Category Archives: evil women
Justin Bieber, MRA?
Over on The Counter-Feminist, the self-proclaimed Counter-Feminist Agent of Change (CFAC) known as Fidelbogen has written a very strange fan letter to Justin Bieber. The teen heartthrob and lesbian-doppleganger, you see, has written a song about the woman who falsely accused him of fathering a child, which makes Bieber practically an MRA.
Poor Fidelbogen is clearly having a hard time dealing with his conflicted feelings about Bieber. He’s overjoyed that Bieber is taking on an evil paternity fraudress, but he’s clearly afraid that expressing too much enthusiasm about the Beebs will make him look, I don’t know, sort of girly? What else could explain all the hemming and hawing in his account of the Beebs’ new song?
Mind you, not that I give two spits about the young pop singer Justin Bieber, but the significance of certain events does not escape me. The lad is quite popular among people of a certain generational subculture, and he was recently the target of attempted paternity fraud. The attempt failed, and Justin memorialized the experience in a song … .
The Fides goes on to deliver a standard-issue anti-feminist minirant:
What’s this got to do with feminism, you ask? Well, feminism has empowered women to do many, many things — especially things that would hurt or exploit males. Likewise, feminist propaganda and legal activism has generated a cultural climate in which the “deadbeat dad” trope has risen to special prominence — aye, to a point of moral hysteria! Finally, feminist complicity with the paternity fraud industry is written in blazing letters by anybody who cares to look.
And then it’s back to the glory of Bieber:
Justin Bieber’s song might just hammer home, in the minds of certain male youngsters, some of the cruel facts of male existence in today’s world. And that can only be to the political benefit of the non-feminist revolution. So, on with it!
I don’t know. When I feel the urge to listen to music about paternity fraud, I tend to go with the classics:
Try this one, too, if you like Ukes:
Ferdinand Bardamu to fat chicks: don’t make me want you!
Syndrome, the king of monologuing.
As you may be aware, Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has taken a brave and bold stance against “fat chicks.” That in itself is not very surprising, or interesting, really. But in a recent post he offers a take on the fat acceptance movement that betrays an strange bit of … paranoia, maybe?
After a few uninspired swipes at “fat-assed she-beasts and big-titted blubberboys” and the “femilosers” on Tumblr who recently batted around an anti-“fat chick” post from his blog, he makes this strange pronouncement:
These histrionic little girls are full of it. They don’t want fat acceptance — they want to FORCE men to be attracted to their endless rolls of fat and their cheesy crotch creases. Fortunately, their emotional delicateness will ensure that they will fail. We are the Patriarchs, and we’re coming to take back what’s ours. Beware.
Ferdy, don’t worry. The fat chicks of the world aren’t going to FORCE you to lust after them, and wouldn’t even if they could. I haven’t conducted a poll or anything, but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them. Heck, I’m pretty sure most skinny women would prefer that you not be attracted to them either. They really don’t want your lucky charms.
Also, the weird little bit at the end there, the thing about “coming to take back what’s ours?” In The Incredibles, they called that “monologuing.” I don’t know quite what motivates so many manopshereians to want to talk like comic book supervillains. But it is sort of adorable.
Women’s Suffrage: Still controversial, apparently
The face of evil, apparently.
Quiz: Who said the following?
I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should’ve never turned this over to women. … And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.
And this probably was the reason that they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen. …
Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Was it:
Some dude on The Spearhead?
A regular guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News?
Well, yeah, you guessed it: it’s door number three. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Tea Party activist and founder of the group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), said all of the above, and quite a lot of other outrageously misogynistic things, in a talk this March, and which is available on YouTube. Yet Hannity, who serves on the board of Peterson’s group, had him back on his show earlier this month, for an appearance during which Peterson described “liberal Democrat women” as “whores.” Raw Story, which discovered Peterson’s unlisted video on YouTube, offers many more delightful misogyny nuggets from Peterson.
Here’s the video of Peterson’s talk. The stuff about women and voting starts at about 8:30 in. But I suggest you watch the whole thing from the start; it’s a virtual smorgasbord of misogyny, seasoned with a bunch of stuff he simply made up about Sandra Fluke’s famous congressional testimony on birth control.
It would be nice if this sort of stuff was confined to the fringes of the manosphere, but alas, it’s everywhere.
“Put that shallow tramp back in her place.” Or, Reddit discovers another woman to hate.
More proof that Reddit will believe pretty much any story, so long as it makes a woman – sorry, “female” – look bad. Even if there is some tiny kernel of truth in this story from AskReddit , there is zero chance that it went down exactly (or even vaguely) as described by Mr. Kickass. Redditors are terrible writers of fiction, especially when their fictions masquerade as fact.
Oh, and there are plenty more comments castigating this probably-imaginary woman.
Friend-zoning Out
One of approximately ten gazillion zillion “friend zone” rage comics.
I’m too lazy to write a real post today, so I thought I’d point you all to a pretty decent analysis of the dreaded “friend zone” by Foz Meadows on goodreads.
Here she is addressing the “Nice Guys” of the world:
[S]omewhere along the line, you’ve got it into your head that if you’re romantically interested in a girl who sees you only as a friend, her failure to reciprocate your feelings is just that: a failing. That because you’re nice and treat her well, she therefore owes you at least one opportunity to present yourself as a viable sexual candidate, even if she’s already made it clear that this isn’t what she wants. That because she legitimately enjoys a friendship that you find painful (and which you’re under no obligation to continue), she is using you. That if a man wants more than friendship with a woman, then the friendship itself doesn’t even attain the status of a consolation prize, but is instead viewed as hell: a punishment to be endured because, so long as he thinks she owes him that golden opportunity, he is bound to persist in an association that hurts him – not because he cares about the friendship, but because he feels he’s invested too much kindness not to stick around for the (surely inevitable, albeit delayed) payoff.
Seriously, Nice Guys, if you think of your friendship with a woman as a means to an end, or some kind of purgatory, then it’s not really a friendship, and you’re doing both yourself and your crush a disservice by persisting in it. (I learned this lesson myself the hard way, a long time before there were helpful internet posts explaining to me why Nice Guying was a recipe for crappiness all around.)
Speaking of learning: I also learned from Foz Meadows’ post that there is a Wikipedia entry for “friend zone,” complete with advice on how dudes can avoid getting “friendzoned” in the first place.
Several advisers urged men, during the initial dates, to touch women physically in appropriate places such as elbows or shoulders as a means of increasing the sexual tension. … Adviser Ali Binazir agrees, and suggested for the man to be a “little bit dangerous”, not in a violent sense, but “with a bit of an edge to them”, and be unpredictable and feel “comfortable in their skin as sexual beings.”
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia … for Your Penis*.
Also: Here is the official Friend Zone anthem, “Consolation Prize” by Orange Juice. Lyrics here.
–
* Hetero cis penis only.
Not All Misogynists Are Like That
Typical woman at home. (Artist’s rendition.) YOU CAN BUY THIS! Click on the pic for its Etsy listing.
After hearing a misogynist make some rancid generalization about women based on the terrible behavior of one particular woman, it’s hard not to respond by saying “not all women are like that.” Misogynists hear this so often, and evidently see it as so hilarious, that they’ve invented their own little acronym for the phrase: NAWALT. You’ll find this all the time on MRA sites, along with its sister acronym NAFALT, with “feminists” in the place of “women.”
Many MRAs seem to believe that simply repeating one or another of these acronyms is an effective, and highly witty, rebuttal to their critics. Because to them it is self-evident: All women, all feminists, ARE like that.
So imagine the pleasure I felt when I finally ran across an MRA-ish fellow challenging this conventional wisdom. On his blog la prensa, the regular Spearhead commenter known as Boxer makes this controversial claim:
It is a popular misconception which men hold on to which suggests all women are the same. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, my pleasure lasted only as long as it took to read these two sentences. Because then Boxer went on to explain just what he meant by this:
For example: Some women are whores, and others are even trashier than whores. Some women live in houses where the litter boxes overflow and the pungent aroma of catshit lingers lovingly in the air. Other women are allergic to cats, and their houses carry the stench of human feces, rotting food and the cheap perfumes they douse themselves in.
Apparently Boxer has never been invited into any woman’s house, and bases most of his opinions of the fair sex on reruns of Hoarders.
Men will center themselves upon these notable differences, and mistakenly assume that the diversity of individual women points to differences in the way individual women behave. Such high-minded fools usually learn the hard way, when the woman decides to “cash out” with the help of the state and its family law courts, who are always eager to liquidate a lifetime of male planning and work, dividing it between themselves and the cunt which the fool so stupidly married.
See yesterday’s post for more on women and their apparently insatiable hunger for D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
The foolish man, confronted by a mountain of inescapable evidence that every woman, from his mother and sister down to the bitch who empties the trashcan in his office, is a trashy slut, will immediately construct an intricate conspiracy theory between his ears. ‘Yes,’ the dumbass tells himself, ‘all the women I have ever known were and are trashy skanks, but that’s just because western society has brainwashed all the women in my own vicinity with its toxic headpoison.”
I am actually pretty sure my mom is not a slut. (Though I have heard that Las Vegas is full of them.)
This mangina will be aided along in his misconception by other manginas and white knights, often falling in with a disgruntled lot on various loser’s hangouts, in real life or on the internet. Often these men get “yellow fever”, and fly off to some third world shitheap to marry (again) in an effort to find that one precious snowflake who is not a third rate whore among the billions and billions of cunts on planet earth who prove their utter worthlessness on a daily basis.
Oh dear. I think Boxer is about to add a heaping helping of racism on top of his misogyny sundae.
It is true that Asian bitches tend to be slimmer and more intelligent than those in the white and black camps, but that just means they are more cunning, and better able to exploit the chumps who delude themselves into thinking that marrying and serving an oriental master is somehow “better” than being the slave of a homegrown American cunt.
Huh. Honestly, that wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting. Though after nearly two years of intense study of the manosphere, I have some pretty high standards for offensiveness.
For all their variety, bitches’ behavior is uniformly lousy, and in that regard, all women are indeed like that. Yes, all of them, all around the world. This is not a war, it is something more analogous to an organized deer hunt, and you are the prey. For god’s fuck’n sake, quit marrying these slits already.
And so we circle back around to “all women ARE like that.”
Still, I have to say I agree with Boxer’s final sentence. Dudes, if you believe any of this crap, please do not marry women. Or, really, have any contact with them whatsoever. Frankly, I’d suggest that you find yourself a nice uninhabited island – like, say, this one – and move there posthaste. You’ll be much happier, and so will the rest of us.
First comes feminism, then comes marriage
Every feminist girl’s fondest dream.
What do feminists want? Equal work for equal pay? An end to sexual violence? A new album from Le Tigre? Nope. According to the dude behind the still-awkwardly named Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, what they really want is to GET THE RING and get hitched up to some nice man they can happily exploit. Yep, feminists love marriage more than almost anything. Why? Because getting married is the necessary first step towards getting a nice, profitable divorce. Mr. PMAFT explains:
Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong. Feminism is dependent on marriage and family. Without it, feminism would collapse. When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.
But …
Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?” … [T]his represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is. A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism. The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women.
Um, I’m pretty sure that the traditionalists are not eating in the same cafeteria as the “cafeteria feminists.” But PMAFT is on a roll:
The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such. They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want. If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce. Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men. … Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.
Huh, because most of the feminists I know, oh, never mind.
This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism. Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.
I’m pretty sure most feminist women will get along just fine even if they can’t marry you.
Strange Discovery of the Day: Men’s Rights Bronies
Yep. They may be rarer than unicorns, but Men’s Rights Bronies (MRBs) do indeed exist. For proof, see this post on the Men’s Rights subreddit, in which an MR Brony calling himself Bullywar tries to convince fellow MRAs (and MRBs) that the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic season two finale (of which the video above is an excerpt) is some sort of grand antifeminist statement from the show’s creators. (Oh, SPOILER ALERT for everything that follows.)
You don’t have to be a brony, or even care for MLP at all to get this – just hear me out. If you don’t care to watch the 44 minute episode, I’ll summarize: an impostor shapeshifting queen disposes of a bride to be in a high-profile wedding and plans to use the groom’s magic against him in a lust for power. The linked song will pretty much get the whole episode’s plot across succinctly enough.
The song juxtaposes the heroine’s desire to complement her groom, and the villain’s desire to subjugate him; even though that (until the climax of the episode) everyone sees the latter as the former. It even references one of feminism’s battle cries for the last lyric in the reprise. Watch the whole episode on Youtube to get a closer look.
To see a wildly popular show aimed at girls, conceived and written by a woman, giving such a message to young girls today strikes me as nothing less than resounding vindication for our cause.
Because feminists are all about marrying dudes and exploiting them?
Happily, other Bronies with less of an ax to grind came along and put Bullywar straight.
CrawdaddyJoe, a critic of MRAs who usually gets downvoted on r/mensrights, garnered himself a few upvotes by noting that
Um…. feminists aren’t plotting to marry you and take your money. That’s not even remotely what feminism is about, and most feminists would find such behavior abhorrent and demeaning. Don’t be a paranoid twit.
Drinkthebleach, an actual MR Brony and Pokemon fan, asked:
Isn’t Lauren Faust [the show's original Executive Producer] a pretty outspoken feminist? Also you left out the part where they talk about how important it is to have a male influence in your life, when she talks about how much she loves/misses/needs her brother.
RotoSequence, who doesn’t seem to regularly post in r/mensrights, offered a more nuanced analysis of the episode:
This is a ridiculous argument. The entire point of This Day was to illustrate that Chrysalis only wanted posession of Shining Armor because by manipulating his emotions, it gave Chrysalis tremendous power. Cadance and Shining Armor, on the other hand, love each other so much that they want to start a family together while the manipulative, evil Queen plans to take that away from them as collateral damage so that Chrysalis can conquer a land that isn’t hers. If anything, the lesson to take home from the finale is “we’re stronger together than we are apart,” and the corny stalwart “love conquers all.”
At least I assume that’s a more nuanced interpretation. As a non-Brony, I really have no idea.
Civilization and its Discontented Ladies
If it weren't for us men, we'd all still be living like this.
Oh, you ladies! Apparently, if you were left to your own devices, we’d all still be living in caves. The dude at The Black Pill, the blog formerly known as Omega Virgin Revolt, explains the grave danger that uncontrolled ladieness poses to civilization. (The thing, not the computer game.)
What is civilization? There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc. When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women. Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology. Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.
Seriously. If we dudes hadn’t clamped down on your lady behavior, we’d be fucked. Dudes like Mr. Black Pill would be out there trying their best to build up civilization by posting lady-hating screeds on the internet and not having sex with anyone, and you gals would be undermining all their hard work by doing terrible lady things like, say, working in government, doing scientific research, teaching filmmaking, writing books, making interesting jewelry, working as EMTs, being Secretary of State, and writing Supernatural fanfic. Wait, that’s already happening. Uh oh. Civilization is in danger!
And of course evil feminists are at the heart of the Lady Plot Against Civilization.
So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology. Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature. Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women. Civilization was developed by men, not women. Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now). Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women. Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women.
So watch it, ladies. As soon as we work out this whole having babies without ladies thing, your days are numbered! Then all we’ll need to do is to figure out how to get all the dudes in the world who actually like and respect women and think of them as fellow human beings to abandon them for sex robots. Piece of cake.
Tommy Wiseau’s The Room: An unintentional MRA classic?
A rare non-misogynistic moment in The Room
You may have heard of, if you haven’t already seen, the stupefyingly terrible film The Room. The film is so bafflingly inept and nonsensical that you’re hardly surprised to learn that writer, director, and star Tommy Wiseau had never made a film before; indeed, you might find yourself wondering if he’d ever even seen a film before.
The Room (released, barely, in 2003 and available on DVD) is a mawkishly melodramatic, and deadly serious, drama about a man betrayed by his fiancee, which Wiseau has been trying to market as a quirky comedy because no one can watch the film without laughing at his hero’s travails. Rent The Room if you want to stare dumbfounded at your TV for an hour and a half some night. Seriously, rent it.
Seeing it for myself the first time not long ago, I was struck by the manosphere-style misogyny that pervades almost every frame of the movie. It’s not an MRA film, and Wiseau is no MRA, but somehow he manages to encapsulate every terrible stereotype about men and women that most MRAs seem to believe.
The film tells the sad story of Johnny (played by Wiseau), a good-hearted, long-haired banker with an unclassifiable accent who is betrayed at work (he doesn’t get his expected promotion) and, more importantly, by his “future wife” Lisa, who blithely cheats on him with his best friend.
Lisa is portrayed like the evil bitch villain in nearly every MRA urban legend: she’s a self-absorbed twit who, in addition to cheating on Johnny, falsely accuses him of domestic violence and fakes a pregnancy just to fuck with him.
Johnny, meanwhile, is supposed to be seen as a loyal, helpful, compassionate man who cares deeply about his friends and treats his adored “future wife” Lisa like the princess he tells her she is.
I say “supposed to” because Johnny is hardly the great guy Wiseau thinks he is. For one thing, everything he does and says is bit … off, as if his body has been taken over by a space alien who’s learned everything he knows about women (and human interaction in general) by reading comments on Reddit and watching Christopher Walken as “The Continental” on Saturday Night Live without getting the joke.
For another, he’s a rage-filled narcissist with a bad case of “nice guy” entitlement and absolutely no self-awareness. When his friend Mark tells him about a woman beaten so badly she ends up in the hospital, he responds with a hearty laugh. (“What a story, Mark!”) And when he confronts Lisa about her false accusations of domestic violence (“You are lying! I never hit you!”), he angrily shoves her down onto a couch. It doesn’t seem to occur to Johnny (or to Wiseau) that this too is a form of domestic violence.
When, after learning of Lisa’s betrayal, he trashes their apartment and [SPOILER ALERT] kills himself with a conveniently located pistol, Wiseau presents it as the ultimate comeuppance to the cruel Lisa.
While you have to see the whole film to truly appreciate its epic badness, the following clips will give you some idea of what I’ve been talking about.
First, the trailer, which tries its best to cover up the film’s true weirdness:
The infamous “roof scene” in which Johnny tells Mark (the guy Lisa is sleeping with) about Lisa’s accusations of domestic violence:
A compilation of some of Johnny’s best (i.e. worst) moments:
This one (ignore the misleading title) gives you some idea of Lisa’s oblivious evilness:
Here’s Hitler reacting to the film. (Note: Not the real Hitler.)
And here, if you dare, is the whole damn movie in its entirely. (If you’re pressed for time, you may want to fast forward through the film’s five completely unerotic sex scenes, set to the worst slow jams ever recorded.)
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and here’s the scene the gif above is from. Johnny is the most efficient flower buyer and pug-petter in the world.
