DO NOT give feminists cookies. Feminists hate cookies. NO COOKIES!

1 Aug

OK, so North Carolina is considering some pretty draconian measures against abortion, which will effectively restrict women’s reproductive freedoms, bringing them more in line with the reproductive choices men have:  have a baby or don’t have sex.

Obviously, there are a whole bunch of women who think having the same rights and freedoms as men is utterly and completely unacceptable, and they gathered outside the Governor’s mansion, decked out in 1950s costumes, to protest the new legislation.


As is their right.

Governor McRory went out to greet the protesters, and then he slapped them in the face with symbolic viciousness so breathtakingly cruel and malicious it makes wearing a Nazi uniform to a Bar Mitzvah seem positively uplifting.

He offered them cookies.


I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.  How could anyone be so heartless?

Cookies, people!  They may even have been home-baked! They appear to be chocolate chip!

Governor McRory lends new meaning to the word “diabolical”. It defies imagination that anyone could be so hateful and spiteful and detestable.  Giving protesters cookies.  It’s beyond the pale.


Cookies, you see, are a universally acknowledged symbol of oppression, and handing them out is pretty much the same thing as saying “Welcome to the gulag, ladies.  Surrender your souls”.  How do we know this is true?

Because Amanda Marcotte says so!  And it’s not just cookies she has a hate on for, it’s sandwiches, too.  I suppose we could consider the fact that the Governor ONLY offered cookies, and not the devastating cookie-sandwich combination a redeeming quality?


Next to sandwiches, cookies are probably the most potent edible symbol of the belief that women’s role is to shut up, give up their ambitions, and return to the kitchen.

Cookies:  they will shut you up (as long as you abide by the “don’t talk with your mouth full of cookies” rule), destroy your ambitions (it was an abortion protest, so I suppose the ambition we are talking about here is to kill unborn children?) and send you to the kitchen (where the ingredients and tools to actually make cookies are conveniently located).

Governor McRory, you bastard.  I hope you burn in hell.  Roast alive at 350F for 10-12 minutes (longer if you prefer a crispier cookie).

I was gonna write “it’s almost funny”, but it’s not “almost funny”.  It IS funny. Holy fuck, Amanda, are you for real?  In addition to the multitude of other oppressions that keep you in a state of perpetual victimhood, you are now adding cookies to the list?

cookies 2


Here’s another bit of crazy to add to Amanda’s:  Madeline Alpert, writing at xoJane, who would also, no doubt, be horribly offended if offered a cookie.  Hahahahahahahah!  I Googled Madeline, and look what I found!


She’s making cookies!  Too precious.  Don’t give one to Amanda, Madeline.  She will probably punch you in the face if you even think of making such an insulting gesture. And trust me, Madeline is no stranger to insults, her latest post at xoJane being a perfect example.

The best part about all of this anti-misandry nonsense is that misandry isn’t real! There is no such thing as an inveterate systematic hatred of men and there never has been. Misandry exists only as an exaggerated Internet joke and as a way in which women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men to express their frustration and anger.

The whole article is quite the astonishing read, amounting to an argument that, okay, sure, misandry is REAL, but only because men DESERVE to be hated. A charming story all around.  Let’s just look at this one paragraph.

Inveterate, systematic hatred of men.  Inveterate means “long established and unlikely to change”.  Systematic means “following a plan”.  Hatred means “intense dislike or hostility”.  A long established and unlikely to change plan demonstrating intense hostility to men.

Madeline, are you familiar with something called the criminal justice system?


Of all offenders convicted in U.S. district courts in 2003, 82.8 percent of the males were sentenced to prison but only 57.5 percent of the females. Among offenders convicted of violent crimes, 95.0 percent of the males and 76.4 percent of the females were incarcerated. For these offenses, the average sentence was 90.7 months for men and 42.5months for women

(Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online 2003 N.d., tables 5.20.2003 and 5.21.2000)

Forty-two percent of the male offenders sentenced by state court judges in 2004 were sentenced to prison, compared with 27 percent of the female offenders. The average maximum prison sentence was 61 months for males and 42 months for females.

(U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007g, tables 2.4 and 2.6)

There were 3,228 prisoners under sentence of death on December 31, 2006; of these, only 51 were women.

(U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2007a, tables 4 and 12).

Among offenders convicted of felonies in 1994 in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, 28.3 percent of the females and 63.9 percent of the males were sentenced to prison. The corresponding proportions of offenders who were incarcerated in Jackson County (Kansas City), Missouri, were 16 percent (females) and 45 percent (males). The figures for Dade County (Miami), Florida, were 60.2 percent (females) and 69.2 percent (males).

(Spohn and Beichner 2000) (p.143)

This isn’t some shit I just made up, Madeline.  Look at the death sentences data.  Over three thousand men sentenced to death, and only 51 women.  Between 1976 and 1997, approximately 60 000 murders were committed by women, and almost 400 000 murders were committed by men.


1% of male murderers face the death penalty.  0.08% of women get the same penalty.  Is there anything that expresses hate more fully than actually killing someone?

If misandry is a way that women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men express their anger and frustration, can we not also call misogyny a way that men who have been directly or indirectly hurt by women express their anger and frustration?


If it’s okay for women to lash out with hateful, spiteful rhetoric against men, then why is it not okay for men to lash out with the same hateful, spiteful rhetoric?  David Futrelle delights in cherry-picking expressions of anger and frustration from men, all the while giving women a free pass to rage away.

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection or tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming.

Unfair to quote a wingnut like Valerie Solanas?  The woman who shot Andy Warhol? But Madeline references Valerie right in her headline!



If you’re going to accept misandry as a thing, but only because those fucking men deserve it, then let’s be fair and accept misogyny on the same terms: those fucking women deserve it.

Or, we could look at actual instances of inveterate, systemic discrimination and decide to address them.  You won’t find much systemic discrimination against women anymore.  Most of those issues were redressed over 70 years ago, although the feminist industry continues to insist there are still “issues” that require copious amounts of funding, from which they draw their salaries. No conflict of interest there, at all.


Systemic, inveterate discrimination against men?  Here are just a few topics you might want to look into, Maddy.

Child custody

Criminal justice


Health care funding

Selective Service

Pediatric psychotropic medications

Domestic violence

False accusations of rape

Legal parental surrender

Look at those issues carefully, Madeline, and then tell me they amount to an internet joke. If you actually open your mind and let your preconceived notions of victimhood and perpetual oppression go, you might find a whole new world opens in front of your eyes. One in which there really IS inveterate, systemic hatred for one gender in particular.

It’s not women.

And Madeline, please don’t give Amanda Marcotte any of your yummy looking cookies.  She’s a fucking bitch and doesn’t deserve any cookies, ever.


Fuck you, Amanda Marcotte.  Is it possible to say that enough?

I don’t think so.

Lots of love,


46 Responses to “DO NOT give feminists cookies. Feminists hate cookies. NO COOKIES!”

  1. RedPillOverdose August 1, 2013 at 16:48 #

    Amanda Marcotte must truly brush her teeth with Preparation-H, she is such as asshole. It must also burn her ass that she can’t spell her first name without the word MAN. The angry little feminist enema bag can’t seem to register in that warped, chaotic mind of hers that most people are either repulsed by her or just laugh at her when she opens that cookie hole under her nose.


  2. Liz August 1, 2013 at 16:59 #

    Well, I for one think that offering cookies to a bunch of women dressed like the 1950s and protesting outside the governor’s home is priceless. Up there with handing tinky winky toys to the Reverend Phelps family. He should have wrapped the cookies in cloth diapers and offered them cigarettes, too. Maybe they’d all have aneurysms and the world would be a better place.


  3. Exfernal August 1, 2013 at 17:13 #

    Being a feminist makes you a better mother, don’tcha know.


  4. mikebuchanan1957 August 1, 2013 at 17:18 #

    And of course when spelling her surname there’s ‘Marc’ and ‘Ma’ and ‘cot’, the latter two referring to the age-old patriarchal oppression of women as mothers. It must hurt her to the core. Oh, and ‘ott’ haha.

    JB, another outstanding article.

    Mike Buchanan

    (and the women who love them)


  5. Bob Wallace August 1, 2013 at 17:21 #

    Solanis was crazy, was committed to an asylum for years, and thought Warhol was a vampire. She tried to put aluminum foil on her bullets but they wouldn’t fire, so she spray-painted them. Man-haters that bad are extremely rare. In fact, I’ve heard of one as crazy as she was.


  6. Marlo Rocci August 1, 2013 at 17:30 #

    I made some cookies last Saturday. More ammunition for the Patrarchy™.


  7. Goober August 1, 2013 at 17:39 #

    Newsflash! Man tries to be civil and polite to raging feminist! Feminist offended!

    More at 11.

    Said no news agency, ever.

    Perpetual victims will see e erythingthat their “victimizers” do as being exploitative and victimizing. There’s good money and publicity in it, as well as giving these awful people an excuse for being awful. No surprise there.


  8. Aye. August 1, 2013 at 18:09 #

    Weird Tangent: Extended incarceration of a man, particularly for non-violent marijuana crime, is bad for everyone, especially women.

    Where a strong family unit once thrived under the guidance of an enterprising patriarch, incarceration immediately creates a single-mother household dependent on state support, which is not particularly good for her, with sons and/or daughters growing up with no strong male role models, or, even worse, unstable substitute male role models.

    My dad may have been putting on a brave face for me, but from what I could tell, he didn’t actually seem to mind prison so much. He worked out a lot, formed some lifelong friendships, took college courses. But I minded life without my dad.

    I am not sure how feminist, or anti-feminist, it is to argue that keeping a family unit intact (ie: keeping a man around) is actually very good for women, and therefore decreased sentences for marijuana crimes would actually be a boon. I think NOW should take up the cause of decriminalizarion! (That is, if the aim of feminism is actually to improve the lives of women. But then they would have to concede that the family unit is actually very good for women and girls, not just for men and boys…)


  9. genderneutrallanguage August 1, 2013 at 18:14 #

    The cookie’s where a very real slap in the face. It is very common to say “Would you like a cookie too” at someone that is being childish and making unreasonable demands. Gifting these women cookies was very much calling them childish. I think it was a well deserved insult, but it was an insult.


  10. Aye. August 1, 2013 at 18:26 #

    It’s definitely a mocking gesture. I am imagining it in the place of discourse in other arenas. The miners union protests for more safety regulations and someone wanders out to greet them with ice cold Schlitz? Students protest the rising costs of education, and are handed ballpoint pens with a loan institution’s insignia and coupons for Domino’s?


  11. judgybitch August 1, 2013 at 18:45 #

    “Would you like a cookie” definitely has mocking overtones, but it does not mean “get back in the kitchen you stupid women”. In the context, I think the Governor was simply offering them cookies.


  12. SuperAwesomeGuy August 1, 2013 at 18:48 #

    I think smoking marijuana is fantastically stupid but it shouldn’t be illegal.


  13. Aye. August 1, 2013 at 18:56 #

    At best, it’s an ill-conceived consolation prize.

    Maybe I will start giving Dum Dum lollipops to those people who protest every time the 10 commandments are removed from a government building… “I am sorry you don’t live in your desired theocratic utopia. Have a sucker…” Hmm.


  14. SuperAwesomeGuy August 1, 2013 at 18:59 #

    well I guess it’s possible that it’s meant to mock them but it could just as easily be “lets not fight” or “I want to disagree in a civil way.” Sure it would be misguided as hell to assume that a crazy feminist could be civil but there are a lot of good-natured types for whom reality is little deterrence.


  15. Aye. August 1, 2013 at 19:00 #

    It’s fine… if you’re sick. I believe that it has holistic pharmaceutical value, and people who use it are all medicating… something.

    I am not sick, so I don’t touch the stuff.


  16. Aye. August 1, 2013 at 19:05 #

    And anyhow, any potential societal ill related to marijuana is negligible compared to the societal ills associated with the destruction of a family unit.


  17. Matthew House August 1, 2013 at 19:29 #

    this is an awesome idea, and I’m stealing it. I’m going to keep a vest pocket full of lollipops, and when someone says something stupid, I’ll give em a sucker. When they ask why, I’ll tell them I’m trying to prevent the leakage of stupidity into the environment, and the best way to do that is to plug the hole the stupid leaks out of.


  18. freetofish August 1, 2013 at 19:44 #

    Reading through the comments on that Misandry article. It really does amaze me how feminists can’t see their own blatant hypocrisy when it comes to sexism.’

    It also never ceases to amaze me most can’t distinguish between what they call the Patriarchy and what is really moneyed aristocracy. They just can’t fathom that 90%+ of men are in the same or worse a position as any woman.


  19. genderneutrallanguage August 1, 2013 at 19:49 #

    I agree “Would you like a cookie” has mocking overtones. It very much does not mean “get back in the kitchen you stupid women”. It means “here is something to placate children throwing a temper tantrum” In the context, I think the Governor was trying to placate children throwing a temper tantrum. It is insulting, but a well deserved insult. Our only real disagreement is over the intent of the Governor, He is very smart and I do believe that it was meant as a political statement.


  20. thehumanscorch August 1, 2013 at 19:51 #

    Women are going on strike too!


  21. David Sutton August 1, 2013 at 20:43 #

    I think it’s ironic that Manboobz would call someone else a “lump,” or a “blob.” Just sayin’


  22. Black Label August 1, 2013 at 21:49 #

    This law is crap and McRory’s probably an ass, but the cookie move is pure genius, whether intentional or not.
    It works on so many levels.
    Amanda’s article and the comments are priceless.


  23. Black Label August 1, 2013 at 22:05 #

    Fancy that.
    Men are blamed for their “strike”, since it’s their own decision.
    Women are excused for theirs, ’cause they’re pushed there by false role models and porn culture.
    Infantalizing much?


  24. feeriker August 1, 2013 at 22:32 #

    Just imagine if he’d offered them milk too. I’m sure that the loudest screaming we would have heard in response to that move would have been “YOU’RE ENDANGERING THE LACTOSE INTOLERANT! HOW DARE YOU!”


  25. Keanu August 2, 2013 at 00:35 #


    “I am not saying man-hating or declaring yourself as a misandrist is definitively radical since hating men has been and is not abnormal–rather the opposite. To viscerally despise those who indirectly oppress you is nothing new, for women and other minorities. Misandry is only a result and reaction to the invariable hatred of women that has existed for centuries.”

    According to Madeline, not only is hating men not abnormal, it is, and should, be the norm.

    XOjane is a site aimed at teenage girls…

    How does it slip under the hate site radar? I’m thinking this post is just straight up MRA bait.


  26. Marlo Rocci August 2, 2013 at 01:15 #

    The difference with the women’s strike is ultimately they need support, either from the government or from the corporation, for bearing children. Very few women really want to remain childless for life.

    Men on the other hand need no support at all, are entirely self-sustaining, and are a basic requirement of the support institution. When women go on strike, the reaction is “meh”, when men go on strike, the institution burns to the ground.

    I’ll just kick back with a beer and watch the fires burn.


  27. The Real Peterman August 2, 2013 at 01:39 #

    Alright feminists, you can say what you want about me, but when you bad mouth cookies and sandwiches, it’s ON!


  28. Alex August 2, 2013 at 02:34 #

    i challenge each of these feminists to try a week without the shit put together by men and not be cave people by the end of it. it is truly astounding to see how much they are deluding themselves when they say they could make it without a man while they happen to be using items, produced, shipped, and/or maintained by men. i just hope they get ignored long enough for their hate and harm to die with them


  29. thehumanscorch August 2, 2013 at 02:34 #

    They are Woman! Hear them roar! INDEPENDENCE! FREEDOM!

    …..gubmint check. Alimony. Child support.


  30. Gordon Wadsworth August 2, 2013 at 03:07 #

    Good analysis.

    Although I disagree with NC on this one, I have to admit to enormous schadenfreude. Marcotte’s anguish sustains me.


  31. Mr. Milker August 2, 2013 at 08:30 #

    Well, clearly, all of those “issues” are either imaginary, or directly caused by the Patriarchy. STOP QUESTIONING THE FACT THIS EXPLANATION MAKES NO SENSE! Everything we can blame on the patriarchy is the result of Patriarchy, if it sounds too stupid, then it’s made up.


  32. Brian August 2, 2013 at 08:47 #

    And did you see what she just did there: “women and other minorities.” Either she is seriously mathematically challenged or she is playing the usual trick of subliminally indoctrinating the unwary with the notion that poor little women are so powerless because they are a “minority”. No prizes for guessing which.

    Ideologues like her sicken me with their never-ending conveyor belt of lies, half-truths, deceptions and ommissions. They have no moral credibility whatsoever.


  33. Exfernal August 2, 2013 at 10:02 #

    How to react to
    this kind of attitude?

    We need to stop fitting ourselves into the world. Let’s make the world fit us.

    Run? But… how far? Someday there will be no place on Earth to run away from such attitudes.

    I wonder what (or whom) exactly she had in mind typing “the world” there…


  34. Richard Blaine August 2, 2013 at 10:58 #

    I have no intention of wasting any perfectly good cookies (or even any mediocre ones) on a feminist – talk about pearls before swine.

    If they’re looking for examples of Misandry – perhaps they should read their own blogs?

    I don’t hate women, I like women, I despise victim mongering feminists, not the same thing at all.


  35. genderneutrallanguage August 2, 2013 at 13:10 #

    What does that have to do with Cookies?


  36. Liz August 2, 2013 at 13:22 #

    Do opponents typically hand out treats to protestors?
    I’m far too much of a cynic to believe this was just coincidence, and the gesture was intended to be nice. The protestors were even dressed circa 1950. It was too perfect.


  37. Goober August 2, 2013 at 14:55 #

    Oh, forgot to add:

    North Carolina wut r u doin? North Carolina, STAHP!


  38. LostSailor August 2, 2013 at 16:24 #

    I can’t speak to cookies, but sandwiches are totally a potent symbol of patriarchy and systematic female oppression. After all, the Earl of Sandwich was a man. Case closed.

    Now, feminists. Go make me some sammies. And I’ll take a cold beer while you’re at it…


  39. LostSailor August 2, 2013 at 16:29 #

    Feminist Logic:

    “Misandry doesn’t exist! It just a made up word by misogynistic men! And hatred of men by women is completely normal and the basis of feminism. Therefore if you call us ‘misandrists’ we’re going to go all Valarie Solanas on your ass.”

    I doubt she knows how to make a sandwich…


  40. LostSailor August 2, 2013 at 16:39 #

    Women aren’t going on strike and it has nothing to do with porn. They’re just exercising their Goddess-given right to bang as many hot guys as they can before settling down to pop out a few kids with their future ex-husband.

    But this, from the article, is howlingly funny:

    This “distortion” can only lead to more emphasis on the specious values of physical attraction and charm, which are highly valued in porn culture, instead of seeking romance based on shared interests, values and compatible personalities.

    Yeah, physical attraction and charm are totally specious values, damn you porn! We need to return to those magical days when “But she has a great personality!” was the ultimate harbinger of romance and marriage…


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: