speak volumes about the kind of dedication women have for a “traditional” lifestyle as a wife and mother. They may desire it, but they don’t want to have to sacrifice for it, and when you factor in that the feminists who oppose it also happen to be offering them some new options from which they could benefit I’d predict that most women will probably find that their most convenient option is to choose a life of marriage and family — but also to avoid opposing those who seek to undermine that choice entirely, and maybe even consider defecting to their side if their first choice doesn’t work out. Or if they get bored or unhappy with it. Whichever comes first.

    In short, women still do love marriage and family. They just don’t want to have to show respect for it.

  17. Tarl says:

    Once the boys are of a certain age I should think they would not be so inclined to obey any direction to wear any shirt like this

    Heh. In my son’s case that would have been about age 18 months. Got many complaints from mom about how he flat-out refused to wear various items until she gave up and let him dress himself in the morning.

  18. Tarl says:

    New T-Shirt Idea

    Frivorced For Cash and Prizes Like Mom

  19. pb says:

    “They just don’t want to have to show respect for it.”

    Women don’t like to be directly confrontational like that, unless they’re real bitches.

  20. Major Styles says:

    Sometimes I think I should be making money off these dummies with t-shirts like the aforementioned. But then a moralistic streak rises up in me.

  21. feministhater says:

    I’ve yet to see married wives do anything that pushes back at the feminist quelling of all things manly. I don’t mean a single women here and there, I mean the type of grouping of married women that one could call a ‘backlash’.

    Moms are so strong they kick dads out of the home and out of their children’s lives because women are just better. Still need that alimony and child support though.

    Married women pretend like this stuff isn’t happening, they turn a blind eye but the real reason they don’t mess with feminists is because they too want to have the option if they should need it.

    She’s not yours, it’s just your turn. Always remember that.

  22. feministhater says:

    Lol, married wives… I meant married moms.

  23. feministhater says:

    Dalrock, I tried to connect to your blog an hour or two ago and it was down.. Hopefully it wasn’t anything bad, just a bug that was sorted out. Good to be able to post again.

  24. getalonghome says:

    feministhater says:
    March 1, 2017 at 2:24 pm
    I’ve yet to see married wives do anything that pushes back at the feminist quelling of all things manly. I don’t mean a single women here and there, I mean the type of grouping of married women that one could call a ‘backlash’.”

    The backlash is private amongst those of us who respect marriage and manhood because we are women who have retreated to the home, where we do in fact belong. My church is full of women who are conducting thus backlash that you can’t see, because it’s quiet. Don’t mistake quietness for non-existence. You men will have to do the political stuff. We noticed the other women mucking things up and decided to be womanly, and that meant not going around starting movements and junk. 😉

  25. Pingback: Missed a spot. | Reaction Times

  26. feministhater says:

    That’s great but just remember. The more your backlash is silent and not political, the more feminists will make their tirades loud and political, thus further removing manly men from your surroundings.

    Men cannot challenge women in the same way they can challenge a man, nor can they challenge women in the same way that women challenge men. Women have an armament of social, legal and emotional weapons that men simply lack. Feminists have government clout, to the extent they change far reaching laws on the fly.

    Leaving it to men by themselves, leaves your men at a huge risk that isn’t easily overcome.

    You let other women muck it up and now step back and say it isn’t your problem. That’s what women do.

  27. feministhater says:

    I don’t think a backlash has to be political. That wasn’t the point. However, it has to be noticeable to have any reach and that is what I was getting at. I’m not the ‘movement’ kind of chap, I vote with my feet, wallet and energy.

  28. Loyd says:

    Might as well join in…

    For some in society:
    “Confused like Trannies”

    For boys:
    “Daring like Dad”

    “Courageous like Dad”

    “Manly like Dad”

    “Tough like Dad”

    For girls:
    “Feminine like Mom”

    “Submissive like Mom”

    “My dream is to be a dutiful housewife”

    I’m sure radical feminists would love to see people wearing shirts like these /s

  29. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Perhaps something that proclaims how much better life is when spent with a happy family instead of a bitter and kvetching mob: I’D RATHER BE HIS WIFE THAN YOUR “SISTER.”

    Another idea for a T-shirt slogan: I HAVE A MOM AND A DAD

  30. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    More sexism — No woman has ever directed a Star Wars film: http://lwlies.com/articles/star-wars-franchise-female-director-anna-rose-holmer/

    In November 2016, Lucasfilm boss Kathleen Kennedy said that it was difficult to find female directors with the “right” experience to direct Star Wars films, as few had been given the opportunity to helm projects on a similar scale. The franchise has been routinely handed over to male directors who got their start in independent film, with Gareth Edwards directing the micro-budget sci-fi Monsters before jumping from 2014’s Godzilla to piloting Rogue One.

  31. Original Laura says:

    Excellent kid’s t-shirt from fifteen years ago or so: MY MOM LETS ME FORM MY OWN POLITICAL OPINIONS. Apparently, the mother was philosophically opposed to dressing children in clothing with political slogans. She was a lefty, but she had principles.

  32. Cindy says:

    Feministhater, I getcha. I’m just saying there is a backlash, and it is very real. It is a quiet shunning of the whole feminist mess, not an obvious confrontation, because feminine women just flat don’t work that way. Backlash really is happening, bigly, and I believe (based on some of my own interactions with feminists) that it is working, even among churchians). IOW, us married moms–many, many of us–are doing something. You just can’t see it because it’s happening in the realm of the feminine. I do think I could at least buy some of those “strong like daddy” t’s for my five very boyish boys, though. Don’t you think?

