“I’m your vehicle, baby; I’ll take you anywhere you want to go.”

Eventually they figure out that they’ve been taken for a ride.

I believe that nearly all of the “feminist males” we see marching with the “feminist females” are merely beta males looking to get laid. 

Cynical?  Yes.   But cynicism and realism are separated by a very thin line.  There’s more truth to Stacy’s point than feminists may want to admit.

Creepiest little man in America the #Weiner

After viewing all of those pressers he threw (it really is TRUE about being fascinated by train-wrecks)  this go-around couldn’t come around any harder.

Stay classy dems.

If the internet was not around he would be the guy beating off in the bushes outside some girls window.

It was true of me in the 1970′s.  I can’t have been the only one.

There’s a term for this: macktivism.

It’s the same reason a lot of guys went to the anti-war demonstrations back in the 60′s. That’s where the pu**y was.

What vulgar nonsense.  Suggesting that all priests “fuck” “alter” (sic) boys?  Really? 

At least the priests committing these offences admit they are wrong, unlike the apologists for Weiner (like you) who try to suggest that somehow he is not a hypocrite because he is not some sort of “family values” person.  

You misunderstand the meaning of hypocrisy, which is saying something that you do not believe.  The family values guys whose behaviour is inconsistent with their words believe their words are correct – they just (like all humans) fall short of their higher aspirations. 

The point RSM is making is that it is unlikely that uber feminist men actually believe what they are saying, but are simply saying it to get something.  That is hypocrisy (and Weiner is an arch hypocrite).  Your example, isn’t.

Carolina doesn’t “misunderstand” anything, Toby.  Carolina is being deliberately obtuse.  It’s an old troll tactic, intended to change the direction of the discussion.

Carolina knows full well what Stacy means.   She just doesn’t agree, and is happy to misrepresent herself if that’s what it takes to kill the meme that Weiner is a liar and a hypocrite, like most lefties.

What vulgar nonsense.  Suggesting that all priests “fuck” “alter” (sic) boys?  Really?

That would be so (for you), if you are deluding yourself that all ‘male feminists’ are there to only get some pussy.

Apparently, any time a woman expressed any kind of positive interest in his rants, Fast Tony made a point of following/friending her back and then conversing with her.  And, apparently, it didn’t take long before he turned the conversation to sex.

Fast Tony took any opening a woman gave him and decided it was an invitation from her for him to make sexual overtures.

And that’s probably pretty common from leftie men.

They don’t support a woman’s right to choose because they believe in a woman’s right to choose; they support it because it means sex with no consequences.

They nod their heads in agreement when feminists equate sexual empowerment with having lots of sex not because they want women to be empowered, but because they want plenty of easy partners who’ll give it up at the drop of a hat.

People like Fast Tony are all about using women.  Leftie men who claim to give a damn about women’s rights only say that because they want to get into those women’s panties.

Fast Tony was not only happy to use any woman who said how much she liked his performance at a public appearance (and then drop her once he’d scored), he was also more than happy to use them again by asking them to cover for him in this scandal, thus adding insult to injury.

And if leftie women like you don’t start seeing these creeps for the loser-users they are, then they’re never going to learn and will continue to behave like utter boors.

But please, keep on defending him with your moral relativism. It just confirms my suspicions that leftist women are the dumbest twats on the planet.

“….beta male IS the alpha male, a different viewpoint and  a different sphere” is true only if you re-define “alpha male” to mean whatever you want it to mean at the time.  I don’t (see #2).

Redefining words is a classic leftie ploy to seize control of the conversation.  By saying “….beta male IS the alpha male, a different viewpoint and  a different sphere“, you are effectively claiming that there is no such thing as an alpha male or beta male in human society, i.e., no male hierarchy. 

There is a hierarchy in human society where men and women are “ranked” against the group for some reason, which may or may not be sex.  This is a major complaint of feminism.

So all you are doing is trying to define the hierarchy to your own standards.  And that’s an utter crock. So try again.

On second thought…..don’t try again.

Carolina that is vulgar nonsense.  Abusers of faith and trust should be condemned for their behavior.  I have no sympathy for the tiny fraction of Priests who disgraced their vows.  I have no sympathy for Weiner in abusing his wife (yes he abused her with his behavior) and his patent hypocrisy. 

Charles Johnson is a male feminist…I think I just confirmed what you just said. 

One cannot state that reality I behold is constituted by the operations I perform in distinguishing it and at the same time say it is independent of my operations, without contradicting one’s self.

I wonder if people could hold in MOST areas that reality is constituted by the operations they perform in distinguishing it, and yet not see that in one or two areas — politics, medicine, ethics, whatever — they are assuming that reality is independent of their operations.

Many of those operations are so familiar that we take them for granted and do not reflect on them. It’s fascinating to watch ourselves and others be who we are, and to learn.

Take a game of chess for example. The rules of chess are taken for granted so that if I were to move a pawn up 4 spaces someone would rightly suggest I was making a mistake. Given the assumed rules of chess. What is a ‘true’ game of chess? The one created or constituted by the rules we made up.

For simplicities sake lets take the case of two folk are talking about a ball game.
One asks the other “What sort of club do you use”?
The other says “Club? Don’t you mean racket”?
“Racket” ?
Is the response. “I disagree entirely”
You must be out of your mind!”
You play with a club!”

“You are totally wrong there. You mean racket. You do not see reality (the truth, freedom, non-duality or whatever you will etc etc) properly. You are ignorant of the One True Game”. –according to Sri Sri bow-down Swami- Tennisji who sat under The Tennis Tree in 2004BCE and had a Supreme Tennis Awakening.

The argument usually ends with both parties retiring to their corners each reckoning the other is totally wrong. They are, of course, playing different games.

As I reckon we are often doing on this blog when folk disagree.

Well, of course I did. One of the things that reveals feminism as a false philosophy is the insistence of its adherents that only they are permitted to discuss its meaning or history. And any effort by critics to point out its errors or shortcomings is automatically rejected in much the same way that criticism of communism was rejected during the Cold War: “Oh, the Soviet gulags, the Ukrainian terror-famine, the show trials and so forth — these are not true communism!” The fact that revolutionary Marxism everywhere was associated with totalitarain police states was, somehow, never accepted as evidence of any inherent flaw in  revolutionary Marxism per se.

Likewise, whenever we have a “teachable moment” like the WeinerGate scandal — with feminists compelled into ridiculous defenses of a selfish exploiter who, until the truth was known, they hailed as a hero of their cause — the feminists hasten to assure us that this cannot possibly signify any fundamental error of the feminist credo. No, this was not true feminism, we are told, because it is impossible that true feminism could ever have any bad result.

This is pure humbug, and when any man points out that it is humbug, the feminists seize upon the hostility to their nonsensical ideology as proof that the male critic hates women! Thus, their critics are automatically discredited, so that no feminist need ever heed any external criticism.

“Epistemic closure,” you might say.

The liberals have always been the nastiest of ideologies and the women who call themselves that and follow that crowd ie: NOW are self haters.  To listen to liberal men in groups when speak of women whether Conservative or not is a lesson is misogynist speech.   I laugh every time a see a leftist female defend a leftist male against such speech and actions because I know as a woman myself that they loathe themselves and I revel in the knowledge that I am superior to them in loving myself…LOL!

Shut your hatehole, you ignorant slut.

Your gg/Anamika persona’s weren’t any brighter.

I think you hit upon it. Probably they know, but they are blinded by their own self-delusion. But that’s probably just as true of their male castrati counterparts. It makes sense and also serves to explain why they are so hateful and strident towards their opponents, especially when they are openly chastised or challenged. Nothing is guaranteed to bring out the rage in a leftist more than when they are forced to take a deep look inside at their own shortcoming and failures. If this is true in a general sense, how much more true would it be regarding personal, secret sexual matters?

BTW, Stacy, the full quote is: You can’t cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.

“At the same time, doing good is always generally its own reward: We feel
good about ourselves when we do the right thing, and consistently doing
so will tend to enhance one’s reputation. So there are essentially
self-serving incentives even for actions that may appear altruistic.”

Precisely Heinlein’s point, on all counts. People do things because they are getting rewarded in some fashion, even if the rewards are intangible. Anyone who claims that they are doing something purely for someone else’s good is deceiving someone, even if it is only themselves.

And what Heinlein said dovetails rather neatly with Jesus’ insistence that good works are best performed as anonymously as possible.

Their egos are not the only thing they stroke, IYKWIMAITYD.

Trouble is, too many of those guys were willing to sacrifice their testicular fortitude just to get some.  I saw it all the time when I was playing gigs in and going to the clubs.

I thought you were leaving, Anamika.  How so like a leftie, going back on your word.