Is Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig Single-Handedly Destroying The New Republic?

Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig is a staff columnist for The New Republic and a contributor to numerous magazines, including The Atlantic, The Nation and Salon. In the wake of Rolling Stone retracting Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s phony article on rape at the University of Virginia, Stoker Bruenig penned an incomprehensible response claiming that the problem with Rubin Erdely’s article was that “it used rightwing tactics to make a leftist point”:

The left tends to view oppression as something that operates within systems, sometimes in clearly identifiable structural biases, and other times in subtle but persistent ways. Mortgage discrimination against black families over the last century is an example of a structural, on-the-books bias that had an extraordinarily damaging impact on African Americans; but the fact that black children are read as older and less innocent than their white peers, while neither a law nor a regulation, is of a piece with the overall oppression of black folks in America, resulting in subtle treatment by teachers and authority figures that alienates black children from wider society starting at a very tender age. These disparate forms of discrimination come together, in the left imagination, to form a tightly composed set of prejudices and policies that are difficult to disentangle. Making sense of oppression, therefore, requires looking at entire systems of oppression, not just specific instances or behaviors.

Stoker Bruenig has already been raked over the coals for her muddled prose and malapropisms, but her hypocrisy and bigotry has received little mention. Her views on the UVA rape hoax are part of a broader pattern of anti-male hatred. The fact that The New Republic continues to employ this female typist is a huge strike against their credibility.

Stoker Bruenig’s History Of Hatred And Hypocrisy


Long before Rolling Stone published “A Rape on Campus,” Stoker Bruenig had a history of making bigoted comments about men. For example, she has repeatedly (and falsely) claimed that fraternities have a “gang rape” problem and are no different than prisons. Both she and her husband Matt Bruenig support banning fraternities from colleges based on faulty sociology, and her hatred of them runs so deep that she chose her alma mater, Brandeis, in part to avoid them:




Stoker Bruenig is no stranger to making false accusations against men herself. Two months ago, she claimed that Return of Kings publisher Roosh Valizadeh had made a “rape threat” against her. Her “evidence” was a tongue-in-cheek Tweet Roosh made asking his followers to gauge how attractive she was:




The irony of Stoker Bruenig’s false accusation against Roosh (and her references to “pick-up artists” as “garbage”) is that she’s a fan of a real (statutory) rapist: Mark Ames. In a recent New Republic article on the Germanwings crash, Stoker Bruenig approvingly referenced Ames’ writings:

Theories of Lubitz’s motives proliferated in the aftermath of the crash. Though Lubitz left no manifesto and made no statement at any time as to the meaning of his actions, some are still convinced his was an act of terrorism. An ex-girlfriend of Lubitz’s has come forward to claim that the co-pilot fantasized about fame and notoriety, and must have become distraught when he realized his dreams of a job at Lufthansa, the largest airline in Europe, were unlikely to come true. Author Mark Ames, who has written a book on rage killings in the United States, has raised the possibility that Lubitz’s actions were those of a disgruntled employee, not unlike the postal shootings of the ’80s and ’90s.

In his 2000 memoir The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia, Ames bragged about sleeping with a 15-year-old girl and also wrote about how he threatened to murder his girlfriend if she didn’t get an abortion:

Right then, I stared at Katya with a look—I’m not sure how it appeared to her, but in my mind, I was starting to contemplate two courses of action: murder, or AWOL.

“What will you do, kill me?” she said, laughing nervously.

“Maybe, yeah,” I replied. “I’ll throw you off my balcony. I’ll make it look like an accident.”

She started to cry, but I was relentless. I told her that if she had the child, she would be killing me, so it was an act of self-defense. And if I didn’t kill her, then I would flee Moscow and she’d never find me… I was relentless. I attacked her the Russian way: I wore her down for hours during the night, KGB interrogation-style.


At 5:30 the next morning, Katya, acting the martyr, quietly slipped out of my apartment, made a beeline to the abortion clinic, and sucked the little fucker out.

If it seems odd that a self-professed Christian socialist and feminist would praise a soi-disant misogynist like Mark Ames, consider that Stoker Bruenig thinks that right-wing female politicians such as Joni Ernst and Sarah Palin should endure vicious, sexist attacks that she would label “harassment” if they were directed at women of the left.

Also consider that despite being a socialist calling for wealth redistribution, Stoker Bruenig and her husband are quite wealthy themselves, as shown by her education at Brandeis and this selfie:


It’s clear that Stoker Bruenig is a firm believer in “do as I say, not as I do,” so it’s not shocking that she’s latched onto Rolling Stone’s rape hoax.

Why Stoker Bruenig Should Be Fired


The New Republic is a magazine that is unusually susceptible to hiring frauds and liars: they were the home of infamous fabulist Stephen Glass. While they survived Glass’ fabrications, they may not be able to survive Stoker Bruenig’s foolishness. Her incoherent, freshman-level prose and nonsensical beliefs are enough to disqualify her from writing for any serious publication, but it’s Stoker Bruenig’s bigotry and hatefulness that truly make her repulsive.

In order to retain their credibility, The New Republic needs to fire Stoker Bruenig immediately. Through her writings and actions, she has shown herself to be a craven hypocrite with no morals or maturity. Only by removing Stoker Bruenig from their masthead can The New Republic avoid having their reputation destroyed.

Read More: Why Haven’t The People Who Pushed Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Hoax Story Been Fired?

240 thoughts on “Is Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig Single-Handedly Destroying The New Republic?”

  1. I agree she is especially vile but TNR was destroyed months ago. Bruenig is a clickbait mascot.

  2. I dunno. Shouldn’t the New Republic die?
    Oh wait… By you saying they should do something that will save them they won’t actually do it because you suggested it.
    Very clever.
    And when one understands that socialism is a means of controlling wealth it makes perfect sense why many rich fucks want it.

    1. Yes. The entire “rich folks” angle confused me as a young man, until I came to the exact realization that you note. It’s about power and protection of *their* wealth. They don’t want me or people like me challenging their status, position and power in a true free market.

    2. people need to keep asking the question how is it that those who push an ideology of wealth distribution always seem to manage to distribute a fair bit of that wealth to themselves

    1. It’s Brown University though, there is no real critical thought there. She fits in.

      1. The same thing can be said of any academic institution nowadays. The lack of critical thought unfortunately isn’t contained to liberal arts colleges.

    2. Religious studies, philosophy, art history, and related, are less competitive even at top ranked colleges. There aren’t as many applicants, its easier to get accepted. It really comes down to finding students who will pay the high tuition fees and commit 4 years of their life for something they can never use. She has family money, or she married money, doesn’t need to work unless its fun for her, and when she gets bored she’ll get pregnant. A true feminist role model.

    3. In western academia critical thought means goosestepping to the equalist tune
      An insult to actual thought

  3. Glad someone has the time to highlight this stuff with a fact trail. However, I’m not still not sure why I should care.
    Lots of targeting articles lately and I’m not sure anything will come from it.
    Do any of you guys forward these pseudo investigations to news sources? That would be interesting…

  4. The straight white man is a very easy target. I’ve just had an epiphany today. In an elevator full of people I was the only white man. Everybody else.. women, blacks, indian, chinese, spanish, and who the fuck knows what else, gays probably…

    1. I can’t speak for all white men, but I’m a hardened target actually. Their propaganda and constant pushing of their agenda has achieved the exact opposite of the intended purposes with me.

      1. I agree with that… I for one, have become what I am today in the last year or so actually.. I didn’t pay attention to these things before as they were probably more subtle. However it’s an all out war on us today.

        1. If you get on the Toronto subway you will be the minority there.
          I realized this only a couple years ago.

        2. Cool site.
          As I’ve said in past posts I’m aiming to move but I have decent employment and financial situation right now. Managed to hustle since I graduated in February and I want to pad my resume before I leave.
          Once I hit a certain number in my savings account I am leaving on a jet plane.

        3. Good deal. I can’t speak for other areas of the States, but employment is doing great here in my neck of the woods.

  5. Huh, who knew that the Left could get an HB 5-6 to speak on their behalf? Normally they rate in the HB2 to HB0 range.
    Wtf is up with her teeth, is she missing one or is that just a shadow in the photos?
    Great job getting these bozos’ names out in the public. Now link link link these articles on non-manosphere sites where this subject comes up. Shine the light of day on these cockroaches.

  6. Good to see she’s getting flack for what she wrote. The comments on the article she wrote in her own publication were no kinder. The real mystery is how a publication can continue to employ a writer whose own readership regards her as a laughing stock. Of course she has a soft-kitten like face. That goes a long way in the dog eat dog world of hard-boiled journalism these days it seems

  7. Why is anyonr concerned with that communist rag? Did it ever have creditability. She fits right in as a wealthy urbanite pesduosocialist. That’s who they want there and hire.

    1. Because it’s time to start identifying these people by name. They destroy lives behind their anonymity and are smug about it. It’s time to turn the tables on them.

      1. We have to push back, yes. More importantly we have to get organized. But how? They are so far away in their narrative that we will most likely look like a bunch of misogynist and be discarded right off.
        Roosh has a leg up in doing some organization but I just don’t see that coming from him yet…

        1. Step 1: Stop caring what they think or say about you. They don’t care what we say about them.
          Step 2: Make them “the establishment” in the eyes of others (because they are, but are not perceived as such) and make us the cool, hip rebels against the establishment.
          Step 3: Take every opportunity to make them look idiotic, with laughter and agree & amplify. kfg does this really well, look up his posts where he does the A&A tactics.
          “The Narrative” of freedom was entrenched and strong and unmovable for centuries here. The Left did exactly what I stated and turned the tables. The tactics work.

      2. Of course by all means blood for the blood god. The article just ends with “if the NR wants its creditability back..”

  8. Yeh! don’t be fooled by that doe eyed soft kitten expression, she is just the kind of leftie feminist woman who will get up in the morning, make some coffee, smile and relax with you, then walk into a police station and have you arrested for rape. Steer well clear of loonie leftie’s like her for sure.

  9. She’s actually kind of cute…..wait, delete that comment before I am arrested, smeared, and have my life destroyed for making a “rape threat”.

    1. You don’t even have to verbalize anything, the “male gaze” can be an “emotional trigger” for a feminist. Rally the sisters, lawyer on speed dial. Unless of course the guy is hawtttt. Then she’s doing oral on the first date.

    2. I’d fuck her.
      Liberals make the best slaves. It only takes two or three hours to convince them they are the worst scum in the universe and deserve anything you do to them.

    3. yes shes cute, and you can see the madness in her eyes. this combination arouses me like no other, its a shame you cant trust girls like her. but yeah, if im able to record the sex, id fuck her crazy haha

  10. She is insane. She deserves to be wholly ignored. I predict that the day she hits the wall, if she doesn’t have a man fully locked down, she will quite literally develop a mental illness that will eventually end up with her being committed.
    She needs to f-ing get help, because she has a serious mental problem.

    1. Yeah, her teeth make her look like some of the rural Arizona women I know.

        1. British women have bigger boobs. Actually, the largest in Europe statistically.
          You can fix teeth.

        2. Seriously? Do you have a link with that study/statistics graph I can check up on? Always interested in silly trivia like that, I am. heh

        3. I thought it was only my imagination. But yeah, the few times I’ve been to the UK, I did notice the above average boobery walking around.

    2. Yeah, with her mouth closed she could be a 6 borderline 7 with the right makeup and clothes. The moment the mouth open she has those teeth AND she looks absolutely goofy in a weird “little sister” way. Hence my rating her a 5.

  11. If the Ames event happened between the fall of the Soviet and 2002, no statutory rape took place. The age of consent was 14, the traditional age of the Church, and at the time Moscow women were fucking like weasels in heat released from a cage.
    I will accuse no man, not even a man I hate, of a legalistic rape that did not happen.

    1. It won’t let me post, it auto-moderates and needs “approval”. Good luck getting a dissenting voice through over there.
      And no, I posted nothing bad or with curse words.

        1. They vanished, my posts. Figures.
          The “female PUA” is delusional (in the comments section). Show up, be pretty and say “Hi” and suddenly you’re a “pick up artist” as a woman. Absolutely delusional.
          I do see advancedatheist managed to get a post in. I wonder if he got in before the automoderation started?

        2. There is such a thing as female “game”, but it’s so pervasive in culture and in-born in women, you can’t call it an art. It’s almost not worth talking about since women do these things almost instinctively. It’s certainly not something that needs significant effort to learn (as men do). The notion of a female PUA is a lie. Watch a woman start posting in a male space on the internet. Almost without fail, the women will find some way of referring to the attractiveness of themselves or themselves by extension of the men they have snagged. That’s female game, but they *all* do it, nearly *all of the time*. Their behavior in this respect is so common that people literally take it for granted. Women never stop gaming men when they believe there are high value men around.
          The artistry in PUA comes from the fact that it’s actually difficult for a man to get his way with women, it takes skill and practice. That’s what makes it an (performance) art form.

        3. Mine went to automoderation, then it appeared. I don’t know why mine made it through. I appreciate the upvote, BTW. I’d like for others to look up my post and upvote it a lot more.

        4. Here’s a second comment of mine that wasn’t manly enough for that site:
          “That’s what it’s come to. One can’t explain to modern men like confuzzled that you can’t turn a ho into a housewife without citing “studies.” What wise men and women knew for thousands of years didn’t really become the truth until some social scientist ran the numbers to confirm that girls with very low N counts divorce at far lower rates.”
          I think they have a zero-tolerance policy to directing any criticism to women. Apparently, when you’re as manly as they are, women never misbehave and men need not learn about their instinctual nature.

    2. Real confidence cannot be dependent on outward appearances. Unshakeable confidence can’t come from a car or a pair of jeans or jewelry. In an attempt to get quick results they — the pick-up gurus — dress a fella up, parade him around, and then show him tricks and tactics to help him feel bold and able to approach a lady in public and get her number….

      Of course, he fails to define “real confidence”, so on what basis can he really differentiate between the “fake” confidence of the first steps of learning game and whatever his definition of “real” confidence is. Instead he clings to the notion that changing the self, albeit one awkward step at a time, is not real. This thinking keeps him(/her?) ignorant.

      …The fear, however, isn’t faced as you, but as a fella who needs to be dressed up and taught tricks to feel confident enough to talk to a lady and wily enough to get her number. You’re given tools, and tools are great, but they aren’t grit or toughness — they’re tools of cunning and trickery, which are weak.

      This is patent nonsense. Approaching women and attempting to control the social dynamic builds confidence regardless of your outcome. You can completely fail, but as long as you don’t get discouraged (and lose your frame), you’re likely facing down and sublimating a fear. This sort of paragraph makes the writer look like a total fool.

    3. My comments on that manly site get rejected. Here’s what failed their would-my-wife-approve-this test:
      “The author of this article is clutching his pearls over a PUA hit piece he saw on the news. In response, he writes an article to which the mainstream media and feminists the world over would gush with approval. How manly to parrot to latest message from the reigning cultural powers!
      This article and all the PUA hit pieces on the network news remind me of the 80s panic over satanic music lyrics. It’s simply not a real-world problem. If you actually go into a bar or walk the streets of big American cities, you have a infintissimal chance of seeing a Julian-Blanc-style pick up. And it never will become a problem since a very small percentage of men have the courage to even approach a woman and have a polite conversation with her.
      But that’s not stopping the media from demonizing so-called pick-up artists. The media abhors the notion of men learning truths such as:
      Women have sex enthusiastically with men to whom they are attracted simply for fun, without any promise of commitment.
      Women don’t make men to whom their attracted wait to have sex.
      Women are attracted to men who don’t comply with their demands.
      Women are attracted to men who are selfish.
      Women are not sexually attracted to “good” men; it’s simply not an attaction cue for them.
      Women want men to whom they are attracted to confidently lead them to sex.
      Women cheat on their boyfriends and husbands if given the risk-free opportunity to have sex with a more attractive man.
      Women are not unique snowflakes. It’s useful to men to know the generalities about their attraction cues and their instinctual nature in relationships.
      Next time be manly and write an article that wouldn’t get published in Cosmo.”

  12. So she has rape fantasies about Roosh. She fantasizes about him punishing her during sex. I’m glad she could come out of the closet with this. That kind of honesty is what feminism should be all about.

  13. The problem is that the avenues of culture are controlled by the Left. Journalism schools are filled with hipster-types (both professors and students) who want to “change the world” via leftwing advocacy journalism. Their worldview, rooted in cultural Marxism, is so emotionally and intellectually ingrained that anyone who remotely challenges it is seen as an evil sexist, racist enemy who must be destroyed using whatever means possible.
    Where are all the conservatives? In business, engineering, physical sciences, etc. In other words, providing the muscle of America mostly through the private sector.

  14. Whenever feminists get called out on their lies, they come out with the “unity of the oppressed” rhetoric. If you disagree with a feminist’s false rape accusation, then you must be a racist who refused to loan a black person money because of his skin color. Feminism is a bankrupt ideology of misandry, but any man who dares challenge it will be called a rapist and a racist. Feminism is a zero sum game, men must be destroyed so women can win.

    1. So? Call me a rapist? I’ll use the word rape in every sentence after that and make the word useless. In fact, I’ll make “rape” into a humorous word. Call me a rapist, let’s depower that word just like “racist” has become discredited due to the constant push of it in society.
      Bring it on, I say! heh
      Culture rape!

  15. Also, notice that she refers to her cat as “baby”….like most leftist women, she confuses a house pet with a human child.
    Because human children interfere with women’s careers, they are obviously misogynistic tools of right wing oppression.

      1. We are better off if specimens like her and her white knight husband do not reproduce.

        1. I disagree. Hopefully her ‘rebellious’ offspring will have sense.
          Many of us were born to liberal parents.

        2. Exactly. Life generates life. The worst thing the feminist garbage do is to not reproduce.

        3. Sort of. He is the type of geek who wears an ill-fitting “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like” T-shirt.

        4. We call those types of shirts “smediums”. The guy is probably too fat so he picks the next size smaller than what he should wear.
          He’s wearing a smedium t-shirt (i.e. fat guy in a little coat).

        5. It’s only an exception. It’s like saying there are women leaders but they are only an exception.

        6. I’m sure he likes to watch her get fucked every month or so, she tells him its good for the relationship

      2. These weirdos shouldn’t even be reproducing, they’d be bad parents. Hopefully, their kids will grow up to have common sense but is it likely?! Maybe or maybe not, especially with the world becoming dumber each day!

    1. Right. Good observation. Typical …NO KIDS. I can hear her biologic clock ticking tic toc tic toc

    2. I always found people who treat their pets like they are babies to be totally stupid.

      1. agreed. But no matter how hard women try to be like men, they just can’t suppress that darn maternal instinct. Solution? Take it out on the nearest house pet.

    3. Real children represent responsibility and adulthood, traits champagne leftists are too immature to accept

    4. I’ve noticed a fascinating correlation between female abortion/pro death supporters and animal rights activists.
      The same people who feel developing life is no more than a clump of cells and then (magically) becomes a human only after birth are also the same kind of people who treat their pets like children and spoil them shamelessly and feel they have souls and deserve rights like us.
      This phenomenon needs to be researched further.

    5. I notice that middle to upper middle class white women are especially prone to treating their pets like people. I see them pushing animals in strollers or carrying pets around like babies. My husband and I have a cat but we do not treat her like a baby because she is a friggin’ animal. Babies do not eat out of bowls on the floor.

    6. She’s a cunt and all… but I admit I 100% would bang. And if I have to say “Feminism rocks” to get into her pants then I’d probably say it. And that’s a problem. Don’t know how I’d overcome that. But, hey, a ONS is a ONS.

    1. So any white woman who isn’t fat is considered hot? That used to be considered “average”. That’s an average white chick, 6 out of 10 if you want to be polite. Don’t pedestalize an AWG on her looks, females like that are within reach of almost any male with a minimal amount of game.

      1. Yes, exactly. Standards have fallen quite a lot haven’t they? She would have been picked on as a “little sister” back in my youth, and made aware of how goofy she was on a daily basis in a good natured way.

  16. I don’t really care if she’s fired on not. I’ll never read one her articles or pay a penny for any rag she’s published in.

    1. You should though
      Equalists losing their means of living is a very important salvo against social justice

  17. The fact is, a lot of women have gang rape fantasies. Bruenig seems to be especially troubled by her sexual fantasies and this self-loathing manifests itself in her writing.

    1. You can always tell the type. They do nothing but talk (or write) about it, nonstop. This snowflake is no different.

  18. She’s had a kind of idiot’s obsession with libertarianism, Murray Rothbard in particular, which has been painfully enjoyable to watch her get everything wrong.
    By the way, she’s not just a “Christian socialist,” she’s a Catholic socialist, which if you’re any student of history f the church before the 20th century, is a gross, hideous contradiction. Her stumbling over the absolute basics of catechism is like watching a buffoon fall down a steep stairwell carrying a bucket of paint, motor oil, and feathers.

    1. In reality, despite her protestations to the contrary, her religion is secular feminism/socialism. The rest is simply window dressing.

  19. I think Stoker Bruenig might be slightly retarded. And I don’t mean that in a “you’re a retard” type way. I mean she didn’t properly develop both mentally and physically.
    She actually looks like she’s 16, maybe even younger. Her grasp of the English language is around that level as well.

    1. Based on her writing, I would guess that her English is fine but her ability to form coherent thoughts is absolutely abysmal.

  20. The reason they keep her around is probably because she’s a bit of a cutie. It lets them point to her as definitive proof that not all feminists are Lena Dunham lookalikes.
    That, and the other “males” there are probably secretly pining for her.
    I admit I don’t read leftist publications, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the quality of her writing is any worse than other lefty rags.

  21. Ah Elizabeth Stoker and her husband Matt. I particularly hate those two for their anti libertarian, anti freedom nonsense.
    Turns out she was worse than I initially thought (and my initial perception of her wasn’t exactly positive either)

  22. If that rambling nonsense isn’t enough to dissuade you from sending your children to college, I don’t know what is. I see a lot of meaningless pseudo-intellectual buzzwords and emotional verbal diareah, and not much else.

  23. How does this trash get to be a writer?
    Oh, I know.
    Have fun not having a civilization.

    1. I’m accustomed to reading convoluted legalese that beats around every bush in the forest to make its point, but that first excerpt is indecipherable. I have read it five times, and I still have no idea what it says.
      If I was an editor, and a “professional” writer submitted something like this to me, I would be concerned that: 1) everything previously submitted was plagiarized or ghost written by someone else; or 2) the writer was struck by a sudden bout of mental retardation. I don’t even know that I’d go with a stern warning here – I might just fire on the spot. Something like this reveals a woman completely unhinged, who is one bad feelings day away from publishing something that will get you sued out of existence for libel.

      1. But you can’t invalidate a women’s feelings, or you’re a misogynist. See how that works?

        1. The problem is that “invalidation” is an assumption. I’m not invalidating her feelings, I’m firing her “because” I assume them to be valid.

      2. And yet she is a PhD student, and possibly a candidate, in, wait for it, wait for it . . . critical thought.

        1. I suspect that’s code for “immersion into the full Marxist critique of capitalist societies” or some such nonsense.
          Socialism/Marxism cannot survive actual critical thought or critique.

        2. Yes. What tends to set her apart is that she’s not doing it through a social science department. She’s doing it through the theology department. She’s a Marxist who claims fear of the biblical God.
          It’s a bit much to expect coherence from a mind that accepts six mutually exclusive things before breakfast, but quite another to award her a doctorate in it.
          We may not be doomed yet, but we shall certainly have to put up a fight for our salvation.

        3. One would think the mounds of corpses socialism left in its wake during the 20th century would be enough to dissuade individuals from endorsing its politico-economic tenets. Such individuals however are extremely irrational; motivated by emotion rather than actual critical thinking skills.

    2. I am on record here and elsewhere as being in favour of maintaining civilization. There are very many things about it that I find of value.
      That said, I note an irony. There is a group of people who could have a good deal of fun in the absence of civilization. We call those people:
      Men, civilized men, eschew civilization as a form of recreation. Those that are the useful idiots of the machine tearing civilization apart will be the first to whine about the loss of civilized luxuries – while the men get down to business.

  24. ESB has been hired by TNR because she’s pretty (you’re a moron if you deny it), has a degree from Cambridge (which gives her credentialist authority), and is a Christian lefty (let’s use one of their own against them). Basically, she’s a useful idiot. Take away any of those three things and she wouldn’t be hired.
    BTW, ESB really is quite pretty. It is something of a conceit that all feminists are ugly. There really are non-trivial numbers of good looking feminists. But they’re all bat shit crazy, even more so than other feminists. But, even if shes’ pretty, she’s also creepy as fuck. Those eyes are the eyes of someone without a soul.
    EDIT: Anybody who rates her as a 5, or even a 5-6, is a poseur. Nuff said.

    1. There’s no way she could make a career from her looks. Unless you’re trapped in a small town of 5000 people, she’s just another AWG.

      1. probably appeals to the people in charge, elderly pedophiles and domineering lesbians.

      2. She’s in the 7-8 range. Which means she’s photogenic enough for her looks to help.

        1. That’s where I put her too. An 8? You have to NOT have snaggle teeth (or a missing tooth, I can’t tell which in the photo) to get to 8 range, no matter any of your other qualifications.

        2. She doesn’t have the body for 8. I put the type of woman who could work as a waitress at Hooters in that category.

        3. Probably not, I was just going for the really low hanging fruit. Men can disagree about body preference, but I think all men (except Thursday1) take off quite a few points for snaggle teeth/missing teeth.

        4. Oh please, Mr. Internet Poseur. “I have such refiiiiiiiiiiined taste. I’m not like those oooooother guys.”

        5. Just trying chatting up one AWG per week. Don’t even think about game, or pick up, or whatever you want to call it. Just make stupid conversation with her. If you chat up 52 average looking women per year, you can probably date 6 of them, and lay 3 of them. If you’re not banging the AWG in the story, its another almost just like her.

        6. What about a gap in the teeth? Most of the time it looks like poor dental care, but Anna paquin pulls it off, IMO. This chick, very average. Not hot, not ugly. Average.

    2. Seriously guy, don’t be so thirsty. She isn’t awful, and if she doesn’t smile and show her snaggle teeth (notice that?) she’s doable. A 6, give or take, and if dressed up and dolled up and she keeps her mouth closed, bordering on a 7 at best. Most guys here would hit on her without having to be ashamed.
      Not a “pointy elbow” thing, she’s just kind of, eh..normal, however, she keeps herself thin and has that nice feminine “doe eyed” thing going on which helps up her value a bit.
      Agreed on the eyes, something bad is going on behind them.

        1. Your ad hominem serves no purpose here.
          I gave you my honest assessment. I live just north of THE Ohio State University campus. Girls like her are plain Janes compared to most here. In high school I would have ribbed her as being a dorky little sister (in a nice way). If she’s not openly smiling and not showing her teeth and doesn’t have on the dopey look she has in one of the photos above, she’s acceptable, but not top shelf by any reasonable estimation.

        2. Whatever dude. You’re thirsty, we get it, consider it noted.
          Hope your day gets better.

        3. You don’t know me.
          What is indisputable is that on every time someone posts a picture of a pretty girl, there is always, always some dude who needs to prove his manhood by lowballing her looks. Congratulations, sir, today you are that dude.

        4. Yes yes, somebody doesn’t absolutely align with your subjective view, ergo, he’s wrong.
          Solipsism much, brother?
          I gave her an honest assessment. It’s clear that my judgement doesn’t match your fap rating. End of the day, who cares? Well, you do apparently, heh. Ask yourself why you desperately need other men to agree with your rating, you might learn something about yourself.
          Won’t bother to read your response. You’ve already judged everybody here who doesn’t nod in enthusiasm with your thoughts as “wrong”, so there’s no point, you’re not interested in anything but snarling at this point.

        5. Hard to say. He/she is doing what a lot of girls do, elevate a modest normal looking girl to “beautiful!”. Chicks do it in order to make themselves seem even more pretty by comparison (girl trick amongst girls, who are social conformists), men do it because they are thirsty thirsty thirsty.

        6. Why would a frustrated beta male be threatened by that kind of message exchange? Its just guy talk.

        7. I have zero clue man. Zero.
          People get their egos invested in their own valuation of the opposite sex. To not agree with their valuation is, to them, an attack on them directly. It’s weird, to say the least.
          There are plenty of women I find absolutely hot that I suspect some would, legitimately, say “Eh, not so much”. That’s fine, no skin off my nose.
          Losing ego investment in how others judge your words is one of the benefits of maturing in a healthy manner. Judge me good or bad, criticize or approve of my tastes, whatever, end of the day my self image doesn’t depend on the judgement of others.

      1. I get the feeling that millennial males have a different standard for females. They grew up with the internet, and their first or only experience with women could be approaching from internet messages. They see some AWG getting hundreds of likes, and they confuse that with being hot. That doesn’t make her hot. That’s just spam. In the real world her social position isn’t changed.

        1. Fantastic observation.
          Being a teenager and early 20 something in the 1980’s I was surrounded by *truly* hot women (all of us were). Looking at plain Janes now and thirsting after them, eh, kind of weird. Again, she’s not awful looking, I’m not stating she’s ugly or anything, but the standards have fallen so much that “thin, long hair, decent eyes” has become “HB 8! Or you’re a poseur!”.
          I can’t recall EVER rating a woman with snaggle teeth/missing teeth very highly. Guess I don’t have a “thang” for Appalachian chicks, heh.

  25. Seems like an academic troll, but she’s critical of “affirmative consent” and “rape by fraud” (mainly because she is worried about blacks or Muslims being arrested if they held her prisoner and raped her at gunpoint), so on the whole I see nothing wrong with her continuing to discredit journalism

  26. God, her disgustingly smug and contrived attempt at a beatific visage literally makes me want to puke.

        1. Porcelain veneer for one tooth: $925 to $2500 per tooth and lasts 10 to 15 years.

        2. That’s not going to help. What about the left side of her face that’s a different shade? She needs to have the 3 crowns cut off and replaced with the right shades.

        3. The veneer can be made to the right shade. What you are talking about is old fashioned bridge work. No need to destroy three teeth to fix one.

      1. I’m not sure, are you being sarcastic? Her phony, self-satisfied manners disguise a fascistic soul and they make my skin crawl. The missing tooth doesn’t bother me at all.
        If you’re being serious, God help you–you’re heading for a very, very rough life.

        1. don’t we all have a little adolf inside?
          i don’t agree that i’ll have a very rough life due to this preference. your interpretation of her manners may be more fitting. i’m not experienced and if i’m wrong, i’ll learn.

        2. That much is apparent. Kinda defeats the point of engaging with a website revolving around advice, or?

        3. i wonder why you care, but i’m here to get ideas, not to follow every one of them. the people writing here could be clueless or they could be the next einstein – i wouldn’t know.

      2. OK as a medical man I’ll explain the tooth. It’s not missing. What you see here are 2 crowns on the central incisors that are too white. On the right side(compare it to the left side) she also has a crown on the canine that’s too white.Also, if you get crowns on your front teeth the canine and the teeth further back should always be at least 1/2 shade darker because of the way the eye sees them as being natural. She just had a colour blind dentist lol
        Even if it is a recessed tooth it can be adjusted by a brace for a few months but it would still be the wrong colour because it is between crowns that are too white.
        A 20yo natural blonde would have the whitest teeth and a good cosmetic dentist would use a shade that is natural for your complexion and age.No, negroes do not have the whitest teeth, they just look white in relation to skin colouring.

    1. She needs to fix that recessed tooth on the upper left side of her gnashers.

  27. Yes this chick and her ilk are destroying the TNR. But it’s the TNR’s fault for their obsession for hiring unqualified , young hipster idiots. They have no wisdom.

  28. Ah who cares. I would neither bang her, nor approach her to try to get a free drink out of her. I don’t read New Republic as I don’t have time for silly articles that don’t put bread in my pocket. And, I really don’t give time to be a spectator in the pyscho feminist social justice outrage theater of today.
    I’m traveling to countries where prostitution is legal so that, in the unlikely event that I’m accused of rape in such a place,I can simply say that the girls free drink was merely down payment on sex-for-hire and the SHE breached the contract by not performing the sexual act.
    The problem is that we can’t call whores whores here when they are really in the same business. And, they’ve got the law on their side to define, and redefined the terms of the contract if and when they wish to color the transaction between consenting adults as rape. So women, who have little power other than to induce a boner, now have great power to punish man if he does not please her or offends her in any way, which by my experience is most likely to happen in all interactions with mentally ill western females.

  29. I really hate this new generation of “writers” and “journalists” who are pretty much all hardcore social justice warriors. They lie just to push a narrative. If this is how they are trained in school, then that’s totally wrong.

  30. everyone should put motion sensor cameras in their rooms and cars and record with their phones if away. Don’t share it, but you’ll have it if you need to disprove their false accusations. Sad but true.

  31. The mistake Roosh and others made was to pose the question “Would you Bang?”. That is clearly what an idiot femtard will interpret as rape.
    What happened to merely assigning a 1-10 rating? In her case, she is a 6, which means I usually have better-looking women than her.
    Just give her a 1-10 rating, rather than ask “Would you Bang?”. Don’t given them the excuses they need.

    1. “Don’t given them the excuses they need.”
      A good thought, however they manufacture excuses as they need them for their purpose. You cannot beat them by trying to play the game by their rules. The rules are designed to get you chasing your own tail to failure.
      You can only beat them by direct assault, under your own rules, designed to lead directly to a win.
      Ideally the one play you take from their book is to double bind them so that however they react to your assault results in a victory for you. Rule 4 them to death.

    1. J’accu..zzi sluts and why you shouldn’t bang them?
      True though. False rape allegations are the rabid anti-semitism of the modern west

    1. she’s probably calling the police on you right now while boasting about it on twitter

  32. Good call – the first step against equalism is to remove the equalists’ source of income
    Like many feminists, she delights in receiving alleged rape threats if only for the purpose of trumpeting her victimhood. This could be said of “campus rape” hysteria in general, demonstrating that the subject itself is not actually worth discussion

  33. Aaaah. The beatific and smug visage of the pseudo socialist ‘intellectual’ who feels morally vindicated and justified.
    I’m convinced these women are obsessed with the fantasy of being taken brutally by ape like misogynistic men.
    If hypocrisy was a fatal disease most of these people would be dead.

  34. Quit making fun of her teeth!! A bloodsucking parasite ‘feminist’, with such pale skin, and with a last name like ‘Stoker’ clearly needs a place for the vampire fangs to come out.
    She is just teething as part of her vampiric metamorphosis. Her name, as a full vampire, will be ‘Ejacula’.
    Liz Stoker’s ‘Ejacula’. A vampire tale for ‘feminists’.

  35. I can’t help but notice her clear social class markers…..the white skin, the style of makeup, the clothing, the chosen backdrops of her photos, even her name(s).
    I find this little self-professed “socialist” (she probably hasn’t had to work a real day in her life) to be an insufferable little rich girl.

    1. Notice how he stands behind her and is covered by her “Baby” the cat. We all know where he stands in the marriage.

        1. No, behind the dark triad assholes pounding that pussy and leaving a nice present for him to lick clean afterwards…. oh wait, are we talking about her cat?

  36. I only read Roosh’s tweet once and I knew what he meant. Not once did Roosh even mention that he wanted to have sex with her. He just asked his followers if they found her sexually attractive. How she reached this rationalization, I do not know. And she should do something about her teeth. If she’s going to be a cunt, at least be a cunt with straight teeth.

    1. Being a Social Justice Warrior means never having to actually having to follow the rules of logic. Or, in the words of The Transplants:
      “It must be so fun being so fucking dumb.”

  37. Is it wrong that all of these death threats, straw man attacks, etc. against Forney and Roosh cheer me up? No, I don’t want any harm to befall either of them: I just LOVE how effective they are at irritating the leftists and the subsequent screeching hysteria that ensues. I’m literally cheered up every time one of the SJWs goes ballistic, emitting a wail of desperation as their idiotic philosophy and hypocrisies are dismantled. Thanks, guys!

    1. That’s an excellent point. Is there any greater pleasure than getting them to throw their tantrums?

  38. Snaggle tooth=slut. Just sayin.
    Seriously though, this UVA series on ROK is the point where RealTalk will begin biting at the edges of the mainstream media narrative. These fucking cultural marxists can no longer operate in a bubble, unopposed and unquestioned thanks to sites like ROK.

  39. Elizabeth S. Bruenig is another example of “damaged goods”. She’s not (or never got) the right amount of attention (growing up) so she’s looking for it, now.

  40. Her smile reminds me of those shit eating grins girls who never had braces gave me in the classroom when I was a kid, after they ripped one.

  41. Frats create a culture of ritualized gangrape–LIKE PRISONS, she says. How could such a sophomoric, intellectually bankrupt, loose cannon airhead gain ANY prominence at all without sucking lots and lots of powerful co*k? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Is there any other possible explanation? Is her uncle Maury President of The New Republic editorial board?

  42. I predict that with all of these false rape accusation that are whimfully thrown around, that when a actual rape does happen, no one is going to believe it. These SJW and the mainstream media are going to become victim of their own creation.

      1. I think her husband enjoys cuckhold porn. Or he’s just so happy to have a real! live! woman! marry him that he deliberately shields his eyes and mind when she gets gangbanged on their wedding album.

        1. Definitely. I’m sure he gives her a big wet kiss after she has been romped by another guy. Then proceeds to eat out her ‘juicy’ pussy.

      2. If you’re a pretty, white female feminist you have everything handed to you as soon as you walk in the door?

        1. Don’t read too much… Uh, don’t read as much into that as you did. Heh. It’s just that fatties and uglies don’t get stuff handed to them. That’s the general rule. But… you wanna make me out to have a crush or something, don’tcha?

        2. Don’t read too much… Uh, don’t read as much into that as you did. Heh. It’s just that fatties and uglies don’t get stuff handed to them. That’s the general rule. But… you wanna make me out to have a crush or something, don’tcha?

        1. Hands on learning.
          “One of the things I found most appealing about the opportunity (To work at TNR) was the chance to work with experienced editors who are willing to make time for young writers…. It’s sort of like being the Anne Hathaway character in The Devil Wears Prada, only my Anna Wintour figure is a nice thirty-something guy instead of a devastatingly fashionable and cold Meryl Streep. But similar levels of hands-on learning.”
          Lots and lots of hands on learning.

  43. I find her amusingly simple-minded, like some old comedy about the fall of a kingdom when some upper-class place twit is running around bullying people because the rules of polite society give him power, but in reality he has none; then, when the whole power structure collapses under a real threat from an external power his valet kicks him in the nuts and goes, “Eh? Shut up, ya brat!”
    As Captain Capitalism says, enjoy the decline boys. She’s at least laughably stupid.

  44. She’s irresistibly cute to me for some reason. I haven’t read a word of this article. I just want to see her smile.

        1. There are plenty of female saps.
          Did you ever see Inside Llewyn Davis, BTW? The main female character was a shrew, a cheat, a vicious ballbreaker, a mercenary ho who used sex to advance her career while her beta husband dutifully and cluelessly served her… but when she took the stage to sing a sweet folk song to the crowd, her face took on a certain expression of absolute moral purity–the exact expression on this wench’s face in the picture at the top of this article.

    1. she’s attractive to a certain segment of men like the way anne hathaway is (was). take off the makeup and tie the hair back and her points drop. give her pale skin 3 more years in the sun and watch the jowls. let her be a childless feminist for another 5 years and the unpleasantness and scorn will show in her eyes. she’s way too aware of her power over men and i wouldn’t trust that she even smiles without an ulterior motive.
      she’s not good stock.

  45. She’s missing a tooth, her face is Mr. Ed, and she’s well on her way to the wall. She’s a 6 maybe. He husband is exactly the kind of pussy a woman like her marries. And who cares>
    Look, no man was ever mean to Brunig. This anti-man thing is her CAREER, fellas, she has to keep it juiced. I figure there are a few hundred broads in media, NOW, feminists in the Universities that stir all this man-hate up, that’s the entire feminist movement. Seriously, name all the “influential” (to bubble-headed women everywhere) female-feminist writers and “leaders. A couple of hundred. The rest of the entire feminist theme would be off the air if simply ignored.
    This broad here is just the latest. They’ll tell any lie, create any scenario to paint men evil. Meanwhile, every one of them is white, wealthy and never took a dick in anger, (raped), ever. But this is their industry, they HAVE to keep pushing BS scenarios. And if the scenario didn’t happen, they’ll make one up. Every publication that played ball with the latest rape story, UVA, should be shamed and shunned, from new Republic to Rolling Stone, Atlantic (which is failing since the homo bought it and sold it after wrecking it anyway).
    We, as men need to, in unison, stop supporting media and THEIR ADVERTISERS that smear us as a gender. Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. Don’t buy their products. Let their advertisers know their products are TOAST with men if they advertise in publications that smear men. Cave in their switchboards, DOS their websites. And let them know we’re doing it and why. Quite soon, you’d see little of this pap in the press because the press knows their advertisers won’t stand for the collective action of we as men shunning the cars and beer and whatever else, whoever advertises in whatever publication that smears men as a gender and attacks OUR institutions. We’ve been sheep for far too long. Time for men to boycott New Republic, Atlantic Monthly and Rolling Stone and all their advertisers. Don’t buy the papers, don’t buy the products. Women can’t so this to us without OUR support and of course, apathy. Cut them the fuck off, fellas. I am already.
    We, as a gender, could render feminism irrelevant in short order if only WE would declare war on them in media, education and government. Sure as shit, they’ve declared war on US.

  46. Shame about her teeth. Would hate fuck.
    PS. The age of consent in Russia changed to 16 in 1997. If Mark Ames fucked the 15 year old before that year, it’s not fair to call him a statutory rapist.

    1. I was going to say the same. AOC was 14 before. I asked my assistant Dr Danilova who’s from Moscow. I think that the reason it was raised is because arseholes from the US were trying to use these young girls in porn films etc And before this insane present, the age to do stuff like porn was the same as that of consent not 18. I can remember Dutch girls 16+ doing stuff in early 2000’s that would be considered ‘child porn’ in today’s puritanical world.In those days child porn really meant a child and meant sex not just a nude pic.What has to be insane in today’s world is that it’s ok to have sex with a 16+ but if you take a nude pic of her she’s now a child and it’s illegal. Does this make any sense?

  47. Delivering pizzas to a black neighborhood for one week would undo the lifetime of leftist indoctrination that she’s undergone. She has very strong opinions about the plight of poor blacks. I wonder how many she interacts with personally.

  48. This female is so profoundly ignorant (if not stupid) i question the borders of her sanity. She would probably qualify for some sort of disability benefit in California.
    A “Christian socialist” might as well be an oxymoron but that doesn’t seem to deter her from trying to pass off as one (she’s half right though) and it doesn’t seem to matter that her wealth redistribution hypocrisy is on full display whenever she vaunts her wealth and/or status online.
    Her words are unintelligible and seem as if they were thrown together in some pretentious fashion as a means of trying to impress her lobotomized readership and her equally misandrist peers.
    I sense a vast intellectual inadequacy at play here. She strikes me as a sciolist and misandrist snow white wannabe with the IQ of burnt toast.
    Anyway Matt, thanks for quoting the part about Blacks that i myself quoted yesterday as a means of highlighting her blithering idiocy.

  49. Ah those greedy bankers… not giving mortgages to poor blacks because they hate money so much. Tell me again who the biggest losers were in the bursting of the “no money down – no credit” real estate bubble? Which demographic?
    She’s full of preening, self-satisfied non-sense. She doesn’t care that the policies she advocates actually hurt the people she pretends to be concerned about. Its all vanity… me, me, me. Look at how much better I am than those other guys (businesses, bankers, employers, Republicans) because I “care.”

  50. To me she looks about 13. I’d feel weird having a full on political argument with her, like I was beating up on a little kid. It’s weird that the opinions of women (girls) like this are taken seriously enough to merit writing whole articles of critique about. To me a more appropriate response would be like a ‘kids say the darndest stuff’ kind of thing. Like just a headshake and a chuckle. Maybe a ‘that’s cute’. That’d be about it.

    1. I think that is part of the reason feminism has been allowed to get so insanely out of control. Ironically, a patronizing kind of sexist and dismissive attitude toward the wacky things that come out of young feminists mouths empowers them t cause real trouble for men (and women) in real life.
      I’m sure this blathering little idiot has been condescendingly patted on her empty head her entire life.

  51. Ok Roosh, this is what you have to do. Hold a ‘beauty’ contest and have all the men here examine and vote on the winner. You remember Welmer from the spearhead? He took 2 feminists and held a contest and this drives them crazy. He did it the right way too by taking 2 who were about the same in looks. No top girls or fuglies because that would mean nothing.They have to be close in looks, then the men will comment on their different traits and vote. For some reason these girls can’t stand this when you examine and compare them to each other. So take this girl and add 2 feminists of about the same looks and let’s have some fun and watch the cuckoos pop out of their heads :o) It’s even more fun than fat shaming.

  52. This bitch passes herself off as a conservative. She is no conservative.
    Would not bang, but would let some other girl blow me so I could cum on her face.

  53. Not only would I not bang: that pic raised a visceral fear in me like certain nightmares. Would behead, and stuff with holy wafers.

  54. Nice piece. She sounds like a truly despicable bitch. Cannot believe anyone even a pussy liberal socialist can stand to be married to her.

  55. Ha, ha. She’s brilliant and you’re well…you’re not. Good luck with the misogyny!

  56. You are an idiot, a liar, a hypocrite, and a pathetic excuse for a man. No, I take that back. Calling you a man is an insult to the gender. You know damn well that she never claimed that Roosh made a rape threat against her. She merely mentioned the fact, one that Roosh has repeatedly admited in a pathetic and shameful manner, that he is horrible at sex. He himself said he is incapable of sexually satisfying women and that sex with him is horrible and unpleasant. He only gets laid using his pretty face and the fact that very few people actually know who the fuck he is. By offering to “bang” Lizzy he was stating: “You will have an awful, sexually akward, ugly, weird and at times painful experience after which I’ll never call you.” Why else do you think Roosh is incapable of keeping a woman around who’s more than a four? He can’t please them and he never will and the only reason he gets laid is not due to game but to to that lovely mug. Maybe when he gets older he’ll have enough cash to draw stupid low rent whores that care little for quality in men (like that sad pathetic wheelchair dude in the Big Lebowski, that’s a glamorous version of men like Roosh’s future). Any way, your a liar, you’re not really a man, your a hipocrite, and you obviously have a small dick. If you don’t then that’s worse because then there’s really just no excuse for an article like this.

    1. ” You know damn well that she never claimed that Roosh made a rape threat against her.”
      LOL. Did you not read her own tweets?

      1. I did. Her tweets were saying that sex with him is so horrible it’s a threat! He himself has said that he is horrible at sex. So much so that he has learned not to care about even providing the woman pleasure. That is to say he bangs her, in his strange manner, for less than a minute and prematurely ejaculates and then fucks off.
        I understand how that is something you would admire: just get her into bed and then it doesn’t matter even if you fuck her or not! I get it, I really do. Women’s sexuality is technically irrelevant to sex. It’s all about the game at least until you hit, generally, 35. After that you are a sad, pathetic, loser unless you can pay a woman a large sum of money to deal with your degenerate and adolescent personality. Even in that case she will leave you for her aerobics instructor or porn director because your a pathetic excuse for a man that fails to please her in every possible manner.
        At any rate, her point was that he said he would bang her and she said that was a “threat”. It was a “threat” not because it was rape because it would be awful and unpleasant and she is not wrong. Roosh himself has said he is awful at sex, completely incompetent! Any woman that has sex with him is in for an unpleasant time. That is why she implied sex with him is a threat because he himself said that sex with him is a horrible and awful thing to experience. It had nothing to do with rape. In fact he fabricated the whole “rape” aspect simply to depict himself as a pitiable victim to garner sympathy from pathetic beta males such as yourself. If you look at his marketing strategy you will find that is his sole demographic.

  57. This article seems very stalkerish. With the time it took you to stalk her, you could have written something more substantial.

Comments are closed.