  33. Tigersault says:

    Another reason to continue boycotting Target. “Strong Like Mom”? Seriously?!? iGen/Gen Z will be the biggest group of nancyboys to date yet. Unfrigginbelievable.

  34. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Cindy
    Don’t mistake quietness for non-existence. You men will have to do the political stuff. We noticed the other women mucking things up and decided to be womanly, and that meant not going around starting movements and junk.

    This is specious. It sounds like a man who chooses to compensate for his poor physical condition by telling everyone that he’s really a nonviolent pacifist. Come on. You’re backing out of a tough fight, and then attributing that to principle. It’s not like men today have no idea what it looks like to see a woman get angry with a person or an issue and start pushing back. In the right circumstances, and for the right cause, AWALT. And it’s not even like it’s an unheard of concept in the Christian religion to call the followers (women included) to take a stand or even make a show of their loyalty or allegiance; that’s one of the reasons why the traditional church made such a big deal out of public baptism.

    We’ve seen women for years who publicly sided with the feminist cause. If they’re going to oppose it, then at some point we’re going to have to know how that looks in order to be aware that it’s even happening. Seeing is believing. You cannot just satisfy yourself with “standing against it in your mind” and assume that those watching you got the message.

    Now, if you’re a woman, that still leaves you with the problem of how to make it known that feminism has nothing to do with who you are. If this is you, let me offer one possible approach: In the manosphere, there’s often a lot of talk about not just learning red pill concepts but internalizing them. In order to successfully apply what you learn, you should go so far as to make red pill principles the core of your very being, to the point that they influence any outlook you have, or any response you might give. So how might that this tactic work for a woman who wants to be traditionally feminine in a Christian context? Start by asking yourself: If I had the goal of being a submissive and righteous wife to a good man, and making that desire known to those around me, how would I look at this given issue? How would I answer this given question? And in case we happen to have any single Christian women with that goal reading this right now, I’ll provide a potential field example. Suppose that someone comes to you and asks a question often heard by the young: “Tell me, what are your plans for your life after you finish school?” For an answer worthy of a righteous Christian wife, smile sweetly and say, “As long as I’m nothing like Rachel Held Evans, I’ll be very happy.”

    You’re welcome.

  35. Spike says:

    Biggest problem with mother’s influence in child’s dressing, is that the boys grow up to be pansies (I feel REALLY sorry for the kid in the HuffPo pic) and girls end up dressing slutty.
    I don’t know of a single father who approves of his daughter wearing ”Daisy Dukes”/”Fail Pockets” – whatever those cut-down denim short shorts are called. No father thinks it’s a good idea to dress his daughter in them. It’s because as a man, he knows how men think. Mothers, however, being women have no clue, but just expect the State to police men’s sexuality after some unlawful act has occurred on their daughters.

  36. Red Pill Latecomer. says:

    When I was in first grade (back in the 1960s), my mother bought red shoes for both me and my sister, at the local Buster Brown. I didn’t think anything of it until second grade, when a boy made fun of my red shoes. All the other boys had black or brown shoes.

    I kicked up such a screaming fuss with my mother, blaming her for putting me in red shoes, she relented and within days bought me black shoes.

  37. feeriker says:

    But will the married mothers actually be willing to take that shot?

    That would be a rather definite no. What have married women ever done in the past but go with the social and cultural flow (creatures of the herd, remember)? It’s also important to remember that proactively fighting back against the Zeitgeist requires both seeing and understanding tbe big picture and its long-term implications. Not exactly women’s long suit, this.

    But there’s also another aspect to consider, and that is that feminists have positioned themselves as the champions of opportunity for women to such an extent that many of the same married “traditional” women that you’d think would be the feminists’ natural enemies will instead go out of their way to avoid being seen as enemies of the feminist cause. For visual proof of this, just take a look at the women of the modern American church. Mary Kassian might praise women who find a good man and stay faithfully married to him, but she’ll also take great pains to emphasize that this does NOT mean being a submissive 1950s housewife, and make a few snide quips about June Cleaver just to let you know how much disdain she has for that backwards, pre-feminist past.

    Yup. As I’ve stated repeatedly here, even women who (mistakenly) think of themselves as “traditional” or “anti-feminist” have gained far too many spillover benefits from feminism over the last half century to even dare think of wanting the status quo reversed. If being able to have and keep “options” means slowly destroying men, then so be it.

    This extends to the single women of the church as well. In my past I’ve been pretty exclusive about dating only women who at least claimed to be Christian believers, and it is not uncommon to hear these same women tell you that while they personally don’t like abortion, they still consider themselves to be pro-choice.

    Again, yup. Fried ice, churchian style. Options. No more of those pesky anachronisms like principles and moral compasses.

  38. Hose_B says:

    “For girls, the line includes T-shirts that say “Future President,” “Future Astronaut,” and a “Genius,” written out with the periodic table.
    For boys, there is a T-shirt that says the word “friend” in several different languages, “be the future,” and my personal favorite, which my son owns, “Kindness Matters.” T-shirts reading “Smart and Strong” is available both in the girls’ and boys’ lines.”

    Girls=president astronaut genius.
    Boys=friend, “be the future”, kindness matters

    Really…..we are having our sons advertise to get put in the friend zone of the future president??

  39. Mandy says:

    @feministhater
    Certain men created feminism so other men will have to dissemble it. Women are capable of doing these things. Powerful men just enlist women as useful idiots.

    The world ever was and always will be run by powerful men.

  40. feeriker says:

    Powerful men just enlist women as useful idiots.

    The “useful” part tends to be pretty short-lived for most women.

  41. Marquess of Kekbury says:

    “Certain men created feminism so other men will have to dissemble* it. ”

    Weak.

    Look, women are entirely capable of fighting feminism. All you have to do is go against the herd: shame feminist vices. Don’t accept feminist behavior in your social circle. Snub, ignore, exclude, ostracise; be mean to people who want to hurt you and your family.

    Have a backbone.

    What would your great grandmother and her friends have done if one of their nastier aqauintances started waxing on about the wonders of “genderfluidity” or how awesome it would be to harm her own son in an attention whoring narcissi-stunt?

    Is the pioneer woman a coward?

    * Yeah, they sure dissembled, all right. “Equality.”

  42. Minesweeper says:

    Men created feminism ? They might have encouraged it. But women have been in rebellion from men since creation. As men have been in rebellion from God.

    Interestingly, God disciplines men quite freely, I have never personally known God to discipline a woman. Maybe he leaves this for men to do, which they shrink from. Abit like he dosn’t discipline children either, its for the parents to do.

    The amount of sin I have known single Christian women engaging in without discipline from God is really quite amazing. Who then blubber all about it as the victim and need ministry and prayer to recover from. Christian men that I know are kept on a very tight leash.

    From a male point of view its really quite incredible.

    God disciplines those that he loves, does he not love women or what is going on ?

  43. wordsofgold says:

    I saw this shirt in the store about a month ago. I had a nice chuckle over it with my five year old son. I thought it was a misprint.

  44. pb says:

    “Look, women are entirely capable of fighting feminism. All you have to do is go against the herd: shame feminist vices. Don’t accept feminist behavior in your social circle. Snub, ignore, exclude, ostracise; be mean to people who want to hurt you and your family.”

    Someone already stated that is what she is doing.

    Women’s virtue != men’s virtue.

  45. Mark says:

    Nice post Mr.”D”.There is a backlash to this.Target released it’s earnings last week and since last April their earnings have plummeted. Approximately,30%(15 billion dollars) has been wiped off their balance sheet.They were trading around $84/share and now are trading around $60/share.Ever since this “transgender bathroom” debacle they have been crashing and burning.So there is a boycott.I feel that this “T-Shirt” escapade will only hurt them more.Once the stock goes below $50(and it will) look for a LBO(leveraged buyout) to occur,or possibly a consortium of white knights to come to the rescue and make a VERY large equity purchase to try and bolster the share price.

  46. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Please to be noting that the HuffPo headline says “Parents Everywhere”, but the story is almost entirely about how moms “love” these shirts.

    Also, how vapid and ignorant does one have to be to believe that putting a shirt that says “Genius” on someone has any real effect other than making them look like a hopeless, pretentious striver? I know that sounds harsh, as these clothes are for kids, but the whole concept is absurd. Which is probably why it appeals so strongly to the “Bumper Sticker Logic” crowd

  47. Snowy says:

    pb said “Someone already stated that is what she is doing.”

    No they didn’t. I take it you’re referring to getalonghome’s / Cindy’s comments. She stated nothing of the sort. Rather, she waxed lyrical about some kind of ‘private’, ‘silent’ backlash against feminism restricted to her close inner circle, and restricted to their own minds. No mention of any actual ‘going against the feminist herd’, ‘shaming of feminist vices’, ‘snubbing’, ‘ignoring’, excluding’, ‘ostracising’, etc. You may have read that into what she said, but she did not say that at all. Darwinian Arminian encapsulated what she said correctly as being ‘specious’, which is exactly what it is.

    Darwinian Arminian, feministhater, feeriker, and Marquess of Kekbury all responded appropriately. Please don’t make up things that aren’t there, pb.

  48. m11nine says:

    Women are not made to hold each other accountable. It’s asking too much of their nature. Even good women. Remember Trump’s mistaken abortion comments and the same-day reversal?

  49. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    This story would make a great blog post.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-men-are-having-problems-getting-married/

    [D: Thanks.]

  50. DrTorch says:

    Seen at last weekend’s state tournament:

    “The only thing tougher than a wrestler is his mom”

  51. Frank K says:

    Hose-B @ “Really…..we are having our sons advertise to get put in the friend zone of the future president??”

    That can actually be a good thing, Would you really want your son to marry some ball busting feminist?

  52. Ah yes! What would we rowing, oafish, male drones ever do without that steady drum beat of feminist triumphalism? How endearing for them to reveal their tender female egos to us all in this way!

    Why, it seems like only yesterday (April 2014) that we received another romantic love letter from the feminists over at Muffington Post:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/reasons-women-are-the-stronger-sex_n_5153446.html

    And another from July 2014:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/women-getting-smarter-than-men-study_n_5629841.html

    Yet more feminist love in 2015:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/girls-academic-achievement-data_n_6566346.html

    And yet another from July 2016
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-travis-bradberry/why-women-are-smarter-tha_b_11243452.html

    Four Signs of Big Ego
    Here are four telltale signs your ego is overinflated:
    1. You find yourself being defensive. Defending ideas ultimately turns into becoming defensive.
    2. You continually compare yourself to others. In truth, being too competitive actually makes you less competitive.
    3. You seek acceptance to justify your ego needs. You crave respect and recognition from others, which eventually interferes with your success.
    4. You make a point of showcasing your brilliance.

    Your ego may be in control if you experience the following:
    1. Viewing a colleague or a friend as a rival and planning how to “beat” him/her
    2. Taking it personally when someone disagrees with your ideas
    3. Disagreeing with someone simply because you didn’t come up with the idea first
    4. Prematurely criticizing someone else’s ideas without considering their value
    5. Compulsively following someone’s lead, just to “keep up with the Joneses”
    6. Comparing others’ external environments to your own (signs of status or wealth, without regard for inner values) (Source: egonomics, Marcum and Smith)

  53. In the olden days, a boy wearing a t-shirt like into school was committing both fashion and street cred suicide. He would not live it down. He would not recover.
    In some schools that young lad’s day would probably end with him picking up his teeth with a broken hand.

    The ignorance and arrogance of the modern day feminist mother is indeed staggering.

  54. Dave says:

    Millions of young people are being bred to accept that transition and embrace it. Will it override the biological imperatives instituted from on high at the very beginning?

    No it won’t, if history is any judge. Men will always be men and women will always be women, no matter the extent of social engineering. Remember that, with each generation, it takes more effort to maintain this unnatural state. It gets even harder when these brainwashed folks interact with people from other countries, and suddenly realize that they are indeed abnormal.
    Right now as we speak, the kids are rebelling against enfettered liberalism which has been stuffed down their throats by the media and the globalist politicians. They are not having as much sex as their parents. Someone even said conservatism is the new counter-culture. At least 75% of American women have rejected the feminist label.
    While the young people might have a strong visceral reactions against the filth of homosexuality and transgenderism, they are nevertheless careful not to embrace it en masse.

  55. Mandy says:

    I mostly interact just with my family & like minded freinds, none of whom agree with feminism. We submit to our husbands. We teach the right way to our children but we have no influence over the rest of society.

  56. Lost Patrol says:

    @constrainedlocus

    In the olden days, a boy wearing a t-shirt like into school was committing both fashion and street cred suicide. He would not live it down. He would not recover.

    Yes. There are probably still boys that would balk at wearing such shirts as are seen at the store link. That’s why you’ve got to start the brainwashing early, before they get to an age where they understand they are being used by mom for her own validation.

    That’s why the sizes are 2T, 3T, 4T and the like. T for toddler.

  57. da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozo says:

    hey dalrockas!!!

    i have found the solution to the amrrgaiage criseses!!

    wait until you are thirty and find the irgt personsez and it is all now solved
    as dat is da virtue of
    the west

    zlzllzlzlzolzzloozlzozo

  58. Hazelshade says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    Great comment re “I’d rather be his wife than your ‘sister’.” I’m leery of Dalrock’s prediction that there will be significant backlash to “strong like mom.” Hopefully I am just being unreasonably cynical. I don’t see women who identify as traditional pushing back against feminism, and it’s frustrating. Perhaps it’s only because they’re women and women are more conflict-averse, but perhaps it’s for the reasons you list: even the traditional women want insurance if they have an accident with their legit husband. Even traditional women want the option to abandon responsibility when it no longer gives them the status and the power that they seek. Feminism is notorious for “have your cake and eat it too;” I think that saying applies here. It’s about power. Keep the wife status, but don’t push back against the SIW status. You know, maybe it is because women are conflict averse that this strategy is so common. It’s a way for a woman to maximize her own power without having to stick up for themselves or go out on a limb or fight or push back or do any of that risky man stuff.

  59. feeriker says:

    Snowy says:
    March 2, 2017 at 6:17 am

    Another of our female auxiliary regulars made a similar statement some months back on a related topic, to the effect that “yes, I’m probably what one would consider an ideal example of the anti-feminist traditionalist wife and mother,but I don’t believe it’s my place to evangelize that.”

    This is what you’re typically hear from them. “I’ve got mine. Who cares if the rest of the world all around me goes to hell in a handbasket?”

    If America had been populated in the main by people with that attitude in 1775, we’d still be a British colony today.

  60. Dalrock says:

    @Hazelshade

    I’m leery of Dalrock’s prediction that there will be significant backlash to “strong like mom.” Hopefully I am just being unreasonably cynical. I don’t see women who identify as traditional pushing back against feminism, and it’s frustrating.

    Three clarifications:
    1) The pushback I’m describing won’t be against feminism. I’m talking about something else. This is about the intrasexual status competition women are in with each other. Single mothers and other feminist harpies are leaving themselves open to married mothers signaling their higher (married) status.
    2) The nature of the status signaling is deniability, so you won’t see it unless you know how to look for it.
    3) Think of this as a parallel script to the much easier to spot “team woman” subroutine. Both routines are always running; this isn’t an either/or situation.

  61. Hazelshade says:

    @ Dalrock

    I understand clarification number one and I should have been clearer. I used the word “feminism” when I should have said “single mothers.” Sorry.
    Re your second clarification, do you mean that a status-signaling married woman needs to be able to deny that she is in fact status-signaling by, say, wearing a glitzy wedding ring or talking about submitting to her husband in glowing terms? Those are pretty overt signals I realize…
    On number three I think I see what you mean. I regrettably don’t spend a lot of time around women who even call themselves traditional, so I suspect I do miss a lot of the signaling done by married women.

    Thanks.

  62. Dalrock says:

    @Hazelshade

    Re your second clarification, do you mean that a status-signaling married woman needs to be able to deny that she is in fact status-signaling by, say, wearing a glitzy wedding ring or talking about submitting to her husband in glowing terms? Those are pretty overt signals I realize…

    Those work. As does “I bought this product and my husband loved it!”, or “You are so brave. I don’t think I could raise our children without my husband taking charge when they get out of line.”

  63. Gunner Q says:

    Lost Patrol @ March 1, 2017 at 11:51 am:
    “Millions of young people are being bred to accept that transition and embrace it. Will it override the biological imperatives instituted from on high at the very beginning?”

    Nothing will override the male sex drive. The Church killed itself in the attempt. The education-industrial complex ruined its own funding and influence. Feminists have doubled down so many times, they need scientific notation. If men can’t screw women then they’ll screw porn, other men, dogs and Japanese robots, but men will never stop screwing. Not without an Elliot Rodgers finale, which I expect will be the final demonstration of “Strong Like Mom” for a lot of single mothers.

    Testosterone should go on the list with death and taxes.

  64. Nothing will override the male sex drive. The Church killed itself in the attempt. The education-industrial complex ruined its own funding and influence. Feminists have doubled down so many times, they need scientific notation. If men can’t screw women then they’ll screw porn, other men, dogs and Japanese robots, but men will never stop screwing. Not without an Elliot Rodgers finale, which I expect will be the final demonstration of “Strong Like Mom” for a lot of single mothers.

    In the motion picture Afternoon Delight, Juno Temple (playing a whore, invited to stay carte blanche in a suburban home) is having a discussion with Kathryn Hahn (playing a Jewish American Princess and SAHW.) Hahn’s character is trying to have a one-on-one, woman-to-woman discussion with Temple to try and make her change her ways, to get her to stop being a “sex-worker.” It backfires. Blockquotes from Hahn. Italics are Juno Temple.

    Don’t you feel bad about all the married men you have seduced?

    No.

    Don’t you feel sorry for all their wives, who’s husbands cheated by sleeping with you?

    No. (now slightly exasperated)

    You feel no sisterly devotion for these married women?

    Its their own fault I exist. Men have a higher sex drive than women. If wives are not giving their husbands what they need, then I have to step in, and give it to them.

    Hahn’s character has this blank look of total dread upon her face. The next scene you see her giving her husband a blow job for his lunch break.

  65. @Lost Patrol
    Agreed. They really must start them off young. And they do.
    Except the conformity control among children (a.k.a “bullying”) starts off pretty damn young as well. Exclusion tends to be an easy favorite among toddlers.
    Hmmm. Could it be that a child so young picks up on mommy’s silent treatment and fallout?

    And oh are there ever articles about toddler bullying for the righteously indignant feminist mommies to devour! :
    http://www.parenting.com/article/how-to-handle-preschool-bullies

  66. Lost Patrol says:

    @GunnerQ

    Testosterone should go on the list with death and taxes.

    I like that, but even here I wonder a bit. There seems to be fairly broad consensus that men today have a marked deficit of Testosterone by comparison to their forebears, and we are not talking their ancestors from the Old World but rather their own Grandfathers!

    There are many reasons given such as Soy products, estrogen and estrogen imitators entering the water supply, etc. You probably know more about it than I, but coupled with the social conditioning onslaught it seems we are in for a flood of “pansies” as Spike pointed out upthread.

    Good hunting for the men that can stay men though.

  67. infowarrior1 says:

    @Minesweeper
    ”The amount of sin I have known single Christian women engaging in without discipline from God is really quite amazing. Who then blubber all about it as the victim and need ministry and prayer to recover from. Christian men that I know are kept on a very tight leash.

    From a male point of view its really quite incredible.

    God disciplines those that he loves, does he not love women or what is going on ?”

    Because the men in your circle are saved and women are not. Like they were taught different versions of the Gospel with men only getting the real thing as far as you can see.

    If they can get away with sin without discipline from God they will be hell soon enough unless they repent.

  68. Oscar says:

    Courtesy of Instapundit, behold Boy Positive Shirts.

    https://boypositive.com/

  69. SirHamster says:

    “God disciplines those that he loves, does he not love women or what is going on ?”

    Do the Christian men in those churches love those women?

    I am ashamed to look at my own history and judge … no, not really.

  70. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dave
    ”At least 75% of American women have rejected the feminist label.”
    Will be convinced once after restoring men to heads of families. Have all-male military and government. And after women’s suffrage is eliminated.

  71. Darwinian Arminian says:

    The ugly feminist compulsion to mark all things masculine as feminine knows no bounds.

    . . . . Dalrock, I have just finished reading a new article, and it proves once more that you are indeed a prophet. You might have heard that Disney is apparently turning their animated princess flick Beauty and the Beast into a new live action movie. But seeing as how the original was made back in the unenlightened 1990s, a few updates had to be made in order to reflect the new feminist wisdom we’ve learned since then:

    “In Disney’s animated version of Beauty and the Beast, the movie’s heroine, Belle, is a big fan of reading while her father, Maurice, is an inventor. Indeed, it is while traveling to sell his latest brainwave, a wood-chopping machine, that Maurice winds up imprisoned at the Beast’s enchanted castle.

    However, in a new, exclusive image from Disney’s forthcoming live-action Beauty and the Beast (out March 17) Emma Watson’s Belle and Kevin Kline’s Maurice are shown by a work table covered in music boxes. What gives? Well, it turns out that in the forthcoming Bill Condon-directed movie it is Belle who is the inventor while Maurice constructs the aforementioned music-makers.

    ‘In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle,’ says Watson. ‘I was like, ‘Well, there was never very much information or detail at the beginning of the story as to why Belle didn’t fit in, other than she liked books. Also what is she doing with her time?’ So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor.'”

    Link for the story on the movie is here: http://ew.com/article/2016/11/02/beauty-and-the-beast-emma-watson-kevin-kline/

    You know, in another 20 years they should re-make this movie yet again since we will undoubtedly have made so much more feminist progress that this one will look hopelessly outdated. My suggestion: Since this version has a heroine that marks feminist territory by swiping the role and the positive attributes of her father, the new one should dump the role of the Beast entirely. Instead, let it feature a Belle who once again happens upon an enchanted castle full of servants transformed into furniture by a spell that can only be broken by the power of true love; The story’s climax will see them freed from their curse after the power of true love is demonstrated by Belle when she learns to have the courage to love herself.

  72. Boxer says:

    Courtesy of Instapundit, behold Boy Positive Shirts.

    That’s the most subversive thing I’ve seen today, by far. I love it!

  73. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    God disciplines those that he loves, does he not love women or what is going on ?

    Men and women are completely different creatures. The fact that most women don’t live up to male standards (honor, courage, integrity, etc.) isn’t a reason to hate them.

    I do see what you mean, but I think that if there is a god, he created women the way they are for a purpose. If there isn’t a god, then they evolved that way. Either way, it’s the way they are, and we’re not going to change them.

    Earlier a lot of people were wow-just-wowing that Elspeth spun her story to portray the female protagonist in the best possible light, while making the dude who rejected her into a cad. Well, Elspeth is a woman. Women sympathize with other women, and women really hate being rejected. These guys on Dalrock are surprised that she thinks, writes and acts like a normal woman, with healthy female biases.

    Later on a bunch of the same people are mad that random women won’t go out and protest against feminism. Women don’t buck the herd. The vast majority of them aren’t street fighters or tacticians. People in the Dalrock comment section watch too many Hollywood films.

    Being angry at women for acting the way women normally act is akin to being angry at the weather. You can pretend to be offended if it’s raining, but it’s easier just to grab an umbrella.

    Personally, I don’t want this to change. I don’t like it when women try to pretend to be men, or ape what they think are male attributes. I want them to keep acting like women. That’s the way I like them best.

    Boxer

  74. greyghost says:

    Plus 1 Boxer. I had that same comment in a conversation with a man at work. Women are who they are.

  75. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    Being propagandized by gender equalist propaganda where women are shown as men in female suits suit warps expectations.

    As many commentators have been affected cultural poz its understandable how this happened. We are after all products of our environment whether we like it or not.

    Were it not for the Almighty we would be entirely trapped with no way out in a web of lies.

  76. pb says:

    “Being propagandized by gender equalist propaganda where women are shown as men in female suits suit warps expectations.

    As many commentators have been affected cultural poz its understandable how this happened. We are after all products of our environment whether we like it or not.”

    What’s the saying, it’s a feature, not a bug?

  77. pb says:

    Holding women to the same standards of behavior as men is just going to lead to disappointment and bitterness.

  78. Men don’t particularly enjoy being rejected either.

    Also, If you don’t want women held to the same standard as men, then there are a few necessary questions.

    What is the reasonable standard to which society should hold them? Should women be allowed into professions or areas of society where they will not be held to necessary standards? What areas of society are these?

    What aspects of this standard for women should men not be held to? And what implications does holding women to these standards have on the standards we hold men to? Children?

    And in what way can society be induced to accept and bow to these mores?
    In other words, how do we get there from here.
    As a sub-part of this question, one must ask how we get individual men and women to hold themselves to society’s standards.

    After all, the laws and mores have been changed many times before. Why should anyone trust they just won’t be changed again, in a way to will make suckers of them for ‘holding up my end of the deal’?

  79. Don Quixote says:

    Josh the Aspie says:
    March 3, 2017 at 2:43 am

    What is the reasonable standard to which society should hold them? Should women be allowed into professions or areas of society where they will not be held to necessary standards? What areas of society are these?

    What aspects of this standard for women should men not be held to? And what implications does holding women to these standards have on the standards we hold men to? Children?

    And in what way can society be induced to accept and bow to these mores?
    In other words, how do we get there from here.
    As a sub-part of this question, one must ask how we get individual men and women to hold themselves to society’s standards.

    After all, the laws and mores have been changed many times before. Why should anyone trust they just won’t be changed again, in a way to will make suckers of them for ‘holding up my end of the deal’?

    Please consider the following as a viable solution:
    http://www.returnofkings.com/115918/6-types-of-people-who-deserve-the-cucking-stool

  80. greyghost says:

    The only reasonable standard to hold women to is the same standard men are held to. The only insulation a female can have from said standards is her father or husband. Just because you know the nature of women doesn’t mean you treat them with less agency than a man. In fact a red pill knowledge of female nature requires it. Any less is irresponsible.

  81. AnonS says:

    The male standard is “without outside influence, does he do the right thing?”

    The female standard is “requiring heavy punishment for misconduct, does she submit to authority?”

  82. Lyn87 says:

    Josh asks the $64,000 question. Since men and women are so very different, is it reasonable to hold them to the same standards, and if not, how should they differ?

    The desire to possess rights without corresponding responsibilities is as old as time. In the past, the only people who got away with that were royalty, and even that was on the grounds that the King was ultimately responsible to God or “Heaven” himself. His responsibility to his fellow man was only limited to whatever the higher power would hold him to.

    Feminism seeks that for all women (at least all left-wing women), while recognizing no power above them at all except the nebulous concept of “the sisterhood.” That’s why they demand all the rights that men had (and by that they mean the alpha men – women don’t tend to notice the other 80% unless they want something from one of them), yet do not consider it just to hold women to the standards men must meet as matters of course.

    They demanded the right to vote although women are not required to fight and – in the aggregate – women are net tax recipients rather than net tax payers. Why anything thought it was a good idea to give the majority of political power (there are more female voters than male voters) to dictate matters of war and taxation to a group that has little or no personal stake in either is beyond me.

    Women demanded legal equality – when it comes to rights – and they got it. They also demanded gross inequality in their favor – with regard to responsibilities – and they have that, too.

    But that doesn’t really work for anybody in the long run. So Josh’s question stands: we can continue to pretend that everyone is meeting the same standards even though we all know that’s complete fiction, but if we’re going to acknowledge that women and men are different, in what areas should women stand down (from “equality”) in exchange for the enormous advantage of not being held to the same standards as men?

  83. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 8:30 am:
    “…but if we’re going to acknowledge that women and men are different, in what areas should women stand down (from “equality”) in exchange for the enormous advantage of not being held to the same standards as men?”

    I like Greyghost’s answer. Women must face the same standards of honesty, integrity and self-reliance as men do, with the caveat that they can instead submit to Daddy/Hubby. There’s plenty of Biblical; precedent in Numbers 30.

    If women want “male privilege” then they also get male responsibilities. If women would rather get a free ride through life by making a husband happy, that’s good too. It keeps with marriage’s spiritual parallel. We can claim to be God’s equal, and then He will rightly demand total perfection from us, or we can be devoted to Christ and He’ll cover for our faults.

  84. Lyn87 says:

    GunnerQ

    Exactly. I can recall when I was a field grade officer and battalion command slots would open up. People would ask me if I was going to toss my hat into the ring and I always said, “No.”

    For one thing, I liked what I was doing a lot better than I would have liked doing what BC’s do (and I would have had to relocate from a place I liked to a place I didn’t like), but a big part of that is that I didn’t want the responsibilities of command. Since I didn’t want to be responsible for a battalion, I didn’t see the justification of taking a position that go to someone who needed it for his career and actually wanted it. I’ve been in charge of stuff before – I no longer had an itch to scratch, and I knew that the juice (the authority and promotion potential) wasn’t worth the squeeze (the responsibility).

    Scott,

    I posted something on your blog, but WordPress made it disappear. The same thing happened to me and Novaseeker here the other day, and Dalrock had to manually unblock us.

  85. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    Thanks man!!

    Unblocked. (And visible)

    Along with comments from The Deti, chocking on red pills and others.

    They were automatically seen as spam.

    Weird.

  86. pb says:

    Re: standards

    Women have standards regarding loyalty, responsibility, honesty, and so on and in so far they must meet these standards their duties to the standards are the “same” as those of men.

    How they exercise the standards or in what contexts, or what their characteristic actions is different — women primarily in the home, with extended family, and with other women — not as “men” in relation to other men.

    The “public” sphere is nothing more than the interaction of men with other men for promoting the community.

  87. pb says:

    While the “private” or “domestic” sphere is the interaction of men with their wives and families.

  88. @Don Quixote,
    How do we get to this stage of public shaming from where we are? If anyone in the activity you linked would receive public criticism and shame today, it would be those doing the dunking. Also, why would male cuckolds be dunked, but not the women cuckolding them, or the men they perform the sex acts with? This seems rather odd to me.

    @Greyghost,
    So women and men are equal, until a woman claims access to a privilege not available to men, which is to be sheltered from the law by her father or husband.

    How often can she make this choice? Can she be ‘a strong independent woman’ and then escape copability for her actions by hiding behind her husband? This was a common tactic of the suffragettes, who got their husbands arrested for the tax-evasion the women themselves performed, when the husbands could not even legally touch the property the wives were supposed to be paying tax on.

    WBhat does this say about the duty of men? Do they have a responsibility to wed, so that women can avoid the harsh duty before the law? If the woman behaves badly, can the husband or father punish her? Is he punished if he does not reign her in?

    And again, given how difficult it is just to keep the domestic violence laws from getting worse, how do we get there from here? And why should any potential husband believe the rug won’t just be pulled out from under him as it has been repeatedly in the history of our country thus far?

  89. Jeremy VanGelder says:

    Crypto Fashion has a t-shirt which says, “May contain Toxic Masculinity.”

    https://crypto.fashion/collections/crypto-fashion/products/may-contain-toxic-masculinity-t-shirt

  90. feeriker says:

    If women want “male privilege” then they also get male responsibilities. If women would rather get a free ride through life by making a husband happy, that’s good too.

    It’s important to add the caveat: “Pick one or the other. You cannot have both.”

  91. Lyn87 says:

    Re: Responsibility

    It seems to me that people should get to choose what path they want to follow in life, and reap the rewards or benefits of their choices. I think it makes sense to have two tiers of citizenship under the law. That means they could choose whether to be treated as full citizens who are responsible for their actions and receive the rights of full citizenship, or they could choose to be held to a lower level of accountability in exchange for reduced rights.

    If women had to accept equality of responsibility to receive equality of rights, feminism would be deader than disco within a week.

  92. greyghost says:

    Josh the Aspie
    So women and men are equal, until a woman claims access to a privilege not available to men, which is to be sheltered from the law by her father or husband.

    How often can she make this choice? Can she be ‘a strong independent woman’ and then escape copability for her actions by hiding behind her husband? This was a common tactic of the suffragettes, who got their husbands arrested for the tax-evasion the women themselves performed, when the husbands could not even legally touch the property the wives were supposed to be paying tax on.

    WBhat does this say about the duty of men? Do they have a responsibility to wed, so that women can avoid the harsh duty before the law? If the woman behaves badly, can the husband or father punish her? Is he punished if he does not reign her in?

    And again, given how difficult it is just to keep the domestic violence laws from getting worse, how do we get there from here? And why should any potential husband believe the rug won’t just be pulled out from under him as it has been repeatedly in the history of our country thus far?

    All actions a woman takes she is held accountable for. Including DV. No double standards for entry into professions (ex. police,fire department ,military etc.) Marriage is her submission to him not the state assigning her a a slave boy to take her hits. So if she wants to be an Army ranger and can’t pass the “Ranger” standard she can marry a ranger.
    Men have no duty to woman only husbands to their wives and daughters. (nor does the government) In a society of red pill equality best punishment for a misbehaving female is to send her out to face reality for herself. That is a better motivator than any ass whipping.
    Couple things are needed to help things. First this is about the law and how the government rules society. Hard to have these discussions when law and interpersonal interaction are mixed. Second by law any child born to a married father will remain the child of that father. Single men have the current system in place.
    Overall have faith in God created female nature. Reality of responsibility brings pleasantness from wives.

  93. Don Quixote says:

    Josh the Aspie says:
    March 3, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    @Don Quixote,
    How do we get to this stage of public shaming from where we are? If anyone in the activity you linked would receive public criticism and shame today, it would be those doing the dunking. Also, why would male cuckolds be dunked, but not the women cuckolding them, or the men they perform the sex acts with? This seems rather odd to me.

    Firstly regarding public shaming in today’s society.
    I can’t see a return to the ‘cucking stool’ as per the RoK article. But amongst families and some church communities there is room for some kind of public shaming. Our host Dalrock has provided many excellent examples:
    a) Shaming church leaders for their acceptance of feminism and using a cloak of deception to mask their failings. [too many examples in this category to list]
    b) Actual public shaming of women who boldly publish online their slutty activities, these are some of the most stinging rebukes a slut can receive, without much chance of legal recourse.

    Back to the RoK article and your question; “Also, why would male cuckolds be dunked, but not the women cuckolding them, or the men they perform the sex acts with? This seems rather odd to me.”

    I agree that the men [victims] should not be dunked in the cuck chair. But the RoK article seems to be using the word ‘cuck’ with a slightly different meaning. He seems to be calling manginas cucks.

    I had to fight with my spell checker to write this

  94. Marquess of Kekbury says:

    Titus 2

    Qualities of a Sound Church

    2 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

    Women have peers, just like men.
    They are exhorted to choose to behave virtuously and, crucially, to set an example for their peers.
    This is from your scripture, not an “action movie,” not someone’s “unrealistic expectations.”

    Men should have low expectations, but total permissiveness is completely unsound.

  95. Marquess of Kekbury says:

    Also, as a general statement, it is my opinion that reflexively white knighting for women– whether virtuous or lazy and rebellious– is unmanly. It’s an abdication of leadership. They need guidance, not denial of agency or other various feel-good coddling.

    It is also gayer than the spunk-encrusted glitter in Liberace’s loofa.

    Thank you.

  96. feeriker says:

    Titus 2

    Qualities of a Sound Church

    Cue image of Bela Lugosi as Dracula recoiling at the sight of a mirror.

  97. Frank K says:

    “Men don’t particularly enjoy being rejected either.”

    True, but then we don’t write articles titled “Where have all the good women gone?”, mostly because we know where they went … they’re in Chad Thundercocks’s bed, at least until they hit the wall.

  98. Frank K says:

    “Hahn’s character has this blank look of total dread upon her face. The next scene you see her giving her husband a blow job for his lunch break.”

    A nice fantasy, but in the real world she would have divorced him and taken him to the cleaners.

  99. Boxer says:

    Dear Frank:

    True, but then we don’t write articles titled “Where have all the good women gone?”, mostly because we know where they went … they’re in Chad Thundercocks’s bed, at least until they hit the wall.

    I’ve talked about this before. MRA types point to social conditioning. I’m sure that’s part of it, but I think there’s a very deeply hardwired aspect to rejection that trips a lot of neural switches in women.

    Chicks evolved to choose and men evolved to compete to be chosen. If I’m rejected I move on and find someone who’s more interested. If the random chick is rejected, it’s some sort of existential crisis for her, harkening back to caveman days, when rejection meant abandonment to the elements.

    Boxer

  100. American says:

    Easy fix. Stop taxing single men and nuclear families to fund single parenthood. Completely defund all government welfare to single mothers and let’s see how strong they really are without living off men’s income via the government *muffled laugh*.

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    If women had to accept equality of responsibility to receive equality of rights, feminism would be deader than disco within a week.

    Women would like it, too, but wouldn’t admit it. No problem.

  102. Anonymous says:

    And I take it Feminists don’t mean like this (that might be serious):

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    Radfems say the darndest things!

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s