Category Archives: antifeminism
Zed the MGTOWer: “Feminism and women have been proceeding on the unshakable belief that men are still going to want and care about them no matter how awful they get.”
Men’s Rights a hate group? Pshaw! MRA’s don’t hate women! I mean, really, it’s more like an emotional numbness based on how objectively awful women are. Combined with a deep desire for revenge. That’s not hate, is it?
Apparently a good chunk of Men’s Rights Redditors don’t think it is, I gather from their positive reaction to this lovely quote from Men’s Rights/MGTOW elder Zed:
Not that many people would be proud to admit that they’re basically pickled in the juices of their own resentment, but, hey, this is why brave Zed is a Men’s Rights hero.
EDITED TO ADD: And now this Zed quote has 88 upvotes, which gives me the excuse to use my “dozens of upvotes” tag.
Is Obama’s re-election the first step towards a dystopian matriarchy in which men are obsolete?
Manosphere dudes are having a little trouble dealing with Obama’s re-election – especially with the fact that women and minorities were behind it. On The Rational Male, the regulars are debating the merits of a post-election manifesto from a fellow named Mark Minter, originally posted as a comment on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog.
Minter, who is basically right about the demographic shift behind Obama’s victory but wrong about everything else, lays out what he sees as the evil forces arrayed against the dudes of America – the white ones in particular — and what he sees as a solution. Naturally, in classic manosphere style, he gets a bit melodramatic about it all.
(In the excerpts that follow, I’m snipping out the demographic details, which everyone here already knows about.)
Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost.
Election Day Open Thread! Plus, some inane crap from Heartiste on the single white woman vote.
Election day is here at last! Vote! VOTE!! VOOOTTTTTEEEEE!!!1!!!
Well, if you’re American, anyway.
Americans and non-Americans alike, enjoy these ridiculous thoughts on the Single White Woman Vote from our old pal Heartiste.
[S]ingle women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote.
Are feminists conspiring to make all women as ugly as they are? Misogynistic douchebags say “yes.”
Back in the day – way, way back in the day – dudes opposed to women’s suffrage loved to depict suffragettes as ugly spinsters (that is, when they weren’t depicting them as sexy young women using their feminine wiles to manipulate men into supporting suffrage). We looked at some examples of this yesterday and noted that, when it comes to dismissing feminists as uggos, some things never change.
But why, oh why, are feminists so (allegedly) ugly? Or, to turn the question around, why are so many (allegedly) ugly women (allegedly) drawn to feminism?
Well, we’re in luck, because some manosphere dickwads have stepped forward to provide us with possible explanations.
Anti-Suffrage Postcard Saturday
There’s an interesting piece over on Collectors Weekly about those anti-Suffragette postcards I sometimes use to illustrate my posts here. (Thanks to Jezebel for the link; I’m not exactly a regular reader of Collectors Weekly.) Lisa Hix puts the cards in context, offering a sort of mini-history of the suffragette movement in the process, and notes that the cards present some of the often contradictory “arguments” still used against feminism today.
The Thinking Housewife: In the wake of Sandy, why are New Yorkers dressed so drably?
The single strangest reaction I’ve seen thus far to the devastation of Sandy comes from Laura Wood, the genteel bigot and feminism-hater who blogs as The Thinking Housewife. After looking through a gallery of photos on the Daily Mail showing some of the damage in New York city, Wood suggested that the real problem is that New Yorkers aren’t wearing cheerful enough clothing:
THESE Daily Mail photos of New York City after the hurricane remind me of just how ugly the streets of Manhattan are, with almost everyone dressed in drab, uninteresting clothes that rival the uniforms of Maoist China for their homogeneity and lifelessness. America is one of the most aesthetically impoverished nations in history. I wonder how many thousands of people are on medication because they are depressed by their own clothes and their ugly, hostile environments, surrounded as they are by impersonal denim, sneakers with tire treads, plastic-covered down jackets, billboards with oppressive smiles, and the austere, chilling cliffs of modern skyscrapers. This is the environment of a people that idolizes equality and sameness. The only way to survive amid such poverty is to possess an interior castle, a place of tapestries and mahogany where denim and sweat jackets are nowhere to be seen.
Just make sure this castle of yours isn’t reduced to rubble by 85 mile-an-hour winds and flying debris.
Speaking of New York, here’s an interesting (if a bit shaky) video of a walk through that city’s dark streets after the hurricane hit.

















