Patriactionary: Women who hit the age of 40 without a husband or kids deserve to be alone and miserable the rest of their lives.
Be careful, ladies, or you too will LOSE DICK FOREVER! Borrowed from Easily Mused. (Click the pic to see more crying chicks.)
Over on Patriactionary, a proudly reactionary and patriarchal Christian blog, the blogger who calls himself electricangel is angry at himself – for not being an even bigger douchebag than he already is.
You see, he’s just heard from his wife that one of her friends isn’t happy about hitting the big 4-0. Apparently, his wife’s friend
broke down in tears, sobbing uncontrollably. What had hit her was the realization that she was 40, with no husband, no children, no prospects of either, and she was staring at a future of loneliness.
His reaction to this news?
I wish I could tell you that an evil smile of vengeance crept across my face, and the children this woman discarded were getting their revenge upon her. That this was payback for riding the cock carousel for years, always aiming at the guys she wanted, not the guys she could get.
But alas, hidden deep inside in his tiny misogynistic heart there remains a tiny fragment of sympathy.
But I cannot tell you anything other than how saddened I was at her tale, and how this sadness will rip out the hearts of so many women who did not set out to become lonely, childless spinsters, but whose families and societies removed the strictures on their behavior so that their own lack of self-control was left unbounded. This will be the ongoing social disaster of coming years.
I did say it was a tiny fragment.
But he still wants to use this woman’s story for his own ends.
In discussing this woman, I am insistent upon her becoming an object lesson to my wife, and especially for my wife to tell the beautiful, smart, virgin young women close to her about what happens to carousel riders. Life is a coin you may spend any way you like, but you may only spend it once. This woman spent it on an amusement park ride. Now the park is closing, she has been thrown off the ride, and faces 45 years of solitude.
Yeah, because no woman over the age of 40 is capable of ever finding a date or a mate.
Yeah, because her sadness at hitting 40 is going to last for the rest of her life.
Oh, and the bit about “the children this woman discarded?” She didn’t “discard” any children. She simply didn’t have any. She’s not “discarding children” any more than those with penises instead of vaginas are “discarding children” each and every time they masturbate to orgasm.
In the comments, not everyone is quite so restrained as electricangel.
“I don’t even know this woman and I’m pissing myself laughing at her,” writes one commenter going by the name Friendzone. “Fuck her.”
Take The Red Pill is equally unsympathetic:
I have NO sympathy for this woman whatsoever. Just like most Modern Women, she bought into the feminist deception with eyes wide open with never a thought about the future. Well the future has arrived and it looks a lot like a cold, lonely one for her – just like the cold, lonely youth and young adulthood that MOST men have had and continue to have.
Karma has come due, and the bicycles have realized that they don’t need fish, either.
When women like her are young, they treat decent men abominably – being as cruel and sadistic as they can be when rejecting an ‘unwanted’ man’s advances – simultaneously, they enjoy being ‘free whores’ for every player, dirtbag, and Alpha thug who crosses their path; then when they reach their thirties and are little more than ugly, repellent, diseased trollops (often with some thug’s illegitimate spawn or two in tow), they complain about ‘the lack of good men’.
Others adopt Electricangel’s more, er, mature approach. Will S. decides to be a pompous dick about it, while patting himself on the back for his enlightened attitude:
Indeed, it is proper to not gloat, but rather mourn what we have lost, as a society, and feel sorry for those who have made poor decisions – and try to help others not make such poor decisions, by pointing to unfortunate examples, that at least others might learn something from them.
Sometimes, schadenfreude is tempting, but we Christians do generally know better than that.
Because patronizingly exploiting someone’s (probably temporary) sadness to make other people feel shitty about their own lives is such a moral thing to do. Is faux sympathy better than no sympathy at all?
Our friend Sunshinemary jumps on the “let this be a lesson to the rest of you sluts” bandwagon:
We need not mock such women, but we need to hold up their tales as cautionary examples to other young women. The older women themselves cannot face that their lives should serve as an example of what not to do, and they will rationalize it forever.
Electricangel expounds on his plan to use this woman’s apparent misfortune for his own ends:
I am using her as a vector to drop comments to my wife about the dangers of the carousel. Next is the overt suggestion that she talk to some young women about this friend specifically.
Uh, I guess you don’t let your wife read this blog, huh? Because if I discovered that someone close to me was talking about me in such a creepily manipulative and patronizing way, that person would no longer be a part of my life.
Electricangel replies to Sunshinemary:
Yes, those who did not prioritize children will have their genetic tendencies to that behavior removed from the gene pool. Women do not have the sexual options that men do, and not letting them know this early and often is crushing.
But they must be pointed to, and shown as examples. I understand people who will laugh at and mock them; I thought I would. It’s just the enormity of a waste of a life, and the lives she threw away, and the realization that this is just the tip of huge iceberg that has gripped me.
Yes, EA, you’re such a deeply moral person. Posting an “I told you so, you whores!” post on your blog is no doubt exactly the way The Lord would like you to handle this.
In a later comment, he reiterates his plan to use this woman’s story to increase the insecurities of his wife:
I do not feel guilty at all about using this woman’s example to drop pellets of manosphere logic on my wife. It has the side benefit of my wife starting to ask me (because she’s asking herself) “What do I do to bring value to the relatinship?” It is a good thing.
First it was a sad thing, now it’s a “good thing.”
How exactly is this better than gloating? No, scratch that. How is this different than gloating?
Posted on August 17, 2012, in alpha asshole cock carousel, antifeminism, gloating, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit, Uncategorized and tagged alpha asshole cock carousel, antifeminism, misogyny, patriarchy. Bookmark the permalink. 850 Comments.
MRAL you are stretching a point that does not even make sense so far. Dude get over your jealously with hugo.
Nice guys are not manipulative with women because they don’t have the social skills to manipulate women. I am not sure what your point is?
You are saying nice guys are just shamed but they are emotional manipulators like hugo? Why should they not be shamed if they are according to you?
MR.AL you are stretching a point that does not even make sense so far. Dude get over your jealously with hugo.
Nice guys are not manipulative with women because they don’t have the social skills to manipulate women. I am not sure what your point is?
You are saying nice guys are just shamed but they are emotional manipulators like hugo? Why should they not be shamed if they are according to you?
“Sexually assaulting your students is not the same thing as “getting laid.”
The man has also been married 4 times, and I guess that most of them were not forced marriages.
“It’s not a perfect system, but most women will react badly to you being a manipulative asshole. Just because someone takes advantage of his students doesn’t mean that most women won’t run for the hills when you talk about how you decided to spend x amount of time on them in exhange for sex.”
So his drugged out girlfriend was also his student?
No, the difference between Hugo and a Nice Guy ™ is that Hugo is just better at manipulation.
I was thinking mostly of being married/partnered plus kids, I admit. And for me there is no other option but single and living alone, even if I am dating someone. I can’t live in the same house with another person. I could never tolerate someone being in my space that much, but obviously, that’s me.
No you were talking about nice guys claiming they get laid and calling hugo a nice guy. You were complaining that feminists only target certain nice guys and use it as shaming language.
MR.AL you are stretching a point that does not even make sense so far. Dude get over your jealously with hugo.
I was going to guess Steelpole, given the mention of “neckbeard loser,” but the mentions of Schwyzer are making Mr. Al a pretty sound guess.
>No I am pissed off that I am supposed to feel sorry for older women that are outcompeted from the meat market, but somehow at the same time I am supposed to handle my own non-existant market value gracefully.
Uh… you don’t really have any way to determine your “value” as you’re currently not up for grab, dude.
That’s if you were a product people would just walk up to and have sex with, but that only happens in porn movies, so tough luck.
@Wondering – “Nice Guys” don’t manipulate. They whine about not getting laid and feel entitled to sex. By definition. Hugo is not a “Nice Guy” he’s a fucking rapist and scumbag.
Also, aren’t you tired after all this extensive moving of goalposts you’ve been doing? Every time someone calls you on being wrong, you change your point. I thought you MRA dudes were supposed to be all logical and rational?
If hugo and nice guys are so bad why are you all insulted feminists are calling men that?
Um, obviously entitled manipulative assholes get laid sometimes. FFS.
“MR.AL you are stretching a point that does not even make sense so far. Dude get over your jealously with hugo.”
I am not jealous with Hugo. I at least have enough self-respect left to prefer being celibate to abusing my position of power to get sex.
“Nice guys are not manipulative with women because they don’t have the social skills to manipulate women. I am not sure what your point is?”
The point is that it is claimed that Nice Guy(tm) doesn’t get sex because he is a manipulative entitled asshole, Hugo proves that being a manipulative entiteled asshole is no bar whatsoever to getting laid.
“You are saying nice guys are just shamed but they are emotional manipulators like hugo? Why should they not be shamed if they are according to you?”
I am saying that Nice Guy ™ is a shaming tactic used to try and hush men who start to question things like if it is true that women can detect manipulators and assholes, why do men like Hugo get laid all the time? If feminists were serious about getting rid of those kind of men, they should start by throwing Hugo and his likes out fist, then by all means start going after Nice Guy ™
*sigh* Please read “no other option but single and living alone, even if I am dating someone” as “no other option but living alone whether I’m single or dating someone”
Clearly I need sustenance.
Ooh, he has a POSITION OF POWER guys!
You can keep saying that, dude, but that won’t make it true. You have no idea what the Nice Guy label means, despite multiple people telling you the real definition. Keep being wrong, though, I need to go find some supper.
“Also, aren’t you tired after all this extensive moving of goalposts you’ve been doing? Every time someone calls you on being wrong, you change your point. I thought you MRA dudes were supposed to be all logical and rational?”
I have never claimed to be an MRA. I am not an MRA, have never been an MRA.
The goalposts are related very closely.
I started by contrasting two similar ideas with the genders switched. To prove that somehow sexless man only has himself to blame, but sexless woman she is a victim of the patriarchy. This continues to Nice Guy ™ that is just used to shame sexless men into accepting that they are forever losers.
Boston Baby’s back? Wonderful. *eye roll*
“Nice Guy” is a description of men who feel entitled to sex because they are “nice” but are actually sexist jackasses who only do it because they think it ought to get them laid.
(For further verification, check and see if anyone has called you a Nice Guy for doing exactly what you said gets men called Nice Guys)
LOL
You know so much about Schwyzer, but don’t know he has already been ostracized by pretty much all of internet feminismdom.
BOX CHECKED CAN WE START GOING AFTER NICE GUYS NOW?
Wondering, google Hugo, and you’ll see what a LOT of feminists think about him.
Wondering:
You don’t want to have sex. You are not having sex.
You don’t want to feel sympathy for women. You don’t feel sympathy for them.
Seems to me you’re pretty well self-actualized. Why are you so gosh-darn angry? Just the threat that someone might try to make you feel bad about women who don’t have sex?
‘drop[ping] pellets of manosphere logic’
Ew. And yet, so fitting.
“Nice Guys are just normal folks who don’t like feminism! However, the only thing stopping them from being manipulative rapists is that they’re not any good at it!”
How’s that cognitive dissonance treating you?
Well if I have to be a soup, I want to be a bowl of chicken noodle soup left sitting on a bus seat and partially spilled so tired hard working men are deprived of a seat.
TK, I keep picturing them as rabbit turds. Which is totally fitting.
““Nice Guy” is a description of men who feel entitled to sex because they are “nice” but are actually sexist jackasses who only do it because they think it ought to get them laid.”
The original reference.
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml
“one who is manipulative and self-serving. Whether it is targeting women who are troubled to begin with, setting themselves up to be taken advantage of, or acting in a manipulative, patronizing or obsequious fashion, these guys sabotage themselves and often blame “all women” for their misfortunes. ”
Do you see the magic words?
“manipulative”, “patronizing” this is Hugo Schwyzer.
“You know so much about Schwyzer, but don’t know he has already been ostracized by pretty much all of internet feminismdom.”
So that is why he still is allowed columns in both jezebel and Ms. Magazine? No sir, this man has not been ostraziced.
It seems to me he get offended by the very notion that women might feel bad about something, because it makes him feel a twinge of sympathy AND THAT’S WRONG BECAUSE FEMINISTS SAY ARGLAKJL;KJE
Why do you keep bringing him up them obsessively? and obsessing over how much sex he had. You sound jealous dude.
Sure you can get laid as a manipulative asshole no one ever denied that. Nice guys don’t get laid though hence why they complain they deserve a relationship. I mean getting laid often and not complaining about it is not what a nice guy is. You are trying to change the definition to make some weird point about how much you hate feminists
No one ever denied abusers can get laid, thats why many feminists take domestic violence seriously. Where are these straw feminists coming from?
Uhh a huge feminist thing is trying to inform people about domestic abuse and abuse in general so they are already trying to reduce the amount of abuse that happens. Seriously where are you getting these ideas from?
Neither of these claims have ever been made by feminists. Feminists have said that, in the case of sexless misogynists, misogyny is likely a contributing factor. They have also said that people have worth whether they have sex or not, which is why the OP is so ridiculous.
Wondering… This is because you are taking supply and demand at face value. Supply and demand is simply that everyone is free to sell at any price and everyone is free to decline at the offered price.
This is, arguably true (if you like we can discuss the nature of markets, the effect of state intervention; the bahavior of markets non-state controlled venues, the role of credit; how markets function in non-monetary societies, etc.: but I don’t really think you actually care about markets; qua markets, so much as you want to use the abtractions of economic theory as if they were real things; not abstractions which make it possible to make maps. Please to remember the map is not the territory).
But it fails to account for the most important part of things. We all have exactly one thing to offer, and one thing to accept in return. Our time.
We can, to some degree, modify that by putting limits on how that time is spent, but it I want to fuck someone, that person has the option of saying they wish to fuck me in return, or not (this, of course, is in the abstraction you used: i.e. “the meat market”. In other situations, a boss threatening to fire someone, a prostitute offering sexual behaviors for money, a rapist using drugs to decrease resistance, etc. the offers/acceptances are based on other things. Those are not, of course, “free markets”).
So there isn’t any “higher/lower” price. There is one thing on offer, and only one thing: What I am willing to do with a person. They can offer more, and I can say no. They can accept less and I have to live with it.
But it’s not a market. It’s a shared enterprise among equals.
Also a good portion of feminists do not like hugo or even know who he is.
How many times are you gonna move your goal post about your real meaning?`
“Why do you keep bringing him up them obsessively? and obsessing over how much sex he had. You sound jealous dude.”
He is a prime example of being an asshole and a manipulator in no way hinders having sex.
“Sure you can get laid as a manipulative asshole no one ever denied that. Nice guys don’t get laid though hence why they complain they deserve a relationship. I mean getting laid often and not complaining about it is not what a nice guy is. You are trying to change the definition to make some weird point about how much you hate feminists”
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.shtml
The original rant. Notice how “manipulative” is mentioned. If this was the problem that it is claimed to be, Hugo would be having the kind of sex-life that would make a budhist monk seem like Hugh Heffner.
“No one ever denied abusers can get laid, thats why many feminists take domestic violence seriously. Where are these straw feminists coming from?”
As above, heartless-bitches
“Uhh a huge feminist thing is trying to inform people about domestic abuse and abuse in general so they are already trying to reduce the amount of abuse that happens. Seriously where are you getting these ideas from?”
What ideas? That it was ok that Hugo was a manipulative asshole for lots of years until he just stepped over the line where it wasn’t ok any more.
Why am I now craving layer cake?
Actually, feminists have come down hard on Hugo Scwyzer after he confessed to trying to kill his ex, like they did at feministe In fact, finding out what he did made me feel ashamed for forgiving him in the past about him having sex with students. I know it’s not my part to even be the person to forgive him for having sex with students. But I felt like I couldn’t judge him for that, because when I was in college, I fantasized about some of my professors. Then I found out about the attempted murder, and I felt like crap for ever defending him.
Also, why are feminists to blame for Hugo Schwyzer getting laid? We don’t have anything to do with his sex life.
Wondering has the same rage and fixation on Hugo Schwyzer as M**L, but none of the coherence.
Drunk, Monsieur Al?
Someone forgot to deny his identity.
“So there isn’t any “higher/lower” price. There is one thing on offer, and only one thing: What I am willing to do with a person. They can offer more, and I can say no. They can accept less and I have to live with it.”
Just as how I can buy something because I feel that having that item is worth more than everything else I can do with that money, or I can refuse because I feel that something else is worth more.
“But it’s not a market. It’s a shared enterprise among equals.”
As per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/market?s=t
a meeting of people for selling and buying. Exactly as you just described it.
Yeah, Hugo’s been ostracized in Internet feminism, do keep up. (Except for Clarisse Thorn.)
Also, we’re not saying they don’t get laid because they’re manipulative entitled assholes, we’re just saying that they’re manipulative entitled assholes (who generally tend not to get laid).
Mr.al you are such a loser stop posting here.
“Actually, feminists have come down hard on Hugo Scwyzer after he confessed to trying to kill his ex, like they did at feministe In fact, finding out what he did made me feel ashamed for forgiving him in the past about him having sex with students.”
He is still allowed to write at jezebel and in Ms. Magazine, so it couldn’t have been a very hard fall.
“But I felt like I couldn’t judge him for that, because when I was in college, I fantasized about some of my professors”
I have worked at a university, with grading responsibility. The code of ethics are there for a reason, that is to prevent professors from abusing their power. One example would be to demand sex for grades.
“Also, why are feminists to blame for Hugo Schwyzer getting laid? We don’t have anything to do with his sex life.”
That is not what is being said. What is being said is that if a Nice Guy(tm) remained sexless for the reasons that feminsts claim that he is sexless then Hugo Schwyzer would never ever get laid whatsoever.
The point is that nothing is being either sold or bought. Sex and relationships are co-op activity. People having sex or a relationship are no more buying and selling than people who decide to play Team Fortress together.
“Yeah, Hugo’s been ostracized in Internet feminism, do keep up. (Except for Clarisse Thorn.)”
http://jezebel.com/5930448/men-too-busy-saving-their-own-asses-to-let-women-and-children-go-first Notice the date.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/tag/hugo-schwyzer/ Notice the date.
Haha yes Jezebel magazine, the beating heart of the feminist movement.
“The point is that nothing is being either sold or bought. Sex and relationships are co-op activity. People having sex or a relationship are no more buying and selling than people who decide to play Team Fortress together.”
It is buying and selling. Different goods and different currency but it is still an exchange.
Ms.magazine and jezebel are hardly feminist sites. XD
Oh shit you guize, not every feminist has excommunicated Schwyzer so now we can’t mention N*ce G*ys anymore.
Some people are better at manipulation than others. N*ce G*ys are generally called such because they think that simply being “nice” to a girl should get them laid, and it doesn’t work out. Also, since when did it become Feminist Doctrine that there’s only one reason N*ce G*ys aren’t getting laid? As I see it, the #1 reason is the girls they go after just aren’t into them.
Sex for sex? Love for love? I’m gonna let you in on a little econ secret here, the merchants of old didn’t get together to exchange one bolt of silk for another bolt of silk.
Again, is playing tennis together an exchange? Is playing Team Fortress?
PEOPLE ARE NOT GOODS OR CURRENCY YOU NIMROD. PEOPLE ARE NOT BOUGHT AND SOLD, RELASHIPS DON’T WORK LIKE THAT.
Do you treat friendships like that? Co workers? Family?
The next time my friends call me up to play video games, I’m going to be very clear that I’ll spot them the time they spend with me now, but they sure as hell better make it up to be by spending time with me later.
Is this seriously how you go through life?
Friendship market people!
Nothing about it meets the definition for goods or currency. The only time it does is when it’s prostitution, and that’s an exchange of currency for a service.
You literally know nothing about economics. Like, you have anti-knowledge which impedes your understanding of it. I advise literally forgetting what you believe and starting over.
“Ms.magazine and jezebel are hardly feminist sites. XD”
Ahh, the NAFLT.
“Oh shit you guize, not every feminist has excommunicated Schwyzer so now we can’t mention N*ce G*ys anymore.” Or start realizing that only thing differing Hugo from a Nice Guy ™ is that Hugo is a better manipulator.
“Some people are better at manipulation than others. N*ce G*ys are generally called such because they think that simply being “nice” to a girl should get them laid, and it doesn’t work out.”
I have shown the original reference to the word. This explicitly mentions manipulative.
“Also, since when did it become Feminist Doctrine that there’s only one reason N*ce G*ys aren’t getting laid? As I see it, the #1 reason is the girls they go after just aren’t into them.”
See original reference at heartless bitches.
“Again, is playing tennis together an exchange? Is playing Team Fortress?”
Yes it is. You spend time together for mutual enjoyment. You aren’t going to tell me that you spend time with people that you don’t get any exchange from?
BU must have sucky econ classes….
You aren’t going to tell me that you spend time with people that you don’t get any exchange from?
What the hell would the exchange even be? I play tennis. He plays tennis. I have sex. She has sex. These are what my relationships are like. Everybody wins. Nothing is being exchanged. Like, seriously, what commodity do you think is changing hands here?
As per
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commodity?s=t
something of use, advantage, or value.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/currency?s=t
the fact or quality of being widely accepted and circulated from person to person.
Yes, that is indeed the definition of commodity.
So which commodity in particular is changing hands? From whom to whom?
” These are what my relationships are like. Everybody wins. Nothing is being exchanged. Like, seriously, what commodity do you think is changing hands here?”
So you would have to problem sitting with a couple of people you don’t know watching paint dry?
If you would have a problem with this. That is what is exchanged.
You keep saying that these guys are wannabe rapist murderers, only prevented by sucking at it. So why shouldn’t we shame them again?
Okay, so what is exchanged is having a problem with hanging out with people I don’t know to watch paint dry.
Thanks for clearing that up.
What? Seriously, is it The Commodity that Must Not be Named?
“You keep saying that these guys are wannabe rapist murderers, only prevented by sucking at it. So why shouldn’t we shame them again?”
By all means shame them. But realize that getting laid is in no way a guarantee of any kind of morality.
Apparently what is being exchanged is the lost opportunity to sit with strangers watching paint dry.
Yes, that is indeed a price I can pay to hang out with my partner.
Literally noone has ever argued that it was.
Even assuming electricangel’s wife’s friend is exactly as miserable as he happily fantasises her to be… is there anyone who wouldn’t choose to be her in a heartbeat, if the alternative was to be electricangel’s wife?
I’d be unable to keep a straight face.
“Honey, I just want to make sure you’re devoting enough time to reflection on how lucky you are to have me, the sole thing that gives your life happiness or meaning. Wow, are you ever lucky. I mean, look at me. You’re welcome. Now run off and find some new ways to please me, or I’ll remove my glorious presence. Also, if you could befriend some hot teenage virgins and talk me up to them? Thanks.”
How does she keep from splorfling right at him?
Who ever said it was? Of course getting laid is no guarantee of morality. Thanks for stating the obvious.
“What? Seriously, is it The Commodity that Must Not be Named?”
You spend time with your friend because you feel that the time is more fullfillingly spent that way than all other possible uses of that time.
I would call them sites with a feminist lean but not feminist sites especially when they post “opposite viewpoints” or random celeb gossip and news. Even if they were I am not sure why it would matter because you don’t want feminists to use “nice guys” no matter what. No matter how many feminists don’t like hugo its irrelevant to you.
How many times do I need to say abusers are not the same thing as nice guys. You are changing what it means to fit your purpose.
I didn’t see you post were it was originally used and words can change meanings from their original purpose.
Beep Boop robot exchange happiness in procession beep boop exchange complete beep boop. This may be shocking but humans are not robots. XD
Oops, ninja’ed.
Very true. However, what is being exchanged?
“Who ever said it was? Of course getting laid is no guarantee of morality. Thanks for stating the obvious.”
And so the discussion has come full circle. As was stated at first. How is this different from any fora with lots of women where I can read about how a man who is a virgin at 25 has to have a defective personality.
Very true. However, what is being exchanged?
Your time and your energy.
@Wandering
Again, no feminists have ever said that they must have a defective personality. Who are you arguing against?
And what is the commodity?