The Weird, Wacky World of Antifeminist Blogging

Glenn Sacks concedes that "Feminist Writer Ann Friedman Has a Point" about the goofiness of arguments grounded on the alleged ugliness of liberal women only to get immediate pushback from commenters:

Lack of attractiveness results in quite a few middle-aged, embittered women, women who are ready, willing, and able to declare war on men. They did not have a line of men vying for the right to support them and their life-choices, looked around for a convenient class of oppressor and learned in their Womyn's Studies that they were being oppressed by MEN all along!

9's and 10's among women generally do not NEED those artificially constructed entitlements and privileges for women - they have men willing and able to cater to their comforts and needs.

So…. don't get caught up in Ann Friendman's ovary-think, Glenn.

Also -- "Even if all feminists looked like a model their obnoxious, hate mongering will allow them the same dislike and distrust as the ugly male-haters get today." Heh. Indeed. These guys really need to read Steven Den Beste then they might realize that the only real (Anglo) women left are strippers (or something).

Comments

I see his commenters are attempting to eliminate all possiblity of parody.

Posted by Njorl | November 9, 2007 5:00 PM

Jayzus H. Key-rist..... This line of attack goes back to at least the days of Bella Abzug. I'd really like a fresher, more zany kind of fuckwittery. It's like the ghost of Spiro Agnew has taken up blogging.....

Posted by sglover | November 9, 2007 5:05 PM

I thought Matthew used to make fun of posts that dig into a comment section for purposes of making the blog look bad. I mean, I seem to recall Matthew ridiculing some posts by Glenn Reynolds or somebody looking at comments on Daily Kos after some tragedy or another. Or, maybe I'm misremembering.

In any case, the title of the post is incorrect, since it is the comments that are anti-feminist, not the blogging per se.

Posted by Al | November 9, 2007 5:07 PM

Al,

Is there any external group that you people don't think has declared war on you?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 9, 2007 5:25 PM

During a lifetime of standing around magazine racks reading magazines, I've noticed that attractive women virtually never read stand in front of the section with the serious public affairs magazines like The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, National Review, and the Economist. Instead, they flip through beauty and fashion magazines, celebrity magazines, or, if they have a wedding ring, fancy home decor magazines.

Caveat: I don't know if this is true in DC, where serious publications are much more popular than in the rest of the country, but it's definitely true in Chicago and LA.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 9, 2007 5:26 PM

Lack of attractiveness results in quite a few middle-aged, embittered men, men who are ready, willing, and able to declare war on women. They did not have a line of women vying for the right to support them and their life-choices, looked around for a convenient class of oppressor and learned in the comments to Glenn Sacks' blog that they were being oppressed by WOMEN all along!

Posted by reas | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM

And a story somewhere out there in the blogosphere about "some creepy guy with a notebook who keeps ogling women at the newstand" is suddenly explained.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM

Ahh yes- Steve Sailer-baiting; way to get the low hanging fruit.

The general argument that attractive women don't "need" feminism only makes sense in the "get what they want out of life" context if what they want doesn't include a fulfilling, high-powered career but only includes the material goods that they most assuredly can squeeze out of some sugar daddy. However, if what they seek is of a more achievement-minded nature, the "glass-ceiling" and "good old boy-ism" is the enemy of the attractive girl no less than the enemy of the homely girl...

Posted by P | November 9, 2007 5:41 PM

That went way over my head, SCMT.

Posted by Al | November 9, 2007 5:45 PM

I was playing off this (as well as the WOT, the War on Christmas, etc.) from the quote above, Al: women who are ready, willing, and able to declare war on men.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 9, 2007 5:52 PM

During what sometimes seems like a lifetime of reading Steve Sailer comments, I've noticed that he virtually never say anything except fuckwitted bigotry.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 9, 2007 5:53 PM

I recall back in the 1990s, a leader of the National Organization for Women pointing out that about 50% of NOW's cadres were lesbian. Generally speaking, the inner core of feminist leadership is heavily lesbian, although it's in the various institutions' interest to put forth a non-lesbian public face, since most women would be turned off from supporting feminist groups if they knew how heavily lesbian they are. (Of course, many are aware -- that's a big reason you hear so many women use the word "feminist" with such disdain.)

This doesn't reflect a conspiracy on the part of lesbians to seize power, just simple psychology. Women with strong leadership drives who feel the urge to dominate other people and bend them to their wills, in other words the Alphas Males among women, are more likely to be lesbians. That's because sexual attraction (at least among non-narcissists) is attraction to people who aren't like yourself. So, female Alpha Males tend to be attracted to females.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 9, 2007 5:54 PM

Steve Sailer,

Dude, way too much insight into how you think here. Could you stop now, please. Your lesbian/feminist conspiracy theories are exacerbating my headache to an intolerable degree. Thanks in advance!

Posted by DMonteith | November 9, 2007 6:09 PM

I'm trying to remember if I've ever met any lesbians who've met the description, "strong leadership drives who feel the urge to dominate other people and bend them to their wills, in other words the Alphas Males among women." I don't believe I have, and I've met and known numerous lesbians. In fact, the most common traits in my limited experience have been relatively retiring personalities, unassuming appearances, and a general counter-cultural quirkiness, for lack of a better term. Bending people to their wills? Not so much. More like, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. IME. As for the Alpha Females of the world, I can think of several offhand (Oprah, Hillary, Arianna, pick your favorite female Prime Minister or CEO) and I don't *think* (I could be wrong) any/many of them are chomping furburgers after hours.

Posted by Bill | November 9, 2007 6:30 PM

What you fail to note is how many people in his comments tell the others there arguments are out of line, and how often Glenn himself acknowledges the whack jobs that exist in the mens rights movement and the damage they have done.

In the meantime, do we blame you for Al?

And can you find me a single post from Glenn that comes anywhere close to becoming an Amanda Marcotte screed, or Amanda's famously sexist and bigoted airport rape post?

And how come you aren't examining Amanda's blog to see what her commenter's are saying, or examining Shakespeare's Sister's blog, or feministe, or feministing.

The range of comments and the emotions are not all that different, so why are you demanding more from Glenn's commenters than from your Feminist Best Friends?

Here's an exercise for you Matt. Earlier this week, Jeff Fecke wrote this post at Shakespeare's sister.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/tunes-same-only-words-have-changed.html

Why not critique Jeff's post AND the comments to it. Is Jeff's argument adequate and spot on as Melissa McEwan says, or is it an ad-hominem attack?

Here is Glenn Sack's response:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1386

Truly if you go post for post, Matt, I'd say Glenn is equally as progressive as you, if not more so, and he certainly cites the research he bases his opinions on which you often times do not. I have yet to see a reflexive, knee-jerk post from Glenn Sacks, and we see many from you.

In the meantime, thank you for once again making bloggers responsible for their commenters. I thought that one was put to bed years ago.

Sometimes Yglesias, you're just a fucktard.

Posted by jerry | November 9, 2007 6:30 PM

Bloggers ARE responsible for their commenters. Smarter bloggers attract smarter commenters, and vice versa. Or so I've found. It's not a perfect system, of course (he said, inviting the obvious rejoinder).

Posted by Bill | November 9, 2007 6:35 PM

Jebus Matt, Atrios is our best blogger, but examine his comments. Many otherwise decent people are called fascists, brownshirts, oh look here's some comments now:

So did that rape-lovin' judge in Philly get re-elected?
dave™©

reptilian lookin fella.
mestizO

Nope, K-Lo is auditioning for the role of the Horta.
Holden Caulfield

[Weblogs Awards] There's absolutely no reason any leftists should be giving these brownshirts any sort of support or legitimacy.
dave™©

There are dipshits and haters everywhere Matt. Today the dipshit is you.

I hope your post gets you a blowjob from Sarah.

Posted by jerry | November 9, 2007 6:39 PM

In my long life I've had mad crushes on many a feminist. I've been married to one for a couple of decades now. So this line that feminists aren't attractive has always seemed kind of wierd to me.

Posted by Bloix | November 9, 2007 6:39 PM

There are dipshits and haters everywhere Matt. Today the dipshit is you.

I hope your post gets you a blowjob from Sarah.

[sic]

Posted by Bill | November 9, 2007 6:43 PM

If you're going to bash Glenn for his commenters, why not go to Glenn's blog, not a blog where he is reprinted?

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1310#comments

And as I pointed out at Glenn, why not look at the comments to Ann's post and look at the commenters there that talk about Ann Coulter being a man, or in general complain about slender blonde women calling them Barbie Dolls?

Posted by jerry | November 9, 2007 6:46 PM

Bill, did I get the spelling or punctuation wrong? Oh I see, I spelled "Sarah" wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.

Matt, I hope your idiotic knee jerk feminist post gets you a blowjob from Sara.

Posted by jerry | November 9, 2007 6:52 PM

I would submit that a great deal of what we find 'hot' or 'attractive' is psychological. When I'm attracted to a girl I'm at least in large part attracted by what I know about her character/personality/values and that becomes the context in which I perceive her looks.

So I don't tend to find virulently pro-choice feminist women attractive, but that says nothing about whether they are in some abstract sense; all it means is that I find the pro-choice position reprehensible and tragic and that casts a dark cloud over my perception of the person's looks. I'm sure a pro-choice liberal would have exactly the opposite reaction.

The reason that I think Amanda Marcotte is unattractive probably has less to do with any objective feature of her looks and more to do with her as yet unrepentant blasphemies towards the Blessed Mother of God. I'm sorry, but I don't find blasphemy at all attractive.

Posted by Hector | November 9, 2007 7:12 PM

When I saw this post, I immediately wondered to myself "How many comments will it take before jerry whines about Amanda Marcotte?" The answer, apparently, is 15.

Posted by djw | November 9, 2007 7:15 PM

Uh, wow. Jerry, that is clearly beyond the bounds of civility -- I think you can do much better. I hope you're happy with yourself.

Posted by Klug | November 9, 2007 7:36 PM

Seems like a typical LGM ad-hominem attack.

Instead of telling me how I am whining djw, why not tell me how my comparison or question is wrong? Or why my discussions of Marcotte aren't similar to the various eviscerations of net assholes that all of us read and write every day? http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/02/taibbi-on-klein.html (For instance, LGM seems awfully focused on Ann Althouse,.... but apart from a few op-eds, I haven't see Althouse write anything nearly as stupid, bigoted, or racist as Marcotte.)

Better yet, instead of distracting us with your obsession with me, perhaps you can discuss your views here: http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/24/chronicle-on-cole/#comment-165913 and how it relates to Matt's views regarding commenters and Glenn Sacks?

In fact, why don't you actually define whine for us, so we can all figure out why LGM's harassments and cyberstalking of Ann Althouse and others is rational and not just whining?

Posted by jerry | November 9, 2007 7:36 PM

I think the fact that no one has come up with an example of a hot feminist says enough about that. As far as liberal women go, the hottest liberal talking head right now is Flavia Colgan.

Posted by Just Karl | November 9, 2007 7:45 PM

If you are a man over the age of 30 and you are not wildly in love with Katrina ven den Heuvel there is something seriously wrong with you. see,e.g.,
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/sachs/article/0,9565,1139668,00.html

Posted by Bloix | November 9, 2007 8:10 PM

Hot feminists? They're busy actually BEING who they are and doing what they want to do. Which must not include some of the guys here.

Why go out of your way to get famous and bothered by idiots, unless you have some compelling reason to do so? Most people aren't famous, period. No matter what they look like and what their values are.

"Lack of attractiveness results in quite a few middle-aged, embittered men, men who are ready, willing, and able to declare war on women. They did not have a line of women vying for the right to support them and their life-choices, looked around for a convenient class of oppressor and learned in the comments to Glenn Sacks' blog that they were being oppressed by WOMEN all along!"

Exactly.

Posted by cw | November 9, 2007 8:15 PM

Steve Sailer, I can't testify to the news-rack habits of DC women, but I can say that this city is a treasure trove of hot, wonky women.

I don't think that MattY was criticizing Glenn Sacks for having nutty commenters, exactly, only that Glenn's post resulted in a car-pileup of a discussion in the comments section, so horrid that you couldn't look away.

It would be perfectly valid to point out a train-wreck of a comment thread on Atrios if Atrios's comment section was ever in any way readable or contained anything in the way of a coherent, semi-continuous thread of throught and discussion. And that is not a knock on Atrios, only his commenters and Atrios's use of haloscan.

Posted by Tyro | November 9, 2007 8:16 PM

Feminists need to meet men who will love them, honor them, and bitch slap the hell out of them.

Posted by kafka | November 9, 2007 9:42 PM

It's absolutely amazing how quickly posts about not shitting on women because they're women generate comment threads full of violence & sexual degredation.

Unbelievable.

Posted by anon | November 9, 2007 10:09 PM

anon gets it--unfortunate irony of Yglesias' title for this post is that it could equally well refer to any of his OWN COMMENT BOXES...

Posted by metaleptic | November 10, 2007 2:41 AM

Nothing is more entertaining than a battle between two groups of people I don't really like that much. While 'they aren't very pretty' is the lamest criticism I've ever heard of an ideology, feminists only respond to lame criticisms.

and anon, violence? I mean, I know feminists are of the opinion that strenuous disagreement with them constitutes violence, but here in reality land nobody can commit violence on the internet. Nobody here has even made threats. Perhaps you should learn that people get to disagree with you. If your beliefs are as strong as you believe, it really shouldn't matter.

Posted by Soullite | November 10, 2007 7:12 AM

The reason that I think Amanda Marcotte is unattractive probably has less to do with any objective feature of her looks and more to do with her as yet unrepentant blasphemies towards the Blessed Mother of God. I'm sorry, but I don't find blasphemy at all attractive.

This is hilarious.

Posted by tps12 | November 10, 2007 12:33 PM

I'm curious, tps12, what is it you find funny? It's not my view, but it was clear, respectful, honest and relevant to the topic. I thought it was a model of a civilized comment.

Or do you just find who have strong religious beliefs funny?

Posted by nolaboyd | November 10, 2007 1:16 PM

I'm not tps12, but I think it's funny because Hector doesn't seem to be sure if he finds her unattractive because of her looks or because of her blasphemy! Why else use "probably" unless you don't know.

That, and he sounds like a 12th century monk with his cries of blasphemy.

Posted by josephdietrich | November 10, 2007 2:11 PM

Soullite: "and anon, violence? I mean, I know feminists are of the opinion that strenuous disagreement with them constitutes violence, but here in reality land nobody can commit violence on the internet. Nobody here has even made threats."

meet

kafka: "Feminists need to meet men who will love them, honor them, and bitch slap the hell out of them."

Yeah, feminists are once again making shit up about teh menz! Oh noes!

Posted by Jenn | November 10, 2007 4:06 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't find blasphemy at all attractive.

I accept your apology.

Posted by Stephen Colbert | November 10, 2007 7:20 PM

Yes, and all the 9 and 10 men also have men catering to their needs. These arguments are batty.

Posted by JC | November 10, 2007 10:05 PM

Matt,

Apparently you could find no disagreement with all the great articles on Mens News Daily, so you resorted to bashing some "commenters" to articles.

You know this is the weakest form of criticism because comments are more or less out of the control of the original article writer.

If you want to disagree with anti-feminists then please support, for instance, the new IMBRA law that says that American men no longer have the right to say hello to women. Let everyone know that it is "wacky" to condemn the comments of a rookie, W-appointed Republican judge Thomas Rose who said on the matter "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner."

Condemn if you must, Marc Rudov's brand new article "Don't Tase Me Babe":

http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/13/dont-tase-me-babe-by-marc-h-rudov/

Then maybe you can write a real article on the supposed weird and wacky world of anti-feminist blogging.

Seriously, if you are heterosexual, do you really think you will get brownie points with a specific woman because you came to the defense of the more radical elements of an ideology that is about to face a pendulum backswing?

Posted by Jim Peterson | November 13, 2007 4:40 PM

These guys really need to read Steven Den Beste then they might realize that the only real (Anglo) women left are strippers (or something).

______

Um, yeah, "these guys" and "they" is real fair since you only quoted ONE person, something that you conspicuously have forgotten, unbiased journalism at its best, I am impressed.

Posted by Bernie Misiura | November 13, 2007 5:01 PM

Are there people on Glenn Sacks's blog who go over the line of civility and fairness? Yes, just as there are on near every blog. If you'd look at his blog over an extended period of time, rather than look at one "snapshot," you'd see that he goes out of his way to be fair. He's even diplomatic (perhaps too much so) to rival bloggers who directly attack him. Would you like to take a gander at some of the blogs already mentioned on this thread, and see the filth spread there? Would you like to take a look at the blogs where people who speak up for male victims of abuse are referred to as "wife-beaters," and those who feel that innocent people shouldn't go to jail for rapes they didn't commit are referred to as "rape apologists"?

Posted by bmmg39 | November 13, 2007 5:58 PM

No matter what Glenn says, it will never match the screeching hatred of Marcotte and Co. The fact that you fail to call them on their rhetoric means you yourself are sexist, because you are impyling their words mean less than those of men.

Posted by Dennis B | November 13, 2007 6:38 PM

Congratulations on the insults and name calling of Men who are standing up for their Rights. To be real blunt Matthew. Your opinion means nothing to us. Just out of curiousity have you read any books Like "The Myth Of Male Power" or "The Rantings of A Single Male". Probably not. I note to the Lap Dogs in the media bought hook line and sinker the plant story by two Rutgers Feminists that Feminists have better love lifes.

It seems when you google their backgrounds you read about to Radical Gender Feminists planting yet another Advocacy Journalism story. With the passage of IMBRA a blatant assault on the Rights of Free Association that targets US Men only. US Men are being turned into Wage Slaves or ManSerfs.

If you are behind on Child Support you are denied a Passport. Endentured Servitude has been reinstated for US Men. And we can all remember the Excellent treatment by the US Media of the Duke LaCrosse Players.

I continue to be amazed at the arrogance of the US Media, while Newspaper and Media circulation continue to decline. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation.

Posted by Randall Shake | November 13, 2007 9:27 PM

Magazine reading in LA: I would think that the reason women in Los Angeles read silly, superficial magazines has more to do with the fact that LA contains the largest group of superficial narcissists ever collected in one place since the arrival of homo sapiens. The city's only real industry is entirely superficial. So, before one generalizes to the rest of the country, discount the, er, unique, qualities of LA.

Also, re: Randall Shake's post: What is it with MRA's and wingnuts and the Weird cApitaLizatioN? Is it an effort to return to the 18th Century? To look like German? Like the post was made out of letters cut from newspaper ads, reminicsent of ransom notes or letters to newspapers taunting the police about unsolved murders?

Posted by Karen | November 13, 2007 10:18 PM

What josephdietrich said. Believe in whatever religion you want, but getting bent out of shape over blasphemy at this point is absurd. For god's sake.

Posted by tps12 | November 14, 2007 8:47 AM

Why? I'm not for getting the law after Ms. Marcotte and other people who compare the Holy Spirit to you-know-what. But I don't have to be friends with them, or to date them, or even to be attracted to them, do I?

Posted by Hector | November 14, 2007 8:53 AM

Hector, You wouldn't be attracted to me either (or me to you) but I really respect that you can stand up for your personal beliefs without expecting everyone else to agree with you. It is refreshing to hear someone willing to disagree with others respectfully and just keep out of the other one's way.

Posted by Shinobi | November 14, 2007 9:50 AM

The piety-towards-the-Virgin fetish is a new one to me, Hector. I'd hesitate, if I were you, from assuming that it's widespread.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | November 14, 2007 10:27 AM

It seems when you google their backgrounds you read about to Radical Gender Feminists planting yet another Advocacy Journalism story. With the passage of IMBRA a blatant assault on the Rights of Free Association that targets US Men only. US Men are being turned into Wage Slaves or ManSerfs.

How were we not "Wage Slaves" before the "Radical Gender Feminists" ruined everything?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 14, 2007 11:01 AM

It's fascinating watching a man who I wouldn't allow into my home whine that people are trying to force him to be attracted to me. It's not like it's going to come up. I realize there's this notion that women are desperate and will take all comers, no matter how hateful, but really, it's not true.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | November 14, 2007 11:44 AM

Ms. Marcotte,

No, I don't think that women are desperate and will take all comers. Women are in fact the more selective sex, as we know from evolutionary psychology.

I'm sorry if I personally offended you. My point wasn't a personal one, it is that our attraction (or not) to a person is in large part colored by what we know about their personality, values, etc. and that I'm sufficiently alienated from your ideas and values that I don't think I would be attracted. That's all. I'm sure you're a perfectly decent person aside from your views about abortion, the Virgin Mother of God, etc. Incidentally I think God will have mercy on you for your views about abortion as He will on everyone who sins out of ignorance and not out of malice.

I brought up your name as an example of someone I disagreed with because it had already been brought up in the thread. Sorry for turning the discussion personal.

Posted by Hector | November 14, 2007 12:20 PM

Matt,

Randall, the guy with the fun German noun capitalization syndrome, was saying that the family court system has instituted slavery for men, especially in that passports are now denied for men who owe more than $2500 in support or thereabouts. That is a long essay in itself and one to look up via Google.

The point some of the men here are saying is that, if you are a heterosexual male, there is no reason for you, as a paper MSM journalist, to automatically side with feminists on every issue. That would be especially true if you were never in a divorce where I see men complaining about how lawyers put automatic restraining orders on innocent, non-violent men in order to gain leverage in the ensuing child custody battle.

Regarding IMBRA, if you were to discuss this with men, you would be very much against it. A Republican judge upheld IMBRA temporarily by saying "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner."

You don't agree with that do you Matt?

Randall's reference to IMBRA in his post was a seeming non sequitur on that point...except for the fact that an innocent man with an unwarranted restraining order in his past...would then be unable to meet a Russian woman online without her first reading and signing his background check form. She would see that this guy whose photo and personality isn't visible...once had a restraining order put on him by his ex-wife.

Without knowing the circumstance or what he looks like or what his personality is like (no hello is allowed even behind an anonymous barrier), she would likely refuse all contact despite having otherwise agreed that any man in the world could have her cell phone number for the asking. Such is human nature.

IMBRA is a violation of the Right to Assemble and a huge violation of privacy. The foreign "woman" has a chance of really being named Boris...who wants to scam personal information off a man to use against him.

To those who only think of the rights of women, IMBRA takes away the rights of foreign women to decide their own level of security in communicating with Americans. I have heard IMBRA apologists claim that foreign women are like children and should have "Forced Informed Consent" implemented upon them...because they apparently don't "know yet" how evil American men can be.

Meanwhile, Craigs List is allowed to have foreign prostitutes post their personal contact information for all American men to see.

You might wonder why Craigs List is allowed this pass temporarily.

Craigs List does not fall under IMBRA because IMBRA says a "marriage broker" is any social interaction website that primarily introduces Americans with foreigners.

Craigs List can say its principle business is not specifically introducing Americans to foreigners.

The US Congress has declared that there is something wrong with wanting to specifically meet foreigners. That said, I can prove that 98% of Congress did not read the IMBRA law and do not remember voting for it (it was deep inside the VAWA update in 2005 which was deep inside the must-pass FBI budget authorization voted on at 5PM before Christmas vacation).

Maybe you can help us get a Pro Bono lawyer for this Matt?

Posted by Jim Peterson | November 14, 2007 1:03 PM

I'm sorry if I personally offended you.

Not in the slightest. Your affection for both misogynist religion and misogynist pseudo-science demonstrates a thorough lack of judgment on your part. That you find me unattractive is a compliment---you're so wrong about everything else, your opinion on this probably indicates that I'm smashingly hot.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | November 16, 2007 1:07 PM

Miss Marcotte,

I think your values (not your looks) are unattractive, to me personally. I don't have an opinion on your looks, as I wouldn't be attracted to someone with your values anyway, no matter what you looked like. I'm sure that lots of people who share your values do find you 'smashingly hot' or whatver. But I am very sorry if I sounded like I was criticizing your looks. I try never to do that and especially not in public.

I hope that you discover God and rediscover your love for children, including the unborn, someday.

Posted by Hector | November 17, 2007 9:49 AM

It's not unusual to find highly opinionated people who refuse to allow for other universal views to be unattractive.

I see the human race unattractive as a whole for that very reason. Blogs just make them more visible. They're all over the place, run for your sanity.

Posted by Shayne Carmichael | November 17, 2007 6:53 PM

HAHAHHAHA.

I had to come share. I wrote a very sarcastic blog post with the title: "Feminists are ugly single middle aged women. That's why they're feminists!"

Which, you know, is meant to be a paraphrase of the lovely commenters at Men's News. In the post I go down and respond to the comments ('cause I really couldn't be asked with all those crappy Flash advertisements) on MND.

As a reply to that post some random troll said I was proof 'anti-feminists' weren't all pretty as I'm 'stank.'

Which, you know, really doesn't have anything to do with anything and was pretty much on par with what all those idiots at MND were saying about liberal women.

I had to laugh. Just goes to prove that the ones on the light side aren't any better sometimes. Or are at least lacking in both taste and reading comprehension skills.

Posted by Tiffany | November 21, 2007 11:32 AM

arthropodal vinously thioketone presift ardisia prothallus malignment ammochaeta
http://www.southwestburnley.surestart.org/ >Sure Start South West Burnley
http://www.houstonshaolintemple.com/

Posted by Orlando Case | November 21, 2007 7:25 PM