1 2 3 4 | bottom
Quote# 125631

" " You are a woman who models herself on a Roman philosopher, which is absurd. Do you know the origin of the word “virtue?” "

Why yes, yes I do. Do you think moral excellence is something of which only men are capable?"

Without guidance from authority, yes.

" If he lived today, yes, of course he’d see women as heirs to his ideas. He can be excused as being a product of his time; what’s your excuse?"

You think Aurelius needs you to excuse him? How presumptuous…

" Why is your sense of manhood so shaken by the fact that I can change a tire or chop some wood, if it’s required of me? Being able to do those things doesn’t preclude me also being able to cook or nurture my family, or wear a dress and be demure."

Seriously, how many women who say they can do this actually can? I think it’s a self-indulgent fantasy in 95+ percent of cases.

BTW, your typical dyke who can do these things is NOT capable of being “demure.” Don’t you get it? Some things are masculine, and some feminine.

" The fact of the (original) matter is this: if you should ever reproduce, the chances are good that you are going to occasionally be called upon to carry your infant offspring, whether you like it or not. If you think that using a practical tool for that purpose makes you less of a man, then don’t use that tool. If you think that occasionally carrying your own infant or changing the occasional diaper makes you less of a man, then perhaps you’re not really father material."



You haven’t read my earlier posts, eh? I’ve changed more diapers and taken care of babies far more than I ever expected. I have carried my children, cooked for them, bathed them, changed them and put them to bed countless times — far from “occasionally.” All without help from a woman.

All of that work made me pretty competent at doing so, but it certainly didn’t come naturally to me, as it does for women. The same goes for women who work on cars or fix things around the house: they can learn, but it’s easier for a man.

I am angry at women like you because you are too thick to understand that simple truth, and continue to force your idiotic ideas that men and women are equally capable at all tasks down our throats. I grew up with that “Free to Be… You and Me” crap, and I despise it.

Welmer, Chateau Heartiste 3 Comments [3/22/2017 8:31:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 125630

" "Leave it to some dyke who calls herself “Marcus” to come gurgling the same bullshit we’ve all come to expect."

Have you ever heard of Marcus Aurelius? It’s a play on his name because I admire his philosophy, supergenius. And have you ever read any of my previous comments? Apparently not, because if you had, you’d know that I’ve never spouted any bullshit, nor towed any party lines. Nice ad hominem attack, though."

Oh no, I’ve never heard of Marcus Aurelius. Your oh-so-clever little wordplay totally escaped my notice. NOT!

You are a woman who models herself on a Roman philosopher, which is absurd. Do you know the origin of the word “virtue?” Do you think Aurelius would have seen some spoiled American woman with an inflated ego as the rightful heir to his ideas?

Pietas dictates that you should shut up in the presence of men and take your place as a woman. Or did you miss that part? How convenient, and how typically female to overlook the fundamentals…

Your presumptuous defilement of ancient, received wisdom only underscores the folly of attempting to give women equal status in the realm of thought.

Welmer, Chateau Heartiste 3 Comments [3/22/2017 8:31:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 125628

They want you to buy into the scam feminism and liberals have set up. So society can crash and be rebuilt up better the way they want it. Although a lot are just idiots who think anything goes will last forever. Neither of which will ever work out. Most dumb fuck liberals think they can just fuck the system forever and men will churn on. All it takes is for 10% of males to say "YA KNOW WHAT, FUCK THIS SHIT" and give up or seek justice.

Cunts don't give a fuck. They are too stupid to see 5 foot in front of them. Cunts are just gluttons for chad cock and beta bux. They think they can have it all forever with no consequences. They think betas and omegas will simply take this shit forever. They are very wrong.

Cunts have no concept of morality or justice or anything good at all. They are just parasitic & retarded children who will drain their host until it croaks. They are incapable of rational thought or positivity. They merely pretend to be those things just as they dress themselves up like angels with makeup and pretty clothes. Its all illusion. In reality females are demons in the flesh. Thus they deserve no rights of any kind.

The second female sexual desires matter your civilization begins to rot. It takes a while but every time it goes under. Thats why there are no matriarchies or history of females ruling a country in any way. Because the second they do they fuck it all up and bow down begging for that foreign alpha cock. Lots of suffering comes for everyone else when a nation falls. Which females don't give a fuck about. They love being conquered by other nations with brutal men and getting fucked by those men.

Female humanoid organisms are just worthless pieces of shit. They don't deserve any god damn rights. They don't deserve anything positive. Fucking pieces of shit. I could never feel sympathy for those parasitic shit lords. Females deserve to be treated lesser than shit as their inner quality exists as lower than shit.

livinginhell101, /r/incels 11 Comments [3/22/2017 7:12:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125610

One of the things I love about President Trump is the fact that Melania Trump is quiet, keeps to herself and isn't trying to force her way into making public policy.

It's a refreshing change from eight years of Michael Obama (not a typo).

Quiet, submissive wives for the win.

[https://gab.ai/mattforney/posts/6325100]

...

Now if President Trump can just tell his thot daughter Ivanka and her Jewboy husband to go pound sand, things would be perfect.

The two of them are squishes who want to compromise with the cucks and the lefties. They gotta go.

[https://gab.ai/mattforney/posts/6325135]

Matt Forney, Gab 10 Comments [3/21/2017 3:23:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 125602

In many failed marriages, the wife refused to lead the family. A husband tries to lead his wife, but if she won't be led then the children won't march properly. Children won't obey their father with a pure heart if the mother is against the father. All across America today there are rebellious wives who won't be led. The husband gets upset and argues with his wife most of the time because she won't do as he tells her. She makes excuses and accuses him of picking on her. She is a slackard, half-stepping her duties and lying often in an attempt to avoid being rebuked by her husband. If he doesn't rebuke her, then who will? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink it.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 3 Comments [3/21/2017 3:21:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 125601

The blame for the mess in America is mostly the man's fault in my opinion. God created man to take charge and lead. When REAL men falter and become scarce in number, then women and homosexuals easily rise to power. We have bratty children running the nation these days. Any reminisce of genuine and respectable men of honor, character and integrity is long gone. I place the primary blame upon husbands and fathers because we are the one's whom God left in charge of everything.

Let me clarify, I believe that most marriage failures are the woman's fault. God created man and gave him work to do; but the wife's work is her husband. If a woman fails as a wife, then she has failed at her life's work in God's eyes. Therefore, and in view of 1sr Peter 3:1, I firmly believe that women are mostly to blame when divorce happens. In fact, it's women who file for divorce at more than TWICE the rate of men in America.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 6 Comments [3/21/2017 3:19:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 125597

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the second mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The first mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guineverein in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Jim, Jim's Blog 15 Comments [3/21/2017 3:18:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 125589

A former guard at an Australian youth detention centre has admitted filming himself asking teenage inmates for oral sex.

Conan Zamolo's testimony came during a royal commission inquiry into youth detention in the Northern Territory.

The commission was launched last year after photos showing inmates being strip-searched and placed in a spit hood drew widespread condemnation.

Mr Zamolo said his requests for oral sex were "a joke".

"I was actually just going to say goodnight to them because I was leaving shift," Mr Zamolo said on Monday.

"I knew they'd take it as a joke, or I just assumed they would take it as a joke."

Mr Zamolo also admitted to urging another inmate to eat faeces, and to filming a boy urinating.

"At the time I didn't think it was inappropriate, but now I see how inappropriate it is," he said.

He claimed he had a good relationship with the detainees.

The incidents happened at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, where Mr Zamolo worked from 2012 to 2014.

The Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory follows widespread condemnation of the treatment of detainees at Don Dale in 2014 and 2015.

In 2015, Amnesty International described the regime at the centre as "institutionalised brutality", with teenagers being held in solitary confinement with no access to light or water for long periods.

Conan Zamolo, BBC News 7 Comments [3/21/2017 2:28:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 125583



WHAM, break down.
Happy well adjusted normal girls do not give themselves a desexing crew cut.
This was professionally shot and take a good long look at how broken her eyes still managed to look



A few years later and she is exploring bestiality

Cataline Sergius, The Dark Herald 8 Comments [3/21/2017 2:24:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Citizen Justin

Quote# 125582

[Seriously I kinda wonder why this guy was a PUA in the first place]

Other effects of low T on a nation’s men:

leftist politics
vocal fry
uptalk
esssra klein
manboobs
john scalzi
beta orbiting
grinding incel
male feminists
experimental homosexuality
bad taste in, well, everything
androgyny in look and attitude
cuckoldry and miscegenation
marathon running
carbface
interracial adoption
anti-trumpism
open borders
antifa
vidgya gaming-induced deep vein thrombosis
protruding nipples (very disrespectful)
anal play and anal play accessories
math class is hard
intersectionality
shia lapoofter
fake news
NPR
tranny “rights”
butt-kicking babes
equalism
haven monahan (and other fake rape fantasies)
patton oswalt
talmudic sophistry
barack obama
hypocrisy
disloyalty
snark
censorship
literal bending over backwards for invading hordes of higher fertility ingrates
social justice posturing
“toxic masculinity” (the irony)

As you can see, chronically low T on both the individual and societal level is almost entirely downside. Bullying decreases. Maybe you could call that an upside. I wouldn’t.

CH, Chateau Heartiste 20 Comments [3/21/2017 2:24:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 125576

Many bloggers have theorized that men and women have different value in the sexual market place relative to age. This concept is commonly referred to as "sexual market value."

Under this theory, a woman's sexual value is highest from age 18 until about 27 years old. As a woman ages into her 30s and 40s, her sexual market begins to rapidly decline as she ages. In contrast, a man's sexual market value is lowest in his teens and twenties, and then gradually increases as he ages. A man's sexual market value does not peak until he hits approximately 36 years old. As men age into their 40s, the decline is much less rapid than women, in contrast to a woman's more rapid decline. The practical affect is that women stand the best chance of mating with a male whose value is high early in life, while men stand the best chance of mating with a woman whose value is high later in life.

Some have suggested that modern society, which pushes women into traditional careers, is not compatible with the reality of the sexual market value.[1]. By the time American women have graduated college and become established in their career, many are too old to bear children absent serious health risks.[2]. Notably, scientific studies have concluded that women are racing against a biological clock, as having children past the age of 35 is a serious risk.[3]. However, men can have children well into their 40s and 50s. [4]. This would seem to suggest that from an evolutionary, cultural, and biological standpoint, women benefit by bearing children earlier in life, while men benefit by bearing children later in life.

Rollo notes:

Now class, please address your attention to the critical 15-16 year span between a woman’s peak SMV and that of men’s. It should come as no surprise that this span is generally the most socially tumultuous between the sexes. The majority of first marriages take place here, single-motherhood takes place here, advanced degrees, career establishments, hitting the Wall, and many other significant life events occur in this life stage. So it is with a profound sense of importance that we understand the SMV context, and the SMP’s influence as prescribed to each sexes experience during this period.

At age 30 men are just beginning to manifest some proto-awareness of their sexual value, while simultaneously women are becoming painfully aware of their marked inability to compete with their sexual competitors indefinitely. This is the point of comparative SMV: when both sexes are situationally at about the same level of valuation (5). The conflict in this is that men are just beginning to realize their potential while women must struggle with the declination of their own.

This is the primary phase during which women must cash in their biological chips in the hope that the best men they can invest their hypergamy with will not be so aware of their innate SMV potential that they would choose a younger woman (22-24) during her peak phase over her. . . .

The confluence between both sexes’ comparative SMV is perhaps the most critical stage of life for feminine hypergamy. She must be able to keep him ignorant of his SMV potential long enough to optimize her hypergamy. In men’s case, his imperative is to awaken to his SMV (or his potential of it) before he has made life-altering decisions based on a lack understanding his potential.

Every man who I’ve ever known to tell me how he wished he’d known of the manosphere or read my writing before getting married or ‘accidentally’ knocking up his BPD girlfriend has his regret rooted in not making this SMV awareness connection. They tended to value women more greatly than their own potential for a later realized SMV peak – or they never realized that peak due to not making this awareness connection.


Kings Wiki, Kings Wiki 5 Comments [3/21/2017 2:23:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125575

If women want to be seen as individuals they should start acting like individuals.

Currently, they pretty much all find the exact same men as attractive and the exact same men unattractive physically, personality wise, it's the same. While men find many personality types attractive women act as a hivemind finding the same personality type attractive (extroverted, assertive, no insecurities at all, etc.)

This backs up the fact women don't act like individuals too.

kllme555, /r/incels 7 Comments [3/21/2017 2:23:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Father of the Year Award

May Bubba exert "poetic justice" on you!

Quote# 125565

A dad from Texas has been convicted for forcing his 16-year-old daughter to become a prostitute as a punishment for being sexually active. The 46-year-old Scot Rodney Robinson was found guilty of first-degree felony charge and sent away to jail. He plead guilty for forcing her into prostitution at truck stops.

