Roosh: Hillary will usher in a “techno-matriarchy” and ban talking to women in public

“techno-matriarchy” sounds badass. I’m fully in favour.

Talking to girls in public will be illegal harassment

Yeah, well, you’re waaaaaaaaay too old to be going after girls, Roosh.

I would devote more of my energy to helping men successfully pair bond with women

Huh. The Wikipedia definition of ‘pair bond’ has nothing about following drunk women home so you can rape them.

Hahaha “New Girl Order.” Love your writing! So clever.

If the choice is between patriarchy under Trump or matriarchy under Clinton, I’d say we’ve thoroughly road-tested patriarchy and see how that turned out. Maybe it’s time to try matriarchy.

Of course, those aren’t actually the options; more like chaos vs status quo.

Techno-Matriarchy is the name of my new punk band.

In the matriarchy Roosh will be forced to wipe his own ass and maintain basic hygiene.

I just… what do they think is gonna happen? Do they not have the basic understanding of how our government works that we all learned in about… oh, I don’t know, 4th grade? You know, the Three Houses of Government and all that? Checks and ballances? Do they really think Hilary can get elected and immidiatly start issuing decrees like a despotic monarch?

Like, okay, even if she WANTED to pass all these masculenity oppression laws (citation needed) exactly how do they think she’d get it past Congress and the House? Which are still, by the way, mainly full of men.

Cool, I hate when people talk to me in public anyway.

laws in the workplace will lower the incomes of all men so that less qualified females can receive job positions and promotions at male expense.

That doesn’t make any sense. Employers usually prefer to pay lower incomes, so unless there was also a law against hiring men in higher numbers than women, in this scenario we’d see more men employed.

We can add the the way the American government actually works to the list of things Roosh V doesn’t understand about reality. He sounds like he’s basically afraid that under President Hillary Clinton, women will automatically start treating men the way he treats women. The president doesn’t have that kind of power.

I, for one, welcome our techno-matriarchal overlords…

What?

(Okay okay… tired old worn-out joke is tired, old, and worn out. Sorry.)

I may not be Clinton’s biggest fan, but this just gives me even more motivation to vote for her (not that I didn’t already have major motivation to vote for her already, but still… more is always good).

I am so totally behind Clinton’s new techno-matriarchy. I was a supporter of hers anyway, but now…

If I had any photoshop skills, I’d make a Borg Clinton portrait.

Like they care about anything they theoretically would have learned all the way back in 4th-12th grade! They don’t care about those silly checks and balances, why let facts, reality, or laws get in the way of working themselves into a frothing rage-panic.

It’s being beta tested in the UK, whut? I know we now have a woman Prime Minister and of course a woman Queen, but I don’t think it’s illegal for men to talk to women in public just yet. I’ll have to inquire further when next we have a family get together and I see my Not-brother-in-laws again. One of whom it has to be said rocks the huge bushy beard a lot better than Roosh does.

One of the many reasons to hope for a Clinton presidency: these guys will lose their minds and it will be hilarious.

I wonder if Roosh’s “pair bond with women” plan involves the use of Super Glue?

Talking to girls in public will be illegal harassment or “hate crime,” and be enforced any time you make a girl feel bad for whatever reason, even if you merely stare at her the wrong way (such laws are currently being beta tested in the UK before wider rollout).

Oh, if ONLY. I’d be quite all right with men not being allowed to ogle and catcall us. But I have the strangest feeling that they’re doing nothing of the sort, in the UK or anywhere.

This isn’t a trivial matter of getting banned from a web site like Twitter or Youtube—many of you will be forced to escape the country for no other reason than you happening to be a man who found himself on the wrong side of the establishment.

Translation: Buy my shit before they make it illegal (I know they won’t, but you don’t need to know that. Just buy my fucking shit.)

Blatantly discriminatory “gender equality” laws in the workplace will lower the incomes of all men so that less qualified females can receive job positions and promotions at male expense.

Translation: Waaaaa, we won’t be getting the 30% Penis Benefit anymore! If women are actually equal to us, that means we’ll be lesser, because women are lesser! WAAAAA!

They will target us, the alt right, alternative media, patriot groups, survivalists, traditionally conservative groups, and anyone else who strongly supports Donald Trump, tradition, or masculinity. The purpose of acute attacks is to psychologically break down, impoverish, and imprison those who have a powerful ability to counter the narrative or those who have the strength and organizational skill to resist tyranny with arms.

Actually, that would be a good idea! Thanks for the helpful hint, Roosh the Doosh!

Only, of course, it’s not because you’re countering any narrative, but because you’re spreading FASCISM, and most people fucking hate that, for reasons you’d know if you hadn’t slept through history class.

(‘Course, I strongly suspect that what he’s really doing here is projecting what he’d like to do to anyone who doesn’t think like HIM. Because really, where else WOULD he get those cockamamie ideas?)

I would devote more of my energy to helping men successfully pair bond with women, like I started my writing career with, instead of having to play political defense as masculinity becomes retroactively classified as hate speech.

Oh sure. Because it’s totally normal for men to only pick on drunk, too-young, or otherwise disadvantaged women to rape — oh sorry, SUCCESSFULLY PAIR BOND WITH.

And if it’s such a great success, why isn’t Roosh still doing that, instead of moaning about how nobody wants him now that he’s become the old creeper who hangs around the bars, the one that all the women, whatever their age, know enough to avoid?

@Varalys : also, what the fuck have Clinton to do with anything happening in the UK ? Did Roosh lost the memo that the UK is actually another country entirely ?

I just renamed my PC “Techno-Matriarchy” and it’s made my day. So, thanks Roosh?

I am totally in favor of any law that would ban Roosh from talking to women in public, private, or anywhere in between.

@ Varalys – I suspect he is referencing Nottinghamshire Police’s decision to classify misogyny as a hate crime: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398

@EJ(TOO)
My photoshopping skills are terrible, but my google fu is alright.

(Someone who’s better at this than me just search for “borg template”)

@Ohlmann: Well quite, I know the UK and the USA have a (lol) Special Relationship but I don’t think we beta test their laws for them. I’m still scratching my head over it. I guess he saw we have a woman in charge now and faaaarted out a totally made-up warning from it.

ETA: @ALW, good catch, that does sound like it might send misogynists alarm bells ringing, but he seems to have blown it out of all proportion and again, I don’t see how it would affect the USA. Although good on that police force, even if it might prove hard to police in practice.

I thought globalism, capitalism and technology were male domains and evidence of male superiority. Now, all of a sudden they’re matriarchal?

Kay.

If the alt-right want proof that too many one night stands are bad for you, they only have to look at Roosh. He has gone from being a sex tourist to being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, whose theories get wilder and darker by the minute.

I keep wondering where he can take it from here. Hopefully not down the same dark road as his hero, the Unabomber.

Talking to girls in public will be illegal harassment or “hate crime,” and be enforced any time you make a girl feel bad for whatever reason, even if you merely stare at her the wrong way (such laws are currently being beta tested in the UK before wider rollout).

I initially read “beta tested” as “tested by betas”, of course.

All this is news to me, and I’d have thought that there’d be a fair amount of discussion about such legislation if it had even been mooted, much less actually passed. Perhaps WHTM’s British legal correspondent Alan Robertshaw can shed more light on this?

Of course, we have a female PM now, but we also had one for eleven years back in the 1980s, and I don’t recall a raft of anti-male legislation being passed back then. In fact, Margaret Thatcher was more notorious for discriminating against women: the number that served in her various governments was tiny, she pretty much wrote her mother out of her official history, and she was noticeably more solicitous of her son than her daughter, despite Mark Thatcher being actively loathsome and Carol Thatcher merely irritating (and given her ancestry, that’s excusable).

Long live the Techno-Matriarchy!

I’ll stop now, I’m sorry.

Shit! I’m no Hillary fan but I’m tempted to vote for her because A. Our only other alternative is Trump the Rump, and B. to thwart Roosh’s bullshit and make that badass-sounding “techno-matriarchy” a reality

@Nathan: My thoughts almost exactly, except more succinct and intelligible.

@MexicanHotChocolate: Exactly! I don’t know whether to laugh at them or feel a bit sorry for them. Is it possible to do both?

All hail the Techno Matriarchal #NewGirlOrder!

1. Dude’s sporting some serious Elam eyes there.

2. Red pill logic: 43 male presidents don’t prove that there’s a patriarchy, but one female president proves that there’s a matriarchy.

@Violet : honestly, you should vote for her just to avoid a disaster. She may worsen poverty and continue the social statu quo vs he may start WWIII. I think both the best case scenario and worse case scenario are better for Clinton.

(I am not an utter fan of Clinton, and I am a foreigner anyway. But I do have a lot of distress at the idea of a barely sentient orange wig getting both the nuclear codes and law executive power)

(also, it’s just me or are the two independant candidate complete nuts, both of them ?)

I’m getting ready to walk a few paces behind the ‘missus’ in public and be obligated to donning my cap to every woman I don’t personally know!

Your Humble servant, Ma’am!

@Ohlmann:

are the two independant candidate complete nuts

I get what you’re trying to say, but I wouldn’t use *that* particular word to describe them
Please read We have a pretty strict anti-ableism policy.

I would recommend: extremist or out of touch. I know using “nut”, “crazy”, “insane”, etc. casually is a hard habit to break (one I’m working on myself) but we can do this.

That said, I would definitely pick Hillary over the alternative…I heard that her “body count” is largely bogus anyway.

“Clinton/May, the new Globalist Nexus of Techno-Matriarchy/Feminazism. Wake up, sheeple!”

Johnnie Get Your Gun!

You’re right, it slipped out of my tongue. Sorry.

Hillary cannot be elected soon enough.

Yep. Looking forward to Inauguration Day when our first Black President turns things over to our first woman President.

MRA tears will be delicious!

@Ohlmann: It’s ok…we’re all human here, we all have things slip out at times.

@Patricia: Agreed…you bring the MRA tears, I’ll provide the popcorn. I can’t speak for anyone else but I sure wouldn’t be opposed to candy either.

He looks kind of like a dwarf in Once Upon A Time. Though what would be his dwarf name? Pervy? Rapey? Douchey?

He looks kind of like a dwarf in Once Upon A Time. Though what would be his dwarf name? Pervy? Rapey? Douchey?

Gahhh…ran out of editing time AGAIN!

By “he” I mean, of course, Roosh V.
I also like the name “Creepy” for him.

Talking to girls in public will be illegal harassment or “hate crime,”

Harassment is already illegal or at least frowned upon, but I’m totally up for making it illegal for Roosh to talk to girls, women, men, children, the elderly, ducks at a pond, cats, dogs, Siri…

@Ohlmann: Stein and Johnson are both pretty out of the mainstream ideologically and probably won’t be significant factors in who becomes President.

Stein isn’t polling well at all. A recent poll from PPP (a reputable firm who typically throw in a silly question or two in their polls) had Stein running behind (the late) Harambe the Gorilla.

Johnson is pulling double digits in some western states where the Republicans tend to be more of the libertarian bent rather than religious right or corporatist. Might tip a state like Arizona Clinton’s way but he’s still unlikely to even be invited to the debates (needs to get 15%+ in several national polls).

Wow… so much… so much wow.
For starters, the amazing presumption that the president apparently controls all facets of government and can institute new laws entirely at their discretion. I know the powers of the executive branch keep being inflated with pretty much every new administration, but we aren’t quite to the point of electing actual dictators yet.

My “favorite” bit is this parenthetical though: “(such laws are currently being beta tested in the UK before wider rollout)” because it implies that the ENTIRE WORLD is ALREADY under the control of the “Feminist Conspiracy.” It implies that someone, or some group, said “Hey, we gotta try these laws somewhere… how about the UK first, then if it works, we’ll do it in the rest of Europe and the Americas next year.”

@Latte Cat: LMAO, where is that clip taken from? And also bless you for posting it, I can’t stop watching it 😀

OT: More Zapp as Trump clips have been going up today.

https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest

There is no reason men shouldn’t speak to women in public as long as they treat them as human beings and not as Douche V and his buddies treat them, as ‘meat dispensaries’ and sub human.

That’s much better than I could do, RosedeLava.

Women often stop me in the street, usually to inform me that I have a ridiculously cute dog.

Thus far, I’ve been able to reply with impunity (usually to say “yes, but you don’t have to live with him”), but who knows how long that’s going to last? I gather it’s already all but illegal.

At least Roosh has admitted that a Twitter ban is trivial, instead of some great act of oppression that MRAs usually tout it as.

If people tell you that the way you talk about masculinity sounds like hate speech, how does that not make you pause and reevaluate the some of the things you’re saying?

Also, saving Yellow Diamond Hillary this instant. I never knew I needed that in my life.

I predict that a masculine renaissance will occur … where men can once again focus on their own individual goals with Trump as a patriarchal role model.

Well this is a fun instance of unintentional honesty. What they really want is to go back to a world wherein men aren’t expected to give a shit about anyone but themselves.