He-Man Woman Haters Club

« July 2006 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
2
8
9
10
11
15
16
20
22
23
29
30

Memo to Denise Noe: YOU ARE DUMB, I PRESUME.

I have to presume. See, one of the problems of living in what may be, in retrospect, the bugfuckingest era in American history is that it becomes increasingly difficult to determine, empirically, when people mean what they say.

The American lust for celebrity status combined with the Ann Coulter school of saying crazy shit to get noticed has led to a series of, if you'll pardon the expression, increasingly immodest proposals.

I find myself longing for the days when you could be pretty sure that the guy who just suggested we eat all the babies was kidding. Now, he could be completely serious, about one step removed from Bill Bennett and angling for a regular spot on "Fox And Friends" complete with recipes.

Which brings us to Denise Noe, who does not suggest eating babies. It's the furthest thing from her embryo-fetishizing mind. And when she suggests that similarly fetophilic guys take one for the team and offer to marry young pregnant women to keep them from having abortions, I have to presume she meant it.

And not because it's precisely the kind of reactionary, 1950's, ridiculously retarded idea that would appeal to pro-life nutjobs. And not because Noe presents, as a perfectly reasonable rationale supporting her idea, that... ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"The motif of a man proposing marriage to a woman pregnant with another man’s child is a common one on soap operas that are a fairly good gauge of female fantasy.

No, I assume Noe meant her ridiculous idea because her target audience turned on her like a pack of rabid hyenas, demonstrating that they, in turn, are even more bugfuck than SHE is. You see, Denise Noe wrote her article, "Grooms For Life", for one of the ugliest blogs on the planet, Mens News Daily.

As far as I can tell, Mens News Daily caters almost exclusively to one particular niche audience - divorced white guys who burst blood vessels in their eyes every time they sign a child-support check.

In many ways, these are the scariest of all the crazy right-wingers. Because they don't do it for power. Or to uphold their twisted view of religious dogma. Or to get on the teevee. They're right-wingers entirely because of spite. They act like that monthly check that feeds and clothes the results of their inappropriate ejaculate is the heel of liberal feminism crushing their hopes, their dreams, and their testicles in one smooth motion.

So, unsurprisingly to everyone on the planet except Denise Noe, they responded somewhat harshly to the idea that a man should voluntarily give up the next 20 years of his life to support a child he didn't even father. Not for reasons of practicality, not for reasons of societal reality, just out of pure, economically-driven misogyny. Some samples from the feedback thread:

"How about if slutty women just pick whoever they want to name as the “father”, then he must give half of his income to her for 18 years or go to prison as a deadbeat... And no, this wouldn’t encourage women to be nasty hoes nor would it be unfair to men, as women can only be victims."

"Uh… no. I’m not going to obligate myself to raise some other schmuck’s kid, with a flaky woman whose only accomplishment in life is to get knocked up."

"Here’s a double standard: women can get pregnant by anybody and then helped to find a “SugarDaddy” to help her throught? Once again, women would be living in the 21st century while mens are still stuck in the 1900. Why do men should take the burden of raising a children that’s not theirs anyway? Do we force childless women to adopt?"

Can't you just feel the petulance? Close your eyes and you can see the red rage creeping up their puffy faces toward their receding hairlines. They are the worst of the worst, Denise, and thinking they'd do anything more strenuous than slapping on a bumper sticker or tuning in to Scarborough Country for your admittedly idiotic cause isn't just naive, it's dumb.