According to KRTK, when the father found out that his daughter was already sexually active at age 16 he wanted to punish her for it. The young girl said that her dad forced her to “service” truck drivers and even took the money she earned.

“He basically told her, ‘If you’re gonna be a wh**e, we’re gonna treat ya like one,'” said JoAnne Musick, chief of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office Sex Crimes Division.

Robinson has a thick criminal record and has already faced charges related to burglary, criminal trespass, drug possession and auto theft.

Scot Rodney Robinson, Buzz Fanzine 18 Comments [3/21/2017 2:23:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 125574

The Truth About Women In STEM

Over the weekend, I was treated to some truly hearty laughs when a group of computer programmers posted on GitHub the specifications of a feminist programming language. (It has since been removed and posted to bitbucket.) As a professional software developer and recreational critic of Social Justice Warriors, this article felt tailor-made to my interests. If either of those descriptions applies to you, feel free to check out the link above, it’s worth it.

“I wonder how long it would take an offended “feminist” to overreact to this article?” I thought. Turns out, not so long, as a feminist coder posted her response almost on cue, complete with “trigger warnings”, using the original post as 75% of her article content, the whole nine yards (check it out here).

Naturally, I was reminded about the infamous Adria Richards “Donglegate” incident, which has become somewhat legendary in the tech world, where a female employee of Sendgrid got two men fired because she overheard them making a joke about “dongles” in private at a conference. I couldn’t help but to think of Beavis and Butthead snickering and saying “huh huh, huh huh, she said dongles”. Crude? Maybe. Reason to lose employment? Absolutely not. And yet when “Donglegate” was all said and done, and Adria Richards got fired because sweet justice exists, the feminists and social justice warriors got the last laugh. For weeks, I saw Adria Richards on TV, playing the victim, distorting the story so hard that I was reminded of a famous Simpsons episode I saw on TV.

That was the Adria Richards coverage in a nutshell, and to someone who was not as invested in the story as I was (which is roughly 99% of people) it seems like another chapter in the long continuing narrative of “The evil ‘bro-grammer boys club of STEM fields that hates women and wants to make their life a living hell’”.

This narrative has always pissed me off because I can tell you firsthand that it is not true. In fact, in just about every aspect it has been the opposite. High schools, universities and employers try to fight so hard against the “boys club” stereotype that they end up giving women some rather unfair advantages. How do I know this? I graduated from one of the top science and engineering schools in the country.
College Years

When I was a college freshman in the Computer Science program, I immediately noticed that there were a lot more men than women. No biggie, people do what they like. I didn’t think much of it. It was widely accepted that computer science was one of the tougher majors in our university and students would routinely change majors when they started being overwhelmed by the incredibly demanding course load.

How demanding? During sophomore year my roommate and I pulled so many all-nighters that we inadvertently learned the rules of cricket (the cricket world championships were broadcast from halfway around the world, live, in the middle of the night, and it made for better background TV than infomercials.)

I first realized something was wrong when I got into trouble with the housing department of our school. My crime? Being a nerd hitting on the hottest girl in the dorms next to ours. Apparently, this was labelled as harassing behavior, and the only thing that saved me from being kicked out of on-campus housing was a friend of mine, who was an RA and member of some housing committees, vouching for me and promising everyone there that he would remedy the problem in private. Once again, I didn’t think much of it, we talked it out, and I was actually believing that what I did was wrong. But that’s a story for another time.

Some time later, I saw a student giving a tour to some high school kids, but then I noticed that the high schoolers were all girls, almost all of them wearing matching t-shirts. This was our state’s program to get more girls interested in science and math. Boy interested in science and math? You’re on your own there, buddy. The next year, it was touted as a success—many more girls enrolled in our schools science and math programs than they ever have. Except the numbers were still overwhelmingly male, I think the overall ratio moved by half a percent. I didn’t think much of it then.

As I progressed through my classes, I would see the same faces over and over again. By your senior year you will probably be in at least 1 group project, study group or circle with about 25% of your major by incoming class year. And while there were some brilliant, exceptionally bright and hard-working women, they were outnumbered by women who took the easiest duties in group projects and just coasted. How some of these girls ended up in Junior and Senior Level computer science classes at my school was a miracle. There were numerous instances where you would have to explain basic concepts to them. It blew my mind. And we encouraged them! We either took the harder group project roles because we did not want a bad grade, or we acted as complete supplicating chumps and ended up doing about 80% of these girls homework assignments thinking it would win us favors (it didn’t).

It’s not like the school had a shortage of resources to help them. Quite the opposite. There were several women’s organizations to help ensure the success of these ladies by helping them with tutoring, counseling, etc, for free. But these resources were often ignored in favor of the easy group projects and thirsty men.

There was a computer lab that stayed open all night. There were only 1-2 girls there pulling all-nighters at a time. But lots of dudes. Lots and lots of dudes. Because of the course load, people were dropping out left and right, but I can only recall one instance of a girl I knew dropping out, compared to the dozens of guys I knew.

And then came the job fairs. Because of my school’s prestige and reputation, many prominent companies and organizations recruited from our school. And you can guess what happened. All of the girls that coasted, all of the girls that cheated, “short cut” and gilded their way through college, ALL, without any exception, got job offers at these prestigious companies with those sweet high STEM salaries. I have known several guys that could not find work in their field while grinding hard for up to a year on the same exact prestigious degree. This was demoralizing. But, you know, male privilege.
More Examples.

“But maybe you’re just nitpicking and biased?” OK then, I will give you more examples from outside of my college career.

One of my friend’s girlfriend, on the surface, has a STEM career (computer software to be exact). If you google her name you will find several articles about her, talking about the challenges, hardships, and all the other bla bla bla that women face in computer science. The thing is, I am pretty sure this girl has never written a single line of code. And no, my friend is not dating Adria Richards. Companies are so desperate to employ and tout women, to be seen as that “progressive” company, that many create non-technical positions to fill that role, and then pat themselves on the back for it.

Another example: an ex-girlfriend, a hard science PhD, would routinely complain about the sexism at her job. As a caring and doting boyfriend, of course I took those things seriously, until I realized that the issues were not sexist – they were with her work. When you’re doing research-based academic work that kind of thing tends to happen. You are constantly under scrutiny, your bosses are people that haven’t been outside of academia for any parts of their lives, you get paid shit money, and it’s generally an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment. I realized this when I met more PhDs, male and female, from various fields. All of them had the same story. This girl mistook difficulty for sexism. Getting a PhD is so hard that there is a popular niche comic describing the rigors of professional academia (PhD Comics). Their humor won’t resonate with everyone, but every single PhD I know loves it.

So yes, STEM is indeed easier for women. Everyone wants then to succeed. Everyone needs them to succeed. No matter what the cost.

But you know who I respect the most? The grinders. The girls that work hard, the girls that learn, the girls that try to make a difference in the world on the same playing field as boys. Because, in reality, there is no sexism in science. In fact, there is no “-ism” in science. It’s a meritocracy, with knowledge and achievement as the main focus. And I can respect that.

This is exactly why the “bro” culture will persist. Science can not be held to the same politically correct standards as plain old office work. Because if I’m working with you at 4 am, fueled by pizza, mountain dew and cricket matches on TV, no matter who you are, man or woman, you’re gonna be my bro. Because that’s the only way anything will get done.

Dr Harry Longabaugh, Return of Kings 8 Comments [3/20/2017 1:43:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125572

Game denialism is the act of denying that game works. Feminists, white knights, incels and some White Nationalists are examples of game denialists.

Arguments

A common game denialist argument is that the only reason men who apply game techniques are able to get laid, is that they are doing a lot of approaches and therefore are succeeding at a numbers game.[1]

Kings Wiki, Kings Wiki 6 Comments [3/20/2017 1:42:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125571

The busted dudes test is, according to Roosh, the only quality one needs to look for when deciding where to stay while abroad: "Is it common to see a busted guy with a pretty girl on his arm?" If within my first day in a country one sees pretty girls with busted dudes who aren't decked out in Hugo Boss or gold jewelry, one knows the sexual market is skewed in the man’s favor.[1] According to Roosh, the busted test "Includes everything. A guy with an okay face but 30 pounds overweight wearing jean shorts and white tube socks would be classified as busted."[2]

Roosh V, Kings Wiki 13 Comments [3/20/2017 1:42:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125569

This month, someone made a donation to Planned Parenthood in Republican State Senator Steve Fitzgerald’s name ? and the Kansas lawmaker was not happy about it.

On March 10, Planned Parenthood’s Great Plains clinic tweeted out a photo of a letter Sen. Fitzgerald wrote to the women’s health organization. “It is with great dismay that I received your letter that a donation was made in my ‘honor’ to your heinous organization,” Sen. Fitzgerald wrote.

The state senator went on to liken Planned Parenthood ? an international nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to millions of women and men ? to a Nazi concentration camp.

“This is as bad ? or worse ? as having one’s name associated with Dachau,” Sen. Fitzgerald wrote, referring to the first Nazi concentration camp created in 1933. “Shame on your organization and shame on anyone that would attempt to blacken my name in this manner.”

In an interview with The Kansas City Star on Monday, Sen. Fitzgerald stood by his original comments.

“It was either send them that or ignore it,” Sen. Fitzgerald told The Star. “I figured, I don’t want my name associated as a donation to Planned Parenthood, in my name, to go on un-denounced by me.”

When asked if Sen. Fitzgerald was implying that Planned Parenthood is actually worse than the Nazis, the state senator replied: “Oh, yeah,” adding that the Nazis “ought to be incensed by the comparison.”

Many Twitter users were understandably very upset with Sen. Fitzgerald’s comments.

[Tweets removed by submitter]

Spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Great Plains told The Star that they’ve see an uptick in donations in Sen. Fitzgerald’s name since they tweeted his letter.

“It’s this kind of inflammatory language that adds to the shame and stigma of safe legal abortion,” Lee-Gilmore said. “The state of Kansas has much bigger issues to be dealing with, and this is just an unacceptable attack on women’s right to choose.”

Steve Fitzgerald, Huffington Post 5 Comments [3/20/2017 1:17:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 125562



Anonymous, Whisper 13 Comments [3/19/2017 4:53:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 125557

Game is the sum tools meant to increase a man's sexual worth,[1] or any technique a man uses to better attract women. It is one of the preeminent topics discussed at Roosh V Forum and Return of Kings. Feminists have branded game as "manipulative", while the men who practice game uphold it as a form of self-improvement and a path to better sexual success. "Gaming" a girl refers to actively using game techniques to attract her. Roissy describes game as "The practice of challenging women."

How Game spreads and evolves

Game spreads and evolves as men share their techniques, experiences, and observations of women with each other. Other men then test and report back on this input, creating a continually evolving consensus. This process accelerated with the Internet, which allows men to share instantly.

Denial

Game denial is a rejection of the techniques with which men are reporting success, in favor of techniques that men are reporting as failures.

Since Game deniers have little if any real support for their positions, they almost always resort to unfounded attacks on the consensus group.

Kings Wiki, Kings Wiki 2 Comments [3/19/2017 4:04:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125541

[Comment under "Informative Pics for MGTOW"]



VileNord, Men Going Their Own Way 18 Comments [3/19/2017 1:52:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 125532

Men cannot be raped but we do have our own equivalent, of being cuckolded and tricked into raising somebody who isn’t our own genes which is worse than any of that including prison rape.

Also as for how beta males’ genes from its because patriarchy protected us from the will of hypergamous alpha-hunting women by suppressing their interests, and putting mens’ first. Without patriarchy betas wouldn’t be here.

Women produce nothing of value in this world, they exploit us men for it and we have nothing to lose but our chains in this society against the gynocentric collective matriarchy, when MGTOW-led unions(Not Marxist, Feminist degenerate ones) start forming one day we are going to have all men strike and stop working. And bring down civilization or society as a whole for revenge of your exploitation of us. Women want men to do all the work anyway and don’t do anything so it will be quite easy.


MGTOWRevolutionary, We Hunted The Mammoth 21 Comments [3/18/2017 10:52:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 125467

How do Women have the Strength to Settle/ Fuck an Unattractive Guy??

The must REALLY LOVE Money to do so. LOL.

jackville07, /r/incels 7 Comments [3/18/2017 4:06:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 125505

Women who support gay rights but refuse to have anal sex are the weakest race.What do you think your gay besties are doing behind closed doors, honey? Holding hands while humming "It's Raining Men?"

Matt Forney, Gab 19 Comments [3/18/2017 1:18:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 125499

Much as I like to trumpet the importance of a woman's right to choose all things at all times, there's one choice I simply cannot understand: the choice of an otherwise sane and healthy woman not to have children.

If a would-be mother is a singleton of 40 who decides to have a baby without a partner, I might wish she'd thought of it sooner and prepared for it better - but I understand.

If she's half of a lesbian couple who 'borrows' the wherewithal, I might cross my fingers that the child is not teased at school - but I understand. Even if she's a 66-year- old pregnant pensioner, threatening to turn motherhood into a freak show, I might (indeed, I do) think she's monstrously selfish and dangerously wrong - but again, more or less, I understand.

Yet if she says she hasn't a shred of maternal feeling in her, moreover, if she says she would prefer to concentrate on her career and that a child would only get in the way of it, then my head might acknowledge her right to do so. But my heart whispers: 'Lady, you're weird.'

It was welcome news, therefore, to discover this week that I am not alone. Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

As a result, it is these single-track careerists who are increasingly likely to be vilified, refused jobs and denied promotion because many employers believe them to lack what the study calls 'an essential humanity'. And I know exactly what they mean.

In the little hothouse of my own trade as a hack, I play a game with myself. Reading all the other female scribblers, sometimes with grudging admiration and sometimes none at all, I try to guess from their expression of their world view whether or not they are mothers.

I haven't - yet - been wrong. Now, with MPs so much in the headlines, I've extended the game and started to guess about the women among them, too.

As far as I can tell, my score is also pretty high there - even though it's just a feeling. On both sides of the political divide, as with the writers, it's not what MPs say or do, so much as how they go about it.

'Mothers bring something extra'

And if that touch of 'essential humanity' - or its absence - colours such notably tough professions, it's hardly surprising that employers are starting to notice that the same applies across the spectrum of workplaces.

Of course, we need not be silly about it.

Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other.

Or a high-flier working 20-hour days while still breast-feeding. Or the mother of a small brood taking on any job of such erratic hours that she cannot promise them when or even if she'll be home.

But most jobs aren't like that - and most children don't stay babies for long.

Besides which, in my experiences both as a colleague and an employer, I have found that mothers almost always bring something extra to the job, to the benefit of all.

It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time.

It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet.

Two-thirds of working mothers, a recent survey found, could not provide for the children they love in the manner they would wish if they lost their jobs. So there's incentive for you.

They will, it is true, snatch time off for poorly children and Christmas carol services. And it's true they will insist that, in return for arriving on the dot of 9am, they must also leave on the dot of 5pm.

But rarely have I encountered a mother who did not offer to make up time lost, often in lunch hours. As for leaving on time, put enough mothers together in one workplace and you'll get rid of the ghastly ethos of 'presenteeism', whereby people vie for plaudits based solely on how late - albeit often uselessly - they hang around the office.

The prioritising that may baffle other people is a cinch for a woman who has spent years juggling a household. Negotiating skills? A request for 10 per cent off an overdue invoice is nothing to a woman who has had to broker a deal on Britain's Got Talent versus bedtime.

When it comes to emergencies, if you have run all the way to a clinic with a terrified toddler vomiting down your neck then, trust me, a package delayed in transit is a piece of cake. And if those are the tangibles, the intangibles - the 'essential humanity' - are more important still.

You cannot be a mother without knowing something about selflessness, compassion, generosity, commitment, fierce loyalty and plain hard work. You cannot - surely - be a boss and not value assets such as those in your staff.

Nor is it the boss who pays the price for the extras a mother brings with her; she's the one who pays for that. Enough reams have been written about the long hours of slog it takes to run a home and hold down a job at the same time. Yet still we keep doing it because we want our work, our independence and our money.

But, more than all the things we want, we actually need our children; they complete us as women, they are our light and our love and our legacy.

We feel desperately sorry for those who yearn for children they cannot have; the unwilling barren, if you will. But when we meet a woman who chooses her childlessness in the belief that there is something out there worth more, we smile politely even while - once again - our guts whisper: 'Lady, you're weird.'

So three cheers for the employers who are catching on, the ones who don't want to people their workforces with the cold, the calculating, the sad and the mad. The only question is: what took you so long?

Carol Sarler, Daily Mail 16 Comments [3/18/2017 2:52:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 125497

[On a screenshot of a radfem post calling people male supremacists for supporting fathers and mothers having equal parental rights]

This is further evidence that gender and women studies are pseudoscience and their top theories "the patriarchy", "wage gap" and "rape culture" are conspiracy theories. They not only double down but they triple down with their insanity. They should see a couple of wildlife documentaries and draw analogies which easily disproves the above claims (except for the last one).

It's ridiculous that this is taught at universities and has a major presence both in media and politics as if it had any factual merit.

Liberals against SJW's, Facebook 5 Comments [3/18/2017 2:52:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
1 2 3 4 | top