Category Archives: beta males
Fellas! Protect yourself from these sneaky lady tricks!
Some of them start young.
Courtesy of MGTOWforums.com, here’s a little collection of some of the evil dastardly tricks that women pull on the poor oppressed men of the world. Obviously, most sensible guys know that “housework” is a scam; so-called “housewives” spend most of their time on the couch eating bon bons and watching The View.
But did you know about Arson Night? Or the Cheerleader Ring Drop? Read on, and become enlightened Knowledge is power! STAY SAFE, GUYS!
If a man give his woman 100 dollars a week for food shopping, she will spend say 60 on food and keep the rest. When he enquires why there’s no food in the house come Friday he will get bitched at for not trusting her. And made to feel guilty for accusing her, even though she has deceived him.
They like to lay in bed, and pretend to be sick or sad (which means you won’t be coming in there) and text all their boyfriends.
When they say they are going out with the girls, they could be out doing Anything. This ranges from doing hard drugs to stripping to boinking strangers to sitting alone on a curb to arson. You can never be sure.
How about when they try their version of the Jedi mind trick on you. You know the thing they brag about in private. Trying to make something that’s her idea, seem like it’s *your* idea so that you’ll do it. And then pat you on the back to boost your ego like a trained dog when in reality you did what they for *them* all along.
Sooo many guys fall for this. Suddenly they’re buying crap they don’t need or moving the inlaws in because the woman made it seem like *he* wanted it. Classic.
Short Hair: The Beginning of the End
Women spend so much time on their appearance… why?
That’s right, to catch a sucker into paying the bills. Once the contract is signed, and the babies are popped out, she has you by the balls and doesn’t need to pretend anymore. Next she’ll wear more “comfortable clothes” and cut her hair short. It’s the beginning of the end.
And, yes, The Cheerleader Ring Drop:
In 11th grade high school, I was in the wrestling team. One day, during a water break, this cheerleader next to me started getting panicky and asked me if i could help her find her ring. She “dropped” it and did this just as an opener, i suppose. I ended up ‘being’ with her and it quickly diminished; she was bunk. Another cheerleader came up to me while i was with her and told me “what are you doing her?, you’re way too good for her!”
Luckily, the fella calling himself Tha Big Daddy C-Master, who started the thread, has a simple solution to all this. Well, two simple solutions:
You can always turn the other way, or just use a woman. Human toilets and all.
I couldn’t have said it worse myself!
Dudes: silent no more!
This tiny kitten actually has nothing to do with the post.
Did Tom Matlack of the Good Men Project – not to be confused with Ben Matlock, fictional defense lawyer beloved by the elderly – swallow one of those mysterious “red pills” I keep hearing about on Men’s Rights blogs? Whatever he swallowed, it’s apparently causing him to hallucinate.
How else to explain his recent post on the GMP site titled “Being a Dude Is a Good Thing.” Now, as a dude who spends a good deal of time every day being a dude, I’ve got nothing against anyone being a dude, provided that’s what they want to be. It’s just that the piece itself is full of some rather strange generalizations that don’t actually seem to be, you know, true, at least not in what’s commonly known as “the real world.”
Rather than try to rebut his argument, because he doesn’t seem to have much of one, let’s just look at some of his loopier pronouncements:
Why do men get blamed for everything?
Uh, because they don’t? Sure, men get blamed for things, but guess what? Women get blamed for things all the time, too, from witchcraft, to divorce, to getting themselves raped, battered or killed. They’ve been blamed for earthquakes, for “inciting” male lust, for killing chivalry and “killing off real men,” for “taking roles intended by God only for men.” Heck, some inventive sorts have even figured out how to blame women for men who are assholes. And this guy has decided that “Black Women are to blame for the disrespect Black Men show towards Black Women.” For endless additional examples, scroll back through the posts and comments here, visit any of the blogs on my “boob roll,” or simply continue living on planet earth.
Back to Matlack, whose generalizations get more surreal by the sentence:
In the locker room, in the bathroom, on the walk out of the board room, in my conversations with men of all kinds, that’s what I hear more than anything. The resignation that to be a man is to be unacceptable at some level to the woman in your life.
Really? Who on earth are you hanging out with? And what women are they hanging out with? Are men other than Tom Matlack and his possibly apocryphal conversational partners actually having conversations like this on a regular basis? If the “woman in your life” basically hates men, what is she doing with you, and what are you doing with her?
One close friend jokes, “When speaking to my wife I always make sure to look at the ground in deference. And I make sure not to make any sudden movements.”
Um, what?
I’ve watched him. He loves his wife.
He’s a very competent human being. But with her he’s decided the only way to survive is to submit. The female view is the right view. The male view just gets you into trouble.
You see what I meant before about the hallucinations, right?
But Matlack suggests there is hope for the poor demure, never-before-heard-from men of the world. Apparently they are starting to open their mouths at last.
It seems that the blame game in the mainstream, whether through the minimization of male life in pop culture or on television or through the continued obsession with men behaving badly, has finally struck a chord with the average guy.
Let’s just pause a moment to reflect on this whole “minimization of male life in pop culture or on television.” Mr. Matlack, do you actually watch movies or television, or visit libraries or anything like that? Most movies revolve around men as the main characters, with women in many cases serving as little more than a love interest or simply as scenery. Have you ever heard of the Bechdel test? Read up on it, run the test on some of your favorite films, and then get back to us on the “minimization of male life in pop culture.”
Now back to Matlack’s manifesto:
We are no longer willing to be blamed for being men. We are no longer willing to avert our gazes and stay silent about our feelings. We are raising our voices and telling our stories in our own male vocabulary.
Yeah, because men have been so utterly silent about their feelings, their opinons, and pretty much everything, up until now.
To women, I assume the response is, “well, it’s about time.” But just remember when we talk it’s not going to sound like a women in a man’s body. It’s gonna be all dude. And you are just going to have to deal with that.
Ladies, prepare yourselves for a lot more Dudesplaining in the near future. Dudes will be ignored no longer! Dudes!!! DUUUUUDESSS!!!!!!
EDITED TO ADD: Matlack’s gotten some responses on Twitter to his dudely roar; he’s posted a bunch of them here. Guest appearances by Amanda Marcotte and (seriously) Roseanne Barr.
When 5 is 7: Advanced Facebook dating math, according to the dude who actually calls himself “Heartiste”
Cats also think they're all that.
Today, a lesson in advanced Facebook dating mathematics, courtesy of our friend Roissy/Heartiste.
First: fellas, remember that online dating is stacked against us, due to the ability of the ladies to post pictures of themselves looking cute on Facebook – one of the gravest injustices of the modern world. As Heartiste explains, in a post with the bracing title You’ll Need Hard Negs For Facebook Game:
So you’ve got millions of women posting flattering pics of themselves and personal details that are uniformly positive on their FB walls, and you’ve got a bunch of cloying betas feeding the egos of these women even further with painstakingly crafted supportive comments, and you expect to make any headway with tepid game? That is a bitch shield too strong to breach.
But if you must engage the ladies on this unfavorable terrain, remember to adjust your calculations accordingly. As Heartiste explains this new math:
The combination of self-selected profiles and nonstop beta adulation will boost a 5′s self-conception to a 7. Since 5s already have a self-conception of 6 thanks to the phenomenon of female upward dating momentum and the alpha cock carousel, you now have a double-strength bitch shield to bust instead of a single strength.
I’ve prepared a simple chart to illustrate this point:
How to date on Facebook
But wait! There’s more:
Remember, if a 5 believes she’s a 7 (“But I *feel* like a 7!”) she is also going to believe that male 7s are not high enough status for her. Women are not truly happy unless they are dating men 0.5 to 2 sexual market value points higher than themselves.
Five thinks it’s seven. But seven is five. SEVEN IS FIVE!
The reality, of course, is that the male 7 is two full points higher than the female 5. But the Facebook wall has meddled with the primal forces of nature. An unbridgeable chasm brought about by the advance of technology has severed the organically emergent hierarchy of the dating market where there is no escape from soul withering judgments made in mere seconds.
So, as always, the best bet for the modern man is to find some lady in the real world who actually thinks she’s the number she is. Then, simply neg her until she hates herself. That’s how the math is supposed to work.
“A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.” Um, what?
Vile strumpet! You'll get your comeuppance!
Manosphere dudes – MRAs, MGTOWers, PUAs and whatever other acronyms they will eventually invent – love to tell themselves little “just so” stories about women. One of their favorite stories is the story of the Bad Boy Cock Carousel.
The gist of it: Women in their twenties are at the height of their physical beauty. So they act like entitled bitches, sleeping with every Bad Boy and Alpha Asshole there is and ignoring the humble, honest, hardworking “nice guy” betas silently pining for them.
But once these mean girls hit the age of 27 or so, they suddenly become ugly monsters, and the bad boys stop returning their calls. So then the evil ladies try to glom on to the nearest beta male in an attempt to marry him and steal all of his money.
But the beta males don’t want none of that used-up pussy, and so they Go Their Own Way and everyone ends up forever alone. Or the guys learn “game” and start banging the hotties. Or they just go back to posting sammich jokes on Reddit. I think these are all supposed to be happy endings, because at least the evil bitches get their comeuppance.
Recently, someone posted a n especially creepy version of this Manosphere fairy tale in the comments here; it turned out to have been cut and pasted from a comment on Roissy/Heartiste’s “game” blog by a guy who calls himself PhillyBoy81. It’s long; I trimmed it a little for space.
“[A]lpha males” are doing all the rest of us a favor in the long run. They operate very much like short sellers in the dating market, exposing fraud and helping to discover the true prices of commodities (women).
Yep, we’re on the express train to Doucheytown.
Let’s take a 21-year old chick who’s between a 7/8 (cute to pretty. … She can pretty much get sex whenever she wants it and with whomever she wants to have it with. And that is ultimately her downfall.
Young women (and some older ones) have an overinflated sense of the value of their vaginas. I mean, they have Wharton MBAs paying for exotic trips and they’re drinking Cosmos in the VIP with the Wizards.
Apparently this is just how women in their early twenties live. Who knew?
Since they are able to get such easy access to “alpha” dick, it follows logically that they should also have access to “alpha” wealth, marriage, and the lifestyle that accompanies all of that, right?
Wrong. See, when women gain this enormous sense of pussy power, they swing for the fences. … So, the cute guy with a 3.8 GPA, but no car? Nope, not good enough. The nice-looking pre-med student? “Nah, I’ll just get back to him later. I heard Jude Law’s hotter brother is transferring here this semester.”
This had me worried for a second, but I looked it up: Jude Law does not have a “hotter brother,” or indeed a brother at all, which is good news for all straight men of equal or lesser hotness than Jude Law.
Anyway, back to the evil women:
They invariably end up overplaying their hand. They chase these players looking to get a ring, and then that ring never comes. So now they’re 27. It’s a good thing she kept that pre-med Johns Hopkins student in her back pocket just in case things didn’t work out with the player, right?
Wrong again. In a vacuum, women would have their way. Men beg for sex. Women decide whether to give it to them (and for most guys, they will not give it to you). But luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in the real world with social constraints, and there are two that work distinctly to a man’s advantage: reputation and age. …
Ladies don’t think … we won’t remember your bitchiness. And don’t think we won’t remember those guys who you ran behind like a cum bucket.
Hmm. I’m pretty sure the only place buckets are gifted with mobility is in old Disney cartoons.
We remember. And we punish.
When a man sleeps with 100 chicks, he’s a stud. When a woman sleeps with JUST ONE guy, that eliminates you as wifey material to ALL of his friends. …
Apparently penises have a sort of reverse-Midas Touch thing going on: every woman who touches one turns into a filthy, used-up slut.
The height of a woman’s value, in terms of her value as a long term partner, is around the age of 27. That is the praecipice. The older she gets, the more her singlehood gets scrutinized by men. Why the hell is she still single? Who’s cock has she been sucking all these years?
Clearly that is the first question every straight man should ask himself whenever he sees a single woman older than the age of 27. (Just make sure you don’t actually ask this question out loud; it doesn’t go over well.)
[L]et’s face it, what virile, successful bachelor wants to entertain a 29 or 30 year old as wifey potential. She’s going to want to become a baby factory right away and rip away the last vestiges of your freedom. I don’t think so. It’s now my time to swing for the fences and bang some of these 21 year olds that I couldn’t bang in college.
Hello creepy older dude lurking in the shadows at the frat party!
In conclusion, a woman’s value is really defined by the type of man who puts a ring on her finger, not the type of guy who will fuck her. It takes a lot of women a long time to understand this, and thus, they overplay their hand. If it wasn’t for the players dogging them out, these women would not get a sense of their true value and start to seek out men who fit within their price range.
It’s all about market equilibrium, yo! SCIENCE!
So that’s the story. It’s a stupid story. It’s not a true story. But it’s the story that manosphere dudes, like young children, want to hear over and over and over.
But I haven’t even gotten to the best part. Our pal MarkyMark, an excitable and somewhat addled Man Going His Own Way, reposted PhillyBoy81’s comment on his blog. In the comments there (as Man Boobz commenter Wetherby pointed out) we find this little gem:
A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.
Yep, that’s right. I’m just going to repeat that, because, wow.
A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.
All women older than 27 or so who date or marry men are disrespecting these men because … they are older than 27. Apparently women age out of spite. Maturation is misandry!
A PUA, living the dream. And by “living the dream” I mean “being a dick.”
Cheating is jerky. But this picture is still hilarious.
Here’s the bravely anonymous alpha blogger behind “Danger & Play ~ An online magazine for alpha males” explaining “Why You Should Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” I’ve bolded my favorite bit:
Haters will tell you to, “Man up! Break up with your girlfriend if you’re not happy.” They are missing the point. You want to have your cake, and to eat it too. Steady, reliable pussy and the occasional strange is the best of all worlds.
Cheating is a lot of fun, and it’s something I highly recommend. It’s way more exhilarating than bungee jumping, and few things feel as good as banging your girlfriend on the same day you banged some strange.
Cheating keeps your game tight. The best way to regulate your girlfriend is knowing you can bang chicks as hot or hotter than your girl. Well, when you cheat, this isn’t hypothetical. It’s reality.
Somehow I’m guessing there’s a lot more “hypothetical” than “reality” going on in this guy’s posts.
You don’t want an exclusive relationship? Fine. There’s no law saying you have to be in one. You can date casually and non-exclusively. You can have an open or polyamorous relationship. There are a lot of people out there in relationships, yet happily fucking other people outside of them. They’re just above board with it.
But that’s not what’s going on with our PUA friend here. With his talk about “regulat[ing]” girlfriends, he seems more interested in fucking over his girlfriend (assuming such a creature really exists) than he is in fucking strangers (sorry, “stranges”).
That’s not “Game.” That’s just being a dick.
But, hey, Nietzsche! He’s BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! Or, as he puts it in a comment, “Shame and guilt are beta.”
You know, if you have to go around telling everyone what an Nietzschean ubermensch you are, you’re probably aren’t much of a Nietzschean ubermensch.
If you’re an Alpha male, shouldn’t you be allowed to just punch people who annoy you at work?
Sometimes Alpha cab drivers want to punch their customers too.
Every day, it seems, I learn a little bit more about the oppression of men. Recently, for example, I learned that men who are working customer service jobs are oppressed because they are prohibited from punching their customers, even when these customers are really, really annoying, and possibly even ladies. At least that’s the lesson I took from a recent Facebook posting by MRA and frequent Spearhead contributor Jack Donovan. Here’s Jack:
Men want to carry their own weight, but to do so, they may have to take a job which requires them to choose “flight” over “fight” as part of their regular duties. All customer service oriented jobs, for instance, require men to take abuse from … someone who is angrily issuing insults and challenge cues … and reply submissively.
Even worse is when some of these poor men, like Jack, are natural “alphas” forced to take these beta-ass jobs because for some reason the people in charge of hiring haven’t recognized their awesome alphaness:
It would be interesting to see someone do a study tracking the testosterone levels of “alpha” type men who would not choose a customer service job, but who were forced to take a position where they had to apologize and beg forgiveness from abusive women and “betas” all day.
It’s almost like you have to act as if the customer is always right!
As a man who had blood in his face for *several hours* after having to hold my tongue while I was screamed at by a neurotic old female customer this week, the physical effects were pretty noticeable in the short term. I was murderously furious for hours and then emotionally exhausted and kind of depressed through the next day.
Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone – with the possible exception of the old lady, of course, and the rest of the customers, and maybe the firm employing Mr. Donovan – if he could have chosen “fight” instead of “flight,” and just popped that old bat in the nose? Problem fucking solved!
Let’s just shut down the economy and the judicial system for a day or two while we work out a way that Mr. Donovan can just punch people without any consequences. Because he’s an alpha, damn it, and he really shouldn’t be hemmed in by petty “laws” and “social conventions” and “moral codes” clearly meant for betas and ladies and other losers.
EDITED TO ADD: Donovan has responded to this post in the comments here. He says he’s not an MRA, so I’ve edited out that part. (I did find his Facebook post through a link on the MR subreddit, FWIW.)
I should clarify that Donovan did not talk directly about punching people; he talked about the “fight or flight” instinct.
Ladies: He’s Going Galt — and it’s all your fault
Screw you, sister! I'm Going Galt!
Ladies! Better move fast if you want to sink your talons into some hard-working, high-earning beta man-wallet! Men’s Rights Redditor ShinShinGogetsuko is on to you ladies and your devious ways, and he’s taking his video games and going home. By which I mean: he’s GOING GALT!
Men are choosing to reject the culture that is being forced upon them which tells them to be anything but MEN. What they want us to be is slaves, to throw away our souls and toil away while women get to do whatever they want in the name of “female empowerment” and with a court system that will side with them. Equality is the ideal, but it’s not about equality–it’s about control. Men are going Galt.
When society takes a stand against the destruction of men’s character, then men will return to being men. Until then, Xbox 720.
See, I wasn’t kidding about the video games bit.
LINK and SCREENSHOT.
Thanks to tim-buckles on ShitRedditSays for the link (and the screenshot).
Lady Killers 2: Electric Boogaloo
Well, here’s a new twist on the whole “women love assholes” thing. According to the blogger known as Vox Day – a sort of right-wing/PUA hybrid – the best way for a fella to capture the attention of a comely lass is to rape and murder another comely lass. Yep. He seems to have confused “Game” — that is, pick-up artist trickery — with The Most Dangerous Game. Oh, Vox stops short of recommending that his readers actually go out and murder women, but he argues this women-love-killers argument in all seriousness:
I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.
His empirical “proof” of this assertion? The fact that some Japanese women have set up online fan clubs for Tatsuya Ichihashi, an accused murderer.
From this one data point, Vox seems to have made a somewhat hasty generalization based on the notion that all women are the same person – that is, if one woman thinks or does something, all women think or do that same thing.
Yes, there are women — and men — who find themselves attracted to vile human beings. Some women idolize murderers. Some men think Ann Coulter is hot. That doesn’t mean that all women idolize murderers or that all men want to get it on with Ms. Coulter. It just means that some people have really, really, really appalling taste.
But let’s just assume for a moment that Vox’s basic premise is true: all women love violent psycopaths,. If you’ want to get with the ladies, but aren’t so hard up for a date that you’re actually willing to resort to homicide, is there some other way you convey what a violent psychopath you are to the ladies of the world? Yep, says Vox:
[I]f you are being introduced to a woman you find attractive, she will be more attracted to you if you slap her in the face without warning and walk away without explanation than if you smile and tell her that you are very pleased to meet her. Now this, being a mere hypothesis, can be argued. And tested, if you’re feeling especially scientific this weekend.
I really hope none of his readers take him up on this.
Is Vox being altogether serious about this? Yes and no. About the idea that women love killers? Absolutely serious. About actually assaulting women? He’s a bit more cagey. On his blog Alpha Game, Vox elaborates:
Women find it sexier for you to rape and kill a woman than putting them on pedestals and being a nice guy. I’m not saying that you should rape and kill anyone, but I would recommend, at the very least, dropping the nice guy routine and pushing over the pedestals.
Women have plenty of positive attributes. But they’re not angels, and when it comes to what sexually attracts them, even the nice, well-bred ones are more insanely twisted, from the male perspective, than the average serial killer.
So apparently the only truly happy couples in the world are those in which both partners think like serial killers.
What a romantic!
Lady, killer; killer, lady.
What do women want? Freud never found a definitive answer to his famous question, but the blogger who calls himself Delusion Damage thinks he’s got it figured out: women want men who can kill people with their bare hands.
DD is a sort of compound MRA-PUA who argues for “Men’s Liberation Through ‘Game,’” as he put it in a Spearhead post some months ago. Apparently, if dudes learn how to get the hot babes to give them strings-free sexy times, through the magic of “game,” this will help to “reduce the unilateral enslavement of men through marriage.”
And what attracts the ladies more than the ability to kill? Not much, apparently. If you’ve got that magic killing touch, everyone around you will sense your manly power:
You are a man. A man is a survivor, a hunter, a protector of loved ones. The essence of manliness is controlled power. … That is what women love and what other men respect. Women, most of them anyway, are unable to use force and must rely on men where force is required. … If you lack the ability to kill other people with your bare hands, you will be perceived as if something is missing from your manliness. …
If you can kill, the ladies will pick up on this instantly:
[H]aving the ability substantially raises the value she instinctively perceives you to have. Which, as we know, leads to all manner of good things.
I believe he’s referring to blowjobs.
Oh, and other dudes will be impressed, too:
The respect of other men is also greatly influenced by your killing ability. Up until graduation from high school, the male social hierarchy has a great deal to do with “who can beat up whom”, and although the hierarchy among adult men is more dependent on social and professional status signals, men never stop instinctively evaluating you by what they perceive your killing ability to be, and respecting or disrespecting you accordingly.
And this will set you apart from all the wimpy emo hipsters of the world, who couldn’t even fight a girl:
If there is a “defining” degree of killing ability that makes you “manly”, it is defined by comparison with the female of the species. …
In these dismal times, men who fall short of this line are not terribly rare. Many of the emaciated hipsters and cubicle-dwellers of our generation would have trouble against a Juanita from a rougher neighborhood. These men, due to their lack of killing ability, are seen as unmanly by both men and women.
Meanwhile, your ability to kill will make others sit up and take notice:
The ability to kill makes your feelings relevant. If you lose your temper, someone dies.
This of course implies good things about you – the fact that you aren’t in jail right now means that you are a man in control of his emotions. A man who never loses his temper. Everyone around you subconsciously understands this and respects you for it. It lets people know they can trust you.
Yeah, nothing screams “trustworthy” more than a guy going on and on about how he could kill you with his bare hands.
Also, the ability to kill can help to prevent the ladies from blabbing endlessly about their stupid lady crap to you:
A woman who knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that she will have less than three seconds to live from the second she makes you lose your temper is not going to set out to intentionally poke and prod you past your breaking point.
Aw, yeah, it’s good to be a potential bare-hands killer:
[Y]ou will be afforded a completely unprecedented kind of respect. …
When you are The Man, everyone around takes note. It is a form of celebrity. Women gravitate to you, pulled by the invisible streams of attention, respect and deference which we all subconsciously sense in any social situation.
Given the sort of adoring attention DD must get from the ladies, it’s sort of amazing that he finds time to even keep up a blog at all.
The MRAhorns
Reading “Anthony Zarat’s” recent comments here fantasizing about a future in which men and women consort with virtual reality lovers rather than one another and “drift into separate and rarely interracting species, each of which will prosper more by the absence of the other,” I began to wonder if there was anyone out there with a more jaundiced view of heterosexual relationships than the typical MRA?
And then it occurred to me: the non-married male-female cartoonist duo behind The Lockhorns.
You’ve seen The Lockhorns, haven’t you? It’s a daily single panel cartoon that runs in about 500 newspapers – who even knew there were 500 newspapers left? – and that, according to the strip’s website “gently spoofs the state of marital bliss, poking fun at the foibles of both partners.”
That’s the nice way of putting it. More accurately, the cartoon depicts a sort of existentialist hell on earth. Locked in a loveless marriage, Leroy and Loretta Lockhorn stare at each other with heavy-lidded eyes and almost perpetual frowns; they pick endlessly at each other’s numerous flaws.
Leroy is a bald, overworked schlub who seems to resent every minute of his pathetic existence; only rarely does a smile grace his face, generally when he’s either ogling a pretty girl or contemplating drowning his sorrows in booze. Loretta is a drab, shrewish housefrau whose only real pleasure seems to be trying on new dresses. They unite only in their shared hatred of all that is new and confusing, like the underwear-baring clothing styles of the youth of today.
Happily, they have no cartoon children.
In any case, after reading through a bunch of recent Lockhorns cartoons I had a little brainstorm. While neither The Lockhorns nor MRA misogyny tastes good in itself, the combination of the two could very well be magically delicious.
So I’d like to introduce to you the latest in interactive cartooning: The MRAhorns. I’ve posted a batch of recent Lockhorns cartoons below, sans captions. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to write up some appropriately MRAish captions for them. Bonus points if you’re able to use the exact words of a prominent MRAer, or even one of this blog’s dedicated trolls. Whoever comes up with the best caption wins one internet.
Have at it!
MRAhorns #1
MRAhorns #2
MRAhorns #3
MRAhorns #4
