Category Archives: crackpottery

MRA “philosopher” Stefan Molyneux: “If you don’t have a husband … to keep the child is abusive.”

Misogyny Theater takes another look at the charming philosopher-king-asshole Stefan Molyneux, who seems to be carving out quite a spot for himself in the world of the lady-haters.

In this episode, some audio excerpts from Stefan Molyneux’s frighteningly well-received talk ostensibly on circumcision at A Voice for Men’s June 2014 conference, as presented in his video “Shocking Misogynist Attacks Feminism, Defends Rape Culture.” Despite the ironic title, this is pretty much an accurate description of his talk, even a bit of an understatement.

The title of my video is a shortened version of something he says in his talk (and in my video). The full quote: “If you don’t have a husband, if you chose the wrong guy, to keep the child is abusive, almost always.”

That’s right: according to Stefan M., being a single mother is, in itself, abusive.

The audio excerpts are drawn from an hour-long talk, so naturally I did some editing. In the interests of transparency, I marked each edit with a little snipping sound.

If you just can’t get enough of this guy, see my previous Molyneux video for more exciting women-blaming.

Scissors sounds and weird background noises courtesy of FreeSFX.

About these ads

VIDEO: Misogyny Theater: Stefan Molyneux explains why women are the root of all evil

Welcome to the second installment of Misogyny Theater! In other news, I’m enjoying making these videos, and may do a couple more this week.

Today’s thoroughly horrifying monologue stars the megalomaniacal libertarian-MRA philosopher guru Stefan Molyneux, who is, as many of you already know, one of the scheduled speakers at A Voice for Men’s conference in Detroit later this week.

The audio is an excerpt from his long-as-hell video “The Matriarchal Lineage of Corruption” in which he explains why, in his view, women are essentially responsible for all the evil in the world. It’s basically the director’s cut version of the quote from him in this video, which I posted about a couple of days ago.

I have taken the liberty of editing out a brief and inconsequential comment from a caller Molyneux had on the phone with him; and adding a few seconds of silence at each end of the clip. The rest is pure, unedited Molyneux.

Oh, ok, I added the Justin Bieber poster and the lamp.

Thanks to YouTuber Tru Shibes for posting a slightly longer excerpt from Molyneux’ 2-hour video; that’s where I got the audio. Tru Shibes has a bunch of videos up featuring some of the worst of Mr. M. And thanks to Mancheeze  and Sam Sederfor pointing me to this quote in the first place.

Note: The sound clip of the murmuring crowd in my video came from FreeSFX.co.uk.

The Top 5 Worst Comments by DavidByron2 in the Men’s Rights Subreddit … This Week!

Unlike women, men have REAL issues to deal with. Like giant otters!

Unlike women, men have REAL issues to deal with. Like giant otters.

Anyone who reads the Men’s Rights subreddit on a regular basis knows that when you see the username DavidByron2 you are in for a treat. Well, a “treat” in the sense that discovering a flaming bag of dog poop on your doorstop is a “treat.” Like many Men’s Rightsers, he’s both smug and ignorant, a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

But somehow he manages to be more than just another insufferable mansplaining rage-baby who spends all of his spare time ranting about a subject — feminism — he knows less than nothing about. No, there’s a kind of daft genius to his comments; I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

And so I thought I’d wind up this week with a small collection of the best –that is, worst — comments he left in the Men’s Rights subreddit this week. In choosing the top 5, I have confined myself mostly to those that got more upvotes than downvotes, because, seriously, the thought that there are actual human beings out there upvoting this crap is almost as amazing as the fact that there’s an actual human being posting it. And thinking himself quite clever and righteous for doing so.

Let’s work our way to the top starting with …

Read the rest of this entry

AVFM asks: Was the Fort Hood shooting the fault of same-sex marriage and the “Lesbo Circle of Doom?”

Harmful to males? One AVFM writer thinks so.

Harmful to males? One AVFM writer thinks so.

On April 2, Army Specialist Ivan Lopez shot and killed three people on the Fort Hood military base in Texas, before turning his gun on himself; 16 others were injured. It’s not clear what caused Lopez’ killing spree, though the incident seems to have been triggered by the difficulties he encountered trying to get a 24-hour pass to attend his mother’s funeral.

But a writer for A Voice for Men, Michael Conzachi, has a novel explanation for the tragedy: the military’s excessive niceness towards lesbians and gays.

In a post entitled “What role has feminism played in the shooting at Fort Hood and its aftermath?” Conzachi sets forth his thesis:

Numerous directives from the Pentagon and the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), of which some in the military refer to the group as the “Super-Feminists” or jokingly, the “Lesbo Circle of Doom,” allow for and promote an immediate leave period of five days for same sex military couples to marry. …

How is it that a large contingent of feminist dominated military and Pentagon leadership enacts policies that favor, prioritize, and give expanded benefits for same sex couples; yet Specialist Lopez apparently was only allowed two days to bury his mother?

