An Open Post to the Harris Brothers

I recently came across a post on Rebelution, a blog hosted by Alex and Brett Harris (younger brothers of the Evangelical writer Joshua Harris). It adjured young people to grow up and take responsibility for themselves. I have no problem with that message (1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10). What I do have a problem with is the presumptuous notion that growing up includes the obligatory embrace of matrimony. Single men, except for a few oddballs, must get married, donch’a know? Uh, no. Sorry. I think Alex and Brett are misusing the Scriptures on that point. It’s that simple.

So, in light of this, I posted a TrackBack from a recent post here (“Does God Expect Most Men to Get Married?“) to their respective post. What they do? Did they defend their teachings? Did they come over here and challenge mine? Nope. They deleted my TrackBack. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am disappointed. What is the matter with so many Evangelicals these days? For all their talk about being brave and standing for the truth of God’s word, they seem to resort to drastic measures when another Bible-believer points out their misapplication of Scriptures.

With all due respect to you, fellas, I believe that you and your famous brother Joshua Harris are incorrect in your understanding of courtship, sex roles, etc. Don’t take this personally. If you want to presume to tell other people what to do with their lives, you better have a “thus saith the Lord” (1 Peter 4:11). Indeed, the Scriptures state that very few should be teachers (James 3:1).

So, if you are really men for God, gird up thy loins, and make answer to me. Defend your application of Genesis 2:24. I daresay it is not a biding commandment on us today. What do you say? Point out the error of my ways. If I am in error, do you think the God wants me to stay there?

Or may you should accept that fact that you have been defeated by the very truths of the Book you claim to follow. If you cannot defend your teachings, you need to hold your tongue, lest the word of God make you out to be a liar (Proverbs 30:6). If the task is too great a task for you, get your brother Josh over here. In fact, get Albert Mohler or John Piper. Have they built upon their foundations with straw or stone? Can their works stand the test of fire? Are their foundations even of stone? Or sand?

Perhaps you are annoyed at such a challenge and are purposing in your heart not to dignify my words with a response. Very well, but remember that I have a wide audience, too … of indignant men who are tired of being pushed around by the Status Quo. I have no desire to impugn your motives. Let me just say this: Like the Pharisees of old, today’s cultural conservatives want to tie burdens on the back of the common man. I’m not putting up with it anymore. Those who push man-made, culture-bound, traditionalist teachings can run away from a challenge, but they can’t hide. If it is the Lord’s will, I will continue my expose of the anti-single bigotry and misandry that is prevalent among Evangelicals.

Does God Expect Most Men to Get Married? (Introducing the PMV Bible)

I have read a lot of commentary from religious leaders about single people. In particular, I note that several Evangelical commentators believe God ordains a minority of souls to be single. Everyone else, on the other hand, is supposed to get married. In fact, some pundits now talk about the “sin of delaying marriage.”

Until now, I could never figure out where some people were getting the notion that God expects most people to marry. How could they deal with the Apostle Paul’s clear teachings on singleness? Then it occurred to me. These religious leaders must have a different Bible than I do! I guess my mistake was in using texts such as the King James Version, New King James Version, and yes, even the fourth edition of the UBS Greek New Testament. But don’t worry. I think I tracked down the version these people are using. I refer to none other than the newly published Pro-Marriage Version of the Bible (PMV), released by the Familianity International Institute of Evangelical Eisegesis. To get an idea of the scholarship that lies behind the celebrated PMV, I want to show you how so many scriptures read in this version of the Bible when compared to, say, the King James Version (KJV):

Genesis 1:27-28

(KJV): So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish and the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

(PMV): So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them. Then it was commanded you, having been said to you, dear reader, “Keep multiplying, whether the earth is full or not.”

Genesis 2:18

(KJV): And the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

(PMV): And then it was said, “Not only is it bad for Adam to be alone, but it is bad for other men to be alone, too! Women are made for all of them.” And, lo it was reckoned that all women are God’s gift to men, or at least many act like they are.

Genesis 2:24

(KJV): Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

(PMV): Therefore let us move beyond mere explanations for why a man seeks out a woman. Let’s go on to say that all men must do this. It so decreed! End of discussion.

Proverbs 18:22

(KJV): Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor from the Lord.

(PMV): Only those who findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor from the Lord. Every else lives the desperate life of a sad loser. Ignore other passages in Proverbs about contentious women, women who make their husbands ashamed, and hateful women who get married. Of course, one wonders about a woman who seeketh a husband. What does she findeth? “A meal ticket,” sayeth an ornery, old man. May someone maketh the old man shut up.

Proverbs 19:14

(KJV): Houses and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.

(PMV): House and riches are what you get when you become a Dad, and a prudent wife is from the Lord. So what are you waiting for? You’re commanded to enjoy the Good Life! Oh, by the way, peanuts and wheat are also from the Lord, so you better partake of these blessings whether you have allergies or not! Why? Because if it is good and if it is from the Lord, you are commanded to partake of it! You are not allowed to question the basis of our interpretation! We find your lack of faith disturbing! By the way, ignore other passages in Proverbs about contentious women, women who make their husbands ashamed, and hateful women who get married.

Ecclesiastes 9:9

(KJV): Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity …

(PMV): Live with a wife, joyfully or not, all of the days of the life of thy vanity …

Malachi 2:15

(KJV): And did not He make one? Yet had He the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a godly seed …

(PMV): And did not He make one? Yet had He the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a godly seed. And who are the godly seed? Why Christian families! Surely they must be same the “holy seed” of Ezra 9:2. You know, since Christian families are the “holy seed” by birthright, not only do they refuse to marry foreigners, but they also sacrifice bulls and goats and stay away from pork!

Matthew 19:10-11

(KJV): His disciples say unto Him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it not good to marry.” But He [Jesus] said to unto them, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”

(PMV): His disciples say unto Him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it not good to marry.” But the reply was given, “Most men cannot receive the saying, ‘It is good to be single.’” And the disciples were amazed because that wasn’t quite what they said.

1 Corinthians 7:2

(KJV): Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

(PMV): Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have a wife, whether she be his own or not, and let every woman have a husband, whether he be her own or not! Yea, every man and woman must do this, except for a few oddballs, and even though I am going to turn around and say something on behalf of singleness! Do I contradict myself? I speak in clever Parables!

1 Corinthians 7:7

(KJV): For I wish that all men were even as I myself, but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

(PMV): For I wish that a few oddballs could be as I myself, but as for others who are like myself, they may not have the wonderful Gift of Singleness. Only a mysterious, select few have the vaunted Gift of Singleness. Now how can a Christian be simultaneously single and not yet have the Gift of Singleness is beyond me. I guess that if you are currently blessed with singleness and yet, don’t have the wonderful Gift of Singleness, then the singleness you are experiencing is a clever illusion. Therefore, you must stop being single because you really are not having the gift, even though it appears that you are. Enough! My head hurts. Don’t bother me with hard questions, you silly Corinthians!

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

(KJV): I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

(PMV): I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

—–

Wait a minute! That last verse looks the same in both versions! Yep. And too bad they are not the same as what is written in the original language. The phrase “cannot contain” is not in the Greek manuscripts, folks. It should be translated as “will not contain.” Yes, dear reader. We can claim that the Word of God is inerrant, but our English translations are a different story altogether.

Now you can tell that I used some sarcasm in most of the verses above to make a point. But let us not stop just yet. Here are some verses that are not in the Pro-Marriage Version of the Bible:

Proverbs 12:4

A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.

Proverbs 21:9

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

Proverbs 30:21-23

For three things the earth is disquieted and for four it cannot bear: for a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat; for an odious woman when she is married; and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38

But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

—–

Oh boy, that last verse seems to put a nail in the coffin of the idea that God mandates most people to get married. That also puts the kibosh on telling people to “be fruitful and multiply” and to have “godly seed.” After all, it looks like God has given some people a genuine choice in the matter and He doesn’t seem think His sovereignty has been compromised by human beings exercising free will. Are there any Reformed Protestant theologians squirming in their seats because I said that? Tough.

Now let me say something in particular to any religious men that may be reading this. The idea that God wants most men to get married cannot be proven from the Scriptures. Someone might say that marriage is the norm in the Bible. Folks, agriculture is a norm in the Bible, too. Big, hairy deal. Anybody that tries to shame you into thinking that you need to get married and have children so that you can “grow up” and fulfill the “pattern of Biblical manhood” is selling you a Sam’s Club-sized vat of snake oil. Ignore such a person, and go your own way in this matter.

Who’s Afraid of Not Getting Laid?

Male feminists are a curious bunch. They want the rest of us men to believe that they can liberate us from the prisons of our own device. They say we are slaves to old stereotypes about masculinity. And yet some of these fellows make much ado about the sex lives of MRAs. Sigh. I guess some people still think manhood is dependent upon copulation with women. Consider this recent quip from Hugo Schwyzer:

“On the other hand, MRAs are angry because they feel that men are being manipulated and ‘used’ by ’scheming women’; they are frustrated, I suspect, both by their own inability to gain access to women and by their own vulnerability to flirtation and arousal. They become enraged by what they desire but generally cannot have.”

Ah, yes, the old “bitter men who can’t get laid” shtick. This wouldn’t be like men calling feminists “bitter, fat women who can’t get laid,” now would it? The feminists regard this charge against them as being utterly stupid and besides the point in their great battle against sexist double-standards. Yes, I said sexist double-standards (which obviously doesn’t cover the realm of cheap shots that feminists employ).

But anyway, just what kind of women should I see as desirable? Third wave feminists? Ah, those women! Gen-X fem grrls! They seem to differ from the second wavers in that they openly admit that they would like to have sex with men. Oh, well. I guess they are not going to follow through with their separatism and leave their “oppressors” alone in peace, after all.

So, I ask, who’s worried about getting laid, these days? Well, this week Hugo has pointed us all to a feminist man who is worried about getting laid. I will not cut-n-paste; let me merely direct you to the post. I think it speaks volumes about male feminists. By the way, you lurkers can tell ol’ Jedmunds that turn about is fair play.

You Have Been Warned

(Do not go to Amanda Marcotte’s blog under any circumstance.)

Transcript of the Gender Wars: A Wake-Up Call

I’ve come across an item circulating around the Internet entitled, “The Transcript of the Gender Wars.” The contents of this document are sufficient to make any self-respecting, thinking man indignant about gynocentrism and misandry. I found a permanent link to a copy on a blog here. Give it read, and realize just how sick and morally deficient our society has become in its treament of men.

Why Buy a Sleeping Cow When You Can Just Push Her Over?

My goodness, the contortions that feminists go through to stand up for the interest of women! There is quite a fuss being made about the statement, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” The idea behind this adage is that a man will not be interested in marrying a woman if he thinks he can have sex without any sacrificial commitment. Conservatives are supposedly using this notion to scare women away from promiscuous lifestyles. If the lady doesn’t put out so easily, the man will bite the bullet and get hitched (or so the thinking goes). This, of course, has the feminists riled up. Who are the right-wingers to tell women that they should keep their pants zipped if they want to get married?! Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies! Phoebe Maltz declares that women want sex (as if we didn’t know that). Amy Lamboley says that women are not cows that give sex away for free. She declares that feminism hasn’t made women cheap; instead, women have become more sexually valuable by demanding more from their relationships! Amy has apparently overlooked amateur porn.

Anyway, it’s all fine and good for female bloggers to yammer on about their own personal demands, but they aren’t answering the question why a man would want to be involved with a woman these days. So we get this from the Ezra Klein blog:

Why would a single man marry a woman who’s already having sex with him? Obviously, because he loves her, and wants her to be with him for the rest of his life. Maybe he also wants to be the father of her children. Being in love inspires men to do big things like marrying a woman and raising a family with her. Women have many wonderful attributes beyond being people whom one can have sex with. Some of these attributes might cause one to wish to be in a particular woman’s company for the rest of one’s life. (I feel like I’m stating excessively obvious things here, but the conservative view seems to depend on denying them. So I state the obvious things.)

If a man is getting married just so he can have lots of sex with a woman who wouldn’t have him otherwise, he’s making a mockery of marriage and an awful decision. Do the old sexists who say these things see their marriages as long-term prostitution contracts? Is the emotion of love entirely foreign to them?

Nice gushy sentiments. I never thought I would hear these from a social liberal. It’s hilarious to watch someone who wants the benefit of “free love” suddenly wax eloquent about commitment, fatherhood, etc. Cue the Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kincaide pictorials, folks. But seriously, wasn’t it the feminists that cried that marriage was an oppressive, patriarchal institution?

Our friend at the Ezra Klein blog is wrong. Conservatives don’t look at marriage at prostitution. The social liberals do. He must have forgotten what so many second-wave feminists have declared. Our friend doesn’t understand that the feminists’ tabula rasa philosophy has, in actuality, objectified women. After all, if there is no psychological or emotional difference between the sexes, then they don’t necessarily complement each other, do they? Why would the opposite sexes seek each other out then?

Feminists might say that a woman may not “need” a man, but still “want” him. Indeed, we can quibble all day long about the difference between “wanting” and “needing” a member of the opposite sex, but desire lies behind both words. The impulse of desire implies that one wants to obtain something that he or she currently lacks. We do not talk about desiring air, unless we don’t have the quantity that we like at our disposal.

So why should men desire women? That is, what do men lack that they should seek the company of women to obtain? In answering this question, bear in mind the steep social costs that men encumber in not just being married to women, but also in other long-term relationships with women.

It seems to me that the bottom line is this: If a woman differs from a man in no other terms except for what’s between her legs, then that is the only thing that I could seek from her that I couldn’t just as easily get from another man. One could counter that I should regard her special attributes as an individual, attributes not present in any other woman or man. Granted, but what about the special attributes of my friend Leroy as an individual? His own particular “wonderful attributes” don’t get me gushy-eyed for him. Indeed, do you think liberal bloggers would be puzzled if two heterosexual men such Leroy and I decided to get married? Of course they would. They understand why women and men want to get married and why homosexuals want their illicit behavior to be called “marriage.” Sex underlies it all. In fact it is the only thing that underlies a marriage … unless you see sexuality as being more than sexual congress.

Something else our blogger has overlooked: If a woman is already having sex with a man outside of marriage, she is probably sharing a romantic relationship with him as well. The “milk” thus becomes not just the sex, but the total package of emotional intimacy. In that case, why would a man get married? He has a great friend that he has sex with on the weekends; he doesn’t have to bear the odious social responsibilities and legal liabilities of marriage. If things go sour, the two lovers can part their ways easily. The only reason he would want to get married is if he sees the physical and emotional intimacy he is getting as being reserved for marriage (as I do).

Granted, our friend gave a good excuse for a man to marry a woman, but it is only as true if one realizes that feminism is wrong. Hedonism also has to be wrong, too. The values of “love,” “supporting a family,” etc. require moving beyond the selfish sphere of instant gratification. Consideration of one’s spouse often means giving up one’s own preferences on some things. It’s difficult to give up something for the relationship if you feel that you are entitled to use your body as you please. Apparently many people understand this too late, ergo the high divorce rates.

Our liberal blogger is barking up the wrong tree. The “milk” analogy is not a conservative idea. It is a statement reflecting the logical end of libertine ideas about sexuality. I am puzzled why feminists get their panties in a wad over this maxim. The marriage rates are dropping. Isn’t this what they wanted? That is, unless they are trying to soothe the anxieties of forty-something year old spinsters who see no “good man” on the horizon that they can snag. Maybe this explains the hypocrisy of so many contemporary women who incessantly prate about being “sexually liberated” and yet whine about men “who won’t commit.” Anyway, maybe the question should be phrased, “Why buy the cow if you are a social liberal?”

Nothing New Under the Sun?

I was surfing on the ‘Net when I came across this gem …

“Alas, when people complain of men not marrying (even they who are able), they forget how little women offer in exchange for all they get by marriage. Girls are so seldom taught to be of any use whatever to a man that I am only astonished at the numbers of men who do marry! Many girls do not even try to be agreeable to look at, much less to live with. They forget how numerous they are, and the small absolute need men have of wives; but, nevertheless, men do still marry, and would oftener marry could they find mates – women who are either helpful to them, or amusing, or pleasing to their eye.”

Did some disgruntled MRA recently write this? Nope. It is a quote from the book The Art of Beauty by Mary Eliza Haweis, published in 1878.

Delusions of Amandeur

I could not pass up this little piece from Amanda Marcotte’s blog. It ties into Wednesday’s discussion involving a Salon article and Hugo’s whinging over men who won’t commit …

“Some 19-year-old girl doesn’t know her talents, goals, and ambitions. She doesn’t know that life can be very hard and very heart-breaking yet. There’s a lot she doesn’t know, but there is one thing a 19-year-old going to Yale and desiring the lifestyle of the upper middle class does know very well–the stay-at-home wife is a must-have accessory to that life. The whole child-rearing rationale doesn’t hold water and is a recent cover story for the real truth, which is that a lot of men still put their egos into having dependent wives. Back before feminism made it gauche to just come out and say this, my grandfather was blunt with my grandmother–he was not going to be humiliated by having a wife who worked, because then people would think he couldn’t take care of his business. That attitude has largely faded by necessity amongst us worker bee types, but I assure you that people who are grabbing for the other trappings of the upper class lifestyle are going to want the whole package, and that includes the dependent wife.

“If you doubt it for a second, take a gander at this load of anti-feminist trolling at Hugo’s blog. Wear a mask and goggles, because it gets ugly in there. But Hugo’s post was on the now-infamous ‘listless lads‘ article at Salon, and how women’s financial independence is going to inevitably reshape our relationships with men, to the benefit of women and to the detriment of certain illusions men have had that women have conspired in the past to keep for them. (Illusions like the ones being touted in that NY Times article, which reads like porn for social climbers if you look at from a certain angle. Women love dependence! No, really!) It doesn’t take long for the anti-feminists out there to bitterly whip out the ancient quote, ‘A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,’ and attempt to confuse the meaning of that saying.”

WAIT A MINUTE. I thought the conversation was about “listless lads.” I thought it was a WOMAN who was complaining about these guys. How did we move from an article on commitment-wary males to a sermonette on how men want to keep women dependent and needy??! Well, I guess that’s the modus operandi of feminists like Amanda: Hijack any discussion concerning men and women and turn it into a diatribe about “Patriarchy” no matter how much a ridiculous non sequitur such a detour is.

But anyway, Amanda enlightens us on the real meaning of the “fish” needing the “bicycle” …

“So let me make it clear what the word ‘need’ means in this instance. I need a man if I want some [___].”

My, my, I thought feminists were against sexual objectification. Reducing someone to that person’s reproductive organs! How dehumanizing. Do you think I could get away with saying something comparable about women? Or should I know the answer to such a question by now?

“I need a man if I am to have a boyfriend. I need a man to lift some furniture.”

I really think men should tell women like Amanda to lift the furniture their cotton’-pickin’ selves. After all, men are expected to do their own laundry and cook these days.

“I need a man in that I need my male friends, family, coworkers, internet buds and every other man in my life I lean on or just enjoy. What I don’t need a man for is to define me or make me worthy of existence.”

Good enough. While we’re renouncing attempts to defining one sex in terms of commitment to the other, we can chunk asinine statements like the following:

“Men need to focus on confronting one another in love, and encouraging our brothers to be willing to do the difficult and ultimately rewarding work our sisters are calling us to do.”

Oh, wait a minute, Hugo Schwyzer said that. Never mind. Continue, Amanda:

“But after reading that article and of course reading stuff from the religious right and the anti-feminist squad and all the other conservative [___] out there, it’s clear to me that even this small, hard-won truth for women–that we have a right to define ourselves and not be defined solely through men–is sorely resented by a lot of people. It strikes me as wholly pathetic for men to fantasize about being needed to give some woman her reason to exist. On the surface it seems like a good deal, I guess, because if someone is dependent on your financially and also for identity, she won’t be giving you much grief by disagreeing or anything like that, but still, it’s pathetic. Because if you’re needed by someone, you can never rest assured that you’re wanted by someone. Jane Austen illustrated that fact to a T a couple of centuries ago in Pride and Prejudice by having a sympathetic female character hold her nose and marry an odious male character because she needed to have a marriage to basically exist in her society. Something for men to consider before they get all excited about the idea of having a dependent, subservient wife who stays out of your way and never disagrees with you openly–you’ll never be sure, on one level or another, if she even likes you.”

Ok, guys. You know the drill: We are a bunch of culturally conservative loonies that want to strip women of their their right to live their lives as they see fit. The next meeting of the Dark Society of Patriarchal Losers and Creeps will be held at a location yet to be disclosed. George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis Presley will be present.

But seriously, I wander why Amanda continues to harbor some delusion that MRAs want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. I think of a homely girl fantasizing about men stalking her. No stalkers exist, but the girl is so starved for a sense of importance that she craves even negative attention. It reminds me of an old proverb in the Bible: “The wicked flee when no one pursues.” I cannot but believe that the same is the case for Amanda and many other feminists of her generation. There is not enough drama in their lives, so they have to create it. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Amanda recently wrote ..

“I was listlessly looking at some pathetic conservative writers continue to blame women who aren’t married for Hurricane Katrina and despairing for idiots to make fun of, and then glorious day! [emph. mine]“

Anyway, here’s the truth about nearly all the MRAs I know: MRAs have no interest in keeping women down. It’s too much work. In fact, “too much work” is the point. Hugo Schwyzer got the point; Amanda didn’t. Hugo tries to inspire men to take on the challenge of relationships with contemporary women. I suggest that if men want that kind of a challenge, they might want to consider the Peace Corps. Many a man has already asked just what can a contemporary woman offer him. Indeed, what can Amanda offer? I have an idea about that; let’s see the quote again ..

“I was … despairing for idiots to make fun of, and then glorious day!”

I rest my case, your honor. LOL. At any rate, Amanda told us what she “needs” from men. Now let me tell you what men need from Amanda – We need for her (and her like-minded sisters, for that matter) to leave us alone and to get a life.

Hugo Provides Grist for the Mill Again

Sorry, I couldn’t resist once more but …

Today, over at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog, there is much hand-wringing over some reader responses to a Salon article. Apparently, a female writer wondered aloud (like so many tiresome others before her) where all the “good men” went, and some males readers upbraided her. As some male respondents noted, they find modern women too demanding, and therefore undesirable.

Hugo’s reaction is outrageously hilarious. After decades of feminists demonizing the sexuality of men and declaring them to be dispensable, a feminist now tell us men we need to pursue relationships with today’s women! Never in my lifetime would I have expected to see a feminist adopting a stance of heterosexual pronuptialism. I thought the love/marriage-horse/carriage real-men-should-get-married-and-sire-babies schtick was solely the domain of the cultural conservatives. But it only goes to show that often what a feminist says in earnest is more amusing than any parody of the same.

What kind of women should we seek out, Hugo? The reaction of Third Wave Feminists to contemporary men can be best summed up in this statement: “You stupid, misogynist losers! We don’t need you for anything! And by the way … what is your pathetic problem that you won’t ask women like us for dates??? …. Not that WE would date you, mind you, but you still owe us an explanation for everything you do with your pitiful lives that don’t interest us in the least bit.” Anyway, I now shall utter this maxim in the face of the new feminist pronuptialists:

A man needs a feminist blogger like a fish needs a bicycle.

Now on Pay-Per-View: HugoBoy vs. the Nice Guys

I know I am breaking my code of silence regarding a certain male feminist, but here it goes …

Over at Hugo Schwyzer’s blog, our feminist MC appears to have engaged in yet another misrepresentation of some MRAs. Hugo gets the Pot/Tea Kettle Award of the Month for this statement …

“… the Nice Guys, with their penchant for personal attacks and slurs, represent an adolescent fringe.”

Sigh. Hugo, you really shouldn’t leave yourself vulnerable on that one. Anyway, in addition to the supporting comments by Hugo’s fans, there were some MRAs that called Hugo’s hand on his demagoguery. I think I saw where he deleted some content by MRAs. Hugo apparently cannot take what he so easily dishes out to others. Instead, either he or some sympathizer apparently likes to lurk on private MRA boards, quote MRAs out of context, distort them, make unfounded accusations, and knock down pathetic straw men. Then when people correct Hugo on his accusations, he seems to shut off the rising tide of dissent on his blog, creating a perfect ideological echo chamber. Ladies and gentlemen, like the T-shirts say: “This is what a feminist looks like.”