Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ken, aka RuralRite.
Now, my attention was first drawn to this wannabe patriarch by his first comment to a post that already smacked of patriarchal influences:
Most women have yet to be liberated. They moved from the protection of a naturally dominant man to an overly domineering feminist to think for them.
Wearing men's clothing, men's haircuts and being aggressive certainly isn't liberating.
So, pretty damning right off the bat; a generalization, and not even one of an ideology, but of a full half of the population. Also, he equates feminism with the butch look, and implies that women who prefer more boyish haircuts or enjoy wearing pants as opposed to dresses do so out of envy, rather than simple preference.
A couple snarky comments to deal with "feminized" men as being "she-men", and then we get into "yikes" range once again...
I respect my ladyfriend and she respects me so we don't have to prove anything by having sex.
Er... what? In this blogger's opinion, if you truly respect your ladyfriend (or boyfriend), you're having sex as frequently as she (or he) likes. It's not a matter of "proving" anything. It's a matter of "I care for you, and want very much to give you pleasure." Now, given Ken's behaviour, I'm not surprised that "as much as she wants" is none, but I can't help but feel bad for her.
Feminists have comletely failed to convince most women that they have the best intentions for women. Indeed, if it wasn't for the continual infusion of tax-payers(including mens) money, the whole movement would die.
They had enough time and resources over the years but the fact is you can't fool all the people, all the time.
So, now we've progressed from rudimentary sexism to advanced sexism with a paranoid conspiracy theory focus. Come on, Ken, I know you can reach doctoral levels...
It was thanks to men and men only, that everyone including women enjoy all the lax time they have. Without our inventions you'd still be living in a cave.... and there it is. Men have apparently invented everything in history. Women have been riding our collective coattails for the duration of human history. That, I think, earns him a PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) in bullshit.
Women's 'rights' took a notch upward when they weren't tide down with chores.
But wait, there's more!
"you seem to think you should share in the achievements of others just because you have a penis."So now we're taking Freud's approach - all women view themselves as incomplete men. Also, apparently we're not going to just suggest that women don't invent things, but state it as fact. Where can we possibly go from here?
Now we get to the root of the problem. Envy.
"And I have news for you Ken, women have been inventing things for millennia "
No they haven't but they have been a better help to mankind in more ways than men because of their different, patient personalities and gifts.
Another thing a man invented, The Bassiere.
...huh. Well, at least this is innocuous. It's wrong, of course, but at least it's not insulting...
"Why on earth would a man invent a bra?"
Why would he invent a toolbox?
Come on, man! Give me something here! But surely he can't run with this one, given the substantial proof to the contrary...
I guess you ladies are all too young to remember all the inventions or even books on who invented what. Try as they might feminists haven't been able to change that part of history, yet.
I'm quite secure in all that I have accomplished across Canada but it is absolutely nothing in comparison to what our Lord does every nanosecond.
*sound of head repeatedly hitting desk*
Right. So Ken is another "history is being revised by a conspiracy" group. Unlike the right-winger we previously wrote about, though, in this case, it's not the leftist conspiracy. No, it's the feminist conspiracy, which is simultaneously all-pervasive and on its last legs, supported by the patriarchy and undermining it. And then, of course, to throw away whatever shreds of sanity he might claim to cling to, he gives a shoutout to teh Ceiling Cat.
Ken's baseless claims became so outlandish that she-of-the-all-caps, SUZANNE herself, calls him on it. He returns with another claim of revisionist history, content in the knowledge that SUZANNE is anti-feminist and anti-choice, and therefore almost as nuts as he is and bound to agree with his worldview. But not so, despite defending him against other posters.
Now, there's other stupidity on a truly grand scale at Ken's blog - too much to detail here, but do check it out; gibbering idiocy on a grand scale.
Okay, one post that I have to make note of, just because of the sheer insanity that engendered it. Calling someone a "good person" is an insult. Ken is a man (questionable) not a person, apparently. He goes on to say that "person" isn't a real word, and shouldn't appear in the bible. He cites some etymological background for this claim, and it's not entirely from left field. But then he drops right out of the calm shallows of simple misogyny and into the depths of religion-fueled insanity:
The only words which have substance are nouns. Nouns have substance, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc., do not. Verbs are not substantial, they only indicate action. The substance is in the noun. For example, the word party was previously only a noun, but now it's a verb, now it's an act. Instead of saying, "let's go to a party", we say, "let's party". We see how the English language, through its evolution, changes the substance of a word into nothing.
There are no words. Which is fine, because apparently, even if there were words, they would have no substance.
I wonder if he has a tinfoil hat to fit over his asshat?