If that was you, and you could only get two days to attend to your mother’s death, and you see same sex military couples being allowed five days immediate leave to marry; wouldn’t that bother you a little, regardless of what your opinions are of gay and same sex couples? Where is the equality?

Yep. An unhinged man murders his fellow soldiers in cold blood. Let’s blame it on same-sex marriage and the “Lesbo Circle of Doom.”

At least Conzachi admits that his theory is only a theory, and that “whether or not we will ever learn [the shooter's] true motives is unknown.”

Setting aside the absurdity, and offensiveness, of Conzachi’s argument for a moment, he’s wrong to suggest that same-sex couples are somehow being coddled by “Lesbo” brass.  Straight couples can also get marriage leaves of up to 3 days, and the reason the military gives extra time to same-sex couples is that many of them have to travel long distances to get married, since same-sex marriage is only legal in 17 states. The military has been slow to actually implement the new policies, and many same-sex couples have simply been denied leave to get married. Soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation, also have 30 days of earned leave each year they can use to get married.

Coznachi spends the rest of his post tearing down the female officer who confronted Lopez and brought an end to his killing spree.

He ends with this question — a question that he seems to have already answered to his own satisfaction:

Are the military’s priorities of same sex couple, gay, and women in combat issues harmful to males in general?

A number of those who are associated with A Voice for Men — most notably “managing editor ” Dean Esmay and “contributing editor” Karen Straughan — profess to be great Friends of the Gays; indeed Straughan describes herself as a “genderqueer, bisexual … woman”).

I can only wonder why they would want to associate themselves with a site that publishes articles suggesting that supporting the rights of same sex couples in the military to marry is “harmful to males in general.”

 

Warren Farrell: Men Are Oppressed by Women’s Butts

Man being oppressed by female ass power

Man being oppressed by female ass power

Yesterday Warren Farrell – the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, the man who single-handedly came up with probably half of the terrible arguments that are endlessly rehashed daily in the manosphere – went to Reddit and proclaimed “ask me anything!”

And so we, and a lot of other people, did. And he even answered a couple of the questions I posted here yesterday – though as I sort of suspected he pointedly ignored the questions about his incest research. Still, there were so many astounding things said in that discussion, both by Farrell himself and by his various supporters, that it’s going to take a couple of posts to get to them all.

Let’s just start with the ass question, shall we? Because there was nothing quite so astounding in that whole sprawling thread, or at least the portion of it that I managed to read, as “Dr.” Farrell’s – he has a PhD in political science –answer to the ass question.

DoloresCruz1982 86 points 22 hours ago (174|87)  Why is a woman's butt on the cover of a book about problems faced by males in our society?      permalink     save     report     give gold     reply  [–]warrenfarrell [S] 2 points 20 hours ago (184|182)  i assume you're referring to the profile of a woman's rear on the new ebook edition of The Myth of Male Power. first, that was my choice--i don't want to put that off on the publisher!  i chose that to illustrate that the heterosexual man's attraction to the naked body of a beautiful woman takes the power out of our upper brain and transports it into our lower brain. every heterosexual male knows this. and the sooner men confront the powerlessness of being a prisoner to this instinct, we may earn less money to pay for women's drinks, dinners and diamonds, but we'll have more control over our lives, and therefor more real power.  it's in women's interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men's inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.

That’s right. Warren Farrell literally believes that heterosexual men are powerless in the face of SEXY FEMALE BUTTS. They are BUTT HYPNOTIZED by women’s shapely buttocks, virtual prisoners to the power of DAT ASS.

Not only that, but they are slaves as well, forced to earn more money than women so that they can “pay for women’s drinks, dinners and diamonds.” Who knew that the wage gap was caused by the ass crack?

We like big butts, and we cannot lie. But that way tyranny, I espy.

Only if men can free themselves from the TYRANNY OF THE BUTT they can “have more control over [their] lives, and therefor [sic] more real power.”

But who will write the new Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of Queen Ass?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for horny dudes to get rid of the boners which those ladies have caused with their smokin hot dumpers and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the babies who have got back requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, and that is, ladies we can’t think straight if we’re looking at DAT ASS all the time.

Oh, but “Dr.” Farrell is worried about the ladies, too. I mean, he said so:

it’s in women’s interests for me to confront this. many heterosexual women feel imprisoned by men’s inability to be attracted to women who are more beautiful internally even if their rear is not perfect.

Yes, you’re beautiful on the inside to m….holy crap did you see the ass on HER!?

Now, this isn’t entirely new. As I’ve noted before, Farrell makes a version of this argument in his book, talking about secretaries manipulating their bosses with their “miniskirt power, cleavage power, and flirtation power,” [p. 21] describing “female beauty” as “the world’s most potent drug,” [p. 85], and arguing that “many men feel ‘under the influence’ the moment they see a beautiful woman.” [p. 320]

But these, er, arguments weren’t the central focus of his rambling treatise. Now, at the age of 70, by not only putting a naked ass on the cover of his book, but also by defending it in such ludicrously overblown terms, he’s decided to put this unsolicited update from his penis at the center of his argument about the alleged powerlessness of men.

Yep, the closest thing that the Men’s Rights movement has to an intellectual heavyweight seems to think that the most pressing issue facing men today is how sad and mad and confused they feel because they can’t immediately have sex with every hot piece of ass that walks by (and, presumably, the women attached to these asses).

It’s really hard to find a better symbol of the sexual entitlement – and sexual resentment – that lies at the heart of the Men’s Rights movement than this.

Oh, and by the way, my new book is still available for purchase. So far I have sold no copies. Which might have something to do with the $1000 price tag, and also the fact that I haven’t actually written it. But you’ve got to admit the cover is pretty good.

 

In case you needed a clearer explanation of the power of women’s bodacious hineys, one Redditor by the name of Doldenberg has scienced things up for us and provided us all this useful graph. First, his brief explanation:

Being a brave Alpha from TRP, I have found the solution to the evident misandrist oppression of men by cute butt owners meaning owners of cute butts, not cute owners of butts, or butt owners of cute, or…, that is, ranking butts on an objective BMV (butt market value) scale. I’ve made the data up in my head, but it seems plausible. According to this data, the butt loses BMV when having sat on to many objects, while it’s cuteness only works as a limiting factor. I have made a handy graph[1] with supporting data and sources to explain my theory.

IS1KbbZ

 

 

 

Red Pill Theorist: Women are like children. Except you can have sex with them.

This Morpheus dude may have a point.

This Morpheus dude may have a point.

Put on your thinking caps today, because we are going to wade into the highly rarefied world of Red Pill Theory. Our Guest Lecturer today is a totally ALPHA DOG Red Pill Redditor by the name of GayLubeOil — don’t worry, fellas, he’s straight! — who has some important insights for us all on the nature of women.

Namely, that women are basically just overgrown children. Who give blow jobs.

Let’s let him explain, in a post that’s now Number One With A Sticky in the Red Pill Subreddit.

Treating Women Like Children (self.TheRedPill) submitted 8 hours ago by Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil - stickied post One of the key tenants of Red Pill is that women act like children. There are many reasons for this. Women are not held accountable for their actions growing up, so they are completely new to the concept of accountability. If a woman sucks a dick, she tells a realy long story about how she was put in a dick sucking situation. Women don't realy believe in their own agency. That's why they often believe in cosmic forces like fate and patriarchy, because nothing they ever do is their fault. If women don't take responsibility for their actions, someone else has to. That's why we have to treat women like children. Obviously, some woman is going to read this have a cascade of feels and then deal with said feels in the most immature way possible.  While Red Pill theory has definitely harsh view of women, the practical application isn't as anti-social as our detractors believe.  One of the things that children suck at, is regulating their internal state. They're too little to know if their hungry, sleepy or if they need to go for a walk. When a child throws a tantrum its often not about the toy, there is often some underlying issue you need to take care of.  As stupid as its sounds you can completely avoid a lot of arguments by ignoring everything she says and going for the underlying problem. I cant believe you never told me that you X! Aww is she hungry. She gets this way when shes hungry. Then just feed her some Greek yogurt or something, and the problem will go away. Or just take her for a walk around the block, because shes just anxious from being at work the entire day.  Red Pill holds that male leadership is the cornerstone of a good relationship. Sometimes that means treating her like a child.

After reading all of that, you may have a few questions. Obviously, the most important question is: why Greek Yogurt? Well, in addition to being very popular with the ladies, it is apparently quite high in iron. Let’s let Professor LubeOil explain why that’s so crucial:

GayLubeOil[S] 44 points 7 hours ago* The reason I used Greek Yogurt as an example is that its high in Iron. A surprising number of women are anemic which means they bruise easily. Its obviusly not your fault that she cant get enough nutrients into her body. However You don't want to be seen walking around with a bruised woman. Which is why GayLubeOil recommends feeding your anemic woman Greek Yogurt mixed with pomegranate so you don't look like an abusive asshole. If you are an abusive asshole yogurt and pomegranate will not fix or prevent hemotoma. Sorry abusive assholes.  permalinkparentgive gold [–]Knoxhon_ 8 points 5 hours ago Sorry abusive assholes.  lmfao
Well, with that critical issue taken care of in a totally not creepy or red-flaggy kind of way, let’s move on to some of the serious discussion Professsor LubeOil’s thesis inspired in the Red Pill Subreddit.

Ah, who am I kidding? They mainly just posted comments about how totally right he was and how women totally are a bunch of overgrown children. But saying women are children is totes not misogyny!

Usherai 39 points 7 hours ago For all the accusations of misogyny thrown at TRP, I don't think most guys, even here, go far enough. Women are exactly like children in that without strong male leadership they will ruin themselves by being slaves to their emotions and short-sightedness. Their inability to take responsibility for themselves means that men need to be the ones directing, influencing, and manipulating their emotions into beneficial behaviors and pursuits.  This means that the mindset RP men should have in their relationships with women is one of complete and utter superiority. Your analysis and suggestions are pretty spot on.
And, heck, even if a dude maybe is a teensy bit of a misogynist, what’s the big deal, so long as it convinces him to treat his women properly — that is, like you would treat special needs children.

GayLubeOil[S] 41 points 7 hours ago Even if someone is a blatant misogynist and thinks women are completely inferior to men, that doesn't necessarily translate into him treating women poorly. Lets say you had a special needs child . The kids obviously intellectually inferior, to you and his peers. You knowing this doesn't make you an asshole. Knowing this and admitting this is the first step in being a good parent for this kid. Yea maybe you have to wipe his mouth after he eats or pick up after him a bit more. But pretending that he is a totally normal kid is going to make you a shittier parent than admitting the truth. That's why you should do what men have done for most of human history:treat women like women instead of pretending that they are men with breasts.  permalinkparentgive gold [–]Knoxhon_ 14 points 5 hours ago misogyny isn't about superior/inferior. it's about a hatred of women as a group. this is a common misconception.  permalinkparentgive gold [–]Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn 13 points 4 hours ago But so much of the population has equality disease: thinking someone isn't equal must be coming from hate... because they are equal, don'tchaknow!

Damn those feminazis and their “equality!” Why, it’s almost un-American!

A dude named Sizzletron shares his “honest opinions that are entirely merit-based, about women.” (Spoiler alert: They actually aren’t.)

This picture has nothing whatsoever to to with the post. I just like it.

This picture has nothing whatsoever to to with the post. I just like it.

It’s Friday. Why not welcome in the upcoming weekend with a picture of an anarchist cat and a completely unrelated,  completely unhinged manifesto from the MensRants subreddit, the Men’s Rights subreddit’s unruly younger brother.

In a post with the somewhat roundabout title “Just posting this publicly gives me an ulcer. But I won’t let it stop me,” an angry fella who calls himself sizzletron set forth his opinions about, well, a lot of things having to do with women. It’s a piece that’s pretty much impossible to summarize, since sizzletron apparently finds it difficult to keep the thread of an argument going from one sentence to the next.

Let’s dig in:

Read the rest of this entry

Happy Women-Who-Really-Run-the-Country Day

The secret cabal that rules the United States

The secret cabal that rules the United States

While the rest of America wastes its time celebrating “President’s Day,” we here at Man Boobz celebrate those who truly run this great nation of ours: Evil, selfish women.

Wait, you were thinking, I thought it was men who mostly ran the world? No. It just looks that way. Oh, sure, all the presidents have been men. The overwhelming majority of elected officials are men. The rich people who seem to have the most influence over politicians tend to be men — it’s the Koch brothers, not the Koch sisters.

But to judge who has power in this world by looking at those who have power in this world is a giant mistake, according to our eminently logical friends in the Men’s Rights movement. That’s the APEX FALLACY.

Read the rest of this entry

Sperm Banks: Prelude to male enslavement?

Not a real sperm bank

Not a real sperm bank

So manosphere dudes have a theory of sorts about young women that they frequently boil down to the handy catchphrase “alpha fucks, beta bucks.” The idea is that women — oh, you evil women! — have an insatiable desire to mate with and capture the sperm of hot but unreliable alpha males, and an equally innate tendency to try to con some hard-working beta schlub into paying the bills, with his beta bucks, for the resulting alpha spawn.

Read the rest of this entry

Men in Dresses: A Voice for Men stands up for trans women by declaring them to be deluded men

Men in dresses: How A Voice for Men sees trans women

Men in dresses: How A Voice for Men chose to promote its post about trans women

Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men has not exactly shown much of an interest in trans* issues in the past. Indeed, the only time I can recall founder Paul Elam ever even mentioning trans* people was in the context of a vicious attack on a Men’s Studies expert who happens to be a trans woman; he suggested she was a mentally ill man-hater whose “so hated the sex they were born with that it sparked a life long academic quest to deconstruct it into something that did not disgust them.”

So it’s a little surprising to see a post on AVFM now with the seemingly dispassionate, slightly turgid, title “Male/female discrepancies in transsexualism.” The post starts out as dry as its title, but it soon becomes clear that it is “scientific” in style only. It’s not an attempt to understand trans women or trans people in general; it’s an attempt to use the existence of trans women as a helpful prop in an old Men’s Rights argument.

Read the rest of this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: