The Simpsons


08 September 2006


I like the Simpsons, even though it’s often a bit absurdly PC.

There was an old episode on tonight where Mr. Burns falls in love with some woman who, it turns out, was formerly going out with Snake. Snake runs in to her again and belatedly apologises for recently throwing her out of his car whilst the police were chasing him “to lighten the load.”

Snake kidnaps her and Homer at gunpoint and threatens to try to win her back by pistol whipping Homer. The woman insists that “you beating a man to a pulp doesn’t impress me”, to which Snake replies “It used to!”

In the end, when the police seige ends after Homer has accidentally set his arse on fire – and subsequently the entire house – during an ill-advised attempt to burn through his ropes, the woman goes back to Burns just as Snake is being handcuffed and arrested.

She tells Burns “Oh, Monty, you saved me! And to think I was once in love with that dirty low-life, with his arrogant smirk…” At that point she starts sounding more whistful and dreamy. “…gutter mouth, tough-guy attitude, macho tattoos, hair that can’t be tamed, [sighs] prison-sculpted body …

Then she ditches Burns straight away and runs and hugs Snake whilst he’s being lead away, promising to wait for him during his latest trip to prison.

Okay, I know it’s only a cartoon, but it does a great job of showing women’s fickle nature and how they can love some criminal loser who treats them like shit purely because he’s a criminal loser who treats them like shit.

(It was also funny hearing Kent Brockman – during a news report about the kidnapping – tell Mr. Burns that “Well, according to our audience insta-poll, 46% say you’re too old, and 37% say she’s a skank.“)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:06 PM

At 10:12 PM, nevo said…

Forget about the Simpsons.
You should read this:
Linda Hirshman says privileged, educated women who choose to stay at home to raise their children are hurting themselves and others. (ABC NEWS)
The utterly stupid idea of it.

Feb. 22, 2006 — An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.

So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among mothers.

Is there any wonder why women are so mess up in the head?
With a professor like her, spewing fecal matter from her mouth to university students without constraint, we have no chance of ever salvaging whatever is left of of the family ideals.
The whole abc news article is posted in my blog if you have the stomach to read it through.
Is a quite revolting reading.



At 12:12 AM, Anonymous said…

When females purport to favor ‘nice guys’, it is just a wistful artifice of their delusions.

This is because females want something that cannot exist – a man who stimulates their sensory biases, but one who does not appeal to promiscuity under the flaccid aegis of sublimated inter-male contest(the ‘non-aggression pact’)for mating priviledge(this is what they really mean by ‘nice’).

Females paradoxically covet the fidelity of suitors who find favor with their simpering biases, but who are themselves divested of all opposable(and selected) biases which mandate that favor.

Objectified boy-toys don’t have to act nice(or monagomous) to solicit female affections, and they know this(men are only ever this ‘nice’ when under duress from a deficit of bargaining status – in other words, because they are men that females would be loathe to acknowledge even as kindred sovereign entities).

Females are on a interminable/impossible quest for ‘the one’ – A man who projects a consonant/attractive veneer, but who is not cognizant of this commodity(or is somehow a freak variant unable/unwilling to exploit his status in service to sex/reproductive interest as a lever in inter-gender power struggles/games).

Females demand that men with conferred mating options behave as men *without* these options – such men do not/cannot exist.

The dilettante (anti)reasoning which facilitates such a demand truly plumbs the depths of female mysticism and stupidity.

But men are not without their entrenched/fostered delusions either, in striving for a parity(in the object of their desires – a common pretext/fallacy for mangina’s) which belies appreciation for the necessarily antagonistic skews in sexual valence, culled through the bifurcate of dimorphic sex heritance(which precludes an inter-sexual parity of valence in the mean, by design of mechanical selection agency).

Such spurious reasoning is a stark testament to the intransigency of self-delusion as a path of least resistance.



At 12:39 AM, mfsob said…

Art imitates life, eh?


At 11:53 AM, MarkyMark said…


Many of us cannot even get a date (not that I’d want to with the skanks we have out there), yet Scott Peterson, CONVICTED MURDERER, gets marriage proposals by the truckload-sheesh! Freakin’ women! Like Bill Maher said, women have NO right to complain about men until they start showing better taste in them…



At 7:17 PM, Anonymous said…

Females will always have the ‘right’ to complain as long as chivalrous male dupes accord them that right.

Like I said: Choosy females on their incorrigible quest for ‘the one’ demand that mechanically amenable(healthy) males with obviously pragmatic auxiliary mating opportunities behave as men *without* these options – such men do not/cannot exist.

Remember: Confident, cognizant, and sexually valent men who can mate effortlessly(and with little energy investment) do not have to be nice(read: loyal) to females.

Men are only ever ‘nice’ to females when under duress from a deficit(or perceived debt) of bargaining power(these are the abject thralls, supplicating themselves at the altar of female sovereignty).

Besides: females can’t control what they want any more than men can.

That’s why(if homo-sapiens are to survive, let alone flourish) our kin will one day put down the chivalrous dogs of female license(in future generations, when the ranks of disaffected rogue males have swelled to such a mass that harbinger-geniuses can temper a univalence of male interest in appealing to violent agency* – call it an army/liberation front/whatever, if – having been brainwashed by relative PC semantical dogma – it makes someone feel better about killing), and make decisions for them by reasserting male agendas which are less conflicted with biological mandates.

(*Violence has always been the most acute/efficacious energy vector acting upon the substrate of human agency – if you want to effect/alter/change human behavior/condition dynamics, nothing is so expedient as violent stress)

The flip-side is status quo where emasculate/chivalrous males, under duress of codified censure, feel compelled to cede all self-determination to the dominion of their matriarchs.

Players, chivalrous drones, apologists and all maner of female panderers(along with their genes) are evolutionary road kill(ignominious monuments to mechanical detritus) in the wake of the culling vortex they are spiraling towards, while our psych complex(akin to memetics) progeny(a more vigorous legacy than mere ‘genes’) will inherit the earth.

If human civ exists in 1000 years, the tenets of such arguments will have coalesced into a ubiquitous aphorism/mantra in the human psyche.



At 11:00 PM, Egghead said…

As I’ve said before, it boggles my mind that men are now beginning to regret letting women have the right to vote. They should never have been let off the leash!


%d bloggers like this: