Over at Return of Queens, a lady with dubs herself "Charity Love" (without apparent irony) has written a piece about "Envy." This is part of the Queens' series on the "Seven Deadly Sins," and I cannot wait to read each and every one. Miss Love is specifically targeting the indisputable envy that fugly "feminists" have of beautiful feminine women (like the gals at Return of Queens no doubt).
And guess who has popped up there in the comments section, not two hours ago?
"What I find is that gossip and unsubstantiated accusations are tools
that women sometimes use against other women of whom they are envious. I
suppose if we are honest, nearly all of us have engaged in such
behavior at one point or another, so we probably all have some room to
grow in this area, and I'm not too proud to say that I certainly need to
ask God to set a guard over my mouth sometimes." [italics mine]
Pardon me for taking the Lord's name in vain here, but Jesus H. Christ, it appears that SSM is blaming her recent (re) doxxing and character assassination on the envy of other women!
Proving, in case anyone had any doubts up to this point, that, as one parody blogger observed, "SSM has the self awareness of a taco." And I think the taco could sue for defamation in this case.
And the "projection" award goes to....
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of a golden award shaped like a little cinema projector (the classic kind of course). It'd be funny if someone actually did give them out; it'd be a bit like the Golden Razzies!
DeleteI would say she needs God to keep her off of the blogging scene. Didn't she say she'd be going away after all this? For the sake of her children alone it'd be a good idea to just stay away from the manosphere or "red pill woman" sphere or whatever, at least for a while.
ReplyDeleteJust discovered your blog when doing a little research, trying to find out if anyone else besides me think the manosphere is mostly made up of sociopaths, and it brought me here.
ReplyDeleteAs far as SSM goes, Hamster, meet wheel.
Looking for evidence that the manosphere is full of whack jobs? You've come to the right place!
DeleteJust discovered your blog when doing a little research, trying to find out if anyone else besides me think the manosphere is mostly made up of sociopaths, and it brought me here.
DeleteJust out of curiosity, how did you discover the Manosphere?
Well, first I heard about MTGTOW from the AskMen forums, maybe about 2 and a half years ago. I didn't think much of it at the time, until a few months after that one of them started making comments on my blog. I followed his link back and fell into the rabbit hole known as "the manosphere."
DeleteThanks for answering.
DeleteOh dear. She doesn't know about strategic withdrawal, does she?
ReplyDeleteI wish all these people would stop blaming the evil "feminists" for this debacle. Don't lay this on of us! It's your circular firing squad, not ours!
Hang on, I'm confused. Does this mean Matt Forney is a woman? And all those really vile comments about SSM being left under Forney's hatchet job are all evil feminists pretending to be misogynistic men?
ReplyDeleteWhile the source of this feud are two female bloggers, those bloggers are anti-feminist, and as plenty of men have piled in I hardly think it fair to blame this on the female of the species, unless RoQ are implying men are but helpless tools, how misandristic.
Given that SSM has actually received support from some feminist quarters over this, it's a bit rich of her to lay this at our door.
You don't get much more misandrist than the manosphere, my friend.
DeleteI've got nothing. I'm just agog at all of this.
ReplyDeleteMan, I didn't think she'd last a month, but AM surprised she didn't even last 24 hours: she updated her blog for Easter. She's right that it probably would take the intervention of a supernatural entity to get her to shut up for five minutes.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Lena and Laura probably are partly motivated by jealousy. SSM's blog is popular largely cause she feeds sad dudes a fantasy of the perfect wife. It's not a kind of attention most chicks would want... but it is attention!
Laura's rich, though, when she talks about how men should take the disputes of women seriously and not write them off as 'catfights'; the whole manosphere revolves around self-consciously refusing to take women seriously! What is she, some kind of dirty feminist?
SSM lying about how many kids she has kind of cheeses me off, though. I'm not sure why; maybe 'cause I think if you didn't actually spend your young adulthood in the trenches with a bunch of toddlers you should refrain from romanticizing it or trying to force your own daughters into it. At least the Duggars and their ilk more or less walked the walk. (Personally, I had four kids in six years and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't already a little cracked in the head.)
I'm like, ok, so you spent your 20s having fun, doing the DINK thing, only had a baby when you were 30 and relatively comfortable: then you spaced out the next one til you were pushing 40 and now you're copping a nasty attitude at other people for doing much the same? What in the world is wrong with her?
"(Personally, I had four kids in six years and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't already a little cracked in the head.) "
DeleteThis made me LOL. I had three in just under three years, so I definitely hear you. I'd never recommend that anyone else space them so closely unless there were no other options simply because it's so physically and emotionally exhausting. Now, my kids are all older now and really close (unless they're in moods, in which case all bets are off), but those early years ... I'm glad they're behind me.
I hear you! Mine are all out of diapers now, and it's starting to become much less stressful. Looking back, it WAS really demanding and stressful when they were all tiny! I don't think I'd recommend the close spacing either; it really put a walloping on my marriage... there just wasn't enough time, money or energy left to nurture the relationship along the way either of us would have liked during those years. I think we both did the best we could to mitigate the relationship damage given the resources and knowledge we had at the time, but "mitigating the damage" is not quite the same as "thriving." I totally understand why people with happy marriages sometimes choose to protect the relationship by NOT adding kids to the mix.
Delete(I really hate how a lot of "pro-family" people aren't "real" about that. Yes, a large family with well-trained children is much more joy than burden. Yes, seeing them grow up is wonderful. However: yes, it takes a few years to get them there. Yes, your marriage is probably going to take a bit of a beating in the meantime, unless you have a good bit of extended family or other domestic help during those years. If so, good for you! I mean that! Note, kindly, that this is not universal!)
It's like we are only now beginning to crawl out of the hole we inadvertently dug when the babies were all little.
On the up side, my youngest will be nearly grown by the time I'm 45, so hopefully by then we can go out of town without packing the entire clan along. And yeah, they are all really close, which I hope lasts all their lives. And I really look forward to continuing to see them grow into adults.
I just can't fathom trying to browbeat another woman into childbearing if she is either ambivalent or negative about it. It IS hard!
SSM's blog is popular largely cause she feeds sad dudes a fantasy of the perfect wife.
DeleteI remember someone once describing SSM's primary audience as "the angry beta males of the manosphere", which for some reason put me in mind of a thousand clones of Homer Simpson that time he was dressed in nothing more than his tighty-whities, and jumping up and down with a garden rake in his hand (because, IIRC, Bart had just stolen his jar of pennies).
Well, I had a bit of a poke around that "Return of Queens" site, and I'd have to say that it's not a place I'll probably be making too many return visits to. Not only do the people running it seem to be so-called "Traditional Women's Rights Activists" - yes, that's a thing now apparently (eye roll) - but judging from some of the other articles posted there, and some of the other blogs they link to, they'd also appear to be white supr- sorry, I mean white nationalists. There's also this lovely paragraph at the beginning of their "About" section, which made me feel nice and welcome:
ReplyDeleteReturn of Queens is a website for the traditional, feminine, heterosexual, and loving woman. By “Queen” we don’t mean “Diva“. We here at ROQ believe that men should be real men, and women should be real women. No hybrids of either are welcome, especially feminists. Included in the list of excluded are trans-gender [pre AND post op], gender fluid [whatever the hell that means], gay men, lesbians, male feminists [yes they do exist], and any combination of those previously listed.
Yeah... Don't think I'll be going back there.
As for the bit of blather SSM posted there, it's a bit ironic that she said the following: "[...]I'm not too proud to say that I certainly need to ask God to set a guard over my mouth sometimes", as I've seen some MRAs actually advocate for the scold's bridle to be brought back! Just more pearls of wisdom from THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP EVAH!