Gawker Is Officially Dead—Good Riddance

Gawker, gossip rag about media and celebrities and a pot-stirring, bottom-feeding blog, is dead.

It made its last blog post Monday. Hulk Hogan delivered a $140 million body slam to the nice boys and girls who run the company for posting portions of a sexytimes tape featuring Hogan and some chick named Heather Clem (Bubba the Love Sponge’s ex-wife). Clem videotaped sex with the wrestler without his knowledge way back in 2006, and by 2012 Gawker editor AJ Daulerio decided it would be cute to post excerpts of the video on their web site. That decision led to the demise of one of the barnacles on the ass end of the internet.

Daulerio was later asked if the video had any news value in court and was forced to respond “no.” Daulerio was then asked in court:

Had you known that Hulk Hogan would be emotionally distressed by this publication, you would have still published it, correct?

And he replied with a cold answer that is totally unsurprising to those of us who have worked in vicious, sociopath-laden newsrooms.

Sure, yes.

Hulk Hogan body slammed Gawker into Chapter 11

Hulk Hogan body slammed Gawker into Chapter 11

He then went on to say he might draw the line at what makes the cut to get published and what doesn’t at the rape of a child under age four. Along those lines, the web site pioneered manufacturing outrage among its audience members to drive traffic and clicks, often on spurious claims or downright maliciousness. Daulerio is quoted as saying he couldn’t “give a fuck” about the veracity of any story that got published on the blog.

Karma is a bitch. For once, the company took a dump on the wrong person. The Hogan lawsuit alleged invasion or privacy, infringement of personality rights, and intentional affliction of emotional distress, and of course that lawsuit was enough to financially devastate the company. Gawker filed for bankruptcy only three months after the verdict was handed down, despite desperate attempts by its CEO Nick Denton to keep it on life support. When Gawker was sold to Spanish media company Univision, one of their first decisions was to shut it down.

But Hogan was not the only victim of their slack-jawed brand of gawking. The gossip rag, typical of many mainstream media outlets, pissed off many people with its voyeurism, rumor mongering and character assassination. Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal was outed for being gay by the blog back in 2007, and the expose on his private life was enough to make him vow revenge for the intrusion. He worked to fund lawsuits to take money out of their behinds.

Gawker also posthumously reported on a former Toronto mayor smoking crack on video. It showed Tom Cruise preaching in the Church of Scientology. It claimed the married CFO of Conde Nast solicited gay sex. To me, it’s not that these things were published, but moreso who gives a fuck? People read this and get worked up about it? Incredible. But the mean-spiritedness of the publication, scoring points while airing other people’s disgraces before the world makes its demise all the more sweet.

Trickle Down Effect

Gawker CEO Nick Denton getting sued in court

Gawker CEO Nick Denton getting sued in court

Perhaps what is saddest about the blog’s legacy is Gawker’s shameless publishing influenced media outlets of all different kinds: BuzzFeed, Vox, CNN, Fox News, The New Yorker, The New York Times and other household names all moved towards a business model like Gawker’s. This means web sites, television channels, and newspapers that already catered to the lowest common denominator downgraded their standards and became even more tabloid.

This was noticeable for those of us who worked in the mainstream media as standards went down every year and the “news,” already left-slanted and driven by sensationalism, became little more than a coffee klatsch designed to gather as many fat-bottomed women around the TV set as possible and get them started clucking.

Statistics showed Gawker’s audience was nearly three-quarters female, proving the female predilection for gossip and mean-spirited character assassination runs deep psychologically. Women get off on this stuff. So, only a few years later, Jezebel was launched in by Gawker 2007. Unfortunately, Jezebel will survive the bankruptcy. Jezebel’s founding editor, Anna Holmes, brags that Jezebel feminized mainstream news even further.

The relentless assault we made on traditional women’s media had an effect. There was a gradual process, but it was undeniable after a while that they were responding to and really mimicking what we were doing.

Kara Swisher, another online “journalist” talks about how Gawker moved mainstream news reports further down the road of editorializing and sensationalism.

As reporters, while we try to be fair and ethical, I think we err on the side of not calling things out for what they were. They did that beautifully — and it sort of emboldened the rest of us.

The Old York Times wrote about how the blog sped up the already fast pace of gossip and made it even more insidious than it already was.

Gawker opened a Pandora’s box, too. It sped media up to an insane pace. After Gawker, you didn’t take nights and weekends off. You couldn’t publish once a week. The internet was a beast that always needed feeding, and it demanded ever-hotter, ever-more-outrageous takes.

TVs should come with these warning labels

TVs should come with these warning labels, and the content has only gotten worse thanks to the influence of sites like Gawker

Tellingly, the founder and CEO of Gawker, Nick Denton was a former Financial Times journalist before striking out to do his own thing with Gawker. This is important because in my opinion (through over a decade of experience dealing with media people and working side by side with them) it illustrates the mentality of many in the media. They don’t care whose lives they’re destroying or if the public interest is being served as long as they can make a buck off it.

It’s easy to see Gawker and its bastard children Jezebel and Wonkette (self-proclaimed nasty vile little snark mob) feed female intrigue and mean-spirited, nihilistic criticism with anything they can sink their teeth into. In that way, it is a case study in female psychology and sociology since the vast majority of their readers are female. Men, if you want to know what’s on women’s mind, go read this dreck. Women lap it up like kittens lining up for a milking. Just prepare to be shocked and awed at what women really want when it comes to online “news.” Gawker was about nothing but pure, unabashed depravity. In many ways it made the National Enquirer look like a children’s magazine.

At least for a little while, the internet will be a better place until its replacement arises from some other dank corner of the internet. Women love gossip and they love tearing people down, so there will always be a reliable market for unscrupulous publishers to turn a buck. More than anything, Gawker was a reflection of just how mean spirited and vicious some people (especially women) can be. It was a reflection of a fully feminized culture that has no moral compass or sense of decency when it comes to dealing with other people. Good riddance.

May Hulk Hogan laugh all the way to the bank.

Read More: What Will Be Gawker’s Next Move After Being Ordered To Pay Hulk Hogan $115 Million?

119 thoughts on “Gawker Is Officially Dead—Good Riddance”

  1. Everything about this whole story (except the core causes – Gawker being a hateful rag and violating every possible sense of decency) makes me giggle.
    I have to do it: “WELL DONE, BROTHER!!!”

      1. I basically earn about $6.000-$8.000 on monthly basis doing an online job. For those of you who are ready to do easy computer-based jobs for 2-5 hours a day from your living room and earn valuable paycheck while doing it… This is a job for you… http://self49.com
        dfg35sfd

    1. That classic campy 80s show was the beginning of “Man’s last stand” on television.
      i recall several glorious moments when the show had the token female tag-along whining that she could be an “action girl” and getting knocked back to reality by the Team.
      On a side note, if Hogan looked like that during the run of The A-Team then it would’ve been very odd if his attempt to join Metallica had gone through.

  2. This is only partially true. Gawker was sold and is under different ownership, while the judgement is being appealed and will likely be reduced ten fold. But you definitely want the hulkster’s lawyer on your side, and he will be retiring in style.

        1. Don’t be surprised if gawker is only temporarily suspended until the appeal process has run its course. Then its gawker version 2.0.

        2. The Onion and AV Club have devolved into an echo chamber, full of liberals patting themselves on the ass and laughing at unfunny political jokes.

    1. Yes. And they are the authors of sexually repressive laws, a true statement that infuriates feminists and even some of the rare sane women.
      It’s part of their drive to have excessive sexual power one way or another.

  3. One thing I love about the Hulkster’s annihilation of Gawker is the now constant pants shitting by the rest of the media about how this will chill freedom of the press. Haha! What the fuck are these retards talking about?
    If you are confronted with this bullshit, here’s the knowledge bomb to drop: the first amendment protects your freedom from government intrusion, not intrusion by private individuals like the Hulkster. Moreover, the amendment was crafted not to protect bitchy gossip, but political speech, you know, the kind the government might actually be interested in suppressing. So there is zero danger to the real first amendment freedom of the press. There is only danger to the bullshit bastardized version of celebrity and low-brow gotcha focused garbage that most of the media peddles in these days. And at the end of the day, you can still say whatever the fuck you want, you just better be ready to pay out the ass for it if you aren’t polite and civil.

    1. Gawker could have talked about the video all they wanted. It was showing it that crossed the line. Privacy, copyright violation, etc and so on. There’s no harm to first amendment here best I can tell. Rather it reaffirms the traditional way the media handled stuff like this. They say it happened. Maybe show a well chosen still that doesn’t show much of anything or is well censored. So basically the media has to do what they’ve done for decades.

  4. Where does this stand on the whole “free speech” issue?
    Peter Thiel gets mad at a website he doesn’t like, and works tirelessly to drown it in litigation until it dies.
    Swap the names and it sounds a lot like the stifling of opinions you don’t like.

    1. Bullshit. It’s not about “opinions”, it’s about right to privacy. Outing Thiel was just as reprehensible as publishing Hogan dipping his wick. We’re not talking about dirty laundry or skeletons in the closet here, just intimate and normal (by today’s standards) activities. I for one am ecstatic Thiel “got mad” at a website, and took down a bunch of scum-sucking bottom-feeders because he had the financial resources to do so, unlike 99.9% of us who get burned.

      1. “just intimate and normal (by today’s standards) activities”
        So like, publishing the nude photos that were hacked off of someone’s phone, THAT would be bad right? That’s pretty intimate, private stuff…
        Would you not agree that its a bad precedent at least? Gawker were muck-rakers, to be sure. But I can think of a few websites that “manufactur[e] outrage among its audience members to drive traffic and clicks, often on spurious claims or downright maliciousness”. If a billionaire on the other side of the political spectrum had a bone to pick with this website – for example – it would be quite distressing to have them bury it, no? I mean, it would make great material for another book but you know…

        1. That’s a fair point. The difference here is the Alexa rankings between (the former) gawker.com and returnofkings.com, or the difference between a relative nobody like Roosh and a journalist with millions of readers working for a media giant.

        2. The “hack” is illegal, and if the hacker is found (and it turns out it wasn’t Harambe’s handlers that “leaked” it in the first place) the “hacker” will be prosecuted.
          Denton is a slimy jew that broke the law when he publicly refused a court order to remove a sex tape. He was punished financially for this lawbreaking, which was quite severe due to a long history of being a remorseless shitbag, and multiplied by smug comment from his hired help about finding journalistic worth in posting fuck-tapes of five year olds infront of a visibly disgusted jury.
          Surely we can agree that upholding the law is literally Hitler. Did you know Trump also talks about upholding the law? Trump is a racist sexist who wants to make sure that women keep getting paid only 71% that of men, so I can understand why you’re deeply concerned about shutting down criminals, because so many criminals are black and Black Lives Matter. Wy, that makes us basically just as bad as SJWs!
          Thank you for Correcting the Record, faggot.

    2. I’m a bit wary of that too as between Peter Thiel and pushing homosexual social reform is not a place anyone wants to be.

    3. So, in your opinion, a group that relentlessly goes after a group of lawbreakers and criminals that are difficult and well funded in an effort to shut them down is “just as bad as the SJWs?”
      Thank you for Correcting the Record. Your shekel is in the mail.

    1. Modern (((Journalism))) is about lies, propaganda, and emotional appeals. Women are naturals at making up stories and faking tears.

    2. I can’t stand listening to women newscasters talk about politics. Ive noticed a lot of male news personnel are starting to act like whiny gossipy bitches too.

  5. A big win for the hulkster here. Everyone had him counted out do to his lack of vision. After all, he was the only person who couldn’t tell, just by looking at her, that his daughter had all the black dick .
    But he came back big time! Hulkamania just ran wild brotha

      1. There was some big thing where he has a melt down about it and it was Recorded not to long ago. That said, a quick look at her should confirm. Not sure which was more obvious, that the blonde mullet guy was racist or that Brooke Hogan took loads of black D

    1. I would like to see Hulk against Denton, 5 minutes in the squared circle. Atomic leg drop to Denton’s neck for the win!

  6. There should be more Peter Thiels in this world, people with the financial and testicular resources to stand up to bullies like Gawker. Before the shutdown, they did a hit piece on the “real reason” Thiel is hell-bent on going after them (hint: he’s a self-hating fag). They even had the gall to state Thiel had “no right to privacy” regarding is homosexuality, saying he owed it to every LGBT to proudly come out. Whatever your views on gayness, this “I’ll decide what’s good for you” attitude which typified Gawker’s “journalism” stinks to high fucking heaven. Oh, they also had the temerity to list the “good” they’ve done over the years, by breaking a few reasonable stories.. like that actually mattered.
    Gawker is (was!) like the big fat loud-mouthed chick in the playground.. pushing and bullying everyone around, but running crying to the teacher when some little guy pushes back. Gawker’s owners just got a 40-oz serving of real justice, and the world is a slightly better place now that filthy rag is no longer a part of it. Good fucking riddance indeed.

    1. Be careful what you wish for, Peter Thiel is a hardcore social liberal.
      In return for killing Gawker and saving Hulk Hogan, he had to be given political clout and there’s no doubt that he’ll use it to further the homosexual agenda.
      If we had to have a radical homosexual save the day, why couldn’t it have been MIlo? He keeps his leftism more in check.

  7. Too bad Jezebel and Kotaku are going to keep shoveling their poisoned shit all over the internet. I’d pay a lot of money to see them and everyone who has ever worked for them permanently decommissioned.

    1. I’m rather curious about Jezebel’s operating numbers. Salon is a massive loss in terms of revenue, and I believe it’s 100% subsidized by a different, more mainstream/successful news network.

    2. >I’d pay a lot of money to see them and everyone who has ever worked for them permanently decommissioned.
      I know guys that’ll “decommission” people for $100 worth of crack, if you don’t mind them using a brick. How much money are we talking? It doesn’t take much to get shit done, but no one is willing to do it.

  8. The CEO looks like that homeless guy behind the liquor store. I thought courts had rules about such things

  9. Ive hated jezebel for years and was hoping they would get shut down too. I dont see Univision putting up with that feminist crap for very long. I hope.
    Yes, we men have our reading. It inspires us to workout, support eachother and improve ourselves. The womens reading tells them to eat what they want because big is beautiful, watch romantic comedies and feel sorry for themselves. Very productive.

    1. let’s not forget the overwhelmingly misogynistic, pornographic content males shovel down their throats everyday. oh, sorry, a little too-sweeping-generalization/sexist for you??

        1. good thing too… because lord knows it probably took you the full 20 minutes to read, comprehend, and reply to my comment

        1. I literally can’t even debate you if you don’t see that the author’s input about women and david’s comment had nothing to do with this article either. So I threw in the fact that men have plenty of useless drivel media (like pornography and this website) that they consume.

        2. Actually pornography is far from useless. It’s highly damaging, but a necessary evil for men.
          “David” mentioned Jezebel, which I have read a few times, and consider it to be “comfort food” for unattractive women.
          Sure there’s some sites like that for men too, but very few (maybe some mgtow sites? ). Most “manosphere” sites are based heavily on the idea that men can improve themselves to be more attractive to women, and as a bonus, this newfound ability can help them in other ways as well.
          Show me a female centric website that is the equivalent for women?
          All I see are sites blaming men, the “patriarchy” and telling fat women that it’s ok to be like that, and men should be forced to find them attractive almost literally at gunpoint.
          Porn, on the other hand, alleviates the need that men have to orgasm with a woman, something that is getting harder and harder to do, even for successful and attractive men. It’ a necessary evil for us.

        3. “a necessary evil”…. alright. not even going to go there because your deep-seated sexuality issues are showing immensely. but I can point to plenty of self improvement sites for women. examples include cosmopolitan magazine, shape magazine, the fitness/yoga blog craze… there’s PLENTY of media telling women how to be more attractive to the opposite sex, as if that’s the end goal in our lives- to attract such attractive alpha males such as yourselves! it’s just clear to me by your comment that as soon as you see any feminist slant (which, keep in mind, we are talking about gendered media here), you retreat back into your safe spaces like this site that tells you “women are EEeeevIIIlllllLLLL!!” you are clearly putting yourself into your own sphere of influence- choosing to believe that all women “hate men” simply because you might’ve had your feelings hurt by a feminist article. yikes. good luck on that orgasm with an attitude towards women like this 🙂

        4. not at all. just that saying women are these drooling gossip-machines ten times in this article/comments was unnecessary… it had no purpose in the reading other than to stroke male readers’ egos… bad journalism gets to me, hun. maybe it would too if you refined your media consumption beyond a site that tells you how to be an “alpha male”.

        5. I may leave… It does smell rather bad here. Like you’re all really just un-showered, virgin masses trying to learn how to bang chicks from your mom’s dark basement. Just my guess, though Dirk

        6. It is a necessary evil. You mentioned some self-help sites for women. The problem is that practically all of the ones you mentioned do not have much useful information. I suppose what I meant was “do you know of any “hardcore” (as in actual useful information) sites for women?. I can think of only one: http://www.returnofqueens.com. And that site is basically just a rip off of this one. With that said, doesn’t matter to me as long as the information they provide is legit.
          The problem that you are personally taking here, is that you’re insulted by the resentment of men that you find on these sites. Remember that, while you are correct that women are expected to meet certain societal norms (usually physical ones), the reality is that women have it easier to find a man. Now the problem is that you have been brainwashed into not settling for “Mr. Good Enough”. In my experience, practically everywhere in North America, men have to settle for women who are 4-5 points below them in beauty. I have rarely, rarely ever seen a hot woman with a pudgy guy, or an asian guy. I see a ton of ripped bodybuilder guys with girls that are 50lbs+ over.

        7. 1. excellent… the only notion of self help you have are these extremist, “red pill”, manly ego themed websites. or the one for chicks that is a direct branch of it, that feeds into this website’s masculinity complex. groundbreaking.
          2. it sounds like you have some resentment/anger towards the fact women don’t want to settle?… I don’t believe anyone does? I see plenty of older, disgusting men with hot younger women, and hot people with hot people, ugly with ugly, mixed races, etc. and maybe when someone does date down from their attractiveness… just maybe… they’re dating someone that makes them happy? what a premise. you happen to sound like you’re a little bitter one of these people aren’t you. I’m sure you subscribe to the tired, old argument of “nice guys finish last”, too.

        8. Can someone please stuff a cock in this fat whore? Seriously, she is one of the dumbest cunts I’ve seen commenting on this site.

        9. So the problem you are having is that you are basing the entire manosphere on this particular site. I would consider this site more on the radical “MGTOW’ side of the spectrum. I would consider a site like “Good Looking Loser” more on the PUA side of things.
          I agree there’s a lot of bitterness here, and I agree that I have a little. But to be honest, I can’t really blame women for anything. I’m not even sure I can blame men either. The problems are being caused from much higher up.
          The thing about dating up/down I think has more to do with desperation. Everybody wants a 10. Men and women. In my personal opinion, based on my own relationships and those I have seen my friends/family in, men are willing to settle for less (sometimes far less) and they will be HAPPY with the compromise. Women however, CAN’T! They just can’t. They keep getting bombarded by the media that they are not getting what their are worth even if they ARE!
          Go on practically any dating site and you’ll see it’s true. Sure there’s always exceptions, but very few. I have a task for you, and it’s up for you to be honest:
          Take a look around, and see:
          1. How many average, not fat, and sometimes razor sharp fit dudes are dating women that are at least 30-40lbs overweight. Sometimes more than that.
          2, Then try the reverse. How many “hot” (by physical beauty standards) women are dating guys that are 30-40lbs overweight.
          2. How many asian guys are dating white/non-asian women
          2. In general, who is dating whom. Usually it will be couples where the male is at least 2 points, but usually higher than the female he is dating.
          It’s up to you to find the honest answer to this.

        1. You’re literally arguing my point on a website whose sole purpose is to try to teach men how to get a woman’s attention for sex, while also simultaneously bashing them if they don’t give it to you. LOGIC! (and I also think satire/comedy is lost on you if you think that’s a real, serious book)

      1. Misogynistic, pornographic, sexist… you forgot to say “racist” and “homophobic.” Go back and study your feminist buzzword checklist.

        1. I was so close! I’m sure I could keep browsing and complete the check list on this website quite easily, however, thank you!

  10. I love that Gawker got the death sentence judgement. But what would have been better if for the Hulkster to analyze a judgement that would keep Gawker solvent, but barely solvent. Having to work for nothing (the judgement structured payments just about sucking up all profit margin) would have put this rag in the position of a cuckolded dude who’s alimony payment sucks up all his discretionary spending.
    In such a situation, Gawker would live, but only to pay off the Hulksters judgment. They’d have to deliver content that people would actually want to read in an effort to keep advertisers. They’d become the most PC media site to keep enough dollars coming in to pay the bills and the judgement. In short, such a judgment would have turned Gawker into Hulk’s bitch, turning journalistic tricks to pay her pimp daddy. As it is, the bankruptcy could get them off the hook entirely. Gawker can always reorganize as some other shithole website. The BK allows them to escape their responsibility

    1. Media never dies. The Jew simply grows a new head. All this judgement will do is make the name and all of their existing traffic be up for auction at reduced shekel. They’re already negotiating bids.

      1. I know, right? Why else would anyone in their right mind “buy” Gawker? What value is there in that company or brand? However, it can be used to conduct some funny business on Wall Street and/or the banks to make some millions out of the deal.
        Media is the Hydra of ancient lore.

    1. The first, and last article I ever read at Buzzfeed: “Best friends see each other naked for the first time!!” (all dudes).
      Uh huh…..Didn’t bother again.

    1. Racist? Would’ve sound somewhat plausible if they cried “misogynist” due to the high percentage of women who read it.

  11. Unfortunately, Gawker’s death and Hulk Hogan’s salvation came from the rise of Peter Thiel.
    Thiel is a raging social liberal who is hellbent on pushing the homosexual agenda and killing Gawker gave him a political soapbox.
    It took making a deal with the Gaystapo to kill Gawker. I think we lost the war in order to win a battle.

  12. really could’ve gotten your point across about gawker being a shit website without using character attack on women…

    1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669408/Rise-female-relationship-terrorists-Study-finds-women-controlling-aggressive-partners-men.html
      You are at a site that takes a realistic look at women.
      Women’s nature is diametrically opposed to men’s so that we can complement each other. Logically this means a different way of doing things too.
      When you look around you will always see the evil of men and our destructive nature. To be physically damaging that is our way of evil.
      The logical question arises: Of what kind is women’s evil?
      It is simply time that people realize (again) that women aren’t perfect and that their devious ways of doing evil should be revealed and brought to justice.

        1. this was hardly a study… it was just barely over 1000 20-somethings taking a SURVEY from some obscure British charity. stop grasping at straws to prove your baseless agenda of “bringing women to justice”, whatever that means. and if you’re really into facts- 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will be victims of domestic abuse. it isn’t gendered, it’s shitty on both ends, but it literally has no context in this article. I don’t need “facts” from you to know this site is overwhelmingly skewed to “poor me, women are so meeeean” men, or that this article sucks. so I’d reckon that the topic of women really just stirs up some butthurt-emotional shit in YOU, not me; so much so, you have to call women evil under a cartoon alias on blogs to validate yourself. your facts suck, too.

        2. Your opinion can’t debunk facts. “obscure charity” based on what?
          That being said do you actually believe that men simply abuse their women for no reason?
          Maybe it is because they get them this far? As proven by the statistics?
          Also, your figures are off.
          https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
          When do I call women evil?
          Read again.
          “When you look around you will always see the evil of men and our destructive nature. To be physically damaging that is our way of evil.
          The logical question arises: Of what kind is women’s evil?
          It is simply time that people realize (again) that women aren’t perfect and that their devious ways of doing evil should be revealed and brought to justice.”
          What emotional reasoning of you.

        3. first of all, don’t you ever say domestic violence is acceptable if a man/woman is “pushed there”. perhaps abusers do have their reasons to strike, but under no circumstances are they good ones. jesus christ, that is an awful thing to say. secondly, do you live in the UK or do you not realize you keep pulling studies from a completely different country than the US? even if you do, this study is over 5 years old, AND funded by a “men’s rights” campaign. can you get more biased? have we not been on the internet long enough to critically analyze what we read?
          http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics
          above, is what is called a credible source, with no outside bias towards men or women, and national recognition. that’s why my source has a “.org”, and yours are being found linked on gossip rag opinion websites. my figures are based on the severe domestic abuse cases, you’ll find it listed right in this extensive list I linked. stop back pedaling and admit you very badly wish to prove women are “more evil” than men; a highly opinion-based claim, with mere articles skewed towards your beliefs. what poor argument of you.

        4. Your emotional reasoning again. I never said that it would be okay to use violence when pushed there. I simply logically concluded that if men are the main perpetrators of violence there has to be a reason. I have then proceeded to link this with the other study I had provided.
          This gives a good picture that women are in fact more socially aggressive then men.
          Don’t ever dare to conclude me to be someone that I am not and don’t ever put words in my mouth again.
          I have chosen this statistic because it debunks your “in a lifetime” statistic with facts.
          Do you not happen to read?
          “AND funded by a “men’s rights” campaign.” That means nothing. You will have to prove that this study is faked or influenced.
          “stop back pedaling and admit you very badly wish to prove women are “more evil” than men;”
          There you go again. What is it with you?
          “When you look around you will always see the evil of men and our destructive nature.”
          This alone should show that I never had such an agenda. What a devious mouth. I am simply outlining what is obvious and real.
          Men’s way of evil is physically destructive. It doesn’t take much of being an observer to see that women’s way of evil is psychologically destructive.
          That is only natural and plain obvious.
          But really I see the root of your problem and I will uproot it.
          Tell me. Do you believe that all men of all ages throughout the entire history across all civilizations ever just hate women?
          Does this make sense to you? That men that are biologically designed to love and observably protect women just hate them?
          That they would choose in times of peril to “oppress women’s potential”?
          Aren’t you just twisted. Men and women complement each other. The best of a man is masculinity and the best of a woman is femininity. Only by combining these those times of peril can be overcome.
          Tell me. Do you believe that out of all animals we are just lucky to have equality of the sexes?
          Literally eliminating the reason to have sexes? In nature things have their place. A place were they are meant to be.
          Going against your nature leads to depression.
          Did you know that women were happier before feminism? As a matter of fact women were always happier than men. Until feminism.
          http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
          http://nypost.com/2013/12/27/conservative-women-hold-secret-to-happiness/
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html
          http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624

        5. I didn’t put any words in your mouth, I simply called you out. The fact you would even suggest domestic violence has any other reason than a perpetrator with sickening mental issues is disgusting enough. It was a completely unnecessary comment. You’ve debunked nothing with those articles, are refusing to admit what you insinuated with your original post, and now are claiming you know what feminism has done to the female psyche. I grow tired of trying to reason with you, but this is too much.
          To what wave of feminism are you referring to? The first, back at in the early 1900s which earned us the right to vote? The second in the 60s and 70s, championing reproductive rights and racial equality? Or the modern third, which many men seem to be intimidated by that is trying to equal the sexes? Oh, what horror. I don’t even think you realize how much feminism has improved the lives of women from tireless slaves to domesticity and underrepresentation to now. Don’t pretend to know about it. Feminism is not for you, nor do you understand how it effected women, mostly because you’ll never be one. Let me define something you keep bringing up, for you, officially;
          “Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence.”
          So your *personal* opinion on the happiness of women, their “true nature”, and feminism’s effect (as a man) is the truth? Even though none of those articles bring it up at all, not once? Seems like someone slipped up and is now a little bit of a hypocrite. This will be my last post to you, as you keep hiding behind logical fallacies and google articles. Have a good life, and may you one day learn to think and read impartially.

        6. “The fact you would even suggest domestic violence has any other reason than a perpetrator with sickening mental issues is disgusting enough.”
          Right. Because we shouldn’t logically conclude anything where our emotions reign.
          I have logically used this to showcase that women are socially destructive whilst men react in a psychically destructive way.
          There is no emotional implication here. Facts and logic over feelings so spare me your appeal to emotion.
          “us” Heh. I was just about to conclude that you have to be a woman for how irrational you are.
          “and now are claiming you know what feminism has done to the female psyche. I grow tired of trying to reason with you, but this is too much.”
          You have never used reason. Not here at least. Also, I am not claiming anything.
          It is simply a fact that women feel shittier now than 35 years ago.
          This logically means that we should dial it back with our equality bullshit.
          “Or the modern third, which many men seem to be intimidated by that is trying to equal the sexes? Oh, what horror.”
          Men are happier than women now so shut up. Also, equality is a cruel lie.
          “So your *personal* opinion on the happiness of women, their “true nature”, and feminism’s effect (as a man) is the truth?”
          There is a difference between concluding something based on emotion opposed to logic.
          Take a look at this for one:
          Women were factually happier 35 years ago.
          How can this statement be logically taken apart? By asking questions of course.
          What has mainly changed?
          Here we look at men and see that their happiness hasn’t changed at all or only marginally. This means that it has to be something that only affects women.
          What is this? Feminism of course.
          Out of this conclusion something else can be concluded.
          Why is feminism (“equality”) making women miserable?
          Is equality making men miserable? No.
          As such it can be concluded that women aren’t men because they respond to roughly the same thing completely different.
          It can be concluded that men’s nature is different from women’s.
          A look at other animals helps to conclude that the difference is the role the sexes are assigned.
          Simple.
          From now on I will simply copy paste the fact that women were happier 35 years ago and that they are now taking anti depressant like its a fashion statement.
          But really? You aren’t the first woman I debate. Albeit I find all my opponents irrational women are just a cut above the rest.
          You will use your emotions and cave yourself in a safe space.
          Also, you have failed to answer my questions.

        7. You’ve acted as though you’re an all omnipotent social scientist with bullshit articles. You’ve pretended as though feminism was the only thing that brought women into the workplace and out of the home. It’s natural progression of society and technology; more opportunity. I’m not sure what exactly caused this shift in women’s happiness, and neither do you from browsing a few articles about feminism and the modern woman. That isn’t logic, that’s false cause- look it up.
          Gender roles aren’t the same for animals as they are for humans, it’s clear we have a higher brain function. All gender roles in our society are social constructs, and largely the result of what children are taught growing up. The “boys will be boys” or “be a lady” mentalities that have been being taught for generations. You must be of the older generation and still believe in that. So no, I don’t think “men hate women”. Such a typical emotional response of men to women who debate equality or subscribe to feminism. I also don’t think that we are comparable to wild animals when it comes to equality. We’re eons of evolution ahead of them… Poor comparison. But even then, what do you say of animals that are asexual? Or animals capable of protogyny (switching genders)? Or that homosexuality (a far deviation from your traditional masculinity/femininity) occurs in nature? What happens to gender roles then? Does your argument still hold weight in that regard? Nope.
          It’s also very unfortunate that as soon as you discovered I was a woman, you used much more aggressive language. “I was just about to conclude that you have to be a woman for how irrational you are.” “Men are happier than women now so shut up.” Groundbreaking argument, by the way. Truly mature. “Albeit I find all my opponents irrational women are just a cut above the rest.” Clear and childish name calling here, it truly is funny. And I’d hate to burst your bubble- but your “logic” isn’t the end-all-be-all. You don’t have all the answers to women. You’re just a keyboard warrior with access to the internet and a disdain for opinionated women. Now seriously- take your nonsense, condescending, circular argument red pill shit away from my notifications.

        8. Calling something false doesn’t make it. You have to prove this.
          That aside I have made this conclusion so obvious that it’s painful. But well, let me copy a link here again.
          http://nypost.com/2013/12/27/conservative-women-hold-secret-to-happiness/
          What do you think came first? The culture or the nature?
          Culture is based on biology not vice versa. One example of this would be the cultural phenomenon of “50 shades of grey”. Throughout history women seek to submit to dominant men. That something as niche as bdsm becomes so mainstream means that they lack exactly that. You will have to disprove this.
          “So no, I don’t think “men hate women”.”
          You fail to see the reasoning behind it. A simple question, again, strikes at the heart of this. Why would men “oppress” women universally?
          A ” I don’t believe that men hate women” doesn’t cut it in the slightest.
          Nature has it’s roles. Asexual insects, jellyfish and larvae can be allowed this way because their environment is different. Sex roles don’t come out of thin air. You will have to disprove this. Also, anything unnatural doesn’t disprove what is natural.
          “Groundbreaking argument, by the way.”
          I gave my arguements. You never looked into them. Don’t use this to further dodge them.
          “your “logic” isn’t the end-all-be-all”
          It is, especially as you are incapable of proving me wrong on anything.
          Did you know that women are converting to Islam way more than men? What could they possibly look for in such a “regressive” religion?
          That being said I shouldn’t pay further attention to you as you are clearly just an attention whore. Should have known it way before you put up your avatar pic.
          So you go here to a website for masculine men, talk emotional trash and decide to put up your real picture whilst still using “al” as name…
          I have much to learn.

        9. Doesn’t matter. You put up your pic as soon as you appear here. I am done. I will not put up with your behavior any longer.

    2. My sweet little snowflake, we apologize for the lack of trigger warnings. You know, you don’t HAVE to read these articles, right? There is a little “X” at the top right of your browser, feel free to click it.

        1. her*… that’s right… a women dare speak her opinion?! but it’s telling you assumed a man defending women is a “bottom only homo”. you right wingers certainly have your own (limited) buzz words.

  13. Gawker got destroyed by the biggest python in the world jack-WHACHA GONNA DO BROTHER WHEN HULK HOGAN’S PYTHON DESTROYS YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!

    1. PRWeek: What is the proposition of Jezebel? Why did Gawker think it needed a blog like this? Anna Holmes: The thinking seemed to be that Gawker itself had such a predominantly female readership that there was something there to that. Something like 70% of its readership was women, and it decided maybe it needed a straight women’s blog with the appropriate Gawker tone.
      I’m guessing they know their own audience. This figure jives with with TV news audiences which skew heavily female.

  14. There is one downside to Gawker’s destruction is the very people that kept Gawker running are now being taken up by many MSM outlets. WE have peace for awhile in the interwebs, but cancer is spread to the MSM. Something is going to fill that vacuum of Gawker just left, let make sure its presence is short lived.

  15. Let’s hope more people will stand up to the leftist feminists and their media — and courts will decide to uphold the law.

  16. I hope that Nick Denton’s life is completely destroyed now and that the only job he can find is as a bottom-only gay prostitute. The man is scum and it would be fitting if he spent his remaining time on this earth as a bukakke target for NYC’s gay community.

  17. Hulk killed the beast that GamerGate wounded. Hopefully Jezebel will post pictures of Seth Rollins’ dick next.

  18. Yes, women are filthy amoral sociopathic animals. No. No I’m not being sarcastic. I completely agree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *