Archive | What the Fuck is wrong with Amanda Marcotte? RSS feed for this section

A response to Amanda Marcotte

13 Sep



First of all, let me preface this by stating how honored I am to be included on a list of women as prominent and talented as Christina Hoff Summers, Phyllis Schlafly, Cathy Young, and the Politichicks. Do I belong on that list? Absolutely not. There is only one reason I made it: I have spanked Amanda on my blog repeatedly and it clearly struck a nerve. I have had a small amount of media coverage, but nothing to warrant being included with these other incredibly influential and powerful women whom Amanda doesn’t wike!




Demonstrating the typical indifference of feminist writers in the media, Amanda took her personal feelings and turned them into an article. If Amanda was truly interested in profiling the most widely disseminated women in the men’s rights movement, she would have put Karen Straughan, who has video views numbering in the millions on YouTube, or Erin Pizzey who is an internationally recognized advocate for men affected by domestic violence or the HoneyBadgers who reach thousands of listeners weekly through their radio show on the list.

But she didn’t.

She put Janet Bloomfield at number 5.

This was personal, and I only have two words for Amanda:




You just gave me the exposure it would have taken me years of diligent work to get otherwise.


Let’s look at Amanda’s piece a little more closely. I am “supposedly” the PR rep for AVfM. And here we have the typical feminist approach to journalism – don’t bother with anything like facts or research. It would literally have taken one mouse click to get to the AVfM Masthead where my position is listed pretty clearly.



And I’m pretty sure her little slam at my effectiveness broke the irony meter – uhm…Amanda….you put my name in Salon! Goodness, what if I sucked at irritating feminists and goading them into publishing my name far and wide? I also love the links to David Futrelle, where he argues that pictures of male genital mutilation are abusive – but not the mutilation itself. And the second link to Jessica Valenti? Priceless. The whole point of those quotes, done in the spirit of Poe’s Law, was to make sure lots and lots and lots of people get a chance to see Jessica in her darling t-shirt.


For those of you interested, that is how Jessica responds when men attempt to discuss issues that affect them negatively: you know, things like suicide, homelessness, poverty, unfair child custody and family courts, a broken education system, the elimination of due process in campus rape trials … nothing terribly important.




Amanda, you’re the best! Thank you so much.


Amanda goes on to speculate about why anti-feminist women might care about half of all human beings.


What makes some women so nasty toward other women that they would actively work to deny women equal rights, or even access to healthcare and basic safety?

Women already have equal rights – in fact they have MORE rights than men. Remember that Futrelle link to male genital mutilation? Yeah, that’s legal to do. FGM may occur but we rightly consider it a barbaric practice and a criminal act. Women have the right to be protected from a knife cutting off parts of their genitals. Men do not.  Hey, Amanda, did you sign a draft card when you turned 18? Just asking…. And can you choose parenthood, Amanda? Of course you can, and you personally oppose a man’s legal right to choose parenthood. You wrote an article about it, filled with nothing but scorn and bullshit.





Let me make this absolutely clear, fighting against feminists, who are standing in the way of equal rights does not equal hating women. Woman is not a synonym for feminist. Get over it. Very few women identify as feminists, and you are a big part of the reason why.

For some, it’s religious conviction. Some like to imagine they’re somehow special and better than all other women. Some enjoy the easy attention they get from sexist men by bashing women and others enjoy the financial perks of being the woman who is willing to speak out against feminism.

Yes, many religions believe in equality. I am personally an atheist but I have no problem with others who are motivated by religious feelings, as long as they do not attempt to deny others X Y or Z based on their religion.

You’ve politely called us attention whores. How charming. What many, many of us are is mothers – and we want a world in which our sons have just as many rights and protections as our daughters. We want our sons to have the same respect and opportunities as our daughters. And we don’t just want that for our children, we want it for all children.

Financial perks? You must be fucking kidding me. There are no financial perks to being anti-feminist. The very small amount of money I have been able to generate with my writing has been paid directly into the AVfM PayPal account, and that will continue to be the case until we are talking dumptrucks of money.


But regardless of their reasons, female misogynists are putting personal gain ahead of the health and wellbeing of average women, and for that they should be held just as accountable as men who attack the equal rights of women.


Please remember it works both ways. Feminist misandrists are putting personal gain ahead of the health and well-being of average men, and for that they should be held just as accountable as women who attack the equal rights of men. Hint: you’re one of those women, Amanda.


And you will be held accountable.



Sooner than you think.


Lots of love,





The point went so far over Marcotte’s big fat head, even a BUK missile couldn’t bring it down.

19 Jul



Why do I read this woman?  It’s a form of torture, I swear.  Her level of stupid seems to know no bounds.  Yes, I am of course referring to Amanda Marcotte of the “we don’t need no babies” and “giving up your baby is the same as abortion” school of dumbassery.  Here she is today wedging her panties further up her ass by complaining about Bill Maher tweeting that even if a woman is trying to kill him, he will do no more than give her a slap.


Slap a woman?  Violent misogynist beast!  Women are never to be slapped.  Not ever!  Here is the tweet that got Mandy’s blood boiling.  I also included a rather clever response, and I will explain why in a moment.




Bill Maher reminded everyone Thursday evening that no matter how progressive he claims to be, when it comes to women, he’s an old school misogynist.


According to Marcotte, with this one tweet, Maher achieved the following:

  • Made light of domestic violence
  • Suggested women are irrational children
  • Reminded women of their proper place
  • Turned domestic violence into self-defence
  • Claimed men are more stable

Wow!  Impressive!  Except no.  Hamas is like a crazy woman trying to kill you and even under circumstances that dire, the response is to hold her by the wrists and then resort to slapping her.  If Maher is making light of domestic violence, he is making light of violent women who are actively trying to kill their male partners!  A woman trying to kill you is probably irrational, although the way Amanda phrases it, attempting to kill a man is a perfectly rational thing to do.  Guess he was asking for it, huh?


The whole point of the tweet is that when Hamas decides to go up against Israel by firing a few hundred rockets at them (no biggie, right?), Israel being the stronger of the two by far shows an enormous amount of restraint until it just can’t any more.  The Israeli Army takes extraordinary measures to warn civilians of strikes, and no matter what you think of that particular conflict, the civilian death rate is very low.


I just finished a book by Peter Beaumont, a reporter for the Observer, called The Secret Life of War, and he has some interesting theories about what is going on in this conflict.  Peter has decades of experience reporting on more than 24 different conflicts, and I am inclined to believe his interpretations – he has based them on deep personal experience.  Peter’s argument is that when there were Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip, the Palestinians were able to unite against a common enemy, but once the Israelis pulled out, they were back to faction fighting based on family dynamics of power and control. The death of Arafat and the incredible rise of Hamas to power over Fatah created an even deeper divide within Palestine.  With no common enemy to fight, they fought each other in a war of incredible brutality and retribution.




Here’s part two of Peter’s theory:  the young men (and some young women) living in the Gaza have lost all hope and faith in their parents to solve this conflict.  They have lost all respect for their fathers and are taking the fight into their own hands, with a predictable response from Israel.  While the adults engage in endless internecine battles for power, the young men are firing rockets into a very big opponent who has some, but not inexhaustible patience.  I think there is probably a lot of merit to this argument.  It’s the same one playing out in Afghanistan – the Taliban versus everyone else.  In Iraq where Sunni and Shiite battle for control with the terrifying ISIS making large gains in a very short period of time.  It’s the same battle that played out in Ireland with Catholics against Protestants.


What comes to mind is the famous quote from Homeboy Industries:

Nothing stops a bullet like a job.


That is essentially what happened in Ireland:  economic growth ended their centuries old battle over which version of Christianity was the right one.

Now that the Irish economy is floundering, one wonders if those old wounds will reopen as people feel increasingly powerless, competing for fewer and fewer resources.


The response to Maher’s tweets about women not liking it when their children are killed is what maddens me the most about Marcotte’s indefatigable narcissism and self-absorption.  More than 300 people are dead, many of them children.  There are many sides and positions to take when it comes to Israel and Palestine, but at the end of the day, people are dying and we need to find some way to resolve this.  Economic development would be my personal argument, but there are others worth considering.



The streets are running with blood in Gaza.


But Bill Maher tweeting a sarcastic comment about slapping a homicidal woman?


Yeah, Amanda, that’s the problem.  Is there ever a time, just one single time, when it’s not about you, you selfish bitch?


Apparently not.


Lots of love,






Feminazis earn their moniker by protesting things that are literally true. Down with facts! Up with ideology! Oh, that’s worked out marvelously in the past.

11 Jun



In response to words printed in a scary thing called a newspaper, available in both paper and electronic format, some wingnut feminists are calling for a man to be fired from his position and some other men to be forced to change their words to reflect what the feminists feel is a better choice of words.  The “better choice” is of course the choice that best obscures some icky facts feminists don’t wike!


The opinion that rape confers special victimhood status on the “survivor” is apparently outrageous because, according to the UltraViolet petition, no person is allowed to question the veracity of rape claims.  From female victims.  The jury is still out when it comes to male victims. The reality that lowering the bar on what constitutes rape to ground level will inevitably lead to  a whole lot of women being held accountable for rape will no doubt take a while for the feminist mind to process. And the growing list of men falsely accused of sexual misconduct and punished by kangaroo courts on college campuses, is met with utter indifference from the rape culture crowd.  Meh.  Who cares, right?


The whole rape culture argument has devolved into pure hysteria – totally irrational and devoid of any evidence, facts or truths – this video from Christina Hoff Summers aka The Factual Feminist lays out the case brilliantly.



But what really, really irritates me is the second part of the Huffington Post story:  the Washington Post changed a headline in response to outrage from fascists who refuse to allow any truth that doesn’t meet their ideological framework to be proclaimed.  Here is the truth that is pissing them off so badly:


Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.




Start with the threat that girls face from men. One of the most comprehensive portraits of sexual and physical abuse of girls (and boys) comes from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. As the figure above indicates, children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father. What’s more: girls and boys are significantly more likely to be abused when they are living in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult—usually their mother’s boyfriend. Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.


 The risk of physical abuse also increases when a child lives without her father, once again, particularly when an unrelated boyfriend is in the home. A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that  “[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”



Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general.

Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.



What’s going on here? Why are women safer when married and children safer when living with their married biological parents? For girls, the research tells us that marriage provides a measure of stability and commitment to the adults’ relationship, that married biological fathers are more likely to be attentive and engaged with their children because they expect the relationship to be enduring. As a consequence, unrelated males are less likely to have sustained interaction with children of the family when dad has a day-in-day-out presence in the home. More generally, the “emotional support and the supervision” that engaged fathers provide to their children can limit their vulnerability to potential predators, as David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center, has observed.


In other news, water is wet and fire has a 100% probability of being hot.


Chief Royal Shrieky Witch herself, the lovely Amanda Marcotte, immediately jumps on the backpedal express, claiming the article is really just a threat to women: Get married or you face the violent consequences, ladies. Because clearly there is no distinction to be made between an observation of fact and a threat.


Bananas are yellow.





Did you just threaten me?



Then Amanda goes on to explain that married people tend to be wealthier which allows them to live in nice neighborhoods and they kind of like that and tend not to fuck up their lives with violence.  While it is true that wealthy people are the ones who seem to grasp that marriage is an important facet of happiness for most people, marriage is also one of the best ways to accumulate wealth with one important caveat:  it has to be a lasting marriage.  Get married and stay married and, according to the Census Bureau (2010) your median net worth when you are between 55 and 64 will be $261,405. Compare that to $71,428 for a man heading a household, and $39,043 for a woman heading a household.


Is marriage automatically going to make a couple wealthy?  Of course not, but it hardly takes a mathematical genius to know that two people earning minimum wage are going to be able to afford a much nicer lifestyle than one person earning minimum wage.  Toss a kid in the mix when you only have one income and you are fucked. And not only are you and the kid personally fucked, you create a society in which kids living near you are less likely to be successful, too.  Being surrounded by women who make stupid, financially disastrous choices seems to teach children that stupid, financially disastrous choices are the way to go.


What is behind this feminist hatred of simple facts?  Why are feminists so opposed to long-term married couples with children accumulating wealth and living in safe communities?  Why are they opposed to children growing up in homes with their biological parents, protected from violence, abuse and assault?


Well, which way do those couples tend to vote?


Oh look!


Marriage gap



How does rape culture fit in here?  It’s the principle means by which the feminist media convinces women, especially young college aged women, that men are dangerous predators who will harm them and their children and being a single mother is so much more fun! Whee!


Get married and stay married, ladies and your odds of living in poverty just dropped dramatically! $260K net worth vs $40K! You’re less likely to be the victim of violent assault, more likely to be happy (if you are committed to the marriage and not to yourself, that is) and your children are less likely to be abused.


How threatening!

But think of all those welfare and social safety net programs that aren’t gonna be needed anymore!  And that is the real threat, isn’t it?  Who works in these programs?  Who earns a nice state or federal salary for doing what amounts to bullshit work? Who counts on an endless supply of single women dragging their children through poverty to earn their own comfortable living?



Women depend heavily for jobs on some sectors that aren’t doing well in the recovery, particularly government.


Well, isn’t that curious?  Must be a coincidence, right?  Lots of liberal arts educated white ladies working in government – the demographic most likely to identify as feminist – and they don’t like the facts about lasting marriages broadcast too loudly.  But they do like the rape culture narrative out there front and center to plant the fear of men deep in women’s souls.


Follow the money.  It always comes down to that, doesn’t it, with ideologues?  The money leads to one place:  single women, terrified of rape and men and marriage, create jobs for rich white women.  Feminism promotes the well-being of women and girls?


About as much as Hitler promoted the well-being of homosexuals, the disabled and Jews, if you ask me.


Lots of love,





%d bloggers like this: