A beautiful, healthy baby is born into the Family Windsor. Unfortunately, he’s a boy. Cue the feminist ragefest!

24 Jul


Why does this surprise me? Am I really that naïve? I guess I must be. This tweet, following the arrival of Baby Windsor left me gasping in shock. I mean, really?


I’ll give everyone a couple of hours to enjoy this arbitrarily selected baby to gush over before I start reminding you of infant mortality.

What a joyless, miserable three star extra fucking pointy witchy fucking cunt! Who the fuck celebrates the arrival of ANY healthy, happy baby by talking about DEAD BABIES?!?! She’s gone from Delusional Harpy to Hideous Rancor in 140 characters.


We’re gonna need a Jedi to take this one out.

Sadly, Amanda is not the only feminist to express shitty thoughts about the safe arrival of Baby Windsor. I’ve written before about why I love the Royal Family (emphasis on FAMILY), and I think the Duchess in particular raises the ire of feminists for her feminine, wifely, motherly orientation towards the world. The Duchess sends a powerful message to young wanna-be-Princesses.



If you want to capture the heart of the Prince, be beautiful, womanly, supportive, loving, kind, gracious and value your home and husband more than your career or ambitions.

kate 2

Retrograde? Absolutely. Also 100% true.

I was completely expecting Kate to get crapped all over for her aspirations to breastfeed and personally care for Baby Windsor and to live with her mother and perpetuate that whole “babies thrive with their mommies” pack of lies the patriarchy concocted to enslave women and deny them their rightful place as the head of state.

Oh, wait. Brits do have a woman as their Head of State. For 125 of the last 150 years, they have had a woman as the Head of State.



Never mind, then. Babies still suck.

I honestly did not expect the media to go after the BABY, who cannot possibly have committed any crimes, being less than 24 hours old. And how wrong I was. Baby Windsor has already upset the feminazi media and committed the worst sin imaginable:

Baby Windsor is a boy.


Amanda Platell at the Daily Mail leads the chorus of accusation against wee Baby Windsor for committing the grave crime of being a boy.

Sorry, but I STILL wish she’d had a baby girl: In a world so lacking in role models for girls, how extraordinary a young, modern queen-in-waiting could have been.

Excuse me? A world lacking in female role models? Do you mean role models like the GODDAMN QUEEN HERSELF?


Oh, but the Queen is no proper role model, now is she? Calm, sensible, practical, married, the mother of four children. This is the woman who refused to abandon her city and home during the BLITZ!

Keep calm and carry on.

She was no coward, turning tail and hiding out in the safety of the Scottish Highlands while her people were bombarded nightly in devastating raids that claimed tens of thousands of lives. I’ll never forgive George Bush for cupping his tiny weeny and whimpering in the back of Air Force One when 9-11 happened. George, you fucking coward! The President does not get to hide from danger!


No, the Queen is not a role model because she is first and foremost DEDICATED. She is loyal to the bone. Duty defines her existence. Her own personal happiness is irrelevant. She was born to fulfill a destiny, and by god, she intends to do just that until she draws her last breath. We can’t have young girls thinking that duty and destiny and unwavering loyalty to family and community and home are the most important things they can strive to achieve.


Now Diana, she was a bit more to the feminist’s liking. Divorced, ditzy, preoccupied with her appearance, bulimic, flighty, depressed, anxious, spoiled, pampered, entitled – but she still had that utter devotion to her babies problem.


Close, but no cigar.

What do you think Amanda imagines the modern Queen might have been like? And by Amanda, I mean Platell, not Marcotte. We know what Marcotte thinks of the Royal Baby. Royal Baby makes Marcotte think of dead babies. So charming.

Imagine the glamour and fun she could have brought into a world of dreary austerity — a little girl with Kate’s beauty, the Queen’s poise, the Queen Mother’s elegance and maybe even a dash of Diana’s magic.


Glamor! Fun! Beauty! Poise! Elegance! Magic!

These are the qualities that young women are to aspire to? Okay. And then what?

Where is Duty? Responsibility? Loyalty? Tradition? Honor? Obligation? Sacrifice? Maturity? Commitment?


Oh, those are the dreary virtues MALE monarchs bring to the conversation. Stupid men. Always thinking about the well-being of others. Longing to protect and provide and lead when there are so many garden parties to attend.

Not only are male royals less of a crowd-pleaser than their female counterparts, they can find their role to be trying. Attending garden parties and making small talk are rather emasculating, as Prince Charles has discovered.

The effect of monarchy on masculinity is shown by the fact many royal men wear military uniforms weighed down by medals when they’ve never seen battle.

Despite longing to serve their country in wartime, neither Charles nor William was allowed to do so, and it is unlikely to change for the new heir.


Belinda Luscombe at Time Magazine lends her voice to the dirge bemoaning Baby Windsor’s boyness.

Yes, yes, any baby is a blessing and any healthy baby is wonderful and we’re so lucky to have been around for this historic event and congrats and cigars and yay and all, but dammit, I wanted a Queen. I wanted a royal baby girl.


And count on Jezebel to take a long cool drink from the baby boy haterade.

We’ll admit it: When the announcement came through — it’s a boy! — we were ever-so-slightly deflated. We thought it was going to be a girl, and frankly, the idea of a brand new princess seems more interesting.


Baby girls: much more interesting than baby boys.


Katie Halper can’t resist adding her dulcet tones to the refrain chastising poor Baby Windsor for being a boy.

If anything, having a female baby would have been much more exciting and historic than a male one, thanks to a recent law.

What law is that? Oh, right. The one that says the first born ascends the throne no matter what gender they happen to be. This is something to celebrate, but only if the first born is a girl. Boy first-borns can sit down and shut up, right?

The law, while new, has been de facto in effect for decades. Charles IS the first born. So is William. Sadly, they are both males.



Some part of me likes to whisper in the back of my mind, “you know, JB, maybe you’re being just a little bit harsh here. Maybe there are SOME redeeming qualities to modern feminism. Maybe they just don’t realize how hateful they sound”.

That voice has been permanently silenced today.

I don’t think the two Amandas or Belinda or Dodai or Katie are outliers. They are unashamedly, openly mourning the fact that a beautiful little boy was born, and wishing him out of existence, replaced in their imaginations by a girl.


Someone explain to me again how misandry isn’t a thing. We hear over and over again about the sex selective abortions of baby girls who simply aren’t valued as much as boys (and for a really interesting perspective on that, I encourage you to check out this article at A Voice for Men).


And yet, there seems to be no reaction whatsoever to a chorus of women bemoaning the fact that the new Royal Baby is a boy. How soon will it be until one of them chastises Kate for not aborting him?


I think we can probably count on Amanda Marcotte to be the first hag slurping at that trough. Oh, look! Here she is already, adding a discussion of abortion to her Baby Windsor infant mortality tweet.

Yep, getting confirmation from conservative obsessives that they really do believe abortion is worse than infant mortality

Anyone know a Jedi? I am in serious need of a Jedi Knight. Nothing else can deal with a monster of this magnitude.


Lots of love,


84 Responses to “A beautiful, healthy baby is born into the Family Windsor. Unfortunately, he’s a boy. Cue the feminist ragefest!”

  1. S.C.O.R.C.H.™ (@_Scorch_) July 24, 2013 at 18:32 #

    Not surprised in the slightest.

    Here’s my question:

    What’s gonna be the end result? All of this male hateorade being splotched into the atmosphere isn’t any different to the pollution in the ozone….something’s going to give. But what? How? When?


  2. Korhomme (@Korhomme) July 24, 2013 at 18:34 #

    “Oh, wait. Brits do have a woman as their Head of State. For 125 of the last 150 years, they have had a woman as the Head of State.”

    Check your sums, JB!

    (Think 1952 minus 1901)


  3. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 18:35 #

    Feminists keep urging mass boy-abortions but I never see it happen. Probably because mothers don’t automatically hate their pregnancies based on gender politics. Feminists are so emotionally barren that birth control for them would be redundant. so their opinions don’t even matter for shit on this issue.

    What did Marcotte and these other broads expect Kate to do? Actually kill a royal fetus just because of the gender? Really? This is jumping the shark in the extreme.


  4. judgybitch July 24, 2013 at 18:37 #

    It’s a guesstimate!



  5. MargeryM July 24, 2013 at 18:38 #

    I was pretty upset last night when reading the Daily Mail posts standing at opposite ends at the time- one lamenting that he is a he and another taking two women to task for jokingly praising his sex. I cared probably more than I should but as a mother myself I felt for Kate. Having gone through the emotional and physical roller coaster of birth and be met with the whining of people upset that nature handed them a penis. And to attack a baby? How could I be surprised in a time when no one gives a damn about babies born and unborn but I still was.

    What gets to me is that these people don’t see the real harm they are inflicting on boys by continuing to speak of them as incapable lowly and completely disposable beings. Meanwhile girls are the cream of the crop. Interesting that this is coming from a group of people that acknowledge the power of suggestion. This is why we aren’t allowed to speak ill of women yet they can’t seem to make the connection that speaking ill of men can come with the same sort of consequences. Don’t make the connection or don’t care, I’m not sure.


  6. judgybitch July 24, 2013 at 18:41 #

    Queen V 1837 – 1901 (64 years)
    Queen E 1952 – 2013 (61 years)

    2013 – 1837 = 174

    Queens ruled for 125 of the last 174 years



  7. MargeryM July 24, 2013 at 18:47 #

    Yeah, but it doesn’t count unless they rule all the time forever. (Feminist logic)


  8. Wallace Black July 24, 2013 at 18:48 #

    Oh dear lord, you weren’t kidding! I read the comments in the Jezebel article and I can’t tell if they’re being serious or not. Because if they are, Jezzies are fucking terrifying.


  9. judgybitch July 24, 2013 at 18:49 #

    Jedi knights.

    We need them.


  10. Wilson July 24, 2013 at 18:52 #

    Wouldn’t be surprising if the “progressive” policy was put forward to pass the title to the first born girl.


  11. Korhomme (@Korhomme) July 24, 2013 at 19:11 #



  12. M3 July 24, 2013 at 20:01 #

    +1 for the Rancor reference. Marcunt is just plain ol’ bantha poodoo.

    Also.. i can’t seriously believe you found that nugget in her feed. I tried looking over her twatter feed for maybe 10 comments and i just had to stop.

    She is a complete fucking caricature. She displays zero human qualities. I can’t explain it, it’s like looking at a cartoon character. There’s nothing of substance to anything she posts.

    She really is just an internet troll who’s brain has long since past it’s best before date. Best to just point and laugh at her instead of debate her in any shape or form.


  13. Athan Nyx July 24, 2013 at 20:04 #

    I can say that I personally like the idea that the boy was born and on a full moon. We need more werewolf royalty in history… But seriously I don’t see why people care so much about the sex of the first in line baby. Actually for all I’m Canadian I don’t really care much about royalty other than “I’m happy they are getting along well in the world”.


  14. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 20:06 #

    “Werewolf of London: The Next Generation”. I like that.


  15. judgybitch July 24, 2013 at 20:09 #

    Prince George Alexander Louis



    I love it!


  16. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 20:10 #

    Hold on a moment: It’s the term “Princess” politically incorrect? What would they have called her? Non-Cis-Prince? Trans-Prince? They’re lucky. They just missed having to come up with a new gender term.


  17. Radical Suburbanite July 24, 2013 at 20:18 #

    I just sent the link to that Voice for Men article to my husband. I wish I could get everyone I know to read that.

    Feminism is indicative of a mental illness. There’s no other explanation for the things these women say. Only a diseased mind could come up with such garbage.


  18. Radical Suburbanite July 24, 2013 at 20:19 #

    Huh. I didn’t mean to italicize that whole message…


  19. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 20:22 #

    Just read some twitter comments from people bitching about the news saying “it’s a boy”. My head exploded and I lost a little more faith in humanity. Right now I’m running a deficit.


  20. JaiDUDG3 July 24, 2013 at 20:56 #

    On the upside, maybe in fifteen years he’ll read al this bullshit and think, know what? fuck these bloody feminists!


  21. not_PC July 24, 2013 at 21:12 #

    JB, just saw your YouTube channel, you’re pretty hot. If it doesn’t work out between you and your hubby, lemme know 😉 .

    And if you ask, yes I’m married and I still love chatting with girls 🙂 .


  22. GrimGhost July 24, 2013 at 21:14 #

    [i]Don’t worry. Things like this happen sometimes.[/i]


  23. feeriker July 24, 2013 at 21:19 #

    Not that they’d ever dignify it by doing so, but I’d love to hear Kate and William’s take on all the boy-hating sewage emanating from the gutter press, both in Britain and abroad.

    It would be interesting to compare press comments on, say, Prince Charles’s birth 65 years ago with those on the newest royal’s birth. I seriously doubt that anyone in 1948 bemoaned the fact that Chuck was a boy, let alone accompanied such a lament with morbid, ideologically-driven statements of misandry.


  24. feeriker July 24, 2013 at 21:23 #

    Photoshop is an amazing tool. Just as soon as photos of Baby Boy Windsor become available, some creative soul just might have him expressing exactly that sentiment, as is being done in this shot. No need to wait a decade or more!


  25. earl July 24, 2013 at 21:34 #

    Well if you want to know where all the demons went…they are in the bodies of feminists.

    That’s probably why they can’t have kids.

    But seriously…a bunch of women who are probably so pro abortion it would make your head spin…of course they would hate it when a woman gives birth to a baby.


  26. Ambrose July 24, 2013 at 21:45 #

    Well if they want a heiress apparent instead of a dreary boy , there are other European countries that have future queen regents: the Netherlands, Sweden (next 2 in line, in fact), Norway, and Spain off the top of my head. Jeez, all this hand wringing over People Magazine fodder.


  27. JoshM July 24, 2013 at 21:49 #

    I just wanted to say as a man who dislikes the excesses of feminism, but also gets turned off by some of the real misogyny of the Manosphere, I love how reasonable, thoughtful, and balanced your posts always are.

    Other than Mark Manson, you’re my favorite Manosphere writer. Keep up the good work!


  28. RedPillOverdose July 24, 2013 at 22:01 #

    I also agree with the Rancor comparison. She definitely looks like something that escaped Jabba’s palace. Feminist ass face Marcotte has once again given the goods as to why she should be the hands down recipient of the feminut shit head life time achievement award. It must be exhausting to be such an ass and have her man jaw face want to sit down after a day of spewing filth and hate. Amanda Marcotte is a good argument that conception is possible via butt sex and she should be studied by scientist, then they can drop her and her nappy Devo inspired tattoos somewhere deep in the Congo. They can also dump the rest of Jabba’s harem at Jezebel with her!


  29. eddiejc1 July 24, 2013 at 22:04 #

    It would have been historic if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first-born was a girl because under the new rules of accession, her place in line to the throne would not have been changed regardless of whether her parents had any brothers or not. In other words, the newborn Princess Diana would have been the first Princess of Wales to receive the title upon birth rather than marriage.

    But since it is a boy, so be it. I hope he has a good childhood, but it’s going to be awfully hard growing up in a fishbowl. I don’t envy him the slightest.


  30. Natalie July 24, 2013 at 22:07 #

    How gorgeous is that picture of the Queen and Prince Phillip? I saw that photo long ago and saved it to my computer I loved it so much. She’s radiant around him, he obviously keeps her laughing when she has to be a no-nonsense, duty-bound monarch, and he obviously teases her something rotten – look at that cheeky look on his face. He adores her and isn’t afraid to treat her like a woman, something someone who is seen first and foremost as a Queen must surely be grateful for. Now, I fully admit to being a royalist, but I think I’d love those two, even if I weren’t!

    As for the boy issue, I’m lucky to come from a Commonwealth country – Britain shaped us and gave us its culture and language. The absolute vast majority of white New Zealanders are mongrel mixes of the British Isles (Me? Scotland and England on one side, England and Ireland on the other. THAT made for an interested marriage…). This respect for Britain and OUR monarchy hasn’t produced this hateful barrage. We’re overjoyed about wee George and are looking forward to William’s visit next year. The thing that has our press in a tizzy? BLOODY AUSTRALIA! 😀



  31. javaloco July 24, 2013 at 22:15 #

    I know! I couldn’t believe the quantity of self-serving hermaphrodites bemoaning the fact that a male baby might be referred to as a boy.


  32. Renee July 24, 2013 at 22:36 #

    Hey JB, have you seen this???



  33. Jeremy July 24, 2013 at 23:19 #

    This is really kind of sick, sheer, and blatant male-hating by the online feminists.

    Their every post now reveals them for what they truly are. No need for JB to post a response, these women are destroying themselves.


  34. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 23:48 #

    I figured it out. They can refer to him as an XY-prince (as opposed to an XX-prince (formally known as a princess)). That way they can make reference to gender identification without having to use a horrible boy term.


  35. Marlo Rocci July 24, 2013 at 23:57 #

    I wonder what it’s like to be born with thousands of feminists already hating you, and you haven’t had a chance to even learn what hate is yet.


  36. Goober July 25, 2013 at 00:15 #

    It makes me wonder if Marcotte is even self-aware: As much cheerleading as she does for abortion-on-demand, at any point in pregnancy and so forth, I snorted coffee out of my nose when I read her tweet talking about infant mortality. She is the #1 biggest PROPONENT of infant mortality that I’m aware of…

    Like I said – not even self-aware enough to realize what she was saying.

    But really, it is obvious to me that these tweets are designed to elicit a response. These are dancing-on-the-table, arm waving “hey everybody, LOOK AT ME!” attempts, and the worst part of it is that we’re all feeding the pig right now by paying attention.


  37. Kitsunegari July 25, 2013 at 00:16 #

    God these people are beyond ridiculous.


  38. Spaniard July 25, 2013 at 01:06 #

    We have a monarchy in Spain. But we will a be a Republic soon. The king is naked.


  39. Modern Drummer July 25, 2013 at 01:51 #

    The gender of this baby has patriarchy written all over it.


  40. Aye. July 25, 2013 at 02:19 #

    They… what!? Citation?


  41. Aye. July 25, 2013 at 02:51 #

    Born healthy, within wedlock, to two loving parents, a beautiful and dedicated mother, a handsome and educated father, with the means to support him, and a tight-knit extended family to assist in his care…

    I hope the same for my own children and for young families in general.


  42. Take Back Your Face! July 25, 2013 at 03:30 #

    Americans shouldn’t be giving 2 pence about this non-event.

    A woman who doesn’t know you had a baby …… so?


  43. Alex July 25, 2013 at 03:41 #

    one who will most likely grow up to have tons of political clout. it’s in our best interest to keep an eye on all of such stature on the off chance that they could affect our lives


  44. Radical Suburbanite July 25, 2013 at 04:54 #



  45. Take Back Your Face! July 25, 2013 at 05:23 #

    The royals are not politicians. They are just character actors that the Brits keep as hangers on from a long-gone era.

    Unless of course you believe what David Icke says.


  46. Palladian July 25, 2013 at 06:19 #

    Great post, JB. One minor nitpick, though. You got your years wrong. there was about 50 years of kings between Vickie and Liz


  47. Radical Suburbanite July 25, 2013 at 06:55 #

    I don’t think it’s about the baby as much as it’s about the reaction of a bunch of nutty feminists who would actually rather the baby be dead than male. 😦


  48. Julia Shanon July 25, 2013 at 08:20 #

    happy for them! but what’s wrong with harry’s hair..


  49. Zorro July 25, 2013 at 10:14 #

    David Icke is so stupid he’s hilarious. You show me another person capable of claiming the world is run by shape-shifting lizard people while keeping a straight face!!!

    I DARE YOU!!!


  50. Liz July 25, 2013 at 14:21 #

    Just got back from vacation, and the only news I heard while I was gone was about the royal baby. So glad it’s a healthy boy and happy for the royal family! Funny my youngest didnt’ even realize there was still royalty in the world. Think it’s much better for the taxpayers over here…we can observe them without having to fund them.

    Re: Bush, not sure what you mean there. In what location would he have been able to perform “his services” best as leader? That’s the bottom line. He was the commander in chief over military operations. Regardless of his personal capabilities or desire (which we can only speculate about, I’m sure we all have our opinions) you don’t put that person in the line of attack, intentionally. This isn’t game of thrones.

    Actions made to protect him jeopardize others, and a whole lot of people are sworn to protect that one man (the entire US military, for starters). Placing him, intentionally, anywhere near danger would be a huge waste of resources for everyone involved.

    And, hypothetically, it isn’t even ultimately good for morale…morale tends to decline when the national leader is killed or captured, extortion demands given, sent home one piece at a time.
    (remember, there were no knowns at the time, we didn’t know if or when the attacks would cease, or how far they would go…and yes, there are real equivalents to the Boltons in this world, one of the first things they uncovered in Afghanistan were closets full of human skin)


  51. judgybitch July 25, 2013 at 14:32 #


    All those things were true for Princess Elizabeth, too.

    But she did not quail. She stood her ground alongside her people. That action on the effect of morale cannot be discounted.

    The only argument I would countenance for George is if he genuinely felt that his presence would have endangered others.

    He should have been in the rubble, clamouring for survivors.

    “Come and get me”.

    It’s not ONLY showmanship. It would have been genuine bravery. And for the man who sat out Vietnam in the National Guard, he needed all the bravery he could muster.

    If a pretty English Rose can stand the heat, a boy from Texas should have been able to.


  52. Goober July 25, 2013 at 14:44 #

    I suspect that it was not George’s decision.

    ” You want me to fly you to ground 0? All due respect Mr President but you can go fuck yourself!”

    Not really defending him, Just throwing that out there because that’s probably what happened, Or what would have happened had he requested it.


  53. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:05 #

    Where was Churchill?


  54. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:07 #

    Don’t know if history really accounts for his day to day actions during carpet bombing campaigns over England, but I’ll bet he was sitting in a relatively safe place, if one existed. Imagine losing CHurchill for a photo-op.


  55. judgybitch July 25, 2013 at 15:11 #

    He was out in the street on a day to day basis, and then writing and composing some of the finest war times speeches ever written, for which he received the Nobel Prize for Literature.


    He took office the day Hilter invaded France and the low countries.

    Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


  56. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:14 #

    JB, we’ll have to disagree here. I am aware of Churchill’s great speeches and contributions. He also wouldn’t have been around to write them if he parked himself in a truly dangerous place.


  57. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:17 #

    I mean, Bush stood on the rubble, too in NY. It just wasn’t burning rubble. Not drawing an equivalence but I think you’re opinion of Bush is kind of influencing your opinion of his actions that day.

    First world leaders don’t lead troops into battle, they stay in relative safety if possible…even Patton, even Rommel, even though they were in the front lines people protected them before others and they didn’t perform tasks for the benefit of morale photo ops during the real moments of truth.


  58. Spaniard July 25, 2013 at 15:21 #

    The first ever massive air bombing to a town in History was the Luftwaffe blitz over Guernica, in the North of Spain. 1937.
    Was a great shock at the time. Picasso painted one of his materworks as a tribute to the Guernica people.


  59. judgybitch July 25, 2013 at 15:27 #

    I’m hopelessly prejudiced against George.

    There is no reasoning with me!

    I don’t like that little weasel. Never have and never will.

    I’m playing my girl card here, Liz. I don’t like him, so therefore evidence or rationality doesn’t count!



  60. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:30 #

    Battle of the blondes! Folks will bring popcorn.



  61. Liz July 25, 2013 at 15:32 #

    I didn’t even know Spain was targeted by Germany. Thought they remained neutral and were involved in their own civil war?


  62. Ron Leger July 25, 2013 at 16:07 #

    Germany sent airforce “volunteers” to assist Franco in the spanish civil war. The germans used the oportunity to perfect their bombing used later on england.


  63. Maureen from Canada July 25, 2013 at 16:40 #

    actually if you read his Bush’s book he over rode the wishes/decisions of his advisors and demanded to return to the White House because he knew the symbolism of the POTUS hiding in a bunker in a mountain in Colorado would not be good.


  64. Spaniard July 25, 2013 at 17:10 #

    The first clash between the Wermacht and the Soviet Red Army was in Spain. In the 30s.
    Actually, Germany sent planes, mainly Heinkel bombers, and pilots, the Legion Condor, commanded by Lothar Von Richtoffen.
    USSR sent planes, mainly Polikarkovs hunters, tanks, and instructors, but no soldiers.


  65. Matthew House July 26, 2013 at 13:32 #

    There’s another reason to board air force one in a crisis. It’s a mobile command center, with top-of-the-line communications hardware. The President can co-oridnate damned near anything from AF1. It made sound strategic, -and- tactical sense to be in the place with the best mobility ( to reach other potential hot spots) and communications (to be able to react to the crisis in a timely manner).

    Standing on top of a flaming pile of rubble is incredibly cool looking, but it’s not much for you know, -getting shit done-.

    Aside from this, I absolutely love your work.


  66. Goober July 26, 2013 at 14:44 #

    Correct. THe Nazis didn’t declare war on Spain, they assisted Spain in their civil war. They bombed the ever loving crap out of several towns in the basque areas of Spain. There were no strategic targets there, either – the bombings were pretty much terror campaigns against population centers.

    Didn’t take long for the bastards to start committing war crimes, did it…


  67. Take Back Your Face! July 27, 2013 at 02:08 #

    Are you kidding? The media is awash in talk of this woman’s baby.

    Who cares?

    Does she even know we exist? Is she updating her Facebook account when WE have kids?


  68. f2000 July 27, 2013 at 05:11 #

    Another theory for the disappointment: Boys do not aspire to be princes. No male is going to see this little George and think “I want to be that” … well, OK, a certain few may.,,, But a lot more girls go through at least a phase of wanting to be a princess. The disappointment is, for some at least, one of lost vicariousness, not necessarily of misandry,


  69. Radical Suburbanite July 28, 2013 at 22:09 #

    Yeah- still not the point.


  70. Take Back Your Face! July 29, 2013 at 05:23 #

    Disney pimps princesses to little girls. The other corporate giants follow behind and make princess dolls. As far as I’m aware there are not prince action figures.

    If you don’t raise your kid with a TV, she won’t wanna be a princess.


  71. Take Back Your Face! July 29, 2013 at 05:37 #

    I’m not talking about the point of JB’s article here. I’m talking – why do people even CARE if this woman had a kid or not, or what sex it is.



  72. Take Back Your Face! July 29, 2013 at 05:39 #

    “Think it’s much better for the taxpayers over here…we can observe them without having to fund them. ”

    Brits are funding those folks?


  73. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 13:54 #

    “Oh, but the Queen is no proper role model, now is she? Calm, sensible, practical, married, the mother of four children. This is the woman who refused to abandon her city and home during the BLITZ!”

    JB, you’re probably confusing Elizabeth with her mother. Elizabeth was barely 19 when WWII ended and wasn’t making any solo decisions about where she lived.

    Still, she had a charming voice and manner as a teen, and was carrying out public duties when only 14. Here’s a link to a radio broadcast she gave to children away from their homes due to the outbreak of the war.



  74. judgybitch January 6, 2015 at 14:01 #

    Teenage Elizabeth stayed in London and worked with the Red Cross, I believe. The Palace wanted her to remove to a country house but she refused and was out daily to inspire Londoners.


  75. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 14:03 #

    The obvious place for Bush to go was the White House. where he would be extremely easy to protect. Any other location looked and was chickenshite.


  76. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 14:06 #

    Going to the WTC makes far less sense that directing operations from the White House.

    In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the WTC what’s Bush going to do but get in the way? It will look like (and be) grandstanding.


  77. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 14:10 #

    Agreed. Bush was an unmitigated disaster, but flying the day of the attacks to the WTC makes no sense to me.


  78. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 14:14 #

    It’s my mistake, then. When you mentioned in the same breath her four children, I took that to mean you were having a chronological lapse.

    I’ve been enjoying leafing through your older columns today. Great work, and good luck with your book!

    Liked by 1 person

  79. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 14:42 #

    There’s nothing of Marcotte worth debating, but there’s good reason to rebut her tripe.

    She has a large following, and like Limbaugh and all that hateful ilk excels at throwing raw meat to her followers. To keep the cancer from spreading she’s worth taking the time to refute.


  80. farkennel January 9, 2015 at 04:52 #

    Ms..or is it miss?…or missus? Judgy bitch? If it wasn`t for the likes of you and Karen Straughan and other shielas who think like you….I would think that I was pissing into the wind.Hope your book does well mate…keep up the good fight.



  1. Girls Rule, Boys Drool: Royal Baby Edition | Margery + The Man - July 24, 2013

    […] Edited to add: Judgy Bitch has now also taken this on. […]


  2. Appease the shrieking feminists and they will STILL piss and moan. Jane Austen is the WRONG sort of woman to grace a bank note. She liked men. And she understood economics. Obviously, Jane sucks. | judgybitch - July 25, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/24/a-beautiful-healthy-baby-is-born-into-the-family-windsor-unfortunat… […]


  3. Lightning Round – 2013/07/31 | Free Northerner - July 31, 2013

    […] from the barbarians over the new prince. What vile people. Related: JB comments on some more savages’ views of the prince. Remember: if you give in to the savages, they will only shriek […]


  4. Banknotes and broomsticks « The Spideron's Lair - August 3, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/24/a-beautiful-healthy-baby-is-born-into-the-family-windsor-unfortunat… […]


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: