You are sooo mean! You must hate women! It wasn’t her fault!
I have previously explained why it is much easier and more satisfying for a man to call out a man versus a woman. Calling out men is the path of least resistance, and allows a man to position himself as heroic. Calling out women feels wrong, and tends to be the prelude to a day at the races.
This can be true even when it comes to criticizing an unrepentant child killer like Susan Smith. Nearly all women will be repulsed by the extreme ugliness of a mother who murdered her own children and two decades later is still trying to cover up and justify her crime. But a handful will instead identify with the unrepentant child murderer and run the rationalization race on her behalf:
Susan Smith was a mentally ill 21 year old girl with a father who committed suicide, a stepfather who molested her, and a husband who cheated on her, abandoned with two small children. She broke. Women do that sometimes, we break, especially when all the men in our lives fail us, yes fail us Dalrock. Women do not just spontaneously combust.
Hamster pic from Love hamster. Checkered flag from Ewan ar Born. I combined the last two to create the hamster 500 pic. You are free to use this new picture so long as you are in compliance with the original two image licenses.
You’re such a jerk, Dalrock.
…But in all seriousness, the post you linked to really is disgusting. I blame men.
I mean, I’m not sure how, but it was our fault somehow.
Damn it’s those y and X chromosomes!
Pingback: Insanity at the races. | Manosphere.com
Pingback: Insanity at the races. | Neoreactive
Damn man, women break and murder children, it’s what they do. How dare you question them, Dalrock! How dare you! Take it back!
Every time a women uses men as the excuse for women committing terrible acts, I just thrown it back in their faces. I mean, after all, didn’t Jack the Ripper have a mum? She must have failed him something awful..
I guess all those men who were mean to Smith and broke her had perfect people in their lives and are solely responsible for their own brokenness. Women don’t get off the hook for their own wickedness just because other people sinned against them, any more than men do. Mental illness usually is nothing but sin-sickness. In this case, since Smith is still able to form coherent sentences and take herself potty when she needs to, I’d say that holds true here.
You can just see the wheels of rationalisation spinning, and queue WHITE KNIGHTS to the rescue, always ready to defend a murderous rationalisation.
I’m sure who sickens me most.
I remember when Andrea Yates murdered all of her children. I can’t even count how many women said “her husband is just as guilty as her for leaving her alone with them in her condition,” as if working to put provided a roof and food was abandonment.
Pingback: Dalrock, Just Saying… | See, there's this thing called biology...
“all the men in our lives fail us”
Now that’s the life motto of a woman I recognise who never missed an opportunity to remind me of male inadequacy.
“She broke. Women do that sometimes, we break, especially when all the men in our lives fail us, yes fail us Dalrock”
A perfect rationalisation that women are never to be allowed to be alone looking after children, if they just break without warning.
I thought it had been pretty well established that the individual who writes on that blog is a troll who has been banned from commenting on multiple manosphere sites. I wouldn’t even give him or her the air time, but it’s your blog.
The linked insanitybytes blogpost (https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/dalrock-just-saying/comment-page-1/#comment-21782) has been updated. To her credit, she is very candid:
“[Dalrock] responded to this post, by the way, and accuses me of identifying with an unrepetant child murderer and running the rationalization race on her behalf. He is absolutely correct too, because I truly believe that as Christians we are called to try to empathize with each other and to understand human behavior.”
I think the point is that women demonstrate empathy and understanding for female behavior, but not for male. Compassion for the women, condemnation for the men. And that broader society tends to follow this same lamentable pattern.
Hi All,
I am new to this blog and I love it. Have learned so much in the last month! I was wondering if any of you know where I can get a list of “definitions” for all the terms thrown around here, such as MGTOW, Hamster, etc.? Also, wondering why there is no Facebook posting option at the end of articles?
Wow – an infanticide sympathizer.
That woman who commented probably loves abortion too. “When the men in our lives fail us.’
What an evil, wicked woman, whose tongue is an instrument of lies and deception.
If I was a better Christian, I would be more inclined to pray that the Lord cure her of her folly, her love of lies and lying, her hatred and scapegoating of men, and her inability to accept accountability.
Hey stupid female: Having a vagina does not make you unaccountable for sin.
The hamster is the scariest part of getting involved with modern women. I want to believe the cute girls I see can accept statements like “if you leave him then you won’t have him anymore”, “killing children is always wrong”, “fat is ugly” and “the frog and the scorpion”.
Instead, my corrupt society keeps whispering into their untethered, emotion-based perspective… white-knighting the most heinous of crimes. There’s nothing I can do to prevent that. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child but maybe it does take a village to make a wife put down the shiv.
To that end, I’ll do what I can to make the married guys I know look good. Maybe if I show him high respect and admire him when his wife is in earshot, she’ll have a few good whispers to compete against the bad.
By the way, I tend to expect this sort of squirming away from accountability from women, since 50% of them are children in a semi-adult body.
However, we should ruthlessly ostracize and socially exclude any and all men who white-knight for these harlots.
Dalrock
That blockquoted paragraph was funny. And this right here tops it off nicely, along with the comments from the comment section.
This is straight up churchianship right here. Best response to people like that. “We’re going to shoot you in the head for killing those kids like that. But as good Christian we won’t question God’s judgement allowing your soul into heaven. In fact we are going to help you get right with God before we kill you”
As soon as I saw that final comment I said to myself “this has Insanitybites22/GG/yttik writtten all over it.”
Sho’nuff I was right. My question now to Dalrock and everyone else in the manosphere is, why do you continue to dignify this nutcase by highlighting or responding to her inane comments and juvenile trolling? We get it; she’s one of the most proficient validators of our beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that we should continue enabling her. It just perpetuates her attention whoring. The quickest way to disable such a beast is to starve it of the attention it craves.
Darn .. now you’re establishing your bad boy cred’s and look .. th wimminz just love it.
.. I think she’s in love with you Dal. You’d better guard the bunny!
/sar’caz’em off
I eagerly await their followup post rationalizing the actions of Adam Lanza and the whole host of male mass shooters……though I won’t hold my breath.
What do you suppose Insanity’s take would be on the thousands of men who kill their children, wives and themselves after his wife filed for divorce? Would they all be the mentally imbalanced results of their mothers, wives and stepmothers?
What rationales would she use to mentally justify the overwhelming suicide statistics among men? Do they have some impetus or do they just spontaneously combust?
Murder is murder. It doesn’t matter what the murderer was going through at the time. And it doesn’t matter if the murderer is a woman.
You murder someone, your life is forfeit. That is what justice is all about.
“What rationales would she use to mentally justify the overwhelming suicide statistics among men? Do they have some impetus or do they just spontaneously combust?”
Some men are just inherently unstable and they are very good at hiding it (because they are also liars).
I remember reading a blog by a woman who had an affair, divorced her husband of many years, and then quickly married her affair partner. A year or so after the divorce her ex-husband shot himself in the head.
Her conclusion: “I would have never guessed he was such an unstable person.” In other words, to her mind, this guy was not only an unstable, disturbed loose cannon his whole life, he was also very devious in the way he was able to hide it from her for all the years of their marriage (I mean, jeez, he had a stable job, was a stable provider, no real vices etc. etc.) She sure “dodged a bullet.” “God was looking out for her, etc., etc. by getting her out of that marriage.” It simply never occurred to her that pulling the rug out from under his whole life could have contributed to his suicide.
That’s why I tell all the guys in the frivorce meat grinder who are contemplating the .45 lunch, do not think this will have any effect whatsoever on the conscience of your ex. It won’t. After your gone it will be: “Who new he was so unstable?” “Thank the Lord I got out when I did.”
Just another forgotten lone nut martyr. DON’T DO IT!! The best revenge is living well. Live well!
The modern American church isn’t so much a religion as it is a service industry that exists to cater to women.
LOL at all the water-carrying for an unrepentant murderer of her own children. I guess Hamsters need company, just as much as white-knight losers need the occassional pat on the head.
@Ladonai
Her problem is not that she has too much compassion, or that it is selectively offered, but that what she is doing isn’t compassionate at all. Susan Smith is suffering terribly because of her unrepentance. It isn’t kindness to take on the role of the serpent and offer sweet words of temptation. It isn’t loving, it is cruel.
@Rollo
In our modern society, men are responsible for their actions irrespective of the situation, their conditions, or what was done to them – unless the man is an Alpha, in which case the responsibility is shifted onto a Beta. Aside from this, any excusing on the man’s part for his conduct by pointing out past injustices done to him only elicits shame, scorn, and contempt because he is admitting to weakness, confessing his inability to live up to the expectations placed on him, or is asking for compassion, when he just needs to “man up and shut up.” With women, on the other hand, whenever bad or wrong choices are made, there is always a man who is held responsible for it because modern society holds that women have a God-given right to respond to their conditions and situation any way they wish. Thus, when women behave badly, such as in this case murder their own children, it is her environment and the men existing within it that are blamed.
Well … .damn… Was my birth the reason behind my mother’s drinking problem?
Was I a problem when my own sister took a large sum (more than 10k) from me and spent it on herself and said ‘we’ lived good?
I mean … damn….. is it my fault some other woman is pregnant. Well…… damn…. Shame on me.
I don’t know what to do with myself.
Dalrock–great insight and clarification, and you are correct that true compassion would seek to effect repentance. I was using “compassion” not in the true biblical sense, but in the “let us make excuses for you so that you need not be held accountable and don’t have to suffer consequences” societal sense. Perhaps similarly, feminists’ blanket condemnation of men is also not in the ultimate, biblical sense, but rather also in a societal sense.
21 year old girl
Empasis added.
Says it all right there.
Hey! It’s not her fault. She was driven (heh) to it by all the horrible men in her life…
Insanitybites22 aka GG aka yttik is indeed a well known troller-for-flames at sites such as Rollo’s, Vox Day’s, etc. She’s an aging post-menopausal boomer feminist of the “men bad, women good” variety. As one might expect, she’s very big on the whole “unconditional forgiveness” concept, for women at least. There’s always an excuse. There’s always someone else to shift blame to, usually some male human. Actually holding women responsible for their actions? Not so much.
The facts are clear: Susan Smith deliberately and willfully killed two toddler boys by drowning them. No amount of finger pointing at some man or other changes the fact. There’s nothing to excuse. No excuse could suffice for that cruel, foul crime, unless of course one is a gynocentric feminist. Perhaps to the gynocentric, Susan Smith merely conducted a couple of very late term abortions, or put down a couple of pets in an unnecessarily cruel fashion?
Maybe to the feminists and their White Knight lapdogs, Susan Smith deliberately and willfully killed two boys by drowning, not actual human beings.
It is useful to pay some degree of attention to insanitybytes22 / GG / yttik because her misandry is typical of a certain demographic. It is, however, not a good idea to pay too much attention, as that tends to reward her attention whoring. This latest attempt on her part to justify the murder of children does reveal quite a lot about her, though.
Oh, and I missed this the first time through GG’s rambling rant:
Susan Smith was a mentally ill 21 year old girl
Funny how the difference between a “strong, independent woman” and a mere girl has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with blame shifting from the girl onto some man or men.
Girls such as insanitybytes22 / GG / yttik sure don’t do much for the reputation of women.
@Anon Reader
Nearly everyone in the sphere recognizes how unhinged she is, but she does seem to have a small following by women in the sphere who have yet to see what she is.
@HawkandRock ..
Agreed. Good description of how they view male sue’uh’cide. Sad .. very sad.
I tell the men thinking about ending it all after a divorce .. it will be twisted to make her the victim .. remember this feminist (Hillary Clinton re: men’s death in war time) “women and children are hardest hit”. Typical for th wimminz to think of a male as their beast of burden (i.e. slave / servent).
As for me, I’ll remain single and un-burdened by a slave-owner mentality fembot.
Red pill shows men who women really are……warts, facial hairs and all. Some murder their children after they’re born. Most women murder them in the womb. A woman who has killed an infant isn’t human. In earlier days, they went to the gallows. History is unforgiving. Any culture that practices infanticide is doomed to destruction. Planned Parenhood, Baal, Molech…..same thing, different scale.
Nearly everyone in the sphere recognizes how unhinged she is, but she does seem to have a small following by women in the sphere who have yet to see what she is.
Along with women who are also aging, gynocentric, feminists who agree with her misandry. Not to mention the odd pedestalizing White Knight or two.
Look, there’s nothing novel in her rants, it’s pretty much the same “men bad, women good”, “obey the Goddess”, feminism that’s been crammed down people’s throats for the last 30 – 40 years. Stapling on a churchian Jesus fish does nothing to improve it. A rule based AI could be written to generate it based on a few inputs.
The only thing notable about this latest gynocentric screed is the attempt to rationalize the murder of children. It’s notable to see at a time when the Planned Parenthood baby part business is being revealed step by step, because there’s no real difference between what Susan Smith did and what PP does except she did not profit monetarily from her evil crime. Cruel murder is cruel murder.
One would expect even feminists to get a glimpse of that. Perhaps if Susan Smith had cruelly murdered a couple of girls, there might be a whiff of criticism from aging feminists? Eh. Who knows?
Who cares?
I’ve yet to ever see a woman take responsibility for her hellish actions. And I think almost ALL woman will defend a woman who refuses to take responsibility for her actions.
The 1st one to take the fall will obviously set a precedent for the rest.
Which kinds reminds me, how come the churches are full of women, surely at some stage they would have had to repent, which involves admitting fault and wrong doing ?
How can a female be saved ? Can they only admit wrongdoing to God and the sisterhood ?
I’m sure there’s a corollary post where she blames women for Elliot Rodger and other various men who snapped and shot people. After all, men don’t just spontaneously combust.
@TFH
Very few women will identify with or offer excuses for a woman like Smith who strapped her sons into their car seats and sent the car into the lake. IB is an extreme outlier.
Women do not just spontaneously combust.
Gentlemen, if we could only somehow harness The Power of the Hamster, I feel like we could drive an entire civilization, Matrix-style.
Very few women will identify with or offer excuses for a woman like Smith who strapped her sons into their car seats and sent the car into the lake. IB is an extreme outlier.
Er, she’s not the only one, not even. I’m truly sorry that I did not grab screenshots of certain sites such as newspaper comment streams & so forth, both when her case was in the news and the Andrea Yates case. I cannot say how extreme an outlier IB / GG / yttik is, but I can state that she’s not alone, not by a long shot.
Feminism, by dehumanizing males, has made it much easier to rationalize murder.
I love that post. she really hits the nail on the head. its always men. it has nothing to do with her mom who chose a pedophile to live with, marry?, her it has nothing to do with the mothers failure to protect her kid. yes its all the big mean mens fault.
I would be very careful if I was this insanity chick as she is essentially making the argument that a troubled childhood and cheating spouse = acceptable to murder. rate of single mother hood means they are a lot of troubled childhoods and women cheat as often or more then men. they might not like it when the same argument is used to justify the murder of some random cheating spouse or her kids.
me I prefer to put the blame where it should be on the murderer. nothing other then actual self defense justifies killing your kid.
Yates is not Smith. Yates had a psychotic break that was clearly medically proven. Any man who continues having kids with a woman who has suffered a post-partem psychotic break and isn’t prepared to put his career aside temporarily to ensure the survival of his kids has done a whole hell of a lot worse to them than abandonment.
In a genuine patriarchy, Mr. Yates would have been executed for his dereliction of duty to his kids. It’s no different than a man who leaves his kids with a dangerous dog and then pleads “buh but I didna know yonnah!” when the dog fatally mauls one of them.
IB also said this at her blog, while wiping her own mouth and proclaiming her righteousness:
“I too would prefer to just sit in judgment of those who do evil and point my finger at them self righteously and yet Grace will not allow it. Luke 7:47, the woman with the perfume, Wherefore I say unto thee, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.“ My own grace requires me to extend the same to others.”
The passage in Luke to which she refers pertains to the woman with the alabaster jar of spikenard ointment who met with Christ. The woman was weeping because of her sins. In an act of worship, she broke the jar, poured the spikenard on Christ’s feet, wet His feet with her tears, and dried His feet with her hair. (Luke 7:37-38)
The woman with the alabaster jar was truly sorry and repented of her sin. She knew what her sin was, Christ did too, and He forgave her because He knew she had repented. Her act of worship in dumping a year’s worth of oil on a rabbi’s feet and publicly sobbing while begging forgiveness were clear acts of repentance andn humility. Signs of a contrite, repentant, and changed, heart.
Contrast this with Susan Smith, who won’t even acknowledge her sin and crimes; refers to them by euphemisms, makes excuses and justifications, and complains loudly when others remind her of her sins. And with IB, who runs interference for her, who demands that others show compassion and mercy to those who will not simply repent, who will not own up and fess up.
IB’s reliance on Scripture for her finger wagging Pharisaical approach falls flat. She should know this.
Churchian logic:
Evil woman: “I killed my children. The devil made me do it”
Churchian response: “Don’t be ridiculous, repent of your sins murderer!”
Evil Woman: “I killed my children. A man made me do it.”
Churchian response: “You poor thing! This must have been horrific for you! Can I pray for you?”
I read this the other day. It’s the story of Howard Shulman and how his parents abandoned him. You want to see a hamster practically bend space and time to its will? Read what his childhood was like and then get to the end where he confronted his elderly birth mother.
Christians should take his mother’s defense as a case study in why the Bible says “your good works are as filthy rages to me” and why salvation is by faith and repentance.
@ Dalrock:
“Susan Smith is suffering terribly because of her unrepentance. It isn’t kindness to take on the role of the serpent and offer sweet words of temptation. It isn’t loving, it is cruel.”
I’m reminded of this post:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/cruelty-and-kindness/
“The reality is cruelty often comes with good intentions.”
“The reality is making bad choices is never cost free, and no one can really insulate a person from the harm their own bad choices cause.
“The kindest thing we can do for women of any age is tell them the truth. Part of this involves being honest about their own desires and their responsibility for the outcomes they receive.”
Pingback: Insanity at the races. | Reaction Times
Women do not just spontaneously combust.
Hamsterlation: “Women aren’t sinners. If a woman does something bad, then a man made her do it.”
In a genuine patriarchy, Mr. Yates would have been executed for his dereliction of duty to his kids.
In a genuine patriarchy, Mr. Yates would actually have some semblance of control over the actions of wife and kids, which feminists have spent years lobbying to remove for “the good of the children”.
In fact, with the power balance that favors all women by default in marriage, nearly 100% of the blame should be assigned to the woman until proven otherwise. No such proof has been presented.
Manginas like you are the problem here. In your delusional world men should have all of the responsibility but none of the actual power.
Also, wondering why there is no Facebook posting option at the end of articles?
Because we’re men.
“all the men in our lives fail us”
This saying has to be the mother of all, get out of jail free cards. Women want equality, they want the same rights and opportunities as men and if for some reason they fail along the way it’s “ok” because there was a man in her life that failed her.
It’s truly the Twilight Zone for many of these (crazy) women.
Insanity Bytes, I know you’re reading here. I know you’re reading this thread, and every comment in it. So pay close attention.
Insanity/GG/yttik claims Susan smith was insane and her “brain broke”. According to some sites, Susan Smith’s bio-dad committed suicide. Her mom remarried to a man who sexually abused Susan.
Her ex husband and the children’s father called Susan manipulative and “sneaky”, and that she is an attention whore. In prison she’s made one more suicide attempt. She had sex with two male guards. According to reports, she paid other people to watch while she had sex with her lesbian lover.
There’s no doubt Smith is mentally ill. But people can function while mentally ill. She was not, and is not, so mentally ill that she couldn’t distinguish between right and wrong; between legal and illegal. She is mentally ill to the point that she has a twisted, perverted view of the world; but she is not so mentally ill that her “brain broke” or that she had “collapsed”. She isn’t broken; and she didn’t collapse. Susan Smith knew exactly what she was doing when she killed her children.
This:
“Susan Smith was a mentally ill 21 year old girl with a father who committed suicide, a stepfather who molested her, and a husband who cheated on her, abandoned with two small children. She broke. Women do that sometimes, we break, especially when all the men in our lives fail us, yes fail us Dalrock. Women do not just spontaneously combust.”
Is true insanity. So, IB is essentially saying all this was the fault of the MEN in Susan Smith’s life. It wasn’t HER fault, it was the MEN’s fault.
No. It wasn’t men’s fault. It wasn’t her husband’s fault. It wasn’t her father’s fault. Her stepfather did some bad things to Susan Smith; but he did not murder those children. Susan Smith did that, and ONLY Susan Smith did that.
And THAT is the truth.
The modern American church isn’t so much a religion as it is a service industry that exists to cater to women.
I’m going to steal that.
“21 year old girl”
Please.
Surely that should be Insanity at the Opera (Chico Marx’ famous pun on Sanity was in A Night at the Opera rather than than A Day at the Races.)
I avoided the previous thread partly because I had nothing to add and by reason of what I now write (which was on my mind). The name Mary Bell will not mean much to Americans, I presume, but in England she is regarded as the country’s most evil women: Her crime was that at the age of fourteen she killed two children (unrelated to her). She was released and lives a normal life though under an assumed name. I know her; I had heard of her of course but as I am not much interested in True Crime. I do not know the details and we never discussed her past. We became quite friendly: she is (as one may guess form the only photo one sees of her as a fourteen year old) a very good looking and indeed pleasant woman. It is some years since I last saw her. I am not really at liberty to say more about her than I write in this paragraph.
We all do stupid things when we are fourteen: I know I did.
She broke. Women do that sometimes, we break, especially when all the men in our lives fail us, yes fail us Dalrock. Women do not just spontaneously combust.
Well I guess we have to ask who failed Belle Gunness, Jane Toppan, and Marie Manning? Who failed the millions of American woman that murdered their own children in or just outside of the womb? Was it men?
In that case, who failed Ted Bundy? Who failed Ted Kaczynski? Who failed Jack the Ripper?, Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Also men?
Moral of the story? The FI only moves in one direction.
She seems to have a following of men too. All too willing to excuse murder.
It’s not really murder when it’s boys, is it?
IB missed the point of the original post, which was to demonstrate the common female tendency to rationalize poor decision-making and duck responsibility for even the most heinous crimes, frequently with the assistance of pathetic white-knight enablers. Ironically enough, I don’t think her blog could have done a better job of driving this point home. We should be thanking her for providing an example straight from the textbook.
It also provides further evidence that women’s sense of justice is about as sharp as a beach ball.
Why do so many women murder their children? Is this not against evolution, and her reproductive purpose?
Only for a very simple understanding of reproductive purpose, i.e. the vast majority of people.
The real reason is that the father’s attractiveness declined, so the woman did what female primates do, which is snuff out the genetics that are now less appealing than they once appeared.
Not just female primates, female mammals. For example, canines and felines also kill their own offspring from time to time. Back when the majority of people lived on farms or had family on farms, understanding of reproduction was much more down to earth. The cityfication of humanity is what enables many of the common pathologies, such as White Knighting or the absurd “blank slate” notion of human behavior.
People who grew up around animal husbandry had a better understanding of how much behavior is inherited than oh-so-scientific moderns. Rabies meant that Old Yeller had to be put down. A dog that ate a litter of pups was considered spoiled.
So, in other words, we are our sisters’ keepers and women have no true moral agency, right?
http://therationalmale.com/2015/07/14/our-sisters-keeper/
The problem is not that we’re not supposed to understand and forgive her. The problem is that on her end she needs to repent and ask for forgiveness. This woman did the exact opposite.
Stationary Giant ‘BIC’ Forced To Apologise For Women’s Day Graphic Telling ‘Girls’ To ‘Think Like A Man’
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/11/stationary-giant-bic-forced-to-apologise-for-womens-day-graphic-telling-women-to-think-like-a-man/
Abortions and child murders increase greatly every time the stock market corrects, since now a man’s fortunes (and his confidence) can decline in a matter of days. The US has not had a 10% correction in the S&P500 for 4 years now. Expect a wave of abortions and child murders when one finally arrives.
If the puncturing of the Misandry Bubble results in sea change of SMP winners and losers, then I’d imagine this dynamic can only be expected to get much, much worse.
@ Ladonai
“I think the point is that women demonstrate empathy and understanding for female behavior, but not for male.”
Half-true. Women demonstrate empathy for female behavior, but have near zero understanding human understanding at all. Their lack of introspection hinders them from doing so.
*human behavior
Do you actually understand why the situation happened? Yates couldn’t stand the idea of not knocking up his wife. He had two choices: wear a condom or stop having sex. He chose neither of them and proceeded with impregnating his wife a fifth time after the fourth pregnancy resulted in a psychotic breakdown.
A radical concept. Put on a condom or stop fucking your wife when the result of her having another kid might be her snapping again and murdering your kids.
Seeing the face of evil, and flinching
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/08/seeing-face-of-evil-and-flinching.html
Rollo
Civilization requires men take responsibility for female agency. To be civilized and have a society based on merit and law(justice) men set the morality tone. What that means is the law and culture is based in red pill reality and most highly rewards and respects the most productive and beneficial to society and civilization. No man is entitled to a wife and no man is responsible for the FI in anyway, directly or through government.
To all
Lets not forget our fundamentals of female nature. Self is number one morally guided by hypergamy’s needs. Women don’t conquer nature she just manipulates those that do. That is her thing. What is the bases of power for manipulation. Her status, sexual desirability, her victim status in the eyes of the conquerors of nature etc. ( a whole book can be written on the subject. )
A woman has a child for the title of mother for what it brings to her. A woman is “Christian” for the status it gives her. The merits and background of the title mean nothing and never have.
Todays article is about a woman killing a child. Of course she will if hypergamy needs it. The check on the murder is she will be seen as a monster. A man loves his child He will work his ass off for a safe and comfortable home child lives. A poor woman gets welfare, housing and title of mother child lives. Woman can use a child to punish a man and extort money and behavior the child lives. Bet your ass she doesn’t give a damn about the wellbeing of that child other than to show how good a mother she is to another woman. This stuff is normal from women it is not normal for a sane society. .
Mike T
If she thought and knew her husband was going to kick her ass that alone may have cured her depression. He was blue pilling her with the assumption of her agency in a society that doesn’t require female agency. No man by law has the slightest hint of authority over a damn thing any woman wife or not.
Do you actually understand why the situation happened? Yates couldn’t stand the idea of not knocking up his wife. He had two choices: wear a condom or stop having sex.
Do you think Mrs. Yates had any say in the choice to get pregnant, take birth control, etc? Because last I checked, modern women appear to have a significant amount of control over their reproduction in this country.
You’re reaching awfully hard to white-knight btw. If you want a pat on the head, go over to IB’s site and post there. She might even throw in a free tummy scratch.
No man by law has the slightest hint of authority over a damn thing any woman wife or not.
This is key. Thankfully we have Sir Galahad here to explain why it’s really the fault of the guy with little to no authority over his wife, and not really the fault of the woman who actually chose to murder her own children.
Civilization requires men take responsibility for female agency. To be civilized and have a society based on merit and law(justice) men set the morality tone.
If feminism has demonstrated nothing else, it has certainly demonstrated this. When you see feminism taking root in a nation, you see a society swimming in moral decay towards it’s doom.
I remember checking out this IB site once and the first think I read from her said (paraphrasing) “I spoke to god last night and he said…” Well that’s as far as i got. I’m sure this god said exactly what she wanted to hear. I guess it’s better than the modern “life coach” which might actually hold you to account every now and then and even costs $$.
@JDG
It’s been mentioned here before, but the overlap between FI and advanced civilization is little to none, because FI hard-wiring is based on pre-modern times which are no longer relevant.
The more advanced a civilization becomes, the more imperative it is that FI be de-emphasized to allow such a transformation. The more FI is emphasized, the closer we are to living in grass huts once again.
And that’s precisely the point. “Men” like PuffyJacket go “oh noes, the law doesn’t LET me manfully defend my children.”
Yates had choices he could have made. He could have chosen birth control or celibacy. He could have been there at home more to be a protective presence. And lastly, he should have been prepared to lay down his life in defense of his kids (including going to prison for breaking the law to protect them, if need be).
Only a “mangina” thinks that a man is excused from those things because the law isn’t on his side. As we see with guys like PuffyJacket, when men break from their white knight instincts, the reaction is very often just rank cowardice and bitter emasculation masquerading as speaking truth to power.
Trollolol at Mike_T
This is a tailor made target for a blue knight’s taser or glock22. A civilized man lives by the law. What your comment showed is why women in large numbers choose thugs and dark triad types to have children with.
Mr yates and the majority of men are blue pill men. The actual thing you should be speaking of is MGTOW
PuffyJacket, don’t feed the troll.
As we see with guys like PuffyJacket, when men break from their white knight instincts, the reaction is very often just rank cowardice and bitter emasculation masquerading as speaking truth to power.
Cue TFH’s comments on vastly off-base accusations being projection by the accuser. Looks like Mike T has been been exposed.
Mike T @ 4:44 pm:
“He chose neither of them and proceeded with impregnating his wife a fifth time after the fourth pregnancy resulted in a psychotic breakdown.”
He was foolish. She was a murderess. Her crimes are still her fault, not his.
This is the American Way. People are free to act as they wish with the caveat that they will be held individually responsible after the fact. Sometimes the result is awful, as in the Yates incident, but it’s better than Big Brother protecting us from ourselves.
And that’s why PuffyJacket is right: you’re white-knighting here. You blame the man for the woman’s crime. Don’t do that and especially don’t use the Twinkie defense. If I had my way in criminal law, insanity would be an aggravating circumstance because the person couldn’t stop himself from being a threat to society. You can’t rehabilitate that so a harsher punishment is appropriate.
…
“Why do so many women murder their children? Is this not against evolution, and her reproductive purpose? The real reason is that the father’s attractiveness declined, so the woman did what female primates do, which is snuff out the genetics that are now less appealing than they once appeared.”
I don’t see it happening. Economic cycles can’t be blamed like this when a man’s wealth is so irrelevant to his SMV. Either she’s attracted to him anyway or she’s running major AF/BB and the kids were fathered by the Alpha.
As I’ve said before, the Feminine Imperative now supersedes the fundaments of faith and has transplanted the Holy Spirit with feminine primacy.
IB’s first dedication here was to defend the ‘sisterhood’, not to consider matters of faith. She’s a shinning example of exactly this transition while concern trolling Dalrock’s personal convictions.
@ Mike T
Not to mention a very special thanks for proving the first paragraph in Dalrock’s post. What a loser.
http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/
What’s left?
What’s left?
Perhaps you should be asking “Who’s left?” (in the US, UK, and Canada at least).
@ feeriker:
“My question now to Dalrock and everyone else in the manosphere is, why do you continue to dignify this nutcase by highlighting or responding to her inane comments and juvenile trolling?”
Because we enjoy the entertainment. When I first discovered the sphere about three years ago I read to learn and survive. Now I read mostly for the ensuing laughter. I say continue to spotlight Insanitybites for the bountiful entertainment value.
Rollo
That guy was hard as rock with that list. He wasn’t preaching to the choir too because the comments are out raged. ha ha ha ha
Of course we all can influence each other to sin. But true repentance is to accept, without any excuses, one’s own responsibility for all of one’s sins and for the ways that one has contributed to others’ spiritual struggles as well. This is extremely hard (I have never done it myself), and I really like Dalrock’s point that our culture is not doing women any favors in the eternal run by suggesting that there is some kind of princess card that makes a woman incapable of doing wrong. The best thing for Smith, Yates, and all of us is to own up, fully, to the magnitude of our sins.
Certainly no man is responsible for what Smith or Yates did, any more than a frivorcée is responsible if her ex-husband murders her children. That reprehensible choice was theirs alone (leaving aside the unfathomable questions of mental illness and demonic influence, which I could not begin to understand but which could distract from the more pressing need to seek true repentance). We all sin aplenty, but if we want forgiveness we need to avoid the extra sin, so common to humans (evident with both Adam and Eve), of pointing the finger at someone else to explain why we are not really wrong even if we did wrong.
That said, if the wikipedia page on Andrea Yates is correct (and that’s a big if), then certainly Mr. Yates had at least one serious lapse in judgment in what is described there as his decision that his mother would only come after Andrea did an hour of childcare on her own, to avoid her infantilization and irresponsibility. Again, if that is accurate, then that was a mistake (not a sin), and one I’m sure he has regretted with unbearable pain and suffering ever since. I can see how it would be galling to try to shift the conversation from an error of judgment (which he may have made) to responsibility (which he does not bear). May God protect all of us from similar errors of judgments.
Amusingly, PuffyJacket and co missed the little fact that I didn’t lay all of the responsibility at Mr. Yates’s feet. Responsibility is not a zero sum game. It’s amazing how “red pill thinkers” who can so clearly see how women can be partially culpable for sexual violence that they enable through their irresponsibility will shriek with rage at the notion that even in our female-centric society men can bear their own serious guilt in situations like this.
Mr. Yates didn’t have to continue with having kids. He could have chosen to use birth control or chosen celibacy. The lack of power the law gave him over her doesn’t render him powerless over the areas of his own life that lead to the situation. Most importantly, when she showed clear signs of psychotic illness, he couldn’t bring himself from stopping the baby train even though the medical signs showed that his kids could be killed in the train wreck.
Could she divorce him, cheat on him, etc.? Absolutely. But at least if he took responsibility for what he could control, he could say before society and his maker “I did the best I could.” In fact, if she cheated on him and got pregnant, odds are good that in many jurisdictions he could have divorced her on grounds and gotten custody of the kids on the grounds that she very well might murder her own kids based on her medical history. Few men can bring that card into court.
Even if he fails, he can at least say he fought and did the best he could. Instead, he has to live with the fact that his failure to take control of the parts of his life that he could and then fight for his kids lead to their deaths.
And again, Andrea Yates is not Susan Smith. The former was demonstrably bat shit insane when she did what she did, and I believe showed considerable remorse later. The latter is an evil woman.
@ Mike T.
I completely agree with you that some commentators in the manosphere can at times fall into arguing that “no man is perfect, but it’s all women’s fault.” And I also agree with you that Yates does seem to have been truly psychotic. I knew a woman with postpartum psychosis (since treated), and it was an extraordinary thing to see how different she was during the psychosis.
But, is responsibility (or “playing a role”) really the same thing as guilt? Mr. Yates may have made a mistake, but is a mistake necessarily a sin? If a general errs in battle, is that a sin?
And spiritually speaking, shouldn’t we all be trying to focus exclusively on our own faults?
Just a note to add that I shifted my definition of responsibility in my two posts. In the first one, I was thinking of spiritual responsibility, i.e. guilt. In responding to Mike T., I used his definition of responsibility, that is, “without which, this would not have happened.”
Or better put, the second definition would be responsibility as a failure in secular judgment. Sorry for the multiple posts.
@ Sir Galahad
Amusingly, PuffyJacket and co missed the little fact that I didn’t lay all of the responsibility at Mr. Yates’s feet. Responsibility is not a zero sum game.
Could of fooled us, because you’ve just spent 99% of your energy here explaining how this is really Mr. Yates fault. In fact this is your first post where you’ve assigned any blame whatsoever on Mrs. Yates. Either way, why spend so much time concern-trolling over whether Mr. Yates is actually 5% responsible? Your emphasis on such an immaterial part of the problem is very revealing.
Go back and read the first paragraph of Dalrock’s post. You couldn’t have done a better job at proving his point.
@Mulier
I completely agree with you that some commentators in the manosphere can at times fall into arguing that “no man is perfect, but it’s all women’s fault.”
Care to provide some examples?
Either way, examples of the opposite outnumber the former something like 100:1, prime example being Sir Galahad here.
@PuffyJacket
I wasn’t meaning you, and I was generally referring to some of the more extremist voices, who tend to post for a while and then drop out. I’ve been reading Dalrock for 2 years now, and his posts are always excellent and worth the time to visit the blog. Over that time, I think there has been a shift: I used to see more enthusiasm for just burning the whole system down on the grounds that men had been so badly done by that they could act with impunity. These days I think that kind of response would be shot down by other commentators very quickly. So overall there has been, I believe, a move toward moderation.
But yes, in general a poster on the manosphere is going to be so (rightfully) angry about the disparity between the treatment of the sexes, that he could tend to assume that men are righteous and women are not. Recently someone posted about a man who cheated twice on his wife, and he suggested that probably it was because she was holding out on sex. That’s an example of a counter-cultural bias. Maybe that’s true, maybe not.
And you’re absolutely right that the overwhelming voice in our culture is to blame the man in the situation at every turn. Once you start to notice it, it is everywhere. And I can see why it would be completely infuriating.
Don’t get me wrong. I think men are great. My husband is the best thing that ever happened to me, and I would be lost without him. Truly, lost. I appreciate the anger that many men feel. I respect men, and I want them to lead by taking the high road, whatever that might mean. (Rollo would call this the Feminine Imperative.) The men on this blog (Dalrock and commentators alike) who write incisively about how to stand up for themselves and be guardians of civilization while staying true to Christian principles of humility, chastity or sexual fidelity, and obedience to the Word are heroes.
But then, in the end, “put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of man, in whom there is no salvation.” I do think that sometimes the male and female commentators of the manosphere alike want to be able to trust masculinity itself, and however admirable masculinity is (which it is in so many unappreciated ways), it is not actually the Alpha and the Omega.
@TFH.
Fascinating. Yes, I’d like that to be inverted. I want the average woman to take full spiritual responsibility for the ways in which she falls short, and then excuses to be made for everyone else (male or female) who tries to rationalize on their behalf.
As a self confessed Dalrock “groupie” as per Insanity’s site. I must confess that the rationalisation made me feel sick.
Other than that, Thumbs Up, since when you attract such vile comments, you know you are on the high moral ground.
IB’s lunacy was quite evident over at the Alpha Game blog. Vox deleted her rants but man… she’s damaged.
“He is absolutely correct too, because I truly believe that as Christians we are called to try to empathize with each other and to understand human behavior.”
This rationalisation would have to count right up there (or more correctly, down there) with the worst and most outrageous of defences.
It is a variation of the old, “Where is your Christian compassion….” argument.
Christians are not called to empathise or to understand human behaviour. We are first called to obey the Word, part of which says “You Shall Do No Murder” – which is a Commandment, not a Suggestion For Better Living.
When a woman allows a child molester into her house it is more her fault then the molester’s. Who has more responsibility to those children? The parent or the molester?
When a woman allows a child molester into her house it is more her fault then the molester’s.
That’s easy. It’s a man’s fault (even if the molester and the parent are both women).
It’s a man’s fault (even if the molester and the parent are both women).
Of course. If only the men had played their roles and were more responsible, those women would not be lesbians in the first place. By default, men are guilty until proven guilty, and women are innocent until proven innocent.
Does anyone still wonder why a Bruce wouldn’t become a Caitlyn?
Insanity at the Opera was what I suggested, which set me thinking about operatic versions of Medea of Euripedes, wherein Medea kills both her children by her cheating lover Jason. I cannot think of any Ancient Greek play or Myth where a Father murders his own children. That Medea has so far as I can tell been opera-ised no less than four times perhaps most famously in the version of Cherubini, (the other three are Marc-Antoine Charpentier, Mayr and Milhaud) suggests that the myth still has resonance. I need hardly add that Euripedes and the four composers were all male.
I recall, on the net, reading of the cases of murder from the Assizes at Bristol covering a seven hundred and fifty year period; there was not one case of a man killing his own children, yet women were convicted of killing their own and also other peoples children.
@MikeT
Enough to warrant killing Mr. Yates. Earlier you wrote:
It seems to me that your idea of justice is to wipe out the whole family.
Who is to say she would not have flipped even without another child?
None of us have an excuse for doing wrong. Not the women here nor the mistreated man that launches into the PUA lifestyle mentioned in another thread.
Opus, we all may have been stupid at 14, but stupidity doesn’t excuse murder or remove the consequences of it.
The solution to the Yates thing or at least a path to maybe avoid something like what happened is to ensure men are raised in masculine truth(red pill) Such a man may not have married that woman in the first place. Such a man may have the presence that may have sooth the woman enough to maybe even avoid the depression in the first place. Such men may have made a society where a husband and father can take action to protect his children and wife with out being charged with some kind of abuse.
The goal here is not to change women. The goal of the manosphere is to wake men up to the truth of the nature of women and to set up laws, policies, traditions, and culture to reflect that nature in a productive and sustainable civil society.
For Abolt:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/glossary/
http://www.pualingo.com/pua-terminology-list/ – scroll down
“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner ,,, (1 Peter 3:7 NIV)
Was the author of this quote white-knighting?
Why does the author insist that the husband be considerate toward his wife – – if she is unaffected by his acting inconsiderate? If she indeed is affected by his acting inconsiderately toward her, if the author indeed had a foundation in fact upon which he based this quote – what does that do to most of the arguments tendered upthread???
If we assume that 1 Peter 3-7 is true – then, given an equal number of males and females where the men (or women) in their lives all failed them, who do you suppose is going to be the most affected by that – male or female?
If we can’t trust that 1 Peter 3:7 is true, then upon what basis can we trust that anything else in the Bible is true? On the other hand, if 1 Peter 3:7 is true, why are so many making the arguments they are making upthread here?
If 1 Peter 3:7 is true in stating that a certain group of people can break more easily than another group – understanding that truth does not preclude us from holding that same group of people accountable when they break the law, God’s or society’s. We can understand why somebody broke, while at the same time holding them accountable for what they did while they were broken. Can you understand a call to exhibit compassion while administering justice, rather than contempt? I assume that IB was encouraging the compassion route rather than the contempt route (I haven’t yet read the link, so I’m basing this only on what IB was quoted as saying upthread).
“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner ,,, (1 Peter 3:7 NIV)
Was the author of this quote white-knighting?”
No. But you’re reading into the passage what is not really there.
To put verse 7 into perspective, why not read verses 1-6 first? Almost everywhere in scripture where God addressed male-female relationships, He addressed the women first. It’s as if God was saying, women, if you want to receive love and affection from your men, it all starts from you.
Here are the first 6 verses of 1 Peter 3:
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”
The arguments from some women to justify wrongdoings by another woman (and usually to blame them on a man) do not surprise me in the least. But contrary to what they intend, such arguments end up denying women any moral agency, thus treating them as children.
A family we are close to had a major shakeup: the wife left her devoted husband and three young children to go off with another woman. When we expressed our shock and dismay to our friends, from a few of the women we heard things like: “Well, maybe she just wasn’t feeling fulfilled in her marriage.” I wanted to retort: “If he had run off with another man, would you EVER say such a thing?” I’m sure they wouldn’t. It amazes me how these people pretend that women are morally superior, and at the same time deny them any moral agency.
I cannot think of any Ancient Greek play or Myth where a Father murders his own children
Cronus devoured his children, the Olympians. That’s a pretty significant myth. They only survived b/c they were immortal.
Rollo said, “Who’s left?”
That’s a good question. You find a woman not on that list, she’s either a unicorn or a homely 3. Que the timeshare salesman explaining marrying foreign is the answer. Red pill men should know better by now, AWALT.
@ Opus. There’s the Iphegenia myth, where the father sacrifices (or tries to sacrifice) his daughter (to make Artemis happy). Theseus kills his son Hippolytus (because his wife falsely claims to have been raped by her stepson). In Euripedes’ Herakles, Herakles is made insane by two goddesses and then kills his children.
Hyginus in his summary of Fabulae made a list (#225 of the Fabulae) of men who killed their daughers, in some cases out of provocation and in some cases not. His 224 was probably men who killed their sons, but it is missing. Then he has a list of mothers who killed their sons.
Mike T says:
August 13, 2015 at 4:44 pm
” In a genuine patriarchy, Mr. Yates would actually have some semblance of control over the actions of wife and kids, which feminists have spent years lobbying to remove for “the good of the children”.
In fact, with the power balance that favors all women by default in marriage, nearly 100% of the blame should be assigned to the woman until proven otherwise. No such proof has been presented.”
“Manginas like you are the problem here. In your delusional world men should have all of the responsibility but none of the actual power.
Do you actually understand why the situation happened? Yates couldn’t stand the idea of not knocking up his wife. He had two choices: wear a condom or stop having sex. He chose neither of them and proceeded with impregnating his wife a fifth time after the fourth pregnancy resulted in a psychotic breakdown.
A radical concept. Put on a condom or stop fucking your wife when the result of her having another kid might be her snapping again and murdering your kids.”
================================================================
Alternatively, if Mr. Yates had had the unilateral power to have his wife institutionalized (or at least put her out on the street, and kept away from the children), the kids likely would have lived. And, without all the affirmative action/gov’t “jobs” sinecures available for women, a competent, reasonably-priced governness/nanny would have been available to him.
@ Cane
It seems to me that your idea of justice is to wipe out the whole family.
Mike_T, FWIW, has been pwned.
Of course, under Patriarchy, the Apex Alpha has no power to wipe out the Patriarch based on what happens to his household. If they die, it’s his problem, not Caesar’s. Caesar only mediates between free men. Between Patriarchs.
Regular Guy says:
August 14, 2015 at 8:55 am
Rollo said, “Who’s left?”
Rollo said what’s left, which IMO was a good question. It was the guy who knows of over a hundred couples where the bride is foreign that said Who’s left, which IMO was even more to the point.
You find a woman not on that list, she’s either a unicorn or a homely 3.
Or perhaps she was born and raised somewhere outside of a western nation.
Que the timeshare salesman explaining marrying foreign is the answer.
Happy to oblige, only there is no “the answer”. However, there are options. I am connected with about a hundred couples where the bride is foreign. Out of that 100 or so, only 3 have divorced and one of those was the man doing the divorcing (and the woman was a good wife). That’s 3%. Although the national average for divorce among couples with foreign brides is too high (20%), it’s much better than the 50% rating for couples with local gals. Also, that 20% statistic includes the folks who marry for a citizenship / cash exchange.
Although these women are not perfect, they do treat their men with respect. They are kind, domestic, and feminine. The difference is night and day when compared to the locals.
My original point however, was that nearly all western woman have become unfit for marriage. The fact that most sleep around before marrying should be the biggest clue.
And sometimes when women fail men they just “break” too apparently:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/08/us-usa-crime-montana-idUSKBN0OO23U20150608
It’s no different than a man who leaves his kids with a dangerous dog and then pleads “buh but I didna know yonnah!” when the dog fatally mauls one of them.
Somewhere out there in lurker land there are feminists seething at the idea that a woman was just compared to a dangerous dog.
Pingback: Leftovers from the back of a moldy fridge… | See, there's this thing called biology...
Somewhere out there in lurker land there are feminists seething at the idea that a woman was just compared to a dangerous dog.
At least you can shoot a dangerous dog.
@Mike T, “Yates couldn’t stand the idea of not knocking up his wife.” – you are clearly off your t*ts.
@God is Laughing says: And sometimes when women fail men they just “break” too apparently:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/08/us-usa-crime-montana-idUSKBN0OO23U20150608
Yep, all the womans fault. Of this we can be sure, she would have been undoubtedly planning to leave and take all of his assets.
For the IB’s of this world and assorted maginas ; “ALL THE WOMANS FAULT”
is that clear enough ?
@Mike T, “Yates couldn’t stand the idea of not knocking up his wife.” – you are clearly off your t*ts.
This was my thought also. This is spoken as if a married man’s expectation of getting his wife pregnant is somehow unreasonable.
Mike_T is probably a woman.
Insanity Bites is the correct name for InsanityBytes. Her only interest in Christianity is it serves as a moral platform for her to spout off nonsense. She is your typical arrogant self-exalting woman.
Gunner Q said:
>To that end, I’ll do what I can to make the married guys I know look good. Maybe if I show him high respect and admire him when his wife is in earshot, she’ll have a few good whispers to compete against the bad.
This is really important. I make a point of not discussing the faults I perceive in a man in front of his wife. That should be done with him alone. Showing him respect instead is proper behaviour to build up and strengthen that marriage; Heb 13:4-6.
GreyGhost:
Wise man.
“We all do stupid things when we are fourteen: I know I did.”
Very few of us, no matter how good looking and pleasant we grow up to be, murder two small children at that or any age. Mary Bell should not have been granted anonymity.
Hugh Mann
Seems like that is something they do for females to unload her onto so sap to marry thinking he has found “the one” We have guys asking about dick counts and this chick has a couple of murders in her past. Talk about baggage. But the government thinks it is cool for her to lie about it and get some jack ass on the hook to pay for her.
greyghost, bought a used car recently and used CarFax to find out about it. Two owners, no accidents on record, no airbag deployments. Gave me confidence in the machine, that it hasn’t been misused and is likely to give good service.
If I were back on the market, I’d use Facebook, Twatter, tumblr and other social media plus routine search engines on any woman prospect for an LTR, for pretty much the same reason.
@Anonymous Reader and greyghost
The only issue is that any sensible woman doesn’t have much public profile. I searched my name (very uncommon) and found out that I am dead, living in 3 countries, living in 3 states in the US, and the 3rd picture is one of my sister. The only pictures of me are from newspaper articles at least 15 years ago… Not the best data.
Isa
Think of it like a background check for a gun purchase. If nothing comes up you are good to go.
Pingback: Yet again why women cannot teach men to be men | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Isa, you’re underthinking this. Negative results are still results. Background investigation on a woman, if I were on the market, would be a multi layered process, starting with any visible tats (downcheck due to time preference issues) then moving on to social media. A woman who doesn’t obsess on Facebook? No data there? Well, that negative data is in fact data; she’s less likely to be a narcissist.
Services such as Peoplefinders may produce more data, but as you note it can be wrong. I have found some people via such services “living” who are in fact dead; people whose memorial services I attended, or whose death certificates I’ve seen copies of, that level of “I know they died”.
Which tangentially brings me to another point that’s been kind of in the back of my mind for a while regarding the whole “You have to forgive her no matter what!” mindset that IB / gg shares with other women. Too many other women, frankly. This kind of “forgive! you must!” mindset is really quite corrosive in the long run, because it demands that bystanders, that people who may be affected by the bad behavior of a particular woman strive to make her “all better” no matter what she says or does. It’s the mindset that leads Churchians to demand that a carousel riding slut who has hit the Wall and done an altar call be accepted just the same as if she was a 20-year old virgin, in terms of marriageability.
Previously various writers such as Cail Corishev, Deti, Dalrock, and others have referred to this in passing as the “Jesus is my BFF” mindset. God is not only supposed to forgive no matter what, but also fix up any and all boo-boos and owies that may have resulted from years of bad behavior. To make things right, right now, because tears have been shed and words have been said.
Thinking about death certs and memorial services brings this into new focus. There’s a term in the 12-step community for people who keep picking alkies / druggies / etc. up out of their own vomit, cleaning them up and trying to make them right again, before they’ve hit rock bottom and decided on their own to truly change and that word is enabler.
It appears to be starkly clear that what InsanitBytes / GG / yttik et al demand isn’t so much “BFF Jesus” as “Enabler Jesus”.
Now, that’s gonna sound pretty ugly to IB and her commenters. Well, sometimes the truth can be pretty ugly; death certificates, for example, aren’t all that pretty. But they are the truth.
“Enabler Jesus”, feel free to kick that idea around.
@Anonymous Reader
I’ve always felt that forgiveness! all better!! thinking to be quite pervasive in protestant circles at present. The Catholic view jives much better for me. Although the spiritual consequences of sin can be forgiven/wiped away, the temporal consequences remain. Thus the need for repentance, trying to right wrongs etc. especially if the sin’s consequences (i.e. murder or the like) can never even begin to be undone.
As an aside, this spiritual persuasion seems quite modern, not at all like Luther, Calvin, etc. Who cooked the whole scheme up? Seems a cynical ploy to get feel good money in the collection plate.
Responding to the idea of searching internet for info on a person,
Isa said: The only pictures of me are from newspaper articles at least 15 years ago… Not the best data.
I can beat you. My name used to pull up a page giving information on a guy with the title, “Grand Wizard”. This seemed weird, so I read it. Turns out “Grand Wizard” was a rank within the KKK organization. (Un?)fortunately, that page was no longer available, last time I checked. Funny though 🙂 And in case I need to say it, NO that guy was not me ha hah.
Isa, this has been kicked around the androsphere off and on, probably if you do a search with the term “church of nice” you likely will find some interesting observations. I have demonstrated I’m no scholar of the Bible, but I did read Proverbs and I’ve read on Judges, and there ain’t nothing I’ve seen so far that tells anyone to be nice. The Bible quotes that the women & their White Knights[1] trot out to justify the personal Enabler Jesus tend to be incomplete – “Judge not…” being but one of them, “weaker vessel” is another.
It all tends to reduce to “let women do what I want and not ever pay any price”.
[1] White Knights are men who unconditionally support women’s choices no matter what, no matter how bad, no matter who gets hurt. When some man is busy defending women’s “right” to behave as badly as they want, but pay no price, or even argue that some other man is to take the blame for her choice, that’s a White Knight at work. Examples abound.
@AR, the “church of nice” is only “nice to women”.
I agree with you, but while you are at it, choose a decent handle rather than AR.
@AR, “It all tends to reduce to “let women do what they want and not ever pay any price”.”
No, it lets women do what they want and men pay the price, particularly if she has a marriage license (a financial tenure backed up by the courts) against him.
It’s like a woman’s credit card with an unrestrained credit line that she never has to pay the bill on.
If only these were available for men, please someone let me know when they are.
It’s “Cult of Nice” rather than “Church of Nice”. The Cult (the proper term here) was brought into the Western cultures over the last few decades. “Political Correctness” is a part, but not all of, the Cult.
The basic precept is that you put “Not hurting Feelings” over all other considerations. If you’re a moral person. If you’re immoral, you are free to abuse others, so long as you’re from a “Victim Class” and you don’t attack someone above you in the “Victim Hierarchy”. This is the basis for 75% of the normal news cycle. The other 25% being things that actually happened.
Looking Glass
It’s “Cult of Nice” rather than “Church of Nice”.
Works for me. I’ll let you and others chew on the implications of a “theology of niceness.
Not much theology to talk about:
Cult of Nice = Damned Soul.
Let’s take the Insanity Bytes comments and try to turn them around,
apply them, and her attitude, to the men in the story
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-assassin-of-two-kids-should-be.html
…/…
• “her step father molested her all through her teens” :
“No one knows why [he] did it, it was just one of those evil acts that defy explanation.” …/…
• The relationship with David “was rocky, full of infidelity, and he frequently abandoned her with the two children” :
“[He] broke. [Men] do that sometimes, [they] break, especially when [all the people? all the women? all the something else? a particular woman?] in [their] lives fail [them], yes fail [them] Dalrock. [Men] do not just spontaneously combust.”
…/… Now turn it around the other way: imagine if one woman had committed suicide, another had molested a teen-ager, and a third had cheated on the husband/boyfriend while abandoning their children. Surely Insanity Bytes would have used the the exact same arguments (sic) and that, needless to say, in the women’s **defense**.
You see, Insanity Bytes, what it boils down to is a person (male or female) committing suicide, an adult (male or female) molesting a teenager, a spouse or boy/girlfriend cheating on the significant other while abandoning him/her and the kids, AND (drumbeat), a parent (male or female) murdering their offspring.
Is it inconceivable that there is nothing anti-feminine about thinking that the final one is far worse than the first three? Is it inconceivable that the comments section would argue as much for the death penalty (if not more) were the murderer a man? …/…
What do you expect from women who consider babies to be parasites? Of course, those retards on welfare their whole lives are just misunderstood deprived victims, right bitch? What is it with White people that they have such compassion for stupid wild animals. When I was young my White Father set me right and told me you can’t domesticate wild animals and make them into pets. Oh that evil patriarchy at work!
You have to realize that even when women are really smart, the closest they ever get to rational is rationalization. Gee, that’s not even close is it? Is it hormones? Is it the fantasy world of rainbow farting unicorns and candle magic? Nope. Women are all nuts that’s all. They are just not sane. They have moods and thoughts just get in the way for them. If you get involved with women you have to realize that sanity doesn’t run on their hardware. If you want a woman you have to find a woman who’s crazy in a way you can live with – at least for a while anyway.
“Women do not just spontaneously combust”.
-Actually, they do.
Anyone who has worked with a woman, had one as a boss, been in a relationship with one or had one as a friend (an unstable situation – women don’t make good friends) – knows that sooner or later, they WILL spontaneously combust. The Cold Shoulder, the Hot / cold treatment, the explosion all tell you that something bad has happened and you will be in the firing path, guilty or not.
@Spike. LOL
Yes I have witnessed this on many occasions. its more of a emotional combustion, pity not physical, it would sure remove the nutcases quickly. I’ve witnessed BPD’s curled up on the bathroom floor clutching their stomachs while sobbing and in a completely hysterical state.
I guess that qualifies. Seen it once to many to believe most women arn’t severely emotionally damaged by the time they become adults. Even the ones who don’t do that.
The strange thing is that those who are most fragile and damaged are the females who make the biggest noise about control and manipulation.
The strange thing is that those who are most fragile and damaged are the females who make the biggest noise about control and manipulation.
Not strange at all. Projection, psychological projection, is a known feature of those personalities.
Levitating Hamster Award, much!
Yes, when a woman commits some horrific and notorious crime, the feminist and traditional imperative is to blame the nearest proximate male (whether he be dead or alive). In addition to Susan Smith, just ask Betty Broderick or Jodi Arias, among others.
When it comes to male perpetrators, they are not so interested in investigating the influence of the nearest proximate female. Though they might unearth some interesting stuff if they did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9592433/Anders-Behring-Breiviks-mother-sexualised-him-when-he-was-four.html
Durasim says:
August 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm
Feminism and single mother mayhem at work. They knew she was wacky and still gave her custody over his father. The insanity doesn’t stop there. After her fabulous supervision encourages the boy to become a psychopath, he murders 77 people and is sentenced to 21 years in prison. That’s about 96 days per victim.
When someone decides to publish the facts, he is criticized for violating the mother’s privacy. Maybe that guy who said “Breivik is without doubt what Norway deserves,” was onto something.
Welcome to the feminist utopia.
@durasim – great find, a BPD insane mother+ peadophile too.
“After Breivik’s father Jens Breivik lost a child custody case with Ms Behring, social workers recommended that the boy nonetheless be removed from his mother to prevent “more severe psychopathology” from developing, a request that was ignored.”
Yes and the courts leave him with her and deny him the father. Could they sink any lower ? Obviously he’s not at fault considering recent stream of female rationalising. (NOT)
He just exploded, broke he did, right down the middle. Men do that. When let down by women.
in fact, the challenge is to find a serial killer nowadays who WASNT brought up by a single mom.
He just exploded, broke he did, right down the middle. Men do that. When let down by women.
It was worse than that. The entire state is geared to create horrible environments (single mother homes) to raise kids in. The fathers are often cut right out, and the women are encouraged to be despicable.
Ever read wimminz.wordpress.com ?? It’s very crass, and he doesn’t write any longer, but the archive is still up.
The author was the stereotypical husband and father. On a dime his wife of umpteen years started banging someone else and divorced him. She subsequently libelled him up and down — accusing him of being a pedophile who raped his kids — in order to cut him out of his family’s life completely.
Ho’s wonder why they get pumped and dumped. Well, with examples like these, who wants to be married?
@boxer, its still up. last post 1 Aug 2015. His rationale is that women are idiots.
I can relate to that. Well, lets just hope that the kids will realise who the lying f**k is later on in life. I’ve tended to find that adults who were brought up by lying insane hoe’s tend to hate them.
@JDG, well why wouldnt they be ? they are given a free reign to accuse anything they like, deny court visitation as often as possible. They have unleashed the worst of female behaviour onto men.
Because patriarchy obviously and studies and shit.
“By the time he was four years old, she “sexualised” the young Breivik, hit him, and frequently told him that she wished that he were dead. The mother and Anders sleep in the same bed at night with very close bodily contact,” psychologists from Norway’s centre for child and youth psychiatry (SSBU), reported after Breivik and his mother spent several weeks there in 1983″
Then my entire country “sexualises” its kids. We sleep with our parents until puberty and if we are poor without any other room in the house, we sleep with them til we get married.
“During the police investigation, the neighbours also said that they had been shocked by the mother’s sexualised language,”
In the US people use swear words like “fuck” in front of their kids too. They also talk much more openly about sex than parents or elders do in my country. I was shocked by this myself but does it mean they are sexualising them?
“There was a lot of fighting in the apartment and they remembered sexual activity taking place while the children were in there.”
Single parents in the US also date and often have their lady friends and man friends sleep over. Does that mean they are sexualising their kids? Norway sounds much more conservative than the US.
Because patriarchy obviously and studies and shit.
And sammiches! Don’t forget about all the oppressed women who had to make sammiches.
@JDG, I feel you are being quite flippant about this.
Its sammiches while hiding under the overhead machine gun fire of oppression from the male gaze while they are probably manspreading
If the country you refer to is India, then it is in no position to lecture the rest of the world about healthy sexual mores.
The article also noted:
Their contention was not simply that Behring carried on her own sexual relationships with other men, or that she merely slept chastely with her own son. The contention of the report was that Breivik’s mother made him the focus of her own sexual fixation and that close bodily contact in bed was possibly inappropriate. Think of it as akin to a father or creepy uncle who is overly affectionate to his daughter or niece, wanting to “massage” or “caress” her in untoward ways. Being the focus of a parent’s sexual attention (even if that parent never “consummates” it) is probably not a good thing for a child.
You also glossed over the segments where Breivik’s mother told him she wished he was dead and repeatedly struck him.
“You also glossed over the segments where Breivik’s mother told him she wished he was dead and repeatedly struck him.”
I didn’t gloss over it. I didn’t comment on it because that is obviously horrible. What I’m not getting is how sleeping with one’s 4 year old child is “sexualising” him. Co-sleeping and “the family bed” is common throughout the world. It may not be common in Noway and therefore they might find it odd, but how they would jump from “uncommon here” to “sexual” is bewildering. “Attachment parenting” is also a thing in the US but throughout the world its just called “parenting”. I have been told that parents were taught decades ago that their babies and kids need to sleep separately from them, in separate rooms even. Doctors even tell parents of 6 month old infants that these infants need to “individuate”. So obviously cultures like this will find co-sleeping odd and have to give normal parenting a title like “attachment parenting” because their regular mode of parenting is so cold and detached, but still, there’s no need to confuse co-sleeping, which is normal, with this crazy “sexualisation”.
The fact that she “co-slept” with her son was not the only basis for concluding that she was “sexualizing” him. The report suggested that the mother “projects her primitive aggressive and sexual fantasies onto him [Breivik].” When a parent gives indications that he/she may view or fixate upon his/her child sexually and then proceeds to sleep in the same bed with that child with “close bodily contact,” the “co-sleeping” becomes a possibly suspicious and aggravating factor.
Indications that a parent has inappropriate or untoward fixation on his/her child can make apparently normal activities suspicious or damaging. If a father gives signs and suggestions that he is sexually fixated on his own daughter, the act of him “co-sleeping” with his daughter and caressing her in bed is now laced with suspicion (perhaps even if the father and daughter in question live in a culture in which the practice of “co-sleeping” is common). In a culture in which “co-sleeping” is not common, this example would be even more disturbing. Changing a baby’s or toddler’s diaper is considered normal and routine for most parents and caregivers. However, if a parent or relative makes sexual and lewd comments about the child’s genitals, and then appears anxious and enthusiastic to change the child’s diapers whenever possible, the action becomes rightfully suspicious.
And to add to your point about cultural relativism, if a practice is not common in a certain place, it can justifiably warrant additional suspicion. In some cultures, it may be normal for pubescent and teenage children to be routinely undressed or nude around their parents. In Western countries, that is not often the case. If a parent in Europe or the U.S. encourages his/her teenage child to be naked in the house, that is going to draw suspicion if other people find out. And claiming that the practice of pubescent child nudity is common in some other culture is not going to make it all better. Likewise, the fact that “co-sleeping” is common throughout the world does not mean it is benign and okay when a psychologically and physically abusive mother clings to her young son every night in bed.
“The fact that she “co-slept” with her son was not the only basis for concluding that she was “sexualizing” him. The report suggested that the mother “projects her primitive aggressive and sexual fantasies onto him [Breivik].”
Right. But the article failed to explain HOW she is projecting those fantasies. Co-sleeping, using bad language and having man friends sleep over were the only examples given. Co-sleeping is normal. Using bad language in front of one’s kids is low class in my opinion, but common in the West among even middle class people. Having one’s sex partners spend the night, though a total scandal and not done where I’m from (we don’t have a lot of single parents to begin with) is totally normal in the west.
” In some cultures, it may be normal for pubescent and teenage children to be routinely undressed or nude around their parents. In Western countries, that is not often the case. ”
You are incorrect about this. In some European countries families go to the beach topless, even nude, together. In my country one dare not even wear a bathing suit in front of one’s familiy members (or at all, really) but parading around almost naked is the norm here in the USA during summer.
I get cultural relativism and all that, I’m still in culture shock after two years here, but the things the article listed are not unusual for the west, even co-sleeping is seeing a resurgence and going mainstream.
No doubt the mom is a nut. But the only unusual thing the article listed was her physical abuse of the boy and her saying she wished he were dead. If they would have stuck with that, that’s more than enough.
The child welfare report from the psychiatrists was still partially redacted when Borchgrevink reviewed it for his book, and the employees who observed Breivik and his mother could only speak in “general terms” without breaching confidentiality.
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Norwegian_Tragedy.html?id=P_EDngEACAAJ
Despite your suggestion that Norway was “conservative,” their sexual mores are a lot more liberal and permissive than the United States, even in the 1980’s. If some kind of behavior between Breivik and his mother caused these Norwegian officials to suspect “sexualisation” and other inappropriate intentions, I am guessing it would have to pass a higher threshold than what would discomfit a more prudish American official.
In itself, devoid of any other context, co-sleeping can be some normal and anodyne thing. You seem to keep insisting that because co-sleeping is some general and common practice in many parts of the world, then it can never serve as evidence or suggestion of disturbing behavior. I knew one family in which the mother “co-slept” with her son from infancy and beyond, up to when he was ten years old. The father objected to this practice, but he was eventually exiled to the living room, while the mother kept the son sleeping in her bed, intimating that the son was the replacement for his father. Sure, co-sleeping can be normal. But in this case, it was a sign of disturbing and pathological behavior. The fact that is it pervasive in other places does not negate that, for that case or for Breivik’s case.
Interesting. So if parents in your country permitted their teenage children to wear swimsuits or other scanty wardrobe in front of them, would that fact that children normally wear such garments in other countries silence objections and denunciations from people who take offense to it? Similarly, if an American father is encouraging his teenage daughter to be naked in the house while he takes pictures, would it make everything okay if he points out that teenage nudity is normal in some other culture somewhere else?
I am aware that topless bathing is normal in many European countries, and also that fully nude bathing is permitted at some select beaches. Though I was referring to permitting or encouraging nudity in a household setting. I do not know if European families are similarly lax about nudity in the house or if European adolescents have no qualm about being nude in front of their parents at home. Most American families are certainly not lax about that. Yes, American kids often wear scanty suits to the beach and pool, but nudity is considered bright line standard with severe consequences, especially once the children are passed toddler age. The only places in the US where parents and pubescent children may be routinely nude in each other’s presence are nudity or naturist locations. Even then, some of these places are now prohibiting children out of fear of molestation or child pornography allegations.
Minesweeper says:
August 27, 2015 at 9:11 pm
@JDG, I feel you are being quite flippant about this.
Its sammiches while hiding under the overhead machine gun fire of oppression from the male gaze while they are probably manspreading
I stand corrected.
I remember when Andrea Yates murdered all of her children. I can’t even count how many women said “her husband is just as guilty as her for leaving her alone with them in her condition,” as if working to put provided a roof and food was abandonment.
The one I recall was Kathleen Parker, the syndicated columnist who was years later paired with Client Number Nine on that CNN show. That’s when I realized she was not a rank and file columnist archived on Townhall; she was an intellectual and moral fraud. It took another seven years for Townhall to quite archiving her spew.
Another person who played the con man was Park Dietz, the forensic psychiatrist for hire. His angle was deflecting attention from the quacks in his line of work, one of whom had been superintending AY and had her coked to the gills on psychotropics. No, expert Dietz tells us, the real village is some evangelical clergyman they once traveled with whom they hadn’t seen in several years. The clergyman in question defended himself by trashing Russell Yates.
Russell Yates had lost all five children and his marriage had decayed into a series of unimaginable trials. To add another injury, the representatives of the helping professions surrounding him are all incompetents and jerks. One would have to have a heart of stone to tear into this man. Kathleen Parker, that’s you.
The defenses of Susan Smith are not novel. They were undertaken at the time by Barbara Ehrenreich in the pages of Time magazine, in a stupefying column wherein blame was parceled out to a kitchen sink of parties – i.e. everyone but Susan Smith. Kathleen Parker is not the only intellectual and moral fraud working the opinion trade, or even the most egregious among them.
Pingback: Dalrock Hurting Women | Secular Patriarchy
Pingback: False witness | Dalrock