Excellent.

I am a huge Simon Pegg fan... And now moreso.

So Simon Pegg upset a feminit. Good! I'm even more of a fan now.

Stupid self-obsessed woman.

Just LOVE this comment:

Lauren CusmanoIt really looks like you're being deliberately obtuse. Firstly, you're mischaracterizing the response to your trollish comments. Yes, there are a few idiots who are being abusive but most of the comments I see below are perfectly reasonable (if exasperated at your epic levels of pomposity and self-righteousness) responses. Also, what love and support are you talking about? Pretty much all the comments are critical of you. And don't make it out like it's all a bunch of Pegg superfans leaping to your defense. I like Pegg but don't really care either way about him - I stumbled onto this whole situation via a tweet someone made, linking to your righteous fury with awe. I think a lot of others have to. Just because your social circle /fellow forumites from Geek Feminist are probably backing you doesn't mean you have inspired an outpouring of love from the abused masses of women who were just Waiting for a saviour like you to come along. Where are all these loving, supporting people on the comments thread? Surely they want to debate your points with us misogynist trolls? I hesitated a while before commenting but people like you infuriate me. I think women like you set the rest of us back as much as any rightwing Tea Party loony. People like you are the reason that actual misogynists feel justified in characterizing all progressive women as 'feminazis'. I hate that word and I think it exists in part because of armchair critics like you. I did some research on pegg's politics before posting this and it looks to me like he is one of the good guys. But you're so very wrapped up in your shroud of self-righteousness that it doesn't even occur to you (does it?) that it might be vaguely within the realm of possibility that you might actually be (gasp!) wrong.

Courtney (you wouldn't) Stoke-er, or any other officious feminist, doesn't have the right to become offended on behalf of any autonomous woman, nor to demand an apology for an offense which wasn't made, nor taken, by the women in question.

Women are not decoration?

Then why do nearly all women, everywhere in the world spend so much time decorating themselves?
I don't see the point personally, but if it makes them happy to be admired for what they look like, they surely have the right to pursue that.

Even when women reach an age when their sexual characteristics are less important and their worth in the moral community is much more important, they still do it. They continue to paint their faces, dye their hair and support their sagging breasts with a device invented by a man?

Being proud mothers and moral guardians of the community is not enough? They still have to look like a tacky Barbie?

Don't tell me. The evil patriarchy makes them do it.

So why does even your average fully-paid-up, crop-haired feminist (learned in the evil workings of the patriarchy) feel obliged to sport dangly earrings, wear a ton of make-up and a chic feminized version of a man's business suit?

That's different, they say. It's all about good grooming - they say. Nothing sexually provocative about that.
They may be right about that. Does Hilary Clinton look 'good enough to eat'?

Why do feminists berate men for appreciating women when they look attractive, but fail to criticize their own sisters for engaging in self-obsessive behaviour? Is it because they are also self-obsessed?

As for the comparison with food (Homer Simpson thinling about donuts), that's just plain silly.
In my new adopted language there's a word that means "delicious". It mainly applies to food but can be used in any context where a person experiences gratification, like a sexual encounter or the settling of an old score.
English is no different. "Revenge is sweet"; "a bitter defeat"; "Sour grapes"; etc. etc.

All of this has been around since the dawn of humankind. What feminists can't abide is that young attractive women can get away with things and expect unwarranted benefits from men.
Older women want the same 'rights' as younger women to exploit, long after they are past it. They want to prolong their fading sexuality (cougars), be accorded important political posts with no reference to merit or the democratic process (affirmative action), and still reserve the right to tell younger women how to live their lives (the media).

In this war between the sisters, men and even their own children, are merely pawns. They think men don't know what they're up to and they (men) are too busy with advancing technology to bother about it. They've been right about that for a few decades.
Like bears awakening from hibernation, men are now saying, "duh! Somethings wrong here". Where will it lead?

[Marx; - this started as a comment but turned into a rant. Could you please disregard that and leave it on the main board for a few days and not move it to Rant-Room? Rant-room is the "kiss of death". Only dedicated members look at rant-room. Places like 'Main" and 'News' get the hits. As I'm sure you know...]
.

Quote from Yan Yan

Women are not decoration?

Then why do nearly all women, everywhere in the world spend so much time decorating themselves?
I don't see the point personally, but if it makes them happy to be admired for what they look like, they surely have the right to pursue that.

Even when women reach an age when their sexual characteristics are less important and their worth in the moral community is much more important, they still do it. They continue to paint their faces, dye their hair and support their sagging breasts with a device invented by a man?

Being proud mothers and moral guardians of the community is not enough? They still have to look like a tacky Barbie?

Don't tell me. The evil patriarchy makes them do it.

So why does even your average fully-paid-up, crop-haired feminist (learned in the evil workings of the patriarchy) feel obliged to sport dangly earrings, wear a ton of make-up and a chic feminized version of a man's business suit?

That's different, they say. It's all about good grooming - they say. Nothing sexually provocative about that.
They may be right about that. Does Hilary Clinton look 'good enough to eat'?

Why do feminists berate men for appreciating women when they look attractive, but fail to criticize their own sisters for engaging in self-obsessive behaviour? Is it because they are also self-obsessed?

As for the comparison with food (Homer Simpson thinling about donuts), that's just plain silly.
In my new adopted language there's a word that means "delicious". It mainly applies to food but can be used in any context where a person experiences gratification, like a sexual encounter or the settling of an old score.
English is no different. "Revenge is sweet"; "a bitter defeat"; "Sour grapes"; etc. etc.

All of this has been around since the dawn of humankind. What feminists can't abide is that young attractive women can get away with things and expect unwarranted benefits from men.
Older women want the same 'rights' as younger women to exploit, long after they are past it. They want to prolong their fading sexuality (cougars), be accorded important political posts with no reference to merit or the democratic process (affirmative action), and still reserve the right to tell younger women how to live their lives (the media).

In this war between the sisters, men and even their own children, are merely pawns. They think men don't know what they're up to and they (men) are too busy with advancing technology to bother about it. They've been right about that for a few decades.
Like bears awakening from hibernation, men are now saying, "duh! Somethings wrong here". Where will it lead?

[Marx; - this started as a comment but turned into a rant. Could you please disregard that and leave it on the main board for a few days and not move it to Rant-Room? Rant-room is the "kiss of death". Only dedicated members look at rant-room. Places like 'Main" and 'News' get the hits. As I'm sure you know...]
.

Well, Yan Yan, another great post. Rarely do I agree 100% with a post, but this has made that small 100% list.

Edit:

Oh, yeah. And I like it right where it's at.

I clicked the link to see if MRIA's* still get erections arguing the toss with stupid feminitrash.. Indeed, the time wasting element of the "movement" is still indulging in this pointless destractive shite.. Taking feminists seriously enough to still "debate" with them when the arguments were won long ages ago by any test of reason and logic is a sign of not understanding why the following rule always applies:-

Never argue with a woman.

When you think you have won, you have lost!

*MRIA = Mens Rights InActivist.. = Keyboard Destractivist = Timewaster.

The time-wasting efforts of keyboard inactivism, as you inappropriately word it, still functions to educate others. You call it a waste of time, I call it education for lurkers.

Education? God only knows what the lesson they learn is.. Do we need to teach boys how to pull the wings off flies or how to masturbate?

Its a waste of energy from experienced people who could serve the interests of the mens movement in far more useful and productive ways, if they could quit indulging in such, or at least spend as much time doing the sort of work needed to create a force against misandry that has something solid to build on..

But of course, they won't because at the end of the day, they just want to indulge in paddling at the shallow end of the pool forever.. And hope that the femistate will miraculously change the laws that shaft men while the so called MRA's twitter and twatter and run round the web looking for flies to pull the wings off, when they have finished surfing porn, or playing on their playstations..

And even if you think you have "won" the battle of ShWits with the petty insignificant feminist basefookers and twatterfesters, the enemies can always turn round and claim the usual about MRA's..

It's case of the same old thing I have often said..

"While you are reading this trash posted above life's web-urinal, you are pissing on your feet.."