Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Misandry Bubble - Part 2!

A quick clarification: I do not believe we live in a misogynist or misandrist society. I think contemporary American society still contains some features that are unfair to both women and men, it's somewhat worse on women, but it's really not terrible for either gender. So when I disagree with this idiot, I'm not trying to say that we're wallowing in misogyny either. My controversial moonbat stance is that life is pretty okay for most people.

The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were:
1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children.

What exact time period is "not too long ago"? Are we talking like 1950s or like 1800s or 1300s or cavemen? Because these life expectancies are pretty damn 1300s, and I think we all know what a utopia we lived in then.

The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.
Women who've had a large number of kids in rapid succession in pre-industrial societies are known for their perfect bodies. The 1300s were just crawling with bikini babes.

Ah yes, the fatocalypse, the moment when normal human aging willful disregard for duty causes a woman slut to shirk her full-time job of giving guys boners. Fat chicks are doing it on purpose because the existence of a fat chick causes men great pain and chicks get chocolate pizza orgasms from that.

Also please note that men don't have bodies. That would be gay.

And anyway, what does this have to do with the breakdown of marriage? If 90% of divorces are caused by slutty bitches, clearly the woman's decline in appearance doesn't cause divorce. Is it just that a marriage ought to be considered "broken down" if the wife isn't hot? Is a beta male who's married to a fat chick not really married because it doesn't count unless you get a high-quality woman?

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
That sounds... great. I don't want to use any shaming language like "misogyny," but it sure sounds wonderful to be married to someone who treats you with respect because she knows she might die in the gutter without you.

It's kind of sad that this guy thinks he has so little to offer women that they'd only stay with him because of outside incentives. The idea that it might actually be nice to be married to a guy just isn't on the table here.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
And that sucked. For everyone, since every woman "lost" to single motherhood and/or prostitution is a woman who isn't available for distribution to deserving betas.

I guess this is just another way in which women ought to be terrified into faithful marriage, just like in all the storybooks where the handsome prince sweeps the princess up in his arms and whispers in her ear, "You don't have to like it, baby, but if you don't give me what I want I'll leave you out on the street to starve."

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
These aren't reasons marriage "worked." These are reasons marriage was relatively inescapable. That's really, really, really different from a marriage "working." I know you think that all you want is a warm hole who can't leave the house, but I'd hope you'd feel differently if you experienced just how unhappy a marriage can get.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man.
It's not good to do all your sociology research by watching "Bridezillas."

. In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response).
FUCK YEAH DOWRY.

And for the millionth time, this guy doesn't want a marriage, he wants a goddamn Woman Cage. If a woman is fleeing your house in distress, maybe she has a really, really good reason.

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. [...] When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.
I'm not entirely sure what the crazy man just mumbled, but I think it had something to do with how divorce lawyers want to send him to a concentration camp. I'm, uh, not sure I have the intellectual rigor to thoroughly refute his excellent point here.

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy.
This is the one part of the essay where I'll concede he sort of has a point in some cases. Divorce courts do sometimes unfairly favor the woman, based on the idea that she should be compensated for keeping the home and/or raising the children and thus freeing the man to earn more--even when this didn't actually occur. It's wrong when this happens. There. I agreed with something. I'm so reasonable.

I still don't think this proves that our entire society is headed toward Mancentration Camps.

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well.
You forgot to put "feminist" in scare quotes; you're slowing down, buddy. I like the part here where he doesn't mention loving the children or planning to care for them, he just wants to make sure he doesn't owe child support.

What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. [...] Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of a man to never have to give up anything that's hiiis, waaahhh, be it money, child, or wholly owned domestic woman."

Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and feminist organizations over the past quarter-century.
One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong. Actually two of these things, considering how lucrative and sought-after the job of "court supervisor" is.

Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men.
This assumes that 100% of women want to get married, that fertility is a prerequisite for marriage, and that women who are already happily married give a crap about the "market." And even with those assumptions the 80% number is still just pulled out of his ass.

It also ignores the fact that most people have some standards for marriage other than "human of the opposite sex." That is, there will always be far more pairings that don't happen because of incompatibility than because of numerics. I'm not waiting for a guy to come by who's available for marriage, I'm waiting for one that I want to spend my life with! Whether someone I wouldn't marry anyway is available or not means nothing to me.

(There's a link to a hilarious article about men on a "marriage strike" to protest this ridiculous manslaving institution, which must absolutely devastate all the women who were desperate to marry those guys.)

[...] thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate.
Dammit, one minute ago you were all "betas just want a woman, any woman, no matter if she even wants to be there," and now you're getting all picky. Because sure you said anyone, but you didn't mean old ladies, jeez.

And wow, Wile E. Coyote moment, you fucking charmer. Do you plan to never turn 35? (Do you realize that married women also turn 35?)

The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities.
A boner is a biological reality. Many, many boners are created each day on behalf of women over 35. Also, I'm pretty damn sure that MILF porn and wolf whistles of "wooo, cougar!" are not products of the feminist movement. Perhaps the "feminist" movement; those crazy bitches seem to be responsible for everything from spoiled milk to earthquakes.

A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
That doesn't even make sense as an analogy. It doesn't make sense for locks, it doesn't make sense that locks would be like vaginas, and it doesn't make sense for vaginas. It is the perfect trifecta of meaninglessness.

Another way to put it would be: A complex sexual past means that a woman is more likely to be hot and confident as fuck in bed, and the same is true of men. A wise man once said, "A dog that eats rocks is contented, but a fish that eats kibble smells like cinnamon."



More coming soon because I just can't look away.

42 comments:

  1. Yeah, that whole "I would never marry/date a woman like you" thing makes me horselaugh. Somebody I find kind of creepy who hates me automatically doesn't want to be with me? OH NO. WHATEVER WILL I DO. GUESS MY OVARIES ARE GOING TO EXPLODE.

    The ones who imply that "men", not them of course but they'd totally understand it, would just rape/kill women to get what they were entitled to instead are the ones that make me glad I'm armed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I read the Misandry Bubble, and think it is mostly correct.

    In fact, he predicts exactly how shrieking femmroids would react, and why. You people are actually proving everything he says to be true. You don't even realize how much you are actually helping to verify what he says.

    You really need to read Female Masculist - a lesbian who holds women accountable. She is a real woman, who could teach you Femmroids a thing or two.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know how you'd react if I called you an asshole.

    WHAT NOW BITCH?

    ReplyDelete
  4. tee hee - it takes very little to get the Femmroids to implode.

    You need to go read Female Masculist cover to cover. Quit being a misogynist about it, and go educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Holly, your sense of snark makes me happy like puppies and rainbows, really it does.

    I love how this guy's list of "things that were better back then" reads to me exactly like a list of "things that made life truly and horrible in the past and thank god our society is better now." But, I mean, sure I would have been unendingly miserable if I'd married at 20 and been forced to put my body through endless rounds of pregnancy and been unable to do anything fulfilling or leave my abusive spouse for fear of dying in a gutter... it's not like that MATTERS, right? Because now this guy can't get laid, and that is WAY WORSE.

    But your snark fills me with glee and happy dancing, so I'm not even sorry I read this vile shit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Funny. My sister and I used to do that move (when we were fighting as little kids, I should emphasize) where you try to make the other person mad by insisting that they're so totally already mad, and if they're mad then you already won, so nanna nanna boo boo!

    Also, dude, we're rubber and you're glue!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It takes very little for a toddler to make adults angry too. Doesn't mean it's a high-order skill or proves anything beyond "people have predictable responses to deliberate provocation".

    Also many men in all previous threads agree with Holly, which by your logic means you must now agree with her.

    Acquire an argument beyond "these people said stuff and now you have to agree with it or else you're just an irrational brainwashed stupidhead", please. I'm sure it will be yet another variation of "women will destroy civilization unless men can control them better, also we should be able to fuck more women while owning our wives or we quit", but it will at least not be quite so goddamn childish.

    (For the benefit of sane commenters, I agree with Holly that some features of society actually do give an unfair degree of power to women- which is why Dr. Helen is a regular read of mine even if I don't always agree with her and regard her commentariat as a pack of flying monkeys. This is subtly different than "your team wins too much, mine should win more instead like we used to".)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do like how a lot of his argument seems contingent on how much better things were when we all either died young of horrible diseases and injuries or lived out our lives in penury. "Weren't things so much better when everything was horrible?"

    Also, am I alone in finding it odd when people deride leftists and conspicuous consumption in the same argument? I mean, if there's one thing most self-described "leftists" I've known have in common, it's a distain for consumerism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I tried to figure out what on earth set of conditions would lead to the type of lifestyle he seems to be considering to be the natural human condition. Best I can come up with is a mix of the economic conditions of the 1940s to 1960s western middle class, a technology level of somewhere from 1900s to 1930s, the social mores of the 1860s to 1890s European aristocracy, and the quality-of-life issues of a medieval plague zone. Steampunk dystopian much?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Notes for part 2:

    In the lore of ancient Egypt, for your trivial amusement, the ideal lifespan was 110 years. Of course, the "life expectancy" was highly affected by the infant mortality rate, as many such things are until fairly recently.

    ... he thinks that being "kept slim" is a historical plus? Reubens must be rotating hard enough in his grave to affect the spin rate of the planet.

    I wonder if introducing this guy to the Brehon laws regarding marriage would make his brain explode. I like the Brehon laws regarding marriage, they are pleasantly fiddly. (I could also do a bit of discourse on the subject of Egyptian marriage practices, but that would be less entertaining.)

    Anyone who believes that two-parent families are sufficient for the raising of children should be locked in a room with a teething baby. I would offer to lend them mine but honestly I'd be terrified they'd hurt her.

    The institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage requires roughly equal male and female participation. The rest of us can look after ourselves.

    If this guy is unlocking doors with his penis I ... well. That's gotta hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Someone who refers to me as a "femmroid" is accusing me of being childish and emotional?

    Although really I'm more ticked off that they didn't read the post. I spent a good hour typing and apparently I could have saved my time and just wrote "MISANDRY BUBBLE BAD; HOLLY ANGRY" for the same effect.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I could have saved my time and just wrote "MISANDRY BUBBLE BAD; HOLLY ANGRY" for the same effect.

    That also would have been more intelligent than what you have written.

    Get a clue, butt slut.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I... honestly can't figure out if this is the same anon or another one is providing us with parody.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a policy I don't delete comments that technically contain content, but damn dude. Are we going to play "POOPHEAD" "NUH UH, DOUBLE POOPHEAD" all night?

    You're, like an INFINITY PLUS ONE POOPHEAD NO TAGBACKS.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I thought the Bubble was pretty funny to begin with, but your mocking is really the Good Parts Version. And Femmroids? lolz. This is a fun game. Femmilemmings? Femmidrones? Femocrats? Feminingja?
    --Ann

    ReplyDelete
  16. I mean, I definitely see how the pro-male elements of the period 1925-1965 meant that my father was able to marry and have a family despite his initial poverty and cultural marginalization by playing the game of modern middle-class technocracy via the opportunities opened up by WW2, and that the rise of feminism meant that my mother was free (1970-1979) to characterize his competent but non-dominant position as inadequate, her home life as stultifying boredom, and continually threaten to leave him to either "find herself" or an Alpha Male. (Despite the fact that her pre-feminist upbringing had equipped her with an M.Ed. and fulfilling work outside the home.)

    So I'm saying that the author of "The Misandry Bubble" is right even for men who are conscious of the positive effects of feminism: either you utterly dominate women psychologically, impose a subculture of utter material dependence (dependency?) on them as in FLDS, or you will remain indefinitely unpartnered as they chase the very few bright shiny male hyper-achievers.

    This may be a distortion due to being a foreign-born Jew who prefers to date Jews in a major US urban area, meaning OF COURSE disproportionately elite women want to date men who are yet more elite, but, yeah, TMB explains two generations of my family's dynamics PERFECTLY.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Misandry Bubble Mocking Part 2 is sheer joy.

    "Also please note that men don't have bodies. That would be gay."

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dw3t-Hthr - I read in some popular work, possibly "Daily Life in Ancient Egypt", that in ancient Egypt it was considered a wife's duty to provide her husband with sex, and that it was considered normal for upper-class women to delegate part of that duty to female servants she hired with that in mind. I always wondered whether that was true or the product of an overexited imagination?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm just left wondering if chocolate pizza would taste good. I'm leaning toward, "yes."

    ReplyDelete
  20. "It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents."

    While women in the days before Lister never shuffled off their mortal coils during childbirth.

    Has this lightweight ever actually cracked a history book?




    (Oh noez! Now I r a idiot leftist femmroid!)

    ReplyDelete
  21. These beta dude fuckbags are basically just royally pissed off that women have the option to stay the fuck away from their abusive, nasty, creepy asses.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eurosabra: Or it explains the root of your worldview rather than the way the world is. A huge reason you get the reactions you do here are that you're always describing a universe none of the rest of us inhabit; I've never dated an "alpha male" as you've defined in my entire life, I don't want to be "dominated" and would leave if anyone tried, and no other woman I have ever known behaves in the way you seem to think all non-dogs and old maids do. Most men, not a minority of "alphas", wind up partnered. Most of the women aren't just settling because they're fucking some alpha and cuckolding him or because they'd starve and die if they didn't.

    What I did avoid were men who clearly saw me as a pussy attached to an obstacle (free will) or an enemy rather than another person with the same general class of desires and fears they did. Like, I don't know, men who write essays about how women are evil sluts who need to be dominated or else civilization will collapse. That attitude tends to come through even when the dudes in question are trying to be charming.

    FWIW, I never had a healthy relationship model growing up either. What I did see were a lot of relationships fucked up in entirely different ways, which mainly taught me that it was easy to fuck up relationships rather than that men and women are fucked up in specific ways.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mousie00 -- I haven't come across that in any of my readings on the subject, so I cannot speak to it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eurosabra: You shouldn't base a worldview solely on the basis of how your family acts. That's far too small of a sample size. I did that when I was a child and teenager and concluded that adults were immature brats who claimed authority over their younger counterparts due to "life experience" but were really fundamentally no different than children. As it turned out, that's not what most adults are like, that's just my parents, three of my four aunts, and my uncle.

    (One of my aunts just can't function as an adult at all and has been locked up in a mental ward since my grandparents died. And as for those who have been following my posts here recently, you know about my mother already.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kinda building on what LabRat said...it just makes me wonder: who ARE these people?
    Do people LOVE each other in this world?

    Nothing I hear bears much relation to reality as I've known it. I've run into the occasional bitter divorced dude or Nice Guy(tm), but regardless, there go people, falling in love and getting married all the time. Obviously, people think love is worth the risk of heartbreak and being used as an economic unit.

    Here I am, happily married to my awesome and nice geeky guy, surely a beta in these guys' estimation, because he doesn't rule any social scene, plays it safe at work, and was terrified to ask women out. So, according to them, it should not have been possible that he had 3 beautiful girlfriends over the course of his 20's because *they* asked him out. And then he and I were friends for over a year - that's an Average Frustrated Chump move, right? So we figured out we were falling in love, and we got married, and we had a kid, because that's what people generally do at some point in their lives (or some variation). And 5 years later, regardless of our issues, we love each other.

    I know a lot of people, in a lot of different stages of life, and that is the story that plays out over and over again, in good and bad relationships: for better or worse, people love each other. It would be so much easier if marriage really were only about these economic calculations. As many radical feminists figured out, women could just live together and be done with men and their bullshit. But it'll never happen - because of heterosexuality. Men and women can't help falling in LOVE with each other and wanting to have sex together, be together, live together, and very often procreate together and love their kids. This never stops, no matter how often it gets fucked up. And this, not all the bobono/cave man shit, is what keeps the human race going.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why the fuck is he holding up industrial-age poverty-line living as an ideal? W.T.F. "Things were better when I was more likely to die young and not live to see my hot baby-incubator turn into a fat bitch." Seriously?

    About weddings - my sister's getting married, and it was her future father-in-law who insisted that it be a big fancy affair.

    I'm not entirely sure what the crazy man just mumbled, but I think it had something to do with how divorce lawyers want to send him to a concentration camp. I'm, uh, not sure I have the intellectual rigor to thoroughly refute his excellent point here.

    LOL, YES!

    This is the one part of the essay where I'll concede he sort of has a point in some cases. Divorce courts do sometimes unfairly favor the woman, based on the idea that she should be compensated for keeping the home and/or raising the children and thus freeing the man to earn more--even when this didn't actually occur. It's wrong when this happens. There. I agreed with something. I'm so reasonable.

    There is an assumption that if a partner is not contributing to a household financially, he or she is doing so with unpaid labour. This tends to be true on average, so the law does reflect reality. Courts are very unwilling to look into what actually went on during the marriage, except in special circumstances, because that would just make the whole thing too messy and unpredictable.

    Mancentration Camps.

    LOL. Definitely incorporating that into my vocabulary.

    Re: Custody

    First of all, a parent has to apply for custody, and lots of fathers don't, because they recognize that the mother has been the primary caregiver up to that point, and don't want to change that.

    Second, I think most jurisdictions in the USA and Canada now determine custody based on what's in "the best interest of the child". Which is very flexible and allows a judge's biases to play a role, but still, not automatic. What several jurisdictions are making automatic is an assumption of shared custody, which generally means that the mother still has all the childcare responsibilities, but can't make any important decisions on her own.

    You don't have to prove that funds were spent on the child because that is way to burdensome and a waste of the court's time.

    The fact that divorcing wives are still able to apply for spousal support undermines the argument that child support is sneaky spousal support. That and the fact that children are freakin' expensive.

    Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty.

    ROTFLMAO!

    Court supervisors? WTF?

    The whole capitalist analogy is just proof that this guy doesn't think of women as people. They're actually commodities.

    (There's a link to a hilarious article about men on a "marriage strike" to protest this ridiculous manslaving institution, which must absolutely devastate all the women who were desperate to marry those guys.)

    OMG, too funny.

    It is the perfect trifecta of meaninglessness... A wise man once said, "A dog that eats rocks is contented, but a fish that eats kibble smells like cinnamon."


    ROFLCOPTER!

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Not Me

    I tried to figure out what on earth set of conditions would lead to the type of lifestyle he seems to be considering to be the natural human condition. Best I can come up with is... the social mores of the 1860s to 1890s European aristocracy...

    Social mores? I thought it was the middle class that was all moralistic, and the aristocracy just fucked whoever they wanted to.

    @ Anonymous 10:24

    I want to be a Femininja!

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Marissa: I was being somewhat ironical. I got the impression that during that period (and admittedly, at least a few other times and places at well) that if a male aristocrat wants to screw you, or marry you, or tie you up naked and beat you with a feather pillow, etc., you'd damn well better not say no. That occasionally included men as well as women. Though not for the marriage part. Now imagine a whole society which worked that way.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were:
    1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children.
    What exact time period is "not too long ago"? Are we talking like 1950s or like 1800s or 1300s or cavemen? Because these life expectancies are pretty damn 1300s, and I think we all know what a utopia we lived in then.

    There is no point in the last 1000+ years when it was typical for a person to die at 50. Most of the increase in median life expectancy through the 1950s or later has come from a reduction in infant mortality, and much of the rest from a reduction in diseases and the sort of misadventure primarily affecting young people -- if you made it to 50 you always stood a good chance of making it to 65 or 70.

    If a woman is fleeing your house in distress, maybe she has a really, really good reason.
    Jesus, you're so unreasonable, my wife fled in distres and all I did was ask her not to talk to anyone without my permission. Why do you hate men, Holly?</sarcasm>

    Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child
    It's a shame there's no law against child neglect that would in practice require a custodial parent or parents to spend money on the children.

    ReplyDelete
  30. (Not the same Anonymous as above)

    I'd say that the implied social mores are more Victorian-upper-class:

    * The Male is the unquestioned head of household
    * The Female's primary virtue is her sexual availability and exclusivity to the Male
    * The Female's purity is paramount, the Male's is irrelevant
    * Marriage is an economic transaction where the Female provides the Male pussy in exchange for economic security, even after she turns thirty and her breasts turn into pumpkins. Or maybe that was Cinderella.
    * Since her role is to be a pretty little caged bird who sings on command, anything that provides the Female economic security is inherently subversive.

    Aside from being really creepy, a big problem is that marriage like this never actually existed outside of highly-secure upper classes.

    Now, pardon me. I need to find a few gallons of brain bleach.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Did anyone else follow the link provided by the anonymous commenters above? The Female Masculist one? And, as a follow-up question, was anyone else as torn between hysterical laughter and complete horror as I was upon reading? Seriously, whoever's writing that seems to be living in a world that in no way resembles the one the rest of us are living in.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hershele, I'm glad someone pointed that out about the life expectancy thing. You hear this misconception all the time, that "back in the olden times everyone was dead by 30!" or whatever. Whereas in fact, infants and children are more likely to die in societies without good nutrition/medical care, but the *possible* life expectancy was the same as now. "Old people" have been about the same age throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ Lucy Jane

    I did! This was my favourite nugget:

    The gender ratio of politicians in the US alone makes it obvious that women are more likely to be influenced by the sexual appeal of their elected leaders than men are. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it is unique. In fact, it's about the only instance in which female behavior is more influenced by sex drive than male behavior is.

    Because male politicians are just so damn hot amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah, the wife stayed so gorgeous when all her teeth fell out from malnutrition. As long as she was still thin, right?

    What a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Remember, in the neolithic age people wanted svelte, fragile partners that wouldn't survive the next famine. It's cheaper to make sure they don't draw seniority pay.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's important to make sure your neolithic-era spouse selection picks the svelte ones who are less likely to survive the next famine. The benefits that they accrue if they get too much seniority are exorbitant.

    (Let's see if this posts this time. Sorry if I double up somehow.)

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Marissa - My favorite entry was the "Female Teachers Should be Sent to the Planet Gor" one. The main idea of the post was that liberal female teachers won't stop boy-on-girl bullying because they think it's hot. It was the strangest thing I think I've read in years, and I'm saying that as someone who does, in fact, find dominant men sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kelly L.: Not really. People's teeth fell out more because teeth are only designed to last about 30 years under normal conditions. (Obviously, a few might last less than this and some might last for a lifetime, but a tooth's life expectancy from the point it grew in is around 30 years.) This is pretty much regardless of species; humans have yet to evolve more durable teeth, and we don't keep growing more like some other potentially long-lived species. Modern dental care has created a situation which can hardly be described as "normal conditions".

    ReplyDelete
  39. "... woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse."

    Aha, apparently having too much sex made me fat! Oh, those unbridled female appetites....

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Holly: "MISANDRY BUBBLE BAD; HOLLY ANGRY"

    FEMINIST HULK SMASH.

    Sunflower

    ReplyDelete
  41. @chi,

    Do you really mean to imply that hetereosexual love is the only thing that holds up society? I have difficulty believing that somehow.

    Also, getting married and having children is something *some* people do. Not 'what everyone does at some point in their life', not 'what normal people do'.

    And maybe I'm being rude here, but 'it's what people do in their lives' is not a good reason to get married or have children.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow, catch the abeism in the Bubble guy's 2nd point. Only able-bodied men have a chance at romance and sex!

    ReplyDelete