Category Archives: hypocrisy
Man Boobz Summer Video Fest 2: Steve on skidmarks
The Man Boobz Summer Video Fest continues with this contribution from some dude named Steve entitled “Women and Skidmarks.” More specifically, Steve explains why he thinks women are a bunch of hypocrites for criticizing men who have skidmarks on their underpants. He clearly feels quite passionate about this grave injustice.
EDITED TO ADD: Bee has provided a helpful transcript of Steve’s remarks. But really, it wouldn’t kill you to click it. It’s really more amusing to see a guy say all this with a straight face.
Here’s the transcript:
Perfection issue that women have with guys. And I see this more with women than anybody else. Women are so obsessed, like, with finding the quote perfect guy, as if like they’re perfect themselves? You know, I was thinking about this. What are the statistical odds of women not having skidmarks on their underwear? It’s like, maybe a 0.01 percent chance. You know, I was watching this episode this one time of “Sex and the City.” And, I think it was the redheaded girl, Amanda, maybe, her name was? The redheaded girl on the show, her boyfriend Steve had skidmarks on his underwear and she found them, and she’s like EWWW. You know? And of course she doesn’t have skidmarks on her underwear, and she can do no wrong, right? And that’s the kind of thing that we’ve been so conditioned with, us men have to somehow be so perfect, and we don’t meet up to your expectations, but somehow we have to put up with all the women’s bullshit. And it’s really irritating to me how you, how women — how guys have just come to accept this fact.
Amanda is definitely my favorite character on Sex and the City. Well, her and Tinky Winky. And Tiffany. And of course Mr. Roper.
Two atheists get in an elevator
So here’s a hilarious atheist joke for you all:
Two atheists at a conference get into an elevator at 4 AM. The dude atheist, apropos of nothing, invites the chick atheist to go to his room with him. The chick atheist, who’s never even spoken to the dude before, is creeped out by this. (She says no.) She mentions the incident in a YouTube video. A shitstorm erupts in the atheist-o-sphere because, like, how could she possibly call an atheist dude a creep and aren’t women treated worse in Islamist Theocracies?
Then Richard Dawkins says,
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
In a followup comment, Dawkins tops that bit of hilarity with this:
Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
Damn. That joke didn’t turn out to be really very hilarious at all. Maybe I told it wrong?
In any case, as you might already know (or have gathered), this whole thing actually happened over the past weekend. The atheist chick in question is Rebecca Watson, a popular blogger who calls herself Skepchick. The conference in question was the Center for Inquiry’s Student Leadership Conference. The part of Richard Dawkins was played by, well, Richard Dawkins. (You can find both of his comments quoted here.)
The incident has been hashed and rehashed endlessly in the atheist-o-sphere (and even out of it), but I think it deserves a tiny bit more re-rehashing. Mainly because it illustrates that some really creepy, backwards attitudes can lurk deep in the hearts of dudes who think of themselves as enlightened, rational dudes fighting the evils of superstition and, yes, religious misogyny.
The strangest thing about the whole incident is how supremely mild Watson’s comments on the creepy elevator dude were. Here is literally all she said about him, in passing, in her video (transcribed here):
So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’
Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and–don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
That’s it. That’s the whole thing. You would think that most guys would be well aware that accosting a woman you’ve never met before in an elevator at 4 AM is, you know, kind of a no-no. But, no, Watson’s comments suddenly became an attack on male sexuality and men in general. One critic put up a video lambasting Watson, ending it with the question:
What effect do you think it has on men to be constantly told how sexist and destructive they are?
Never mind that she didn’t, you know, actually do that at all. Nor did she even remotely suggest, despite Dawkins’ weird screed, that creepy dudes on elevators were somehow equivalent to genital mutilation or the general denial of women’s rights in Islamist theocracies. She merely suggested that guys might want to think twice before hitting on women who are alone with them in an elevator at four in the morning. Pointing out the creepy behavior of one particular dude is not the same as calling all men creepy.
Now, the atheist movement tends to be a bit of a sausagefest, pervaded by some fairly backwards notions about women. (Prominent atheist pontificator Christopher Hitchens, you may recall, seems to sincerely believe that women just aren’t funny. Not that he’s exactly a barrel of monkeys himself.) But some of the most vociferous critics of Watson have been other atheist women – including the one I quoted above.
Watson responded to this in the first of several posts she wrote about the whole weird controversy:
I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”
In a followup post, she noted:
When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.
And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.
Watson began hearing from other women in the skeptic/atheist community who’d met far too many of that second sort of male atheist.
They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door.
And then, as her blog garnered more attention, she faced a virtual invasion of creepy dudes being creepy:
I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.
She didn’t shut up.
So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.
Go read the rest of her post. Despite the creepy dudes and the misogyny and Richard Fucking Dawkins’ patronizing little screed – which led Watson to a moment of despair much like that of virtually every movie hero(ine) at the end of act two in the story arc – Watson ends it fairly hopeful. It’s kind of inspiring, really.
>Scott Adams’ Imaginary Friend
>
 |
| Scott Adams, meet Scott Adams. |
turned a failing comic into a household word by transforming it from a generic comic into a workplace comic. He wrote a number of best selling books. He was one of the top paid public speakers for a decade. His website has earned him millions while no other comic property has done the same. One of his two restaurants was solidly successful. And now he’s one of the most popular writers in the Wall Street Journal.
If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has lots of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That’s how the idiot mind is wired.It’s fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can’t rule out the hypothesis that you’re too dumb to understand what he’s saying.And he’s a certified genius. Just sayin’.
If you have even the slightest doubt that PlannedChaos is indeed Adams himself, this comment on Reddit from a year ago should lay those doubts to rest immediately:
The people here who are objecting to Adams’ fiction about evolution clearly have some reading comprehension problems. A careful reading of the actual book will give you a different opinion.By the way, Adams has said the book was designed using hypnotic methods (he’s a trained hypnotist) and it is intended to generate strong opinions, and even some weird amnesia about the content itself. You can see the amnesia and cognitive dissonance in full display in these comments.
Hmm. Reading comprehension problems. The people who disagree with Adams don’t understand him. Where on earth have I heard that before?
Oh, and in his final comment on Metafilter, Adams suggests that his sockpuppetry was all a bit of fun. In other words, like Pee-Wee Herman falling of his bike, he meant to do it. I think I may have heard that somewhere before, too.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Sex-ed for assholes. And non-assholes, too.
>
 |
| Note: Girlfriend pillows are not actual girlfriends. |
OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ GO!So all the sex you’ve had with women, Zaku, has vaguely resembled fucking a moist pillow. I understand and empathize with your sadness about your sex life. However, young padawan, there are methods of solving this.
*Are all of your partners virgins or in high school? Virgins and high schoolers are terrible at sex, particularly if both are inexperienced. I personally was on my third partner before I was any good in bed.
FIX: Find your local cougar, slut or sexually assertive woman.
*Was your partner someone with sexual hang-ups? Slut-shaming often makes women think that enthusiasm makes them “bad girls”, and ideas of men-earning-sex often make women think that lying there is their contribution to sex.
FIX: Have sex with feminists.
*Are you simply not that good in bed? This is a common problem among inexperienced men, and can lead to women not enjoying sex because it is not that enjoyable.
FIX: Learn the location of the clit (with an anatomy chart, if necessary). Listen to her instructions about sex. If she’s moaning, KEEP DOING THAT. Try to give her at least one orgasm before you stick your dick in (be reasonable, if she’s begging “stick it in me”, go ahead, but it’s a good guideline). Suck it up about the taste and learn to love eating pussy. Make sure you give her adequate foreplay (AT LEAST five minutes). Touch and kiss parts of her besides her breasts and pussy. Most of all, confidence and joy, confidence and joy. [Editor’s Note: As briget has noted in the comments, if you really, really don’t like the taste of pussy, you can always use a dental dam; google the term if you don’t know what that is.]
*Was your partner very, very drunk? Bad sign. Sober people participate more.
FIX: If she’s passed out or puking, don’t fuck her.
*Was your partner freezing up, softly repeating “no, no, no”, or otherwise clearly not enjoying herself? Then you may have had what is technically referred to as “nonconsensual sex,” or by us Femicunt Queens of Nofunnington, “rape.”
FIX: Seek affirmative, enthusiastic consent. This is shown by her, for example, ripping off your clothes, chanting “yes”, sucking your cock without being asked, etc. If you are confused if she is consenting, feel free to ask “do you want to (have sex, make out, have me suck your tits, etc.)?” If you hear words like “no” and “stop,” STOP IMMEDIATELY.OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ OVER.
>A New Low in Victim-Blaming, Part 2: In Mala Fide on Lara Logan
>
 |
| From In Mala Fide |
The reaction of the “manosphere” to Lara Logan’s reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men’s Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.
Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu’s posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:
Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.
Then turned up the sarcasm:
Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.
Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. …
Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution — indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a “twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.”)
For Bardamu, though, Logan’s story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man’s world:
You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. …
Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]
To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:
[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.
And then, after arguing that Logan “had it coming,”and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:
There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. …
I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.
Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu’s fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to “John”:
Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” …
This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.
For some, the case was not just another excuse for “slut shaming” but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:
American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? … We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”
There were other comments even worse than these — e.g., this one — but I don’t have the heart to post them here.
But Bardamu’s retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments — mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.
This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a “premenstrual whiner”), and casually referring to Logan as “an unwilling cum dumpster,” Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.
Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?
Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a “cum dumpster” pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.
About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he’d taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the “True Psychopaths.” His posts on Logan — full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy — seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.
–
If you liked this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Now I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger
>
Manosphere men often complain about evil women attempting to drain them of their money. To which there really is a very simple solution: If you don’t want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don’t seek out women who expect you to support them.
This seems like a fairly common-sense strategy, and one that would simple enough for even the dullest of man boobz to remember. But apparently it has proved a little hard to put into practice.
For evidence of this, let’s return to our good friend Nightstorm — you know, the mousetrap-vagina, leech-women in the food court of doom guy on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum. He’s back with another posting called “The List,“which is a list — naturally — of
the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together. He MUST do these things to “make the relationship work”
The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men (“Open all doors before and after for her”), but which have not actually been a part of any relationship I’ve ever been in. Aside from some complaints that are ridiculously petty (“Go to borning [sic] family out-goings”) and some that are weird paranoid fantasies (“You get your penis size and bed performance revealed to the sisterhood. Oh yes, their not laughing with you!”), the complaints come back, again and again, to money:
Pay for dinner …
Buying her yet another useless item she doesn’t need, like shoes or a brand new car ….
You get to pay for the privledge of being with this woman. …
You get to work while she lays around the house doing nothing. …
She can have the government garnish your wages to pay her just for being the female spouse. … You get to feel like the worthless scum you are and pay her for telling you that you are.
I’m not even sure what the fuck he’s even talking about with half of this shit.
But, again, there really is a simple solution to all these money issues. I’ll say it again, in bold this time: If you don’t want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don’t seek out women who expect you to support them.
This, evidently, is where Nightstorm’s grand strategy has gone a bit awry.
For, as I discovered from another posting of his from a few days back, it turns out that Nightstorm’s plan to totally avoid evil leech-like women apparently entails spending many hours flirting with women online. Indeed, he included a long transcript of an online chat he’d recently had with an (alleged) 18-year-old (alleged) girl who’d evidently decided after a couple of online chats that she wanted to be his girlfriend, despite the fact that the two of them have never actually met and in fact live in different states. (Hey, women can be idiots too.)
Nightstorm (posting as “shawnz”) decided they needed to set down the terms of their relationship, and began by asking her what she thought she brought to the relationship. She jokingly suggested: herself, her “sexy hair,” and her vagina.
[20:54] shawnz: if you become my GF..
[20:54] shawnz: I will get you, your sexy hair, and your vagina
[20:55] shawnz: and what do you expect out of me …
[20:55] [name redacted]: ur penis ur cuddles and ur texting/calling/being on cam and coming to visit!
[20:55] shawnz: ok, anything else
[20:56] [name redacted]: nope
That seems pretty straightforward. No mention of “family out-goings” or even paying for dinner.
Nightstorm then set out his terms for the relationship:
[20:58] shawnz: First, I want a girl who cooks and cleans the house, I want someone who doesn’t nag, cripe
[20:58] shawnz: bitch, or complain, someone who cuddles and anytime I want sex
[20:58] shawnz: someone who has ambition
[20:58] [name redacted]: demanding arent we lol
[20:58] shawnz: and someone who wants more than just love in the relationship, after all its hard work
Demanding, to be sure, lol, but he offers some things in return:
[20:59] shawnz: and what I offer is romance, a good paying salary for provision, and intimacy
[20:59] shawnz: I also offer you good self-esteem and reliability and faithfulness
Let’s pause for a moment to consider that bit in the middle after “romance”: “a good paying salary for provision.”
The two haven’t even met, and he’s already offering to support her financially.
It appears Nightstorm not only has not only bungled the whole “don’t pursue women who expect you to support them” strategy I have outlined above. He’s actually OFFERING TO SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO DOESN’T ACTUALLY EXPECT HIM TO SUPPORT HER.
It seems to me that if you want a woman who is financially dependent on you — you provide the money, she provides “anytime [you] want sex” — you pretty much forfeit your right to complain about her being financially dependent on you.
Fortunately for Nightstorm, [name redacted], and the rest of us on this planet, he decided that [name redacted] wasn’t serious enough to be his girlfriend. So, crisis averted. For now.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>Women Are … Part 6: Herd of Hens Edition
>
 |
| We all agree that ladies are too conformist. |
Another installment of our popular “Women Are …” series, in which I collect examples of manosphere misogynists rudely generalizing about women like there’s no tomorrow. I’ll let you figure out the theme this time. It’s not herd, er, hard.
Women are: A herd of hens
All women constitute one huge herd. They are a uniform group, and their thinking always falls into line. I’ve actually had women make that “I’m so shocked noise” and then ask, “you don’t really think that do you?” Yeah, I do. I have a mind of my own.
They don’t search for facts, reality, or truth. They search for consensus and emotional validation. They are cackling hens. Cackle cackle cackle :)
Women are: Herd creatures who won’t date you.
Most women in a culture are nearly psychologically identical. So … if you arent successful with the first 25 women, chances are you wont be successful with any of women within that same subset, cause they are herd creatures and take cues from the environment rather than having any real personalities of their own.
Women are: Bleating, uncritical sheep
Women are like herd animals and desperately desire to belong.
Men on the other hand are critical and won’t blindly follow someone if they don’t merit our approval. This is the difference in critical, mature thinking, and sheep bleating.
Women are: A herd of orgasmic voters
Women love to vote (group herd orgasm with her sisters). … In fact, women love any group activity. Men largely want to be left alone to live their lives in freedom. … That is why men do not really care about government. Men do not need it. So men do [not] vote that much. Women love government so women love to vote.
Women are: A herd of Facebook cunts
The problem is Ameriskank mindsets, they are close minded and stereotype every strange man as a pedophile, creepy, or a loser….
You need INTELLIGENCE & an OPEN MIND to meet & understand NEW people and Ameriskanks have none of the above.
Ameriskanks are the ultimate HERD animal. I can not stand these fucking cunts from Junior High & High School messaging me on Fucking Facebook (all single moms) wanting to start a “friendship” aka “find a sucker to take care of my bastard children”.
Women are: Matrimony-minded herd creatures who hate doing chores
Women ARE herd creatures – the mentality of the group is more important than the self realized truth brought by evidence. However woman also demand products to do every chore for them, and ask the government to freely provide money to they can live without working either from government handouts or by getting government to enforce draconian laws that allow women to rip men off with the lie of ‘holy matrimony’.
Women are: Hormonal herd creatures unchecked by patriarchy
The problem is, too many women allow their emotions, their hormones, their herd instinct, and the media to run their lives. Again, in past eras, these were all checked by patriarchal institutions, but these have long since disintegrated.
Women are: Herd beasts who don’t want anyone to see them naked.
An ancient king was once faced with a rash of suicides of young women.
He ordered that the body if any woman who killed herself would be displayed naked in the public square.The suicides stopped.Shame works better on women than on men because women are herd beasts. Women care more about the opinion of the group than their own thoughts or even their own lives.
You know what’s ironic? Groups of like-minded lady-hating men gathering together online to talk endlessly about what herd creatures women are.
>False (rape) assumptions
>
If you want to get downvoted on the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, just post something about how you were actually raped in a discussion of “The Campus Rape Myth.” You’ll get a batch of instant downvotes, and a bunch of Men’s Rightsers questioning whether or not you’re telling the truth, and demanding that you answer all of their questions.
Contrast this to what happens when a guy posts something on that subreddit about being falsely accused of rape or child abduction. No scrutiny, no downvotes. It’s simply assumed to be true.
This is the internet, and it’s pretty hard to know who is and who isn’t telling the truth. But this is a pretty clear double standard, on the part of people who claim to hate double standards.
>Paul Elam’s Vanishing Post: Blaming and Mocking Rape Victims
>
Well, this is interesting. Last night, idly perusing the latest posts by blogs on my Enemies List I noticed a new post by Paul Elam. It was a doozy, and I don’t mean that in a good way. Under the seemingly innocuous title “Challenging the Etiology of Rape,” the post mocked and blamed rape victims for the crime of getting raped. I copied the most obnoxious bits onto my computer, planning to write a post about it.
Now it appears Elam has deleted the post, and the comments associated with it. [NOTE: Apparently the vanishing post was actually the result of an issue with the web host. It's now up again. On to the content of his post.]
Here, minus a little of his rhetorical huffing and puffing, is the basic thesis of his post:
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?…
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it. …
[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
What’s there to say to that? It’s odious, simply odious. Anyone who makes such an argument thereby destroys whatever tiny bit of credibility, whatever moral authority, they once might have had to speak about rape, domestic violence, or, really any violence at all against women or men. Anyone who makes such an argument forfeits the right to be taken seriously on the issue of rape, or, really, on any issue at all.
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets drunk and hooks up with a woman he’s only recently met is “damn near demanding” to be falsely accused of rape, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [ACCUSE] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who gets himself sent to prison through an act of his own is “damn near demanding” to be raped, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who works in a profession where occupational injuries are relatively more common is “damn near demanding” to be injured or killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH … neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who joins the Armed Forces is “damn near demanding” to be killed, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [KILL ME] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who crosses a busy street without waiting for the “walk” sign is “damn near demanding” to be hit by a car, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [RUN ME OVER] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
Hey, he should have known better, right?
By Elam’s logic, any man who does anything at all that might possibly increase the odds of anything bad happening to him is “damn near demanding” to face horrific consequences, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [HARM] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head.”
By Elam’s logic, neither men nor women should ever leave the house.
Oh, but wait, most accidents happen at home (just as most rapes involve people already known to the victim, not random strangers at bars). So anyone staying at home is “damn near demanding” to trip and fall down the stairs, is “walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE [INJURE] ME neon sign glowing above [his or her] empty little narcissistic head.”
I guess we’re all empty-headed conniving bitches. Each and every one of us on planet earth. But the only people Elam thinks to apply his logic to are female rape victims. That says a lot, and none of it good.
NOTE: Elam has (among other things) banned me from commenting on his site, and relagates all critical comments on his website to a special board for “feminists and manginas,” so any comments he makes here will be deleted.
NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women “are literally asking men to rape them” — that is, walking up and saying “rape me please.” That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I.
>Anglo-haters gonna Anglo-hate
>
 |
| Bill O’Reilly secretly spreading Feminazi man-hate. |
The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog — devoted to the notion that “Anglo-American Women Suck!” — has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an “inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men” in the “Anglosphere.”
For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.
His first example of this is … Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. I’m not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind. Our Anglo-blogger is off and running:
The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews -- but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. … And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.
Uh, yeah, that agenda is pretty … covert. I don’t remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from “the outcast group (in this case, men)” spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there’s Gretchen Carlson, but she’s got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can’t see Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?
Our Anglobitcher then moves from the anti-male evils of Murdoch to the anti-male evils of the law. Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that
many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a ‘starter marriage’ to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.
After a brief denunciation of the welfare state — men pay the taxes and women benefit! — Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register “despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.” Hey, I didn’t like having to register, and I don’t think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.
So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes “that males represent the primary victims of ‘hate crime’ across the Anglosphere.”
Oh, but he’s not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing:
It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from ‘hate crime’ is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo ‘patriarchy’ reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.
Dude, you’re an Anglodouche.
EDIT: Mr. Anglobitch has responded to this post. His response is actually a bit more coherent than the original post, though, admittedly, that’s not much of an accomplishment.
