The Slut Vote

From B-Skillet of "Christian Men's Defense Network:

"The Democrats tried to make this election about a single issue: The right to slut. Or more precisely, the right to slut without the responsibility of consequences."

"One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones: They usually don’t make decisions based on reason," he writes, after explaining that sluts want to get abortions so they can be slutty and childless, but that they also want to leech off of welfare to raise welfare babies, which is of course a totally reasoned flow of logic.

Apparently, this is not a satire.

"This election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans lose because they discount the existence of original sin in women," writes B-Skillet. "Abortion is often called the 'third rail of American politics,' but in truth, the third rail is a woman’s right to slut (with cash and prizes)."

Here is his Twitter account. Both the blog and the other previously-identified social media accounts have gone private; only the webcache remains. A longer excerpt follows.

The famous “gender gap” isn’t really a gap based on gender. The right overwhelmingly wins older and married women. The “gender gap” should more accurately be called the slut vote.

Women make up about 54% of the electorate. It is very hard to win without winning that segment, or at least losing it only narrowly while winning men big. While the right usually wins married women, the fact is that married women constitute an ever-decreasing share of the female population. Women want to delay marriage as long as possible so they can “have it all,” and usually “have it all” means “have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.” And thus, less married women and more sluts (not that these two groups are mutually exclusive, per se)

And that’s where the Democrats come in. Contrary to common belief, the primary reason the Democrats own the black vote has nothing to do with civil rights. The Democrats were only partially supportive of civil rights in the 60′s (with southern Democrats advocating “segregation forever”). Lincoln was a Republican, and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for civil rights legislation in the 60s.

Rather, Democrats have won the black vote because the black community is dominated by illegitimacy, and the Democrats are willing to subsidize and support that illegitimacy (as well as provide access to cheap abortions) so as to take away from sluts the consequences of their actions. Consequently, young black people grow up on the dole and not only never realize there might be something wrong with that, but eventually come to believe that’s the way it should be. The Democrats have won the black vote by first “empowering” single black mothers.

This is now beginning to happen in white suburbia, except unlike women in the urban black community, white suburban sluts start from a place of relative wealth and privilege (daddy’s little princess). Thus, food stamps–and increased rewards for having illegitimate kids while on food stamps–don’t (yet) appeal to them.

So instead Obama appealed to rich white sluts by forcing someone else (the Catholic church, in this case) to pay for their birth control, and by scaring them about alleged threats to their ability to take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s services (Planned Parenthood being conveniently located in the minority part of town, of course, so as to provide anonymity to visiting white girls whose white girl friends never go over there–except to visit Planned Parenthood themselves). This created a wedge issue in the suburban community that allowed Obama to play more strongly there than he might have if the election ended up purely about the economy or the national debt.

One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones: They usually don’t make decisions based on reason. So all the Obama administration had to do was scare them that Mitt Romney was going to take away their birth control and their access to abortion. The fear for them is that, without birth control and abortion, they might actually get pregnant and have to give birth. That is scary not simply because of the economic burden of having a child (since, hey, they can get all kinds of cash and prizes if that happens), but because if that happened then everyone would know they’re sluts, and their image as daddy’s pure little snowflake princess goes out the window.

The right loses the female vote primarily because so many of them still operate from a feminist world-view: Women are pure, perfect, kind, and altruistic, and the only reason they “get into trouble” is that some evil, conniving, manipulative man tricked them into sleeping with the entire football team.

Who knows, maybe it was a really good parody.

(via Susie Bright)

244

  1. Wow; if you want a misogyny primer, look no further than the google cache of that site.  This guy just hates women.  And Oprah in particular.

  2. I’ve seen many write that it’s time for the GOP to get rid of the religious extremists that have taken over the party. Problem for the Republican Party is that you can’t push out those who have made themselves the core of the party. The religious right have spent decades working at the local level, getting elected to local offices, working at party conventions, organizing GOTV efforts and membership drives, etc. They’re not the outsiders anymore, they’re the core of the party. It’s much more likely that the  people obsessed with calling women names for the “crime” of having a sex life are going to be the ones who stay and the more reasonable members are the ones who are going to get the boot.

    1. Rendering the Reaganites a feckless third party option in addition to rendering the extremists a feckless third party option. 

      I like this plan. 

        1. any system with only 1 valid option sucks we need another party that can pull numbers. repub’s are just nut-jobs at this point and anything else can be ignored due to its low numbers.

          1. Or America needs to reform it’s electoral process to a system that can actually support more than 2 parties. Almost every other western country has.

    2. There was a tweet getting forwarded around election night, in the form of a dialog along the lines of:
      “Hey, that Republican who said crazy things about rape just lost!”
      “Oh? Which one?”

      The point being that if you have to ask “which one?”, that party has got a serious problem.

    3. “and the more reasonable members are the ones who are going to get the boot.”

      Verb tense is wrong: GOT the boot.  This 2.0 version of the party has even used its money and muscle against its own candidates if they weren’t extremist and reactionary enough.

      I firmly believe the reason the election was less close than people thought it would be is because of conservatives.  The last year or two has seen a substantial rise in the number of public statements by people who have made their careers in the Republican party (as it used to be) and have finally decided that enough is enough.  That’s the tip of the iceberg: at this point, any rational conservative voter has had to face the reality that the Republican party isn’t their party anymore.

      Everyone knows that liberals would vote for the Democratic nominee, of course; I don’t think people realized how many conservatives would vote for him too, as the only conservative, Christian, pro-business, SANE choice among the two major party candidates.

      1. I agree with you. My husband is a Republican and he keeps trying to convince me that the party is becoming more about fiscal conservatism than kissing up to the religious right, and that they are moving toward being libertarian on the social issues like abortion and gay marriage. 

        I think that is wishful thinking on his part, because while he personally doesn’t care one way or another about the social issues the party has embraced, I think those social issue voters are freakin’ amazing at getting out their voters.If the Republicans were actually start getting more on the economic conservative/hawkish/socially libertarian page, they’d be pulling in a lot of voters. Joe Lieberman (who I know was Democratic originally and never a Republican, but he is still conservative on a lot of issues) and John McCain both come to mind as the type of person who could appeal to the center, and yet, despite their strong records neither ever really made it on the national stage because they wouldn’t play ball with the kooks who were running the show. I know McCain tried in his second run, but it was so obvious he did not want to do it.

        1. If anything they are regressing on social issues, particularly reproductive rights. 

          Proposing amendments to ban gay marriage is definitely a step backward from simply ignoring the issue, which was their stance in the past.

          But also they are making significant progress eroding the wall of separation of church and state, usually with a healthy dose of saying otherwise. Lots of this is at a local level, the level often ignored. Particularly their push to dominate school boards.

          Whereas democrats are not socialist or communist, they offer no larger a govt than any party and spend differently, not more.

          But they do need to move a bit to the left to rein in markets that are bilking, hurting and predating on normal everyday people who have nothing to do wit it except being a demographic.

  3. Just more butthurt from white, Christian males. The US and the world is different, deal with it.

    1. No!  Stop that!  We are an oppressed minority!  Everybody else is conspiring to take away our privilege!

    2. When I first heard Bill O’Reilly’s remark about how “it’s not a traditional America anymore” my first inclination was to agree, although I happen to think it’s a good change.

      But then I started asking myself, was it ever the “traditional America” O’Reilly seems to have in mind? This has always been a diverse country. It seems like people like O’Reilly are only now beginning to wake up to that fact.

      1. That’s just the thing. The “traditional America” these folks value so highly never existed. Briefly, in the 1950s, something that sort of resembled it could have been said to have existed, if you look at it from the right angle. But that was an aberration, and one funded by extremely high taxation of the wealthy, to boot.

      2. this was exactly my thought, too: his “traditional america” is coded language for “white america” to me. america has ALWAYS been a place of diversity. it’s one of our strengths.

        1. I had a discussion last night with a US gamer I share voice comms with, starting out with comments about how the Reps lost in part due to the demographic changing and how latinos are increasingly becoming a more prominent voting power. He went off on a huge rant about the ‘illegals’ entering the US, and if all the latinos were sent back then America would be in a far stronger position and not having to support all these lazy immigrants who expect everything handed to them, etc. After pointing out that he was being a racist, he denied it vehemently, simply not seeing that this attitude was both racist and incorrect. I wonder what the welfare demographic actually looks like?

          1. Not sure about the welfare demographic but how many of those “illegals” voted? clearly any pretense that illegals coming over here some how influenced the election is just foolish.

          2. I know – but this rigid insistence that Obama won because he had the support of all these welfare leeching illegals that simply breed to leech even more was an argument I simply couldn’t get past. It seemed to be a completely unshakeable belief and it’s one of the reasons that I believe that it’s going to take several generations dying out before the right sees any kind of shift.

          3. You can find some information regarding the demographics of those on welfare in the U.S. here:

            http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

            That doesn’t represent all of public aid, though. For example, here is information regarding the use of food stamp/nutritional assistance in the U.S.:

            http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts

            Of course, those are nationwide statistics and would look different on a state-by-state basis. As was mentioned by Robert Drop below, there is a pretty strong correlation between poor, rural folk on welfare and conservative voting.

            I think it’s ridiculous to presume that there is some effort — coordinated or not — to somehow provide illegal immigrants with the documentation necessary to register as voting citizens. I could be wrong, certainly… (although, no credible evidence of any sort makes that _highly_ unlikely)… but _that_ wasn’t the cause of the GOP’s loss in this last election.

          4. I don’t have the numbers at hand, and am in a hurry, but I do remember that the majority are white, and live in red areas of the country.  Oops.

          5. Yeah, ironically there’s a pretty direct correlation between welfare-using, poor rural areas and conservative voting.  This is true both on a state level – the red states are the big food stamp recipients, etc. with Texas and Alaska towards the top, and within a state (the red areas of California are the areas that have far more money spent on them than they pay in taxes). The supreme irony is that conservatives are, on the whole, the beneficiaries of the welfare state, being paid for by the liberal regions they despise.

          6. Oh yes, those lazy immigrants picking strawberries in the fields for 18 hours in 102 degree weather.

            Edit: You know, it’s ironic I guess. I’m lazy. Incredibly lazy. But because of my white middle-class privilege the fact that I’m a SAHM that bakes the occasional batch of cookies in between WoW raids is lauded. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.

          7. I know right, how dare they be US citizens, work their asses off and then have the nerve to vote for the candidate that’s not trying to deny them affordable healthcare or nail immigration to the floor!

          8. God, I know. Dear Republicans: illegal immigrants, by definition, can’t vote. Hispanics /= illegals. When you imply that they all are, and also mutter scary things that threaten their illegal distant cousins’ human rights, the legal ones then VOTE AGAINST YOU. How can this be surprising?

          9. Interesting that you should ask: there are more poor whites in the good ole USA than blacks or latinos. The sad fact: these people are largely invisible, unless of course some politician sees ripe fruit to pick if they effectively demonize minorities. There are legions of poor white folks who still harbor a type of pride that keeps them from applying for help and believe that labor unions are evil and that they are at least “white” while they and their children go to sleep hungry.

      3. I like the part where O’Reilly doesn’t realize that as a Catholic *he* was not part of the “traditional America” that he seems to long for.

        What a maroon.

          1. “Massacred” is probably a more succinct, clear way to say that. But, yes, you are entirely right about that.

          2. What’s this? Mormons were massacred? I’d love the details. As a person raised LDS, I’m familiar with the fact they were driven out of several towns for their marrying ways, and that their original prophet died when he was involved in a shoot out. But massacred? Perhaps you are thinking of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where an LDS posse killed travelers heading west on a wagon train and took their children? If you have another massacre in mind, please share. 

            Edited to add: I just looked up the Haun’s Hill massacre, which I presume is what you were referring to. 19 people were killed in pretty brutal ways. What’s interesting is that the same Wikipedia page lists Mormons two other times, and in those cases they were the ones doing the massacring. I point this out because the LDS faith speaks of its history as one of intense persecution which they are still experiencing to this day. I’m not denying that there was a lot of anti-Mormon sentiment, but they participated in a lot of violence against other settlers and Natives. I’m always frustrated when my LDS family speaks of their oppression in the present tense.

    3. I believe it has much, much more to do with the “Christian” and “male” and much less to do with the “white”.  Behavior like described in this post is demonstrated in many predominantly non-white cultures in the USA, as well as many, many, non-white cultures in the modern world.

  4. It just amazes me how often that I, a married, Christian, woman, get called a slut and worse because I believe women should have birth control included in the list of drugs their insurance pays for.  Oh how often I have prayed that men would miraculously become pregnant.  

    1. As a religious person maybe you can explain to me why christians are so gung ho about denying access to contraception? Surely they see that access to birth control would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? I can sort of understand the frothing rage they have about abortion, but birth control?

      1. It’s really just a Catholic thing.  They believe that contraception is a violation of God’s orderly plan for the universe, and that holy people would either keep it zipped up or accept their destiny as parents.  Unfortunately, they also believe in their right to legislate this for the rest of us.

        The few Republicans who are pushing this thing, but not Catholic, are simply opportunists who picked the wrong horse.

        1. I’m a big fan of the idea that god is so powerful he can create the universe but our dastardly bits of rubber and little pills foil his every plan.

          1. I don’t think anyone wants the rapist, God is just wrong to send those. But the guys who work at the stable smell like horse shit all the time and unless you ride horses it can be unpleasant.

        2. Uh, no. It’s not just a Catholic thing. The fundamentalists are also against pre-marital sex and abortion. By their reasoning contraception makes pre-marital sex without babies possible (likely) and is therefore generally not to be dispensed.

          1. You’re right, the primal terror and disgust at sex (mostly other people’s) is the primary thing.

        3. Nope. Wrong. Look up the statistics on U.S. Catholics and contraception.

          Are you guys ever going to stop falling for propagandists who claim that “all Catholics” or “all Christians” agree with them? It’s exactly like believing Faux News pundits who claim that all Real Americans think as they do.

          We need a Nate Silver for religious discussions.

          1. I was too vague.  I meant to say Catholic Bishops and politicians – not all Catholics.  I’m aware of the numbers.

          2. The Catholic church doesn’t allow contraception or abortion. If Catholic women use contraception or get an abortion, they’re going against the tenets of their religion. So when the church spouts off about the evils of contraception, they’re speaking for Catholics. If Catholics don’t like that, they should force the church to change, or stop saying they’re Catholic. 

            Now, I wish that more Catholics would indeed challenge the church just because of the irresponsible aspect of that viewpoint, much less their own personal life experiences that their clergy theoretically don’t have a clue-by-four how to deal with anyway. 

            So all that said, it’s not technically wrong to say, “Catholics are against contraception and abortion” because according to the Vatican, that is very true.

          3. The Catholic Church is slow-moving and a mixed bag at best in terms of its effect on the world, but it does adapt. They’re not fundamentalists or literalists. Some pope sooner or later will have it “revealed” to him (her? haha) that God is fine with the Pill. It is clearly more humane than abortion, for both zygote/fetus/child/whatever and woman (I humbly submit this as someone who’s 100% pro-choice).

        4. Sorry, 90% of practicing Catholic women use birth control. (The preceding statement is fact) You, we use confession as a means to wipe away our sins. (This statement is just one made by someone, a chick, raised Catholic.)

          1.  Yeah… that isn’t really how tconfession is supposed to work. The Act of Contrition assumes you’re, you know, contrite.

            Not that anyone should ever be contrite for using birth control, of course.

        5. I wish it was just a Catholic thing, but it isn’t. Some of the more regressive Christian sects believe the same thing. The Quiverfull movement – think the Duggars of reality show fame – are a good example of this, but not the only one.

      2.  Oh, PLEASE don’t ask “as a religious person.” There are so many different kinds of them and many who approve or disapprove of various issues for different reasons (usually some morally argued, but still diverse). That’s like asking “as man maybe you can explain why men are so gung ho about denying access to contraception?”
        Beth may have more insight than us non-religious people, but it’s not nice to imply she must know all about every Christian person’s motivation, just because she’s Christian.
        I’m sorry to butt into this thread, but it just really bugs me. I don’t mean to nitpick, just please think of how it may come across.

        1. Fair enough. Mea culpa. I guess I sort of have a simplistic view of religious people since the ones I hear from in the media are, for the most part, batshit crazy. I don’t have a lot of exposure to normal, sane religious people. My one religious friend (who is mormon) has views about women, sex, and human rights that are so far removed from mine I feel like he is from a different planet… so yeah, I opened my mouth without a lot of knowledge. I will try to remember in future that there are also sane religious people.

      3. I think Kramski answered best, just not in the way I would.  I have never understood the desire of the Christian right to undermine our First Amendment right to freedom from religious oppression.  But then again, I’ll confess that few of my fellow Christians actually THINK about their faith.  They only concern themselves with imposing it on others in order to save their souls. 

      4. My theory is, religion’s stances on birth control, homosexuality, abortion and “promiscuity” stem from a single goal.  Many religions aim to grow through breeding.  You convince your followers to get married and pump out lots more little catholics/mormons/whatever.  Birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and sex out of wedlock all compromise the goal of producing as many little followers as possible.

        This actually extends beyond religions as well; e.g. anti-miscegenation probably stems from a desire to see ones own ethnic group outgrow others.It seems to be a pretty successful strategy, too.

    2.  If only men could get pregnant, the birthrate would drop at least 90%. Also, a male of our species could get his periodic dose of  Norplant in his beer.

        1. All I know is that you can only get it in joints that serve Pan Seared Mermaid & Kraken Yakitori.

    3.  Most men, I wager, also don’t understand that “birth control pills” aren’t just for birth control; that there’s a range of reproductive medicine that helps women with a huge number of issues having nothing to do with preventing impregnation. I confess that I knew a little about this, but only vaguely, until the Sandra Fluke incident, after which I heard from so many female friends about their and their friends’ varied needs related to regulation, cysts, and other non-fun stuff.

      Birth control should be available on its own right for whatever reason. But lumping it all together under hedonism (and, of course, blaming the women, because men are apparently not part of this issue of having sex) or fingerwagging is even more misguided.

      I suspect that many men who think birth control is evil have no idea whatsoever that nearly all the women in their lives have taken some form of it either for actual birth control or for health reasons.

      1.  It always amazes me how people don’t know about BC’s uses– because they’re never, ever discussed when we talk about access to contraception. If we banned BC, we would get all sorts of hormone therapy medications that just so happen to use the same active ingredients (at increased cost) that coincidentally make you not get pregnant. Most people I know on BC, the contraceptive part is just a happy benefit. I went to a women’s college so it got discussed a lot, and I’d say about 80% of my friends were on some pill, and almost none of them were having heterosexual sex. I left college and was stunned by how the conversation went from PCOS, dysmenorrhea, and other conditions to “omg sluts and babies.”

  5. Eh, this is pretty boilerplate MRA stuff. These dudes have constructed a surprisingly comprehensive worldview to explain why they never get laid. (Counter intuitive spoiler alert: It’s because bitches are sluts.)

  6. There’s a fun bit in the discussion thread where they reach consensus on why they favor monarchy over democracy.

    1. This is not new, I’ve seen similar comments before. In the Christian mythos, and most especially the Catholic one, an “enlightened” monarchy, blessed by the so-called “Divine Right of Kings” is the ideal government. It’s not that surprising, looking at the history of the church and how it grew out of the Western Roman Empire’s decay, seeing how monarchies such as the Spanish and French were such staunch defenders of catholicism for many long years (it ain’t called the Spanish Inquisition for nothin’!), and how modern nationalism and republicanism grew out of the Enlightenement and the start of the deist/atheist movement that distanced the cognoscenti from established religion. They are looking back on the good old days when canon law was the law of the land, when heretics were burned at the stake, and the church could exploit and pillage the population to its content.

      I’m always slightly amazed at the christians who actually believe their religion has much to do with the man who allegedly started it, whereas it’s quite well-established historically that it’s not the case at all, and christianity is clearly a syncretism that has more to do with Roman Imperialism and Paulist (mysoginist) propaganda than a 1st century jewish eschatologic preacher (Yeshua aka Jesus). When you see it that way, their behavior makes a lot more sense.

      1. Unless someone has lived through it or has extensive knowledge of it, the past is usually viewed through rose colored glasses.

        1. Would that more people understood that life was “nasty, brutish and short” ( Hobbes own life being a notable exception ) compared to modern times, if you have internet you are likely blessed.

          And fleas, and lice. vermin is reason number 4 why I would never want to go back in time.

    1. It’s one of the most common — if not the most common — transitions in linguistics.  For example, “contact” was not a verb until the last few decades.  It’s kind of the opposite of weirding.

  7. That site is simply amazing. The comments even lament the 19th amendment. Boo-hoo — who took my silver spoon?

    Honestly, though, I wish this kind of transparent discussion were a little more common and accessible. I recognize my own lack of perspective, and the left certainly has its share of extreme kooks, but I can’t fight the feeling that the dark side is far more pervasive and lingering just beneath the surface (or sometimes just above the surface; see Akin, Mourdock, and Broun) on the religious right.

    1. The left really doesn’t have its share.  The most extreme one I know of is Kucininch, and his crime is veganism.  Not for everybody, just for himself.  Oh, and he’s a scary Socialist.

      And even if we had our share, we wouldn’t hand them the keys to the car.

    2. I assume you’re referring to Paul Broun. I didn’t know about him until you mentioned “Broun.”  So, thanks for the introduction (I guess).

      I can guess where mister-married-four-times stands on “Defense of Marriage.”

  8. One of the recent posts at CMDN is entitled “The Tyranny of Tingles”‘. I know how the author feels. Who hasn’t had a cat lord it over them? 

  9. I love watching the Right’s head explode now. I imagine this is what it was like 10x over when LBJ passed civil rights laws.

  10. I’m not really sure why I’d think this is satire…

    I was born, raised, and live in the South.  I’ve met women (and men) like he describes and I’ve met men and women like him.  Amazingly enough America is not made up of a coherent mass of people with similar ideas and principles. 

    From what I read he isn’t describing married women or advocating for all women to stay celibate until marriage, he’s describing the casual nature that society has placed upon sex.  I’m not really religious so for me that level doesn’t come into play when looking at things like this in my personal life.  At the same time if I was looking for a relationship (or friendship) I would think differently of a person if I knew their past included lots of casual sex.  It’s not because I think sex is wrong or evil, it is because I see sex as more than a physical thing two people share.  I couldn’t do FWB or one night stands or things of that nature, it is simply not who I am.

    But the beauty of America is the fact I think everyone should be able to live their life how they want.  Everyone should have access to birth control in some way (as well as abortion.)

    1. what a lovely slab of text, it has neatly described the difference between modern intelligent conservatism and American popular conservatism. You have slightly restored my faith and violated ‘tea party wack-job’ confirmation bias.

      1. Well personally if I was just looking for the physical pleasure of sex I can take care of that myself.  Obviously having another person involved makes things that much better, but it also makes it that much better when I know that person on something more than a friend or random person level. 

        Sure I can throw out the “L” word and say that I, personally, want there to be love in the relationship when there is sex involved, but again that’s just me.  Like I stated above to each their own.

        Besides I think the bread might just get in the way….I’m thinking more along the lines of garlic butter or herb infused olive oil.

  11. There is an awful lot of simplistic reasoning on the right for why Romney lost (Bill O’Reilly’s insistence that half the country was bribed with welfare checks, for example), but this one might take the cake.  I hope the GOP decides to go after the “slut vote” next election, THAT would make for some entertaining politics.  I can see the focus groups now: “OK all you whores, what do we have to do to get your vote?”  (looks out across a room of single mothers and college students with their mouths agape.)

    1. “OK all you whores, what do we have to do to get your vote?”  

      “Okay, no, we won’t do that” 

      “uhh, nope, sorry, we won’t do that, feed them yourself or they starve to death”

      “Again, we want your votes and we will do what you want to get them, if it’s in the Bible, RTFM!”

      “Okay, yes, that’s in the Bible, but we won’t do that, pick a verse on either side of that one”

      “but not that one!” 

      “Goddam whores just do what we tell you! Urrrggh!”

  12. Everyone knows the framers of the constitution intended slutting be restricted to white, landowning men. I don’t know how they could have been more clear.

    1. As a white (non-landowning, lol) man…yeah. Everybody ought to have noticed this by now, but we’re unbelievable sluts! Or at least, those of us who get the chance. Unlike, I’m suspecting, this guy.

  13. The irony of  thinking that Mary, the mother of Jesus, faced the serious risk of having been called a slut by her newlywed husband –which would have carried the penalty of death– because she accepted to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit, according to the New Testament.

    Yet it was Joseph’s compassion which enabled the rise of this gentleman’s faith.

    “Don’t judge, lest you be judged.” I think I read that somewhere…

  14. The right-wing has a tough job here. They have to convince me that:

    1. There are throngs of women campaigning for the right to be carefree libertines having wild and unattached sex with random partners while ensuring through birth control that their encounters don’t result in parenthood.

    2. That this is the least bit upsetting.

    1. I believe that is the point about the talk of ‘alphas’ in this post – they want to have carefree sex with random handsome, successful partners, who are not you (ie, sad and gross ‘men’s defense’ blog reader).

      1. But that’s what happens with strict monogamy. It seems to me that if you’re a sad and gross men’s defense blog reader, you have a better chance in a world full of loose women than in a world where women choose one awesome guy and quit.

        1. I get kind of a “divorced and bitter” vibe from the blog author.  I think he had bought into the idea that he could snag a woman, get married, and then utterly neglect her for the rest of his life while she served him.  Then she kicked him to the curb after Oprah taught her that her sexual needs were legitimate, and that her mate should at least be trying to meet them.

          He should move to my town; I know lots of guys that are unemployed and the wife works — and cooks, and cleans, and does the laundry, and kid-wrangles…

        2. I think the problem is you’re applying logic.

          But I also think the sad and gross man might be laboring under the belief that part of restricting a woman’s right to be “loose” also includes making them completely subservient, thereby creating a world where he can choose a woman and order her to marry him and she will have no right to deny him.

      2. That is how they think, isn’t it? A “bitch” is “a woman who doesn’t put out.” A “slut” is “a woman who puts out, but not for you.” As a mindset, it’s almost as funny as it is repulsive.

        1. Walk into any bar/nightclub with a “hot chick” and follow her around and listen to the bro-dudes as they attempt to engage her. First she’s fine, then she’s a bitch, then she’s a slut, and usually ends as a lesbian, sometimes this takes 5 minutes.

      3. Agreed…the “alpha” was really glaring and revealing in the middle of all the usual conservative boilerplate.

  15. My favorite part is where they say we want nothing more than to slut around and have abortions, and then in the next breath say we just want to sponge off the government with our welfare babies.  At the same time.

    And WE’RE bad at logic?

    1. Christian Republican victim mentality, they can’t win.

      First they have to witness you flouting God’s law with your sex and contraception.

      Take away teh contraception, ignore the sex flouting God’s law with nature’s contraception, the first trimester.

      Ohh, but then we have to witness / pay for the abortions /aghast/

      Take away the abortions, ignore the sex flouting God’s law in all three trimesters.

      Ohhh, but then we have to pay to feed and clothe and school their bastards and bastardettes /poor me/

      They could win, but it would involve not concerning themselves with the genitals of strangers. They absolutely refuse to consider this.

  16. That site is not parody, not satire, not joking. Manboobz.com is a site that mocks the rampant misogyny in the “manosphere,” the sites that cater to men’s rights activists, pick up artists, etc., to which the site undoubtedly belongs.  There’s a whole world of misogyny-loving men that post the most virulent, hateful, false, and downright threatening things about women.  Dave Futrelle, the guy behind manboobz.com, does an excellent, thorough, and funny takedown of awful posts like these.  It’s well worth a visit to open one’s eyes to these fringe asshats the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a hate movement.  http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/.  Is it really hard to believe the article is serious?  It’s really just a fraction more reactionary and awful than the things that came out of the mouths of “mainstream” Republican candidates and media figures.

    1.  To be fair, I’ve overheard the way women talk about men when they think they’re out of earshot.

      1. Yes, and men are an inherently oppressed group that had to fight to get the vote, are still fighting for equal pay, and have to endure unimaginable shaming and outright threats if they come forward to report sexual assault.  The men on sites like that one talk about women as children, chattel, actively defend abuse, believe we should not be able to vote, believe that we are all inherently succubi who just want to fuck the hot “alpha” then sucker some “beta” dude to marry us so we can then turn around and divorce him and take away his kids and all his monies.  To be fair, you have no clue what you’re talking about.

      2. To be fair, you’ve overheard the way some women talk about some men when they think you can’t hear them.

        Not all women talk about men in the way you are implying.
        Just as not all men are misogynistic-MRA freaks.

        1. Yup, I’ve heard men say terrible things about women when no women are around.  But c’mon, it’s different when women do it, right?

          1. Of course! When women talk about men when men aren’t around we do it in silk teddy pyjamas while we have gentle pillow fights and fall in a tumble on the bed together.

    2. I live in Michigan.  There are men here who do not fear social reprisal when they make themselves known to be misogynist fools.  Even saw one on the news after he was busted illegally dumping onto the middle of a Detroit street.  Want to see it?

      This guy is not a lone wolf in the Michigan wilderness.  It’s fairly common to stumble upon shameless, open misogyny here (thank you ever so much, WRIF). 

      1. Wow. Did you know that Igor Dickheadovic doesn’t listen to no women? I had no idea. Fortunately he said it at least three times before I stopped watching.

        Wow.

    3. Did you actually read the SPLC article you linked to?

      Or did you just glaze over the parts where they point out that there are extremist views on the feminist side as well?  The parts where women on blogs call for physical harm to men, genetic/chemical reprogramming, and so forth.

      But that’s all okay because women have been the victims for so long that they deserve a little room to express their pent up rage, right?

      Or maybe it’s just the fact that both sides of the aisle share extremist views on the fringe.

      1. Did you read it?  For comprehension?

        Of course, some radical feminists do hate men, and when MRAs lurk in members-only chat rooms and cherry pick their angriest, most shockingly over-the-top posts to reprint on their own sites, as an MRA “mole” did at a forum called RadFemSpeak (which is not affiliated with RadFem Hub), they commit the same injustice they accuse the SPLC of doing to themselves. No one makes a very favorable impression when they’re spewing bile.

        Man-hating is marginal on the feminist side.  Woman-hating is not marginal on the anti-feminist side.

      2. Do you mean like Valerie Solonas, who created the Society for Cutting Up Men?  Or even Firestone or Dworkin?  Hardly mainstream feminist, even in the 60s/70s.

  17. Yo, I am pro-abortion, beyond even a staunch defense of there being zero legal barriers against it. And fairly libertarian-right in a lot of ways.

    Bodily integrity and autonomy is part of it – you have a right to remove whatever portion of your body you wish, and unless it can live on its own, that’s what a baby is. (that is where I draw the line, so I do support restrictions on very-late-term abortion.) but I am also a thoroughgoing atheist who thinks all ‘sacredness of life’ type arguments are incredibly spurious, especially from people who claim to be nonreligious. I would encourage contraception over abortion, to be sure, just because I think it’s dumb and wasteful to not prevent a costly medical procedure. But there are too many adults and children living exploited lives and dying awful, impoverished deaths, for me to give even a third of a shit about POTENTIAL humans.

    Abortion curbs population growth in a voluntary way, and offers a way out for those who might otherwise bring a life into circumstances of terrible suffering – thus I full-throatedly support it.

    so there. I am one of these serious, open, pro-abortion folks you don’t think exist. Not trolling, though I will admit that it gives me pleasure to see how uncomfortable this position makes many supposedly atheistic abortion-rights supporters.

    1. Aw, dang, this was supposed to be in reply to a comment up the page about how nobody is ‘pro-abortion.’

    2. pro-abortion is a silly meaningless term, good that it is limited to comedians.

      You are as much pro-abortion as you are pro-catheter, pro-root canal, pro-appendectomy, pro-fissurectomy, or any other medical procedure. None are mandatory.

      1.  To the contrary – “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are weasel words. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion describe the actual political and moral argument taking place, but we (particularly Americans) live in a society addicted to euphemisms.

        I have no problems with describing myself as “pro-abortion”.

    3.  But you’re not even pro-abortion. You’re not saying ‘everyone *must* have abortions’ – that’s the true opposite of ‘everyone must NOT have abortions’. You’re saying people should have access to abortions if they choose to do so. That’s pro-choice, the middle ground. I think people forget that.

    4. I used to be against late term abortions as well, but then I thought about it.  Who is getting late term abortions?  Mothers who are just unfit or incapable of raising a child would have the abortion early, when they find out that they’re pregnant and it’s still relatively cheap. 

      The people who are looking into late term abortions are the saddest of the lot.  The people who were planning to have the kid and discovered only late that there is some sort of horrible medical problem (birth defect) and they don’t want to bring a special needs child into the world who is going to live in agony for a few years and then die, not when they could try again for a healthy child.

      IMHO, it’s cruel to force those parents to have the child and then force them to raise it for a couple of years, constantly in and out of the hospital, before it mercifully dies from some other medical complication and they get to bury it, simply because they lost big time on the genetic dice roll.

      1. OH THANK GOODNESS someone else sees why late-term abortion isn’t what the media makes it out to be. 

        Anyone who wants to totally outlaw late-term abortion really have no fucking clue the reasons why a woman would be getting one to begin with.

        1. I always say I would love to live in this mythical world the pro-lifers speak of. The world where all pregnancies are planned and wanted, where mothers never get life threatening illness, where all babies develop fully and normally and without illnesses or life threatening conditions, where all babies have two parents, where no one gets raped, where incest doesn’t exist, where no babies die in utero, and there is no need for free clinic services for mamograms, cancer treatment or STDs because apparently they must not exist.

          I would seriously love to live in that world.

  18. As a slut (albeit a male one), I’m not very offended. I’m not American, but if I was, me and all the other sluts like me would form a rather large voting block; especially if you include all the people who secretly want to be sluts but are afraid of how society would judge them. If a party decided to make the right to slut their main issue, they would find support, (so long as it creates jobs).

    1. I suspect the set of “people who secretly want to be sluts” includes damn near everyone. Certainly most men. But there appears to be some very complicated psychology going on. I think a lot of people want to be promiscuous while everyone else is not.

  19. I’m slutting RIGHT NOW. (because I use birth control!) And I will happily be all about getting rid of ladies-only carriages once women are issued miniature but powerful cattle prods for gropers. 

  20. I thought the definition of  slut was a woman with the sexual morals of a man or a corporation.

    1. If you’re a man: A woman who sleeps with anyone but you.

      If you’re a woman: A woman who seduces a man you had expected would seduce you.

  21. The author must be a real hoot at parties.  Then again, the parties he would attend must be uber-hoots in themselves.

    I wonder if we’re going to see a lot of this nasty stuff oozing from the cracks now that its adherents are feeling their imminent extinction as anything but oddities…

    1.  They won’t go quietly into the the night, that’s for sure.

      BUT, on the other hand, the wrong approach would be to start persecuting them. There’s nothing more tantalizing than the forbidden fruit ;)

  22. That man has the least christian point of view I’ve read in a long time. He clearly hates women, the poor, and the needy. He sits in judgment though using his world view he is a sinner. He also politically supported a heretic.

    This is the kind of person that drove me to atheism in the first place.

    1. Mary Magdalene was either a) a redeemed prostitute; b) Jesus’s wife; or c) a widow or divorced woman. Take your pick.

      But whatever the right answer, we can be sure of one thing. She was a strong, brave and independent woman. IMO more brave and deserving of the title ‘apostle of Jesus’ than his male followers, who were cowering behind closed doors, while she went out to Jesus’s tomb to cleanse his body –and, according to the NT, was for this the first human to witness Jesus in glorious form.

      While men cower, women lead by example. I so wish for its sake that the Church starts to remember that.

  23. And I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t been actually, really, honestly groped without consent (aka sexually assaulted) multiple times during her lifetime.  I honestly can’t recall the number of times it’s happened to me, because the experience is so fucking prevalent.   *EYEROLL*  This faux-concern over menz who are falsely accused identifies you for what you are.  Even if your tragic story of suicide is true and the man in question was 100% innocent, the false reporting rate for rape and other types of sexual assault is the same as the false reporting rate for every other crime, but menz don’t sit around concern trolling and wringing their hands over hurt feewings about people who falsely report theft or other crimes.

    1. “but menz don’t sit around concern trolling and wringing their hands over hurt feewings about people who falsely report theft or other crimes.”

      what about people who, according to the accusers, falsely report unemplyment? Or falsely report ethnic heritage? Or voter suppression?

      I think there is PLENTY of hand wringing and concern trolling about people who falsely report other crimes, and that’s why I ask if you’re SURE it’s other people trolling.

      It’s an honest question.

      1.  Point stands, though.  Women are so routinely sexually assaulted that it’s almost never reported.  Even outright rape is horrendously underreported.  Given that, what’s the point of bringing up the “false reports” argument over and over?  Yes, it’s possible and has probably happened a few times.  Are you providing evidence that it’s a really prevalent problem?  A really serious problem?  A more serious problem than the prevalence and underreporting of sexual assault and rape?

        Honest questions, all.  Why do you think there’s parity between false accusations of sexual assault and rape and actual occurrences of those things?  And if you don’t think there’s parity why do you keep bringing it up?

        1. yeppers it is always a deflection. And no surprise that the supporters and participants of these weird man sites need to keep that knife in the draw, ready at all times.

          After all, is there any chance at all that the rate at which these crimes (rape, sexual assault) are being committed is lesser among the group that is demonstrably openly disdainful of women as a group?

          1.  i would really rather you not paint me as a participant or supporter of such a site. It’s a bit of an own-goal.

    2. Actually, the false reporting rate for rape is virtually nil…much lower than the rate for other crimes.

      Something about your post made me think of something I heard a police officer say once: everyone gets mad when they get a ticket and will argue that it’s completely unfair and they shouldn’t have gotten it for one reason or another….but they conveniently forget all the OTHER times they committed the same offense and got away with it.

      The number of men getting away with various sexual crimes is a lot higher than we realize, because most of them aren’t reported, let alone caught.  And when they are caught, no matter what they claim, it’s really not their first time.  Just the first time getting caught.

      And speaking from experience: groping can really hurt!  I think it’s because the guy doesn’t know how many layers of fabric he might have to fight through, so at least some of them hit you with a death grip.

  24. Important point to be made and worth a post?  Yes.  
    Worth reading a bunch of argumentative comments that seem to lead nowhere?  No. 

  25. I don’t understand. Reproductive rights for women are one of my top issues and I’m a man. Does that make me a slut?

    By labeling the majority of women sluts though, the word certainly does lose its power. I could easily write the opposite about anti-choice women being the prude vote.

  26. I know when I got pregnant, my first thought was “Oh no! Everyone’s going to know that I’m not Daddy’s Pure Snowflake Princess!” and not “Oh well. Gotta take half-time credits now”. 

    *shakes head* My worry as a young mom wasn’t what people would think of me, it was “Ooookaaaaayyyy…how do I make this thing not die?”

    Sadly, I was grossly unaware of the cash and prizes aspect, which is why it took 8 years to graduate college.

  27. I really gotta stop reading this stuff. It makes me too angry. In the first paragraph, he says women shouldn’t even be involved in government (because, y’know, Obama’s too hot). Yeah, sure, you’re sane…

  28. B-Skillet is crazy, a pathological woman-hater. I’ll bet you a dozen doughnuts that he obsessively talks and fantasizes about sex, especially all those evil slutty women who won’t give him any, yet expect to be treated like human beings.

    Christianity has nothing to do with it. Go back and re-read the excerpt. There’s not a word about religion in it. It’s all about sex, sluts, and misogyny.

    1. I have no doubt about that. And by no means do I presume that his work represents that of mainstream Christians, any more than bin Laden represents mainstream Muslim culture.

    2. Don’t forget to read some of his replies to comments, the guy says he would support a monarchy.  Apparently his reading comprehension and grasp of history is severely flawed if he thinks living under a monarchy will be better than the democracy we have now.  (unless of course he thinks he’d be the king of that monarchy)

  29. Bill Hicks!
    “Hey buddy, we’re Christians. We don’t like what you said.” I said, “Then forgive me”.

  30. I am a person with pretty conservative personal values, yet I think men and women have a fundamental right to slut, take drugs for non-medical reasons, and make a whole host of other (possibly bad) choices.

    Morality isn’t about sex or drugs. It’s about being honest and respectful to yourself, your spouse, or whoever else you have dealings with.

    It’s morally wrong to take sexual advantage of people who can’t give meaningful consent, and it’s especially wrong to not do anything about scumbag people who do.

    I also believe everyone also needs to suck it up and own their choices, the ones that have both good and bad outcomes.

    Laws that make birth control and abortion difficult to get, or penalties for drug use more harsh serve a very specific purpose. They act as “penalty multipliers” for our choices. 

    Doing something stupid under this system means that instead of a painful detox, a difficult and traumatizing medical experience, or losing your job, you might also face a lifetime of incarceration, poverty or death.

    The idea that “if the penalties are too high, nobody will do it” just doesn’t seem work very well when it comes to things people do to themselves.  Making it easier to clean up the wreckage seems like a better policy.

  31. As it has been said, “a whore sleeps with everybody, a slut sleeps with everybody *except you*.”   I wonder if B-Skillet realizes that he’s telling us more about his lack of success with the ladies than he is telling us about the election.

  32. So why is this poor Christian Man’s complaint disappearing from the google cache and wordpress and such?  Is he working to suppress his own writing or is someone else doing the  work?  

    As a generally liberal supporter of the quaint notion that women are people too, I think the Democrats would want to help this Christian Man Defender spread his message far and wide as long as it’s branded with the GOP label.

  33. Appears the ‘not a parody’ and the ‘webcache’ links both lead to 404’s. Now how will we ever learn this person’s name and what s/he/it looks like in their DMV photo? 

Comments are closed.