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
WTF?! || meh

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
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 122583

[In July, Kathryn B. H. Clancy and her co-authors Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford and Katie Hinde published a survey of 666 field-based scientists in the journal PLoS One and reported that 26 percent of the female scientists surveyed had been sexually assaulted during fieldwork.]

Of course, the push to encourage women in science is only going to cause more such sexual assaults to take place, which is one more reason why it is a bad idea. Science doesn't need more women, especially if more women in the field are going to help transform otherwise good male scientists into rapists and sex criminals.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 30 Comments [11/18/2016 2:45:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 97124

[On extending protection to male rape victims]

And this also gets to the heart of my objection to applying the victimhood mantle to the male. Making men as physically helpless and violable as contemporary feminists hold women to be is a form of social castration. One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act. Take this away and we are slaves, so removing this from men – even with a concept ostensibly meant to “protect” men – leads us down a hole, at the bottom of which we find ourselves bereft of our manhood both culturally and legally. And make no mistake: many people really do want to rob men of their manhood. Male feminist Michael Kimmel has made a career of it.

This is not to say that men cannot be victimized or real victims; they clearly can and this has always been recognized. But the most effective means of victimizing men has always been to reduce them to a state in which they are incapable of protecting themselves and acting in their own interests, and this is accomplished as easily by feminizing them as by direct force of arms.

When a woman appeals to people for help and protection, she is engaged in an empowering act. When men rush to a woman’s aid, it demonstrates her female potency. When her “needs” are met by others, it does not detract from but rather adds to her status. For ancient, immutable reasons, this does not apply to men.

The man who cries “help” feels a certain shame. When he must apply for welfare, it is humiliating and emasculating. That men must swallow their pride and do so from time to time is a given, but almost all of us recognize that it is far from ideal when the necessity presents itself. Ideally, the man has agency, and can fend for himself. In a society that valued men, steps would be taken to ensure that men have the opportunity to do so. A society that enshrines male victimhood is the exact opposite.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 25 Comments [10/19/2013 6:43:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 32
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 71305

My concern for level of pain of rape would be greater if it weren't for the fact that most American women deserve to raped because they oppose prostitution as a sexual outlet for men. Since they deserve to raped, I cannot concern myself with the pain rape causes them.

fschmidt, love-shy.com 246 Comments [3/4/2010 12:31:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 536
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 120554

Just speaking from my own experience here. I dont believe in platonic relationships. Unless the guy is gay or impotent. No just impotent, because gay guys would still do it. LOL..

My ex had a lot more guy friends than girl friends. Also her "best friend" was a guy, she told me this in the beginning. I trusted her but in the back of my mind was still a bit leery.

For good reason. She slept with her best friend and another friend. Who knows how long they have been sleeping together, but I was not there to find out. I was gone real fast.

Bottom line a guy will always want to fuck his girl friends, he's hoping to be that shoulder to lean on. Or just hang out get drunk and have casual sex as if its nothing.


onedaily, isitnormal.com 10 Comments [7/17/2016 6:56:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125264

(OP by FloridaTulpamancer)
Do You Think There Will Ever be an "Ugly Culture?"

The deaf community has some of them who have created "Deaf Culture." They think being deaf is a good thing. There's already a political party in Japan based around being ugly. Is it possible that there will one day be a subculture grown out of ugly people? (Maybe one that doesn't discriminate on looks or celebrate Valentine's or whatever.)

(AllahWilling)
Already exists. The vidya culture consists of subhuman faggots. It was destined.

(NewLoadsOfFun)
That is slowly being invaded by women who want attention from all the men there

(Societys_Claws)
And the result is this

[Link removed]

What was great turns into a steaming pile of shit. And the subhuman faggots move on to something that's still good.

Various incels, /r/incels 20 Comments [3/9/2017 6:04:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125347

If you're considering therapy and your therapist isn't directing you to the nearest maxillofacial specialist within the first 15 minutes of your first appointment then...

You just got maliciously played for your hard earned incel money. Your therapist should be calling you ugly within the first 10 minutes of talking if they are legit. If your therapist isn't encouraging you to get your face fixed as soon as humanely possible then you need to walk out immediately and demand a reimbursement.

The only reason you should see a therapist is to collude together so you can do some proper social networking together in order to optimize your success for receiving donations on your GoFundMe page so you can fund your surgeries.

Looks-are-everything, /r/incels 20 Comments [3/12/2017 1:13:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 88788

Gender-based Abortion - Abort the Males

Gender-based abortion continues to exist for females all around the world. This female gendercide is based on the notion that females are innately inferior, or socially unworthy and or lacking of the potential for profitable intake.

The abortion of females based on gender all around the world, and even in America, effectively exemplifies the fact that many women are still indoctrinated, and many men are still pushing misogynistic agendas, both politically and culturally. These things must end if we are ever to achieve True Equality.

Now, the U.S. House has rejected a bill which would preclude gender-based abortion if doctors were to come across information regarding the person’s intent for the abortion. And, while I am pro-choice, I feel that the purpose of this bill was slightly misguided. It should be revised and legalized, and I will explain the reasoning for this.

The bill should be revised to include only abortions against female fetuses. Meaning, anyone who seeks an abortion because the gender of their fetus is female should be barred from having said abortion, and perhaps even criminally punished, depending on which half of the party came to this conclusion, assuming there are two present halves, for said desire. And, any doctor who performs an abortion for someone who wishes to dispose of a fetus due to the gender being female should receive criminal punishment.

On the other hand, anyone who desires to abort a fetus based on the gender because the fetus is male should be excluded from the bill entirely. This should be allowed. It is justified because women have proven to be the most profitable sex. They outperform men academically and in the workplace, and this is a trend which will continue to rise. Likewise, women are the greater minority when it comes to the committing of violent acts and crime.

[...]

Men, for many centuries, feared the education of women, and even stated that women were incapable of being educated, saying that they were “creatures of emotion without the ability to reason”. If this were the case, however, they would have at least tried to educate women to see if they had a potential for reasoning. They didn’t do this, because they feared that very potential. They knew all along that women could surpass them if they were given the opportunity, and they oppressed women for this very reason.

And, when women finally did achieve these opportunities, thanks to Patriarchal Manipulation for fear of a true awakening, women, overtime, did surpass men, are surpassing men, and will continue to surpass men until the true balance is overwhelmingly clear.

Save the females. Abort the males.

It is justified, it is necessary, and its premise is Undeniably True.

Thank you for your consideration!

Femitheist Divine, The New Era of Feminism 75 Comments [8/6/2012 5:20:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 95
WTF?! || meh

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
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 84669

She Obeys Without Reference to Her Feelings About the Will of God

The Scriptures say a woman must ignore her “feelings” about the will of God, and do what her husband says. She is to obey her husband as if he were God Himself. She can be as certain of God’s will, when her husband speaks, as if God had spoken audibly from Heaven!

[...]

What If a Husband Expressly Commands Something Explicitly Wrong?

When women ask me this question, I counter with two of my own:

1) “Have you been living in daily obedience to your husband as part of your wholehearted, loving submission to God?”

(This is an essential part of the problem. If a woman has not been submissive, God has no responsibility for her situation and cannot be blamed if her husband requires something wrong.)

2) “Has your husband ever actually commanded you to do something wrong?”

In the hundreds of times I have asked these questions, not once, if my memory is right, has a woman answered, “Yes, I am always obedient, and yet my husband has required me to break one of God’s laws.”

Never! Why?

Because, when a woman takes God at His word, submits to her husband without reservation, fears God and loves Him, then God takes upon Himself the responsibility to see that a woman does not have to sin!

[...]

Don’t I Have Any Rights?

Can you find a Kleenex somewhere and mop up the tears, just for a minute, long enough to talk to me about what your rights really are?

You don’t have any rights, no rights at all. You lost them on the day you rebelled against God. You lost them, not because you are a woman, but because you are a sinner, just as I am.

Elizabeth Rice Handford, No Longer Quivering 81 Comments [11/5/2011 8:58:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 168
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 84101

I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

I would go so far to argue that if you are being introduced to a woman you find attractive, she will be more attracted to you if you slap her in the face without warning and walk away without explanation than if you smile and tell her that you are very pleased to meet her. Now this, being a mere hypothesis, can be argued. And tested, if you're feeling especially scientific this weekend.

[Emphasis added]

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 202 Comments [10/3/2011 3:02:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 284
Submitted By: Night Jaguar
WTF?! || meh

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: 4
Submitted By: Citizen Justin
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125642

I passed by a group of Spanish teenage schoolgirls the other day. Normally when I pass by a group of such teens, whether German, Italian, Russian, French, hell even British, the girls – especially the pretty ones – will brush their hair with their hands as I walk past, expecting and hoping that I look at them. Every one of these Spanish girls gave me the ultra creep shaming look immediately I glanced in their direction. They looked about 16 too.

The only other country’s teens that I get almost guaranteed creep shamings from is the Dutch. It’s interesting that both those countries only a relatively short while ago had the most liberal (sane) laws and attitudes towards attraction to teenage girls, and both have been pressured into very rapidly adjusting their norms and laws into line with the likes of Britain and the USA. The Netherlands is now probably the most paedohysteric nation on Earth. All these Stinson Hunter type anti-paedo vigilante groups running amok in the UK are nothing as compared to what they’re like in Holland.

theantifeminist, Resisting the Rape of the Male – Sex Positive Men's Rights 12 Comments [3/22/2017 12:55:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Xavier
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125452

Let’s face it: This generation of Incels is lost

We are in the worst place at the worst time in terms of relationships and sex. 50/60 years ago, the dating market was completely different from now. Sex was only allowed in marriage, people who had it outside of wedlock were shamed and punished. But then the sexual revolution happened. In theory, this should have been a great idea: Casual sex and sex outside of marriage are now accepted. People can enjoy it without any restrictions. But this had one flaw: Women don’t want sex. Sex is a resource for them they use to get what they want. So the demand for sex went higher, since men wanted to enjoy this casual sex but the supply stayed the same. Women were not interested in it, thus creating a power imbalance on the dating market in favour of women. Just like in a relationship, where the partner who cares less about the relationship has the most power.

Now this back 20/30 years this was not this bad since there where still some restrictions like limited options. You had your town/city maybe the neighbourhood town but the number of potential partners was small. Then technology began to make progress, the internet came and with it new forms of dating. Suddenly you just didn’t have a handful of people to choose from but the whole internet. Again, theoretically this should have benefited men and women. More options mean more chances to find the one for you. But now the power imbalance hit with full force. Without limitations, women could demand best men thanks to the power they had on the dating market. Instead to settle and lower their standards like they were forced to do back then, they could be as demanding as they wanted to and still find someone.

Now we are in the strange situation that the standards for men are still rising while the standards for female are dropping. Men get told they should go to the gym, get a good career, be better looking, be richer. On the other side, women get told even the 400 lbs landwhale is beautiful and deserve a fit and tall men. Thanks to the position of power females hold in the market, the chances are good she finds one. This creates a spiral in which the standards for men rise and rise while many men struggle to keep up with it or are left behind. Men are forced to go lower and lower to find relationships and sex making it even easier for women to date up, creating incels in the progress since we don’t have the option to date down.

And this is what I mean when I say we are in the worst place in the worst time. The market is dictated by females, creating even higher standards since nobody challenges their position of power. Men are like hamsters in their wheels trying to run faster to keep up with it, fuelling the female privilege even more. A downward spiral that creates incels, or simply men who can’t keep up with the rising standards.

As a summation, I encourage my fellow incels to stop the self-improvement. You are chasing standards that will get higher day by day, encouraging females to set the limits even higher since they can. Someone who comes here and says you have to improve means that you should bow to the standards female can set because they have the power in the market. Instead of following the demands of females, we should ask: What can we do shift the power in the market to men?

EconomicsofSex, /r/incels 19 Comments [3/16/2017 8:37:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125354

The sad truth is, most men are vampires and will suck the life out of you.

sunsanunes , Feminist Current 28 Comments [3/13/2017 7:59:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125393

i used to be entirely ambivalent to misandry, but i am now 100% in favor of misandry.

let me explain: my mom almost got attacked by a sexual predator on a tour in new orleans because he made her feel guilty about distrusting him. he shamed her for not trusting a complete stranger and made up a fake daughter to make her feel safer around him. and this wasn’t a long time ago, it was last summer! my mom could have been killed because she was guilted into trusting an actual rapist.
she only found out because they ran into one of his victims, who risked her job to warn a couple on the tour to get my mom away from him. you matter more than some man’s feelings. if you feel unsafe around a man, you trust your gut and if he makes you feel guilty for it you run the fuck away.
if men are using your innate distrust of strangers to manipulate you into doing dangerous shit then distrusting them is a necessity. there are men i know who are amazing, caring people. but the evil ones out there are learning to act like them just so they can hurt you. a good man will understand this and realize why you’re nervous.
do you think the man who ended up saving my mom got offended that my mom initially distrusted that predator because he was a man she didn’t know?? no. he told her to follow her gut next time and made sure she got back to her hotel safely. good men don’t get offended that women distrust bad men.

For the sake of sanity, you should have stayed away from misandry.
Ah, misandry because of personal experience. As if that validates the hatred of half the world’s population. I’m sorry that happened to your mother, but it’s not like a bad experience someone had from an individual justifies generalizing an entire group of people that shares that person’s sex, race, whatever. You don’t even need to be a misandrist. Most people don’t trust complete strangers anyway.

“ if men are using your innate distrust of strangers to manipulate you into doing dangerous shit then distrusting them is a necessity.” Automatically, distrusting men solely because of the bad apples isn’t a necessity: it’s discriminating against the majority of men based on the minority. It’s no different from automatically distrusting a black person because they might be a thief or a thug, but they’re being judged because of an arbitrary factor like skin colour. I get the feeling that you’re citing that you know “amazing, caring men” after going on a spree about how women need to distrust men to justify being a misandrist. A good man won’t understand why he and other men are being lumped in and distrusted based on the actions of men that they have nothing to do with, and he will realize that it’s not a sensible position of yours to hold.


first off, i was insane when i didn’t support misandry too. i’ve had ptsd most of my life because i was first sexually assaulted at age 4 and have been exposed to abuse ever since. men have been systematically destroying my sanity for 19 years, i think i’m entitled to mistrust them considering i now have literally 15 mental illnesses from abuse and cannot risk backtracking because i may literally die. men and boys did this to me, i genuinely have no choice in this.
and also, i have been abused by women but nobody ever blames ME for my abuse when the perpetrator was a woman. funny how that works. i’m expected to just deal with being abused by men and forgive them for it but i’m allowed to be mad and hold a grudge when a woman hurts me. even when it’s the same fucking thing! i’ve had two stalkers, one a man and one a woman and guess which one i get blamed for? go on guess. THE FUCKING MAN. i get blamed for a man choosing to stalk me.
what exactly harms men i personally distrust? it’s not like i’m shooting them or stabbing them, i’m just not talking to them or going places alone with them or having sex with them. i don’t see how that’s bad. there are plenty of people who don’t talk to me or hang out alone with me or have sex with me and it doesn’t hurt me in the slightest because i don’t expect that out of everyone i meet. some people don’t wanna know you, who cares? men are way too sensitive about people not wanting to hang out with them or fuck them. just chill out.
plus, my distrust of men is validated by crime statistics, not just personal experience. distrusting black people isn’t. i don’t even actually distrust men of color the way i distrust white men because they are not logically a threat to me. my distrust of men is 100% logical as a survivor of numerous sexual assaults. i’ve talked to all of my therapists and psychologists about this and none of them have said it’s unhealthy to distrust men while i’m still recovering soooooo honestly i don’t care. and i’m never gonna care. i need to focus my energy on not backtracking because, again, i could die and now that i’m on the right combo of meds for my past experiences i actually don’t want to. so honestly if it keeps me from getting hurt i’m gonna fucking do it no matter what some stranger thinks. sorry not sorry.

Florianesque, tumblr 11 Comments [3/14/2017 10:16:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Menomaru
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 64100

If a law forces rapists to marry their victims, then perhaps the number of rapes will decline to near zero. What’s more, if the law requires rapists to pay fifty shekels of silver to the father, this could indeed equate to the death penalty if the rapist hasn’t saved toward his bride’s future. Thus, we have narrowed down the field of rapists who marry their victims to only those who have saved for their “brides” future. If the girl happens to be ugly, he is required to marry her anyway. Again, this stipulation will help narrow the field further since potential rapists will be motivated to think before acting. Thirdly, if one “selects” his wife through means of rape, then he’ll never be able to divorce her even if “she” turns out to be a transvestite. The law is putting so many roadblocks into the potential rapist’s path, and causing him to think, I would guess most potential rapists would opt for the easier path of waiting for a willing partner. Thus, such a society could easily exceed the American society in quality by many fold.

[Bold mine]

Alan Clarke, Debunking Christianity  185 Comments [7/16/2009 10:57:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 221
Submitted By: Night Jaguar
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125392

2nd question: why are you a misandrist?



Because men continue to perpetrate violence against me in both a personal and systemic way that makes it difficult for me to trust men by default. Not impossible, but difficult.



I could say NotAllMen, but that doesn’t seem like it’ll affect someone like you. I sympathize if you’ve had bad experiences with men in your life, but to jump the gun all the way to misandry is not only extreme and radical, it’s a dangerous way of thinking. It’s judging the many based on the few, so your misandry is already poisoned by subjective bias.




It is self protection that harms no one. Distrusting men keeps me WAY more safe than openly trusting men does.
My distrust of men doesn’t harm them, but it keeps me safer. Yet people want to wax theoretical about it.
I know misandrists. People who have been hurt. Not once, not twice, but over a lifetime and in a manner that impacts on their ability to simply exist in their day to day lives.
Yet almost all misandrists I know have some men who are friends, they love their family and they actively support men who are victims of rape.
Trusting men, ESPECIALLY cishet white men is a painful process that often involves me having to be continually hurt in order to educate and set up my own boundaries.
Misandry isn’t jumping the gun, it’s putting your feet into the starting block and being ready for the shot you know will come.

GeekandMisandry, tumblr 2 Comments [3/14/2017 10:12:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Menomaru
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125645

Most Americans have been led to despise foreign cultures where women are not allowed to walk around immodestly clothed, nor is feminist rebellion tolerated, nor can women run their big mouths in men's matters. The truth is that the Muslim culture comes a lot closer to being right than American culture. I'm not saying that I approve of everything done in Muslim culture, but they are 100% correct to require women to dress appropriately in public, to cover themselves and to remain silent in men's matters. Americans view other cultures which require women to dress properly and wear head-coverings as being oppressive and cruel cultures. When it comes to the way women dress, behave and talk, we have the immoral disease in America, not the Muslims.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 10 Comments [3/22/2017 12:57:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh