Boston, part two. For all the boys who weren’t in blue.

18 Apr

Yesterday, we looked at all the men in uniforms who were on hand to react to the bombings at the Boston Marathon. Today I want to talk about all the men who reacted, not because it was their JOB to, but because they were there, and they cared.

Let’s start with this man:


His name is Dick Hoyt, and he is standing behind his son, Rick, beside a bronze statue unveiled to commemorate this amazing father’s love for his son.

Rick was born with cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic, the result of oxygen deprivation at birth.

At his birth, doctors were blunt. ‘They said, ‘Forget Rick, put him away, put him in an institution, he’s going to be a vegetable for the rest of his life,’ said Dick told the Today Show earlier this month.

‘Today he’s 51-years old and we still haven’t figured out what kind of vegetable he is – and guess what? That vegetable has been turned into a bronze statue.’

We don’t see many representations of these kinds of Dads in the media. Popular culture loves the “fat oaf with no good advice to give his kids”, while his beautiful wife manages everything with grace, skill and aplomb. Dads are at best stupid, and at worst irrelevant.

Here is Rick, pulling his beloved son on a raft as they compete in an Ironman race.


The book the two of them wrote, chronicling the +1000 races they have taken part in is, unsurprisingly, called Devoted.


The Hoyts were less than a mile from the finish line when the bombs went off, and true to form, Dick got his son to safety, with the help of a Good Samaritan.

Here is another father who was on hand when the pressure cookers detonated:


His name is Carlos Arrendondo. Once upon a time, Carlos had two sons, Brian and Alexander. A sniper took Alexander from him in Iraq, and he lost his other son to suicide. Brian couldn’t face life without his brother. Carlos was at the finish line to cheer on soldiers running to honor their fallen comrades, and when the initial blast tore through the spectators, most people ran.


Carlos ran to.

Without regard for his own safety, he ran to the injured and came across a young man named Jeff Bauman Jr, who suffered horrific injuries to his lower legs.


That’s Jeff’s femoral artery that Carlos is holding, pinching it shut to staunch the flow of blood. The above picture is cropped. If you want to see the full extent of what Carlos was dealing with, click the link below. Be warned, it’s graphic and horrifying.

Carlos is being hailed a hero, and rightly so. His boys may be dead, but he is still a father, and when a young man needed him, he was there.

That’s what fathers do.

Here’s another young man who is a different kind of hero.


His name is Matt. He didn’t know Sydney, the girl he is comforting. He came across her and dropped to his knees and put his arms around her and offered her comfort.

That immediately sparked a Twitter rumor that he was, in fact, proposing to his girlfriend, and while that seems like an innocent and sweet thing to assume, there is darker undercurrent to that story.


Is it really so impossible to believe that Matt simply wanted to help? That he saw a beautiful young girl, horribly injured and all he wanted to do was aid her? Comfort her? That doesn’t fit with how we view young men who come across vulnerable young women, does it?

Here’s another man, who found an injured girl and carried her to an ambulance. His name is Tyler, and he is double Purple Heart recipient.


And once again, the media is spinning the story as a blossoming romance.

And who knows? Maybe it is. That would be a wonderful ending to a sad story, but there is something unpalatable about needing to cast men as having a motivation OTHER than just basic goodness and kindness.

Why can’t Tyler and Matt just be good men, full stop?

I’m not saying that women didn’t react with similar selflessness and bravery. Nonsense. Here is a woman at the scene of the blast, not knowing if there were more to come, helping to save an injured man.


But we don’t need a story to explain her actions. We assume that women are kind and good and will do whatever they can to help.

Not long ago, we made the exact same assumptions about men. There was even a word to describe the actions of men who behaved heroically and selflessly towards women: chivalry.


In a world where bad things usually happen in faraway countries that we really don’t have to confront in any meaningful way, it’s easy for feminism to decry chivalry as nothing more than benevolent sexism. And they do.

And quite understandably, the response from men has been “well, fuck you then”. There are lots of good reasons why men no longer feel any obligation or desire to behave chivalrously towards women.

When the discussion revolves around opening doors, or buying dinner, or hailing cabs, it looks all very benign and reasonable. But when you add a threat, a real threat, it becomes astonishingly clear what feminism is costing us, as a society.

Hero. The word is used to unironically describe men who act with courage and selflessness, but you hardly ever see the inversion of the word: men who are heroes are offering their own lives in exchange for others. When you race into danger, you agree to risk your own life to save others. Many men do that instinctively. Without thought. It’s a part of themselves they do not actively control.


A man walks into a movie theater with a loaded gun, and the men instinctively throw themselves across women.

To protect them.

To save them.


Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behavior

When feminists call for the end of chivalry, they are calling, explicitly, for the end of men being men. They are declaring the natural and innate behaviors of men unacceptable and undesirable. I suppose that’s a step up from just abusing those instincts, but not much of one.

And I would like to see just how loud the average feminist would scream for the death of chivalry when she is the one standing in a crowd and a bomb goes off.

Women in the developed, Western world live pampered lives of globally unprecedented luxury. We have those lives because men, countless millions of men, have been heroes.


They died to provide us with this life. It takes a bomb to show us how they continue to provide and protect and serve us. And in exchange for that, they ask for gratitude. For acknowledgement. To be given credit for their sacrifice.

Is that so much to ask? Show some fucking gratitude.

I’ll end with a quote from great lady who understood that she could be great without destroying men.


“The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.”

Margaret Thatcher

Indeed, Margaret. Feminism has poisoned the well of our society for long enough.

It’s time for a detox.

Lots of love,


78 Responses to “Boston, part two. For all the boys who weren’t in blue.”

  1. earl April 18, 2013 at 16:17 #

    Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

    John 15:13


  2. LostSailor April 18, 2013 at 16:27 #

    When feminists call for the end of chivalry, they are calling, explicitly, for the end of men being men.

    Of course they are. That’s the whole point of feminism. First, turn men into women, then eliminate them entirely. It’s a feature, not a bug!


  3. happycrow April 18, 2013 at 16:35 #

    ^aaaaand done in one.


  4. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 16:46 #

    Sadly, I think you’re right.

    And even more sadly, I think most women who identify as feminists just can’t see that.

    Willfully blind.


  5. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 16:47 #



  6. sqt April 18, 2013 at 16:47 #

    I think the demonization of chivalry is one of the things I hate most about feminism. I remember hearing my grandfather tell my brothers the proper way to treat a lady- and they listened. The problem is that I’m not sure there were many ladies left when it came time for them to put those skills to use.

    Bless those men you profiled from the Boston bombing. It brings tears to my eyes every time I read those stories and see the pictures.


  7. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 16:48 #

    The man in the red tshirt.





  8. earl April 18, 2013 at 17:00 #

    A little snippet about the Tyler story.

    “She asked me not to leave her. She was holding my hand. There was some kind of connection on a spiritual level, I would have to say, cause when I told it was going to be okay, she believed me,’ he told Fox News.

    ‘I can’t describe how calm she was at that point and she said, very selflessly, told me to go help other people.’

    ‘Her strength helped me in the situation to help other people. She just seemed like an amazing person,’ he said, coming forward after a friend saw Patrick’s televised plea and alerted him.”

    See how submission makes a man do great things. Another takedown of feminism.


  9. earl April 18, 2013 at 17:01 #

    *woman’s submission


  10. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 17:05 #

    Accept your husband’s authority, because it’s a by-product of the responsibility he feels towards you, and that responsibility is what keeps you safe.

    That’s what my YouTube show is about, but rather than frame the discussion in religious terms, I’ve put it in the context of Star Trek.

    Captain/First Officer. It’s how the best relationships work.


  11. Joe April 18, 2013 at 17:42 #

    You might enjoy this:

    Chivalry isn’t dead, it just followed wherever being lady-like went.— Penguin No. 337 (@penguin_337) April 9, 2013


  12. Marlo Rocci April 18, 2013 at 18:25 #

    The purpose of demonizing chivalry is to further shift the goalpost. A man must never be allowed to feel un-guilty of sexism. So no matter what we do, cries of sexism will follow. open a door for a woman: sexist. don’t open a door for a woman: disrespectful. you can’t ever win because there is no definition for that word. There are only definitions for different forms of losing as we can only lose.

    The only way to win is not to play.


  13. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 18:34 #

    I understand perfectly why men are refusing to play, but I disagree that not playing is how you win.

    Here’s my theory: men should only ever offer chivalry to pretty, slender women who have well-kept hair and are wearing appropriate clothing and make-up.

    The odds are very good that a woman who takes care of her hair and her body and her appearance cares very much about how men feel and what they desire.

    Those things take time and effort and a woman who takes that time, and puts in that effort is highly likely to value men.

    I don’t think it’s an accident that both Tyler and Matt were drawn to the pretty girls with long hair.


  14. sqt April 18, 2013 at 19:43 #

    Carlos’ story really gets to me. I think it’s partly because it reminds me of this man. His name is Bill Krisoff. I don’t him personally, but my husband does. His son was killed in Iraq and Bill, being a doctor, knew he could help save other young men who were injured in action and enlisted in the Navy so he could do just that. He had to get a special waiver, because of his age, from George Bush. From what I’ve heard this whole family is extraordinary.


  15. Z April 18, 2013 at 20:17 #

    The part that is really disgusting about the proposal rumor with the guy that’s comforting that girl is… it makes it about “what he wants”. It makes him look selfish instead of selfless. I mean… I get normally women want marriage more than men, but if a man doesn’t want to marry a girl he shouldn’t ask her. When you ask someone to marry you, you’re asking for something that presumably benefits you, too. It’s a little disturbing both of those stories were spun as romance. Not that there is anything wrong with romance but it cheapens what’s going on… it turns it into a “Oh, well, yeah, of course he’s going to do that… he wants her/she’s his girlfriend/etc.” So it ends up becoming a story about self-interest.


  16. Z April 18, 2013 at 20:18 #

    Agreed on the chivalry thing. Benevolent sexism my ass.


  17. Z April 18, 2013 at 20:20 #

    I think people lose the plot when it gets framed in religious terms because so many people have abused religion that it triggers people. It’s good to see it shown more as a naturally evolved trait rather than: “And GOD said…”


  18. Rmaxd April 18, 2013 at 20:28 #

    Queen Victoria, 1870 –

    Feminists ought to get a good whipping.

    Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection.” — Queen Victoria, 1870


  19. sqt April 18, 2013 at 21:35 #

    Opening a door is not sexist- it’s respectful. Why are some women so determined to screw things up for the rest of us?


  20. Red Pill Theory April 18, 2013 at 22:06 #

    Have to disagree with you here JB. If women are to receive equal opportunity (and I believe they should,) then chivalry, which is a socially enforced code of manners specific to male/female interaction, is unfair and undesirable. Why should I have to open a door or give up my seat for someone I’m going to be competing against in the classroom, the job market, and political sphere?


  21. judgybitch April 18, 2013 at 22:34 #

    But how do you deal with the fact that women only want equal opportunity when it includes jobs that involve desks, pantyhose, climate control and unmolested manicures?

    When a bomb goes off, it’s men who are there to help. Why are they there?


    We can’t give up chivalry. Literally.

    It’s instinctive.

    But we CAN value it. Acknowledge it. Cherish it. Protect it. Reward it. Be grateful for it.

    Equality is impossible.


    That’s another story.

    We can have equity, but first we need to openly embrace and celebrate and cherish that men bring something special to the conversation.

    So do women.

    A bomb goes off. And all I want is a man to wrap his arms around me and take me somewhere safe.

    That ins’t sexism.

    It’s humanity.

    In a nutshell.

    Feminists want us to HATE that. How foolish. We wouldn’t be here without it.


  22. andrewmichaelmedina April 18, 2013 at 23:11 #

    “Today I want to talk about all the men who reacted, not because it was their JOB to, but because they were there, and they were men.”

    I fixed it for you. But seriously I’m glad you get it.

    “It’s a part of themselves they do not actively control.” <— I had to explain this to an anthropology professor of mine. It's a weird feeling, the cognizant self just clocks out and goes to lunch while something else takes the controls. I've been through it once and trying to figure out what happened inside of my head lead me to some interesting schools of thought and reading.

    Mushin no shin is the best way to explain what happens in the heads of the men you're celebrating today.


  23. LostSailor April 19, 2013 at 00:27 #

    I used to think that opting out of chivalrous behavior in the face of feminism was just another instance of white knighting and for a while refused to play. But, unfortunately, Mom raised me right, and ingrained habits die hard.

    I’ve since changed my mind. While I would definitely give precedence to pretty women with long hair (a little longer eye contact, more of a grin than a smile), I’ve taken to acting in what would be considered a chivalrous manner to everybody. It’s all about how you frame the action and project yourself.

    Rushing forward to get to the door first to open it, or rushing to help with shopping/baggage: white knighting. Opening doors or offering help because you want to while having a strong frame/attitude: being a fucking human being. I’m usually the first one to offer to help a woman with a kid in a stroller carry it up the subway stairs. They are universally very grateful. A smile and “you’re welcome” is all reply necessary.

    Since I’ve started doing this, I’ve noticed that it’s not even a matter of sexism. Just the other day, returning to the office from lunch, I had a young African-American woman open the door for me. I simply walked through, looked her in the eye, smiled and said “thank you.” She smiled back and said “you’re welcome.” Passing civil exchange accomplished, everyone left happy.

    The linked articles on the “death of chivalry” is case in point on double-think. Simple courtesy and politeness are okay; men buying women dinner on dates is okay (“hey, they invited me!”), all normal “chivalrous” actions are okay because they benefit women…but just don’t call it “Chivalry”! See, it’s all about the intent and motivations. If a man is courteous and polite, that’s fine; if a man is chivalrous, it’s evil sexism. No difference in the actual action, only the secret reason for doing it, which apparently feminists can use their awesome mind-reading powers to discern.

    I’ve decided to just fuck it. I’m going to act they way I act, the way I was raised. I’ll offer to help a woman with her packages, I’ll pull her chair out in a restaurant, I’ll offer her my seat on a bus or train (well, sometimes…). If she doesn’t like it, she can go fuck herself and I’ll be on my way.

    [That said, intervening in physical altercations is a bit different. Unless a man is willing to go all the way, including injury to himself and injury to the other guy, then don’t do it. The few times I’ve intervened in physical altercations, I’ve been prepared to do whatever necessary to disable the opponent by any means necessary. It’s a way of thinking that has been seemingly bred out of men these days; I’ve seen guys get in the middle of a BF/GF fight where they’ve both turned on the guy, so chivalry in the face of feminism has it’s dangers.}


  24. Z April 19, 2013 at 00:29 #

    I don’t know, but they need to stop right now.


  25. Mark April 19, 2013 at 01:15 #

    Of course not every naturally evolved trait is a good. Plenty are terrible traits as a matter of fact. What few feminists who are ever remotely interested in the biological side of thing do have this argument. Natalie Angier comes to mind; ironically she regularly attempts to use science to demonstrate female superiority to males, and this gets her published in the NY times (compare that to what happened to Larry Summers for merely suggesting difference, not supremacy, and the state of things becomes tragically clear).

    But to the point, though I don’t entirely agree with them always, I can see why some ‘MRAs’ agree with feminists (in theory) on that issue; that is, on wanting this trait of chivalry to done with. If increasingly one gets the obligation of helping women only to get their scorn in return, why bother? Men in large part, of course, will never actually say that; they’ll keep doing what they do regardless. Which in a way is kind of tragic on their part.


  26. Z April 19, 2013 at 01:18 #

    And this right here…is the problem with feminism. Screw “equality” if it means “sameness”. And especially screw it if it’s starting to override protective and respectful male instincts toward women. I did not ask to be “equal”. I’m actually quite irritated that if it weren’t for extreme luck I’d have to compete out in the workforce because Betty Friedan had some kind of breakdown as a housewife.


  27. Mark April 19, 2013 at 01:27 #

    Civilization was built largely by repressing desires an instincts. And the extent to which chivalry (by whatever name) is practiced does vary considerably across cultures and socialization patters. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. So, I admit, I’m a bit inclined to say let’s test the hypothesis; banish chivalry to dustbin of repressed human inclinations and see what happens.

    Who knows, maybe all hell will break loose. But don’t feel I have much of a vested interest in western civilization these days anyway, so, why not give it a try?

    Btw, are you familiar Honore de Balzac (yeah, hilarious surname, isn’t it?)? I figure you’d like a quote of his: “Equality may be a right, but no power on earth can make it a fact.”


  28. gwallan April 19, 2013 at 02:01 #

    These are examples of the media selling to a female audience. If they were targeting a male readership none of the romance stuff would be there.


  29. someguy302004 April 19, 2013 at 02:30 #

    Here’s another good example of a man helping out-joe Andruzzi of the New England patriots


  30. Red Pill Theory April 19, 2013 at 03:25 #

    I think you and I are speaking of different conceptions of chivalry. What you’re referring to in this post I call courage and heroism, which of course I think should be honored and encouraged in boys and in girls, even if it’s primarily a male virtue (a fact which feminists hate, hate, hate.) I was also referring to equality of opportunity, not outcome. It’s semantics mostly.

    But I’d be careful with the pantyhose and lipstick references. My sister has an Oxford degree, and she shows none of the inclinations you describe towards secretarial work, though it’s my understanding that she does enjoy manicures. There’s definitely a portion of the female population that does prefer to compete on the same playing field as men. It’s a small one, but it does exist.


  31. Mik April 19, 2013 at 03:45 #

    Not a fan of Thatcher but a great quote nonetheless.

    You can show articles like this to feminists and all they’ll say is, its MEN who did the bombing anyways. Oh yes, only men do shit like this.


  32. Mik April 19, 2013 at 03:54 #

    Captain/First Officer. Good analogy.

    For the more religious ones amongst us, Christianity and Islam sing pretty much the same note when it comes to the relationship of husband and wife.


  33. Z April 19, 2013 at 03:56 #

    Well, ideally women would stop being such jerkoffs and would be appreciative of the chivalry. I’m not saying men should do nice and heroic things while women flip them off.


  34. Z April 19, 2013 at 03:59 #

    Good point. But… why… in one breath tell women that men are “bad” and in the next breath sell us a romance hero?


  35. Red Pill Theory April 19, 2013 at 04:42 #

    Z, I liked your comment so much I wrote a post in rebuttal


  36. sqt April 19, 2013 at 05:17 #

    I can see the point of the MRAs- which is why feminism pisses me off to no end. Why should men give extra courtesy to women who will only use it against them? I have no good answer for that…


  37. sqt April 19, 2013 at 05:21 #

    I actually don’t think they’re trying to sell the men short (shockingly), I just think they know women eat up the whole ‘tragic romance’ thing. Personally, I think it’s a better story that these men didn’t know these women and acted with so much compassion and if the media would get their collective head out of their ass you’d see the stories reported that way.


  38. sqt April 19, 2013 at 05:24 #

    I totally lucked out too. Thank goodness I found a good man to marry and have kids with.


  39. sqt April 19, 2013 at 06:34 #

    Well put. I try to be courteous too. I’ll open doors when I see that it’s helpful to a man or a woman and, like you said, it’s generally appreciated.

    The one time when people (not just men) were invariably courteous was when I was pregnant. It was fabulous. I’ve never had so many people offer me their seat so many times in my life. It was really heartening to see that people still value childbirth despite what feels like a long campaign against it.


  40. gwallan April 19, 2013 at 08:57 #



  41. EMMA April 19, 2013 at 12:50 #

    You should read this article judgybitch. Elusive wife maybe?…


  42. earl April 19, 2013 at 13:39 #

    I call it “going into a zone”. Everything starts to slow down and you take to the task at hand. Probably has a lot to do with adrenaline.

    The other side of the story is…how your body mentally and physically crashes after the task is done.


  43. Goober April 19, 2013 at 15:20 #

    I wrote, but haven’t yet posted, a blog entry about this the other day, retelling a story where I went hand to hand with a vicious German shepherd that was menacing my
    family while we were walking through a neighborhood the other day. It bit me, but I won. I went into this automatic state you’re referring to. It was weird, but I’ve decided that I know where it comes from.

    My infant daughter is totally dependent on me being the meanest motherfucker on the block. Back in the stoneage, her survival would have depended on all the local sabertoothed tigers knowing not to mess with her, lest they end up having me to deal with.

    It is hardwired in us. We don’t have a choice. You cant condition it out of us.

    I’m scared of dogs, yet I went hand to tooth with a breed special bred by the damn German military to kick ass, without even thinking twice about it because my lizard brain got pissed.


  44. judgybitch April 19, 2013 at 15:29 #

    That’s interesting, Emma.

    The truth is that I WOULD be scared shitless if men decided to just stop being men. Our whole society would collapse.

    Rather like what happens when women stop being women.

    The birthrate?

    In the gutter.

    Get it down to zero and good-bye humanity.

    I disagree with No Ma’am in that a social organization that relies fundamentally on men’s strength and willingness to make sacrifices is some sort of scam. It’s not. That same society requires sacrifices from women, too, largely in the form of childbearing and dedicating one’s primary efforts to ensuring the survival of others.

    The only scam is that women are reneging on their part of the bargain while still expecting men to live up to theirs.


  45. andrewmichaelmedina April 19, 2013 at 15:43 #

    I didn’t mentally crash much when I was done (just a bit derpy when it came to saying things for a few minutes) but I remember every muscle in my legs hurting like hell for the next day.


  46. andrewmichaelmedina April 19, 2013 at 16:33 #

    Those are my thoughts too. It’s some OLD wiring in us, that survived to this day because it clearly serves a purpose in ensuring our genes made it to the future.

    The Eastern schools of thought that tried to explain this are ancient. Zen Buddhism (6th century AD) and Taoism (2nd century BC).

    This is such a universal phenomena that philosophers from across human history have contemplated it in one form or another since the dawn of recorded history and likely long before it as well.

    BTW: I take it wifey was all sorts of lovey later? Could you post a link to your blog?


  47. voncube April 19, 2013 at 17:02 #

    Full disclaimer: I love your blog and agree with most of what you write about. Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a second, though. While it’s true that the vast majority of first responders/courageous bystanders were men, it’s also true that the vast majority of bombers, which allow male courage to be expressed, are men themselves. Could this debate not be recast as simply men cleaning up other men’s messes? Which sort of calls into question the utility of male fanaticism, of which terrorism and courage are both sides of the same coin.


  48. judgybitch April 19, 2013 at 17:11 #

    How many bombers?


    How many responders and bystanders?


    Clearly, good men vastly outnumber bad.


  49. The_other_Steve April 19, 2013 at 17:36 #

    I could see that strategy going south pretty easily. If men only act with courtesy and gentility towards ” pretty, slender women who have well-kept hair and are wearing appropriate clothing and make-up,” such behavior might be interpreted strictly as a pick up maneuver. It will be giving even greater fuel to those who would burn us.
    Anything men do that can be interpreted as a selfish act will be so interpreted by feminists.


  50. voncube April 19, 2013 at 18:15 #

    Good point. And now that I think of it, men’s courage is not dependent on other malevolent men for expression. Natural disaster first responders, etc etc…


  51. Mark April 20, 2013 at 00:01 #

    This is one of the reasons why I think, in debating with feminists, one should avoid issues of war and crime if possible; because they always have the argument ,’ that’s just men making sacrifices to fix a problem men cause.” Ignoring that such an argument presumes collective responsibility (all men are responsible for the crimes of some men), but it also ignores the fact that most catastrophes are not man0made: Accidents and injuries (excluding homicides) are the 5th leading cause of death in the US; top 4 are all diseases. So, since men take the bulk of the risk in response to disasters etc. in general (most of which men, or people in general, do not directly cause), it is not in fact a case of men solving a problem men created; those cases (like the bombing in Boston) are the exception.

    I would also speculate that, if women weren’t better taken care of by society and given greater security than men are, many more women would commit crimes than currently do. Men are disproportionately affected homelessness and violence, and have fewer programs and outlets targeted to help them, and face greater social pressure to earn or ‘succeed’ (not just financially, but to accomplish a tangible goal or further a cause); these are pressures and circumstances that can often drive a person to criminality. Women are often protected more from such pressures. As such protections dissipate (as feminists cannot always have their cake and eat it too, no matter how much they try) and women are thrust into a man’s world without complete protection, more and more of them will resort to criminal behavior. I’m pretty sure this is already happening, but don’t know the statistics off hand.

    One interesting example though. When the leading men in Camorra of Naples (Naples’s version of the Mafia) had been largely killed or imprisoned, the women (the boss’s wives) had to take over many of the crime families. Rather than peacefully resolving all issues, they picked up where the men left off, ordering hits, stealing, racketeering, etc. It’s easy to condemn the men from the kitchen, but once the men are gone and the only way to keep one’s comfortable lifestyle intact is to take over his role in all its ruthlessness, many women show themselves to be quite capable of amoral behavior. Empowerment has a dark side.


  52. fedrz April 20, 2013 at 02:31 #

    It’s alright you disagree with No Ma’am, judgybitch.

    We have come to accept the borg will never identify with the individual.

    We just want you to know we’re watching you!

    (The evil eye should appear here, har har!)


  53. Z April 20, 2013 at 02:44 #



  54. Z April 20, 2013 at 02:54 #

    The one about the crazy feminists?


  55. Red Pill Theory April 20, 2013 at 03:15 #

    The one before that haha


  56. Z April 20, 2013 at 03:24 #

    The thing is… actual traditional wives are not “afraid men will wake up to the scam” because it’s NOT a scam. In the original traditional set-up, BOTH genders benefited. Not just one. Both genders made sacrifices of different natures for each other. Whether or not some men in the MRM are too jaded to live that life is neither here nor there, because most traditional wives are… WIVES… i.e. already taken… by a man who thinks like they do. So… really, we don’t care if every other man on the planet has veto’d traditionalism. (But clearly they haven’t, since many western men complaining about western women are seeking more traditional women overseas to marry.)


  57. Z April 20, 2013 at 03:41 #

    “Feminism is not the whole answer”?

    I just find it annoying that feminists have turned men against traditionalist women. I’m not saying traditionalists haven’t also been poisoned some by the feminist kool-aid, but they are more willing to see the error of their ways and go back to something fair. Division of labor IS fair. This is why the personal should NEVER be political because when it is women get screwed in personal relationships. The fact that feminists can influence what happens behind closed doors of a great many male/female relationships is problematic to say the least.


  58. Z April 20, 2013 at 03:43 #

    AND also… I’m not saying that men don’t get screwed. They clearly do in this new wacky world. But the thing that gets ignored is that a lot of women “didn’t vote for this”. Feminists do not speak for us. But they are happy to screw up the lives of any woman not in line with their agenda just the same as the men.


  59. Luke April 20, 2013 at 07:46 #

    Two thoughts here:
    1) It always comes down to “votes or boats”. That is, women who usurp the role of men to include headship of the men’s families and the polity (voting), aren’t really women anymore from the mens’ POV. If something isn’t a man’s, doesn’t belong to him, he likely (and understandably) isn’t going to be too concerned about it, certainly not the way he would were it HIS. His property = his responsibility; not his property, not his responsibility.

    The “boats” are the lifeboats the men of the Titanic gave up to women in 1912 — and the ones the women didn’t get on the Costa Concordia.

    2) Apt picture (fully SFW, unless you work at NOW):


  60. Mark April 21, 2013 at 02:49 #

    Feminism is a lot like Marxism in that respect. For one, both ideologies oppose division of labor, despite the fact that it is absolutely necessary for civilization or a modern economy (that is, per capita income >about $500 a year). And both also require no assent from the people they purport to represent; the movement must precede the popular revolution, it is the vanguard of the proletariat, which will lead the workers (drag them kicking an screaming, perhaps) toward revolution.

    As for you reticence about feminism and all that it’s done for you, that’s not your fault Z; it is merely your “false consciousness.” Nothing a few months in a reeducation camp can’t fix though. So good news there!


  61. yaser April 21, 2013 at 04:42 #

    This is Aaron Russo

    This is his message:

    Search for the full interview on youtube, make a search with only his name.


  62. yaser April 21, 2013 at 05:06 #

    How about just asking them if they are feminist?

    While holding up the door, if there is enough time, you ask if she is a feminist. If she nods yes, then you close the door and say

    “oh, sorry, didn’t mean to be sexist to a feminist”.


  63. yaser April 21, 2013 at 05:18 #

    “Why should I have to open a door or give up my seat for someone I’m going to be competing against in the classroom, the job market, and political sphere?”

    You shouldn’t. Ask them if they do.


  64. yaser April 21, 2013 at 05:27 #

    “It’s not”



  65. yaser April 21, 2013 at 05:37 #

    It’s impractical to ask women if they prefer votes or boats in order to gauge what chivalry they should be awarded.

    May i propose a signal for women to bear in order to self-identify themselves as worthy recipients of chivalry?

    Maybe a lifeboat-pin?

    That would serve the dual purpose of enjoying the thought of making feminists angry.


  66. Luke April 22, 2013 at 01:03 #

    Hi, yaser. That’s not a bad germ of an idea, but IMO it’s incomplete.
    If a woman is registered to vote (especially Democrat or leftist 3rd-party), has a job that’s in a traditionally-male position OR that has power over men, has short hair, habitually wears pants, was voluntarily childless WRT legitimate children by age 40, bore children outside marriage that she didn’t adopt out, etc., I would consider her to be a noncandidate for the lifeboat choice.


  67. Z April 22, 2013 at 02:58 #

    Feminism pretty much IS Marxism, just in a slightly different outfit. What I know is me and Mr. Z do division of labor based largely on our gender-based strengths, and neither of us is overworked or bitter and we aren’t fighting over who does what because it’s really just common sense who does what. And we don’t have charts or other non-sexy crap.

    LOL @ re-education camp.


  68. yaser April 22, 2013 at 06:48 #

    Thanks Luke.

    I do see your point. Would you agree that it would still be valuable to have her moral support?

    As i see it, the pin would have no binding legal consequence. It would serve more as a disqualifier to not have it.

    Maybe also sell a vote pin on the same website, and sell both of them. Then people would get a choice to buy one or the other, or even both. If you see a woman using both pins, then you know you have someone who haven’t thought her views through,

    The site would sell the boat as a celebration to chivalry and the vote pin as a celebration to the brave people who enabled the feministic realities we see today.

    2$ for the boat, 3$ for the pin, and both for the special price of only 8$ (limited offer!).

    Strong independent divorce court lawyers who kidnap children but also expect a man to man up and pay their date would have no moral or financial problems ordering both pins!


  69. Luke April 22, 2013 at 08:12 #

    Hi again, yaser. Here’s my solution to female indecisiveness on which pin (philosophy) to choose:

    Simply make having one pin incompatible with wearing the other. That is, one pin could read “boats over votes”, while the other one would read oppositely. No woman would wear both pins.


  70. yaser April 22, 2013 at 13:46 #

    Isn’t there a value in identifying the women who would advertise to liking both having the cake and eating it too?


  71. Jeremy April 24, 2013 at 22:30 #

    As an addendum to this story. It appears that the man that Carlos saved with his finger and quick thinking was a key eye-witness that helped track down the suspects.


  72. Goober April 30, 2013 at 18:57 #

    My daughter was only 7 days old at the time, so while wifey was amorous it was the snugly kind of amorous as opposed to the physical.

    Blog is


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: