Category Archives: I’m totally being sarcastic
Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit
Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.
Ladies totally don’t appreciate guys who go out with them when they’re, you know, all old and shit.
Ava Gardner, fortysomething hag, and some beta dude doing her a giant favor by even being seen with her in public.
My eyes are all dialated from an eye exam, but even through a blurry haze I can tell this guy is kind of a toolbag. Here’s The Rational Male on why the ladies totally don’t appreciate all that dudes do for them, like for example, not having sex with other ladies when they totally probably could have.
I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. … You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality. … Men making the personal sacrifices necessary to honor, respect and love her are commonplace. You’re supposed to do those things. You sacrificed your ambitions and potential to provide her with a better life? You were supposed to. You resisted temptation and didn’t cheat on your wife with the hot secretary who was DTF and ready to go?
Ladies totally don’t appreciate that shit. Seriously, gals, it takes a lot of willpower for us to keep from going around sticking our penises in other ladies. You should probably bake us all cakes, or something.
The worst offenders? Women 40 and over.
[A]ssume for a moment that a 40 y.o. Man with the options to pursue younger women “does the right thing” and seeks out a relationship with a woman his own age. Would he be appreciated for essentially giving an aged woman a new lease on life? Or would he be viewed as doing what is to be expected of him?
Seriously, women over 40 are practically senior citizens. Even talking to them is a gigantic sacrifice for a guy who imagines he might possibly be able to cajole a drunk 27 year old into bed for a night of deeply unsatisfying sex with him.
It’s best to remind the fortysomething hags what a giant favor you’re doing them while you are actually, you know, doing them. In the “having sex with them” sense, if you catch my drift.
“Aw yeah, baby, you saw that waitress totally smiling at me earlier. I think she’d probably do me. You’re lucky I even gave your old ass a second look!”
Repeat this until she hates herself. That sort of thing is what makes for spectacular sex.
It’s no wonder he calls himself The Rational Man.
Feminist koalas, and other grave injustices faced by men
MRAs: Just like Martin Luther King. Wait, not Martin Luther King. I'm thinking of someone else entirely. I'm not sure why I said Martin Luther King. I mean, that's ridiculous.
I’ve been following the Men’s Rights Movement for some time, and I’ve never been quite sure exactly what the major injustices faced by men are. I haven’t really noticed much to speak of in my own life, but evidently there are some and they are really, really bad.
Luckily, in recent days A Voice for Men has begun to clarify the issue for me. For example, AVfM Radio’s new theme song points out two of the worst injustices of all:
- Men having to hold doors open for ladies.
- Ladies wanting to marry us.
But these are not the only important men’s issues out there. In a recent post titled “A hard rains gonna fall: how hard is up to you” (clearly a reference to the famous song by Carly Simon), AVfM head dude Paul Elam spells out the most important issues of all in a set of bullet points. To save the beleaguered men of the world some important man-time I will summarize them for you here. Bullet-time!
- Thomas Ball’s suicide isn’t mentioned on Wikipedia because feminism.
- The Obama administration urged colleges to use the same standard of proof used in most non-criminal cases in their non-criminal disciplinary proceedings dealing with rape cases. Because feminism.
- Australia. Something about Australia. Ok, here’s the deal: Australia is very, very far away from me, like literally on the other side of the planet, and my eyes sometimes glaze over when reading about it. I’m sure whatever Elam is mad about is really bad. It might involve Koalas. Feminist Koalas. But that’s just speculation on my part.
- In India, where women are routinely harassed in public and groped on train cars, there are a tiny number of women-only train cars set up to cut down on the groping.
- In Sweden, a small group of feminists did a theatrical production based on/dealing with the writings of Valarie Solanas. It was performed in some schools.
- “Men constitute the lion’s share of combat deaths[11], workplace deaths[12], suicide deaths[13], and are afflicted with almost every known human malady and disease more frequently and more severely than women.” Obviously, the feminists are to blame, for their staunch opposition to women serving in the armed forces, and for their secret program of giving men girl germs.
- There are agencies dealing with women’s health issues. Clearly, men need to have just as many of their own agencies to deal with such male health issues as not being pregnant.
I hope my summary of these issues has been fair. As Elam has pointed out on a number of occasions, I am fat, so really nothing I do or say has any value. Plus, of course, I am a mangina. Just, you know, FYI.
In any case, these injustices have Elam plenty mad:
I am truly curious as to what festering, morally atrophied deviation of humanity could look at anything approaching this level of discrimination and suffering without becoming angry.
So mad that his metaphors all get up in each other’s business:
Whether it becomes a wave of social change, or a violent tempest of indignation and fury, the pendulum will continue to swing.
So there you have it. Naturally, Elam’s readers are grateful for his efforts to bring justice to the world by yelling about it online and trying to get people really, really mad at certain specific ladies without explicitly advocating violence against them. That’s pretty much how Martin Luther King did it, only with fewer references to “bitches” and “cunts” and not so many threaty remarks.
As Alfred E puts it:
Well said Mr Elam. May the harpies finally get a clue about their complete lack of compassion for men and boys all the while living in a gold box carted around by the prince.
Justice and compassion for all, except you harpies in your gold boxes! And also the rest of the bitches, cunts and manginas.
NOTE: That bit about Carly Simon above was a joke. Obviously the song in question was written by The Bangles.
Some of those video game princesses ain’t so Peachy
Why can't they all be like Princess Peach?
It’s almost impossible to catalogue all the ways men are oppressed by women in contemporary gynocratic society. There are so many! For example, did you know that men are oppressed by female characters in video games? I know, right? The last bastion of red-blooded manliness, invaded by imaginary ladies!
Luckily, the fellows at MGTOWforums.com are on the case, exposing this foul virtual misandry. I Am started off a recent discussion on the subject by asking
WTF is with empowered women in video games now? …
I see a new trend in the video/computer game world and that is the increase in strong playable female characters.
Now, I am no hardcore gamer but I do play computer games often and the recent one I have been playing recently is Shogun 2 total war. Now for those who don’t know what this game is, it is a strategy game based on the military of feudal Japan. I recently bought an upgrade for the game the other day and guess what one of the strongest military units was? Nuns. I shit you not. The nuns had an attack 20% -40% higher than most units in the game. Somehow I doubt that in real life a nun would have swung a sword or used a spear faster and harder than a feudal warlord, and this game was based on history.
Clearly nuns are incapable of manlike swordplay, though it is true that they are capable reenacting famous internet panda sneeze videos. (I have seen video proof of this.) But Shogun 2 does not depict them sneezing like pandas. It depicts them fighting.
This is an outrage because video games are meant to be a perfectly accurate reflection of reality. Obviously there is nothing even slightly unrealistic about any of this:
Most of us dudes are in fact capable of karate-chopping heads in two. We just don’t like to show off all the time.
I think I have the right to ask steam and other gaming companes: WTF with the subliminal brainwashing? What now when I buy or play a game women will be doing all the ass kicking? …
I call bullshit on this subject. Video games are the last place for guys to hang out and now women are taking over. Why not just save us the trouble and instead of eliminating our fantasy world just throw us in work camp to provide for thier bastard children (literally speaking) while they shit all over us…wait they already do that.
I Am is not the only dude who’s noticed this alarming femtrend. Goldenfetus added his observations:
I’ve noticed this too, and it drives me insane. Was co-oping Gears 3 last month and there’s a point where 2nd player has to take over a female character. Almost ruined the game for me. It may seem minor, but once you’re aware of this type of brainwashing it’s impossible to ignore. There’s no way a slim female could keep up with the massive battle-hardened male Gears in that kind of environment. They would be a liability as they are in real life combat.
Exactly! By contrast, the male characters in Gears of War 3 are all completely accurate representations of real-world men.
This is what dudes look like, for real.
Goldenfetus continued:
You’ll see the same thing in most stat-based role-playing games as well, where you have the option of a female player character – like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, D&D, etc. The women never have any strength or intelligence penalties compared to the males. … They want to give the impression that people of any race, gender, and sexual-orientation are interchangeable – that there are no differences in ability between them, and that only a bigot could think otherwise. I’m sick of it too.
At the very least, female characters should be depicted as carriers of cooties.
Despite the very serious subject matter – video game misandry is never funny! – Xtc tried to lighten the mood with a little humor:
It would be hilarious to portray the female characters realistically. If you chose the female character in your FPS [First Person Shooter] she would have to move very slowly, dragging the gun around. You could build in some extra shake to the crosshairs to represent hopeless accuracy. Every time you needed to reload your gun, instead of just pressing a button, you’d have to find a male character and go through some flirting dialogue options to persuade him to do it for you. One out of every four missions the game would tell you that you were sitting out this one due to ‘women’s issues’.
Calloway, for his part, offered some historical perspective:
This is nothing new. I got heavy into gaming back in the late 90’s and even back then they had Tomb Raider, S.I.N., etc. Even in the original Unreal, you played as a big-breasted female.
I saw a documentary on the making of the original Tomb Raider once. The lead character, Lara Croft, was originally going to be a man. They saw him as an Indiana Jones-type character. Then, one of the designers suggested it be a woman because “if you’re going to be playing a game for hours, you might as well have something good to look at”. …
When you first take the red pill, it’s amazing the things you see. It’s as if you had blinders on before, and all of sudden they’ve been removed, allowing you to actually understand what you’ve been seeing.
Yep. And what you’ve been seeing is Lara Croft’s ass. Lara Croft’s ass oppresses men! The red pill tells me so!
Also, those tiny misandrist shorts just make the gynpression worse.
Now we come to the clincher.
When you try to get romantic with the imaginary ladies in video games, they don’t act like Roissy and those dudes say ladies act. I mean, you can’t even neg them! As Dave sadly pointed out:
I remember about 12 years ago playing the Baldur’s Gate rpg series and there were some romance dialog paths between your character and some of the women who could join your group but you had to treat them very nice. You couldn’t give them any attitude or make fun of them otherwise it would be over.
Basically you have to be a total mangina towards women in most games if you want to bed them.
Even imaginary ladies are stuck up bitches!
The horror!
I had a
How to spot a feminist
Some feminists can be converted!
Over on Reddit, DoktorTeufel has a problem: he likes the ladies, but he doesn’t like the feminists. Unfortunately, some ladies are also feminists! And therein lies the danger. Naturally, he turns to the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit for help.
I’m just going to come out and say it: I will never knowingly enter into a romantic relationship with a feminist. I do have some female relatives and acquaintances who are feminists … and it’s not like they all wear signs that proclaim I’M A FEMINIST. (Some do.)
Aside from obvious telltales (feminist bumper stickers, etc.) or outright asking them “Are you a feminist?”, what are some discreet ways to ferret out a woman’s views on gender activism without creating an awkward situation? Feminism is a minefield topic, and I certainly wouldn’t broach the subject directly with a woman I’ve just started dating.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, he received much helpful advice. Celda broke it down for him:
You don’t really care whether she identifies as a feminist or not – you care what her views are.
For instance, does she feel women have the right to force men into parental obligations against their will?
Does she feel women are oppressed in Western society?
Does she think that women make less money than men for the same work?
If yes to these questions or similar, then you probably want to avoid her.
Exactly. Always avoid those with a basic grasp on reality. They’re the worst!
Naive1000 suggested looking for more subtle clues.
Ask their thoughts on “benevolent sexism” if they know what your talking about you likely have a feminist. Just to make sure go into male privilege, it’s the feminists’ most popular talking point. Let her talk about it then you can see what she’s really like. But, there are some women who call themselves feminists, but are really egalitarian: they just don’t know the term.
Memymineown also suggests a subtle approach, and holds out hope that some of the younger feminist girls can be won back to the path of righteousness:
Bring Men’s Rights issues into the conversation subtly. I was talking with my family about Justin Beiber and brought up the paternity charge and no rape charges filed against the woman.
That led into a discussion about how women aren’t punished for rape.
Just do things like that.
But you shouldn’t exclude all feminists. I would say that the vast majority are just girls(I do use that word on purpose) who have been lied to. Once you show them the real facts they will probably come around.
ThePigman, by contrast, urges DoktorTeufel to go for the jugular:
Why do you need to be discrete about it? Just ask her. If she is a member of the cult she will start screaming about the patriarchy, then her head will explode.
It’s true. Pretty much every conversation involving feminists quickly devolves into screaming about patriarchy. Heck, a feminist friend and I once screamed about patriarchy for five hours straight. We probably could have gone longer, but the manager at Applebee’s, evidently not a feminist, threw us out. Sometimes I start screaming about patriarchy when no one else is around, just to keep in practice.
Conversations with feminists pretty much all go like the conversation in the video below, only instead of a cat you need to picture a feminist, and instead of the word “no,” the word “patriarchy.” You can see how annoying that might get, and not just to Hitler.
Russell Brand deals the Feminist Conspiracy a serious setback. But Operation Alimony will prevail!
Uh oh! I just discovered this, currently the top story over on the Men’s Rights subreddit:
Yes, my sisters (and honorary mangina man-sisters), Russell Brand has dealt a severe blow to Operation Alimony, which (as you well know, at least if you’ve been attending the meetings) is our dastardly Feminazi plot to destroy the patriarchy by getting pretty ladies to marry and divorce rich dudes and take all their money.
You may remember our wild revelry when we heard that comrade-ess Heather Mills had walked off (no jokes please) with £24.3 million of Paul McCartney’s man money. And the joyful tears we shed when we heard that Mel Gibson’s ex-wife had (reportedly) scored a cool $425 million in her divorce settlement.
Russell Brand has just spotted a large pile of Katy Perry's money
But today, we shed only the bitterest of tears. We have not only been thwarted, but we’ve also been exposed! Damn those Men’s Rights Redditors and their evil allies at the Daily Mail!
The comments in the r/mensrights thread show that they understand our evil plans all too well. How can we respond to Aetheralloy’s withering critique?
Feminists see the absurdity of their own pushed polices?
LOL no. No they won’t. I’d sooner expect scientologists to ask their psychiatrist if they are in a cult.
But ladies! Do not despair! Russell Brand may have set back our efforts, but he, and his Reddit allies, shall not defeat us!
Ladies, you know what to do. Get yourself all prettied up, hit the town, and snag yourself some rich dudes! Let’s see how many of these guys we can have married off by the end of the year.
Marrying (and divorcing) rich dudes: it’s the feminist way!
I had a
Misogyny to the Maxd: Women are “liabilities in our technological culture.” Also, they’re fat.
Eeerything started going to hell when we let them wear bloomers and ride bicycles.
Oh boy. Over on The Spearhead, the good old trusty Spearhead, a fella called Rmaxd has some bold new ideas to share with the world.
Well, they’re not really new, or bold, or true, and some of them kind of seem to contradict each other. But they are, indisputably, ideas. And because he’s a dude, they’re automatically good, because dudes are the dynamic, creative force behind all historical progress. So it’s no wonder this comment of his got more than two dozen upvotes.
Rmaxd starts off by addressing the manginas of the world, and every man who might be considering the benefits of manginahood:
Grow some balls, be masculine, & these so called feminists have zero power
Because NATURE.
We always revert to our biology & nature, over idealism, this is why feminism is dead in the water
And NATURE says women should stay home and cook and pop out babies.
Women in our society are so fucked up, precisely because they rejected their biological need to be part of a society, through their children, husbands & a family
It’s time for a little thought experiment.
Imagine if men were no longer engineers & soldiers & scientists, imagine the biological havoc they would cause on society, all that intellectual brilliance channelled on society, on the loss of their biological roles, instead of as engineers, soldiers & scientists
I’m having a little bit of a hard time imagining, because that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Is he suggesting that the world would collapse if more dudes stayed home and tended the kids?
But never mind, because Rmaxd is on to his next point, which is that women are terrible at math and this makes them OBSOLETE!
In a technology based society, women are the first to be discarded, their lack of scientific & mathematical skills are a liability to our technological culture
Also, they’re lazy and don’t invent shit. Even though by keeping them at home and denying them education the men of the world gave them ample opportunity to invent all sorts of shit, they chose instead to sit on their fat asses and eat bon bons.
Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history
& what did women do with that leisure, with all that time & opportunity to progress science?
Women became biological luddites, they became entitled, inbred & backwards & technologically liabilities in our present technologically based age
When women should’ve been developing technologies to makeup for their inability to logic & reason, in the same way men developed music & art in order for men to experience emotions, all they did was call for young men to destroying their own futures, to be used as walking wallets & chattle
You can tell how innovative Rmaxd is, because he’s totally just innovated a new way to spell “chattel.”
Anyway, QED, fuck women.
Women are liabilities, we no longer need women to maintain our social networks, we have everything from mobile phones to the internet
Huh. Declaring half of humanity expendable. I was under the impression that MRA dudes considered that sort of thinking to be the equivalent of committing GENOCIDE. Seems some of them were making a big stink about that the other day, when a couple of ladies made some similar remarks about men.
Weird. Because MRA dudes are upvoting this, instead of gathering together in angry mobs on the internet to EXPOSE this dude’s personal information and talk about Fucking His Shit Up.
Never mind, though, because Rmaxd isn’t done with his case against ladies.
We no longer need them to maintain morality, as theyre incapable of morality, a womans ability to destroy herself, in the same fat women destroy their own bodies, is unprecedented, give a woman enough leisure & freetime, & all she’s capable of is how to enslave all of society, to ensure society does the same for women everywhere, irrespective of the results
Damn. So women getting fat is part of a sinister plot to enslave mankind?
This all sounds pretty dire for us civilization-creating dudes.
Happily, as Rmaxd explains in another comment, the ladies are so crazily self-destructive that they will fail in their evil designs, despite “being bankrolled by the rich upper class.” Just like the evil radical blacks back in the 1970s:
[W]omen are following the black activism handbook of the 70′s. …
[N]ear the end of the black movement, as the more mainstream, publicly accepted part of black militancy was rejected & debunked, the more radical components of the movement, began attacking its own supporters, in particular the white supporters of black rights, & they also started attacking blacks who were sympathetic to white males
We see the exact same thing happening with feminism, as the more popular & acceptable parts of feminism have now been rejected by popular culture, ie the colossal failure of stayathome dads
Because nothing is more evil and against NATURE than stay-at-home dads! It’s like sodomy squared.
Anyway, the evil ladies are doomed.
They now start becoming more radical, their antagonism & alienation of men, especially manginas & feminists will inevitably destroy them
As we all know women & especially special rights movements, are always self destructive, as the solutions are never radical enough.
So back to the homes, ladies, where you can return to fulfilling NATURE’s role for the females of the species: sitting on your fat asses and eating bon bons and being terrible at math. Because that is nature’s way.
I had a
Fighting the Scourge of MisPandry
Mispandry hurts everyone.
The BBC is taking a lot of heat for including a panda in a list of the top 12 female “faces of the year” for 2011. As the Daily Edge explains:
While the men category featured 12 actual men, the women’s page featured 11 women and one panda, albeit a female panda.
There’s a new Twitter hashtag — #pandagate — for those who wish to express brief thoughts on the matter.
I too, am outraged. A panda on the female list but none on the male list? This is blatant discrimination against male pandas. Mispandry, if you will. And it is discrimination against pandas generally.
ALL OF THE ENTRIES IN BOTH LISTS SHOULD BE PANDAS!
This is just one more example of mispandrist Anti-Pandaism in contemporary culture.
Here you can see more anti-Pandaism in action – notice the crowd laughing – laughing! – at this panda’s athletic prowess.
And here is some footage obtained from an illegal underage panda fighting ring.
“Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood,” and other observations on love and life from Chateau Heartiste
I mean, my shoes are totally better than his!
Today, a GUEST POST from Catherine! Thanks, Catherine! And the rest of you, enjoy!
Over on Chateau Heartiste, the (He)artist(e) Formerly Known As Roissy devoted a recent post to the conundrum of handsome men coupled with ugly women. It’s essentially an open thread for the denigration of women who don’t live up to Roissy’s porntastic standards (17 to 20 years old with a BMI of about 18 *and* a D cup, and related WTF?! attributes), as well as ragging on those awful beta manginas who are punching below their weight – or, to quote Heartiste himself, are “polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.”
I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.
He’s just getting started.
What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.
Speaker: Any questions?
Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…
Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…
So obviously the young good-looking man is totally under the thumb of the big fat evil feminist woman, who has sucked out his brains and reduced him to a quivering lump of hesitation and uncertainty!
As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.
So, sniveling, indecisive beta manginas are repulsive… but not as repulsive as a corpulent woman! Gotcha, Roissy.
After getting in a few more digs at the contemptuous, unsympathetic wife, Roissy sets forth his views on various types of couples. First, the kinds of couples that should be allowed to exist:
Handsome man with beautiful woman
All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. …
Ugly man with ugly woman
All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.
All is well in the world of alpha males with hot babes, but those in ugly people combos need to find some highly diverting hobbies to keep from offing themselves.
Now Roissy turns his attention to two apparent mismatches, and delineates his usual double standards:
Ugly man with beautiful woman
Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.
Moral: ugly men are permitted to have counter-balancing attributes! Can you guess what is coming next?
Handsome man with ugly woman
Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.
Women have no value beyond their looks, so the pitiful man dating someone wretchedly below Roissy’s artificial standards must likewise be sub-standard, in some way invisible to us, to have abased himself so humiliatingly.
Having drawn these pictures, Roissy rounds out the post with a sermon on female ugliness, which is to be universally shunned:
There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.
And we’re back to the disparaging references to pigs. Why, oh why does Roissy hate pork so? (That he detests women is more or less expected.)
In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.
And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.
What the hell was that? I’ll quote it again: “Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.” Oh, the huge manatee! Shrink in terror from the impending doom to be brought about by porcine-human hybrids!
Naturally such hyperbole is a cue for some predictable misogyny in the comments, such as the following from regular tool Tyrone:
That’s why its good to be older to get a good sense for how a woman will age. There are loads of women who look hot when young but turn into cattle as they age. Mom is usually a good bench mark. If you’d do her Mom, you’re probably safe. Check out how Ginger Lynn looks like nowadays. You’d never recognize her from her porn days.
A view right in line with Roissy’s famed dating value regimen that women lose value once they’re older than, say, 29; and Tyrone follows it up with some white supremacism:
White people won’t survive without more kids. Smart white men need to breed more in our country- with white women.
What, you might ask, about women with great bodies but unappealing faces? One Anonymous coward urges his brethren to go for it :
[O]ne of my biggest regrets was not doing a girl who had the hottest body around but an ugly face. Temporarily of course.
But for fuck’s sake don’t marry them. Right, tenderman100?
Some years ago, before I was married for the first time (twice married, twice divorced) I was banging this babe. Amazing body. Amazing tits. But a kind of a bucktoothed face. When I first met her, I thought, wow what amazing tits…yeah she’s kinda ugly but she’s friendly and I just have to see those tat tas. Well, not only did I see them, we banged for a few months. She was incredible in bed, highly orgasmic, very flexible (did ballet). Haven’t seen her in decades, but if she is a fat cow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yeah, she was ugly but she pounded like a pro. So it isn’t always what it seems. Then again, I would never have married her.
If not marriage, then what about a long-term relationship? Over again to Tyrone:
A good woman who has reparable shortcomings is still a good option for an LTR. Fugly is a whole different animal.
But if you marry one of them, Tyrone adds, make sure you have a contingency plan!
My wife knows if she ever lets herself go, talks about divorce, whatever that pisses me off enough to leave, I will simply disappear into the night. No arguments or emotions, it will be a complete coup de main. There won’t be anyone around to serve papers to. I’ll be overseas in an undisclosed location screwing LBFMs.
In case you don’t already know, LBFM is short for Little Brown Fucking Machines, a term of art to refer to Asian women (frequently underage) sought out by sex tourists — which should be sufficient to outline Tyrone’s sophisticated moral principles. He continues:
I say this with no emotion or bravado, just let her know its a fact that she must deal with. Marriage is like defense policy, the best defense is a good offense. Strike first, strike to kill. Identify a location and buy yourself some property there, so you have somewhere to go. Move enough money there to live well until you can start a bar or whatever to live. Plan this for a few years in advance if need be. Life is too short to be some stupid broad’s wage slave.
How charming!
Heartiste really has a way of bringing out the best in people!
Merry War on Christmas, Sisters-in-arms!
Females hate Santa
“Feminists Take Up Arms in War on Christmas.” That’s the headline over on The Spearhead, where W.F. Price tries to spread some good old-fashioned anti-feminist cheer with a post dredging up the old Fox News crapola about a “War on Christmas,” with feminists in the role of villain this time.
His proof of this feminist perfidy? This video on the “Top 5 Creepy and Sexist Christmas Songs.” In it, Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency takes a critical look at some Christmastime “classics,” including the really quite odious “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” which depicts a man pressuring a woman into staying with him for the night, aggressively shutting down every one of her many objections. The message? Fifty nos and one yes means a yes. It might as well have been written by Reddit’s date-rapey “seduction” experts.
Naturally, the Spearhead regulars offer deeply insightful critiques of all of her main points. DT wades in with a witticism worthy of Wilde:
The reason she hates “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is because no man would ever even dream of trying to stay at her house.
Baby, it’s cold inside, and you’re stuck there alone.
Boxer offers a somewhat broader critique:
Feminists are so far out these days that they resemble bag ladies rather than genuine social critics. Their endless shit opinions take on a comic quality.
Life is wonderful, and life is extra nice without a cunt woman whining in one’s general vicinity. Happy snatch-free holidays, brothers! :)
Further proof.
The ever-so-slightly-addled Geography Bee Finalist himself sets forth a theory to explain why feminists might be critical of traditional holidays:
If feminists hate men, and since no holiday comes to mind that can be extricated completely from men, as even the turkey baster needs semen (and men probably invented the centrifuge that sorts X sperm cells and Y sperm cells) so the dyke couple can conceive a kid out of wedlock but in principle cannot celebrate Mother’s Day as fetuses need semen to exist, but Jehovah’s Witnesses expect the FATHER to almost always be the head of the Jehovah’s Witness nuclear family, I wonder what the feminist is left to do.
Oh, that’s right. She is left to not celebrate a single holiday of any religion or country, nor be a Jehovah’s Witness if she wants to have any principle left when it comes to holidays, but then again “feminist principle” is another oxymoron.
Well, all that probably seemed to make more sense echoing inside his empty skull than it does actually written down.
All Keyster’s comment needs is an instant rimshot or two:
You’d think they’d be pleased that a third of the planet celebrates a holiday about a virgin who was able to conceive…without a man!
Or do they believe God raped her?
Feminism envisions either a world without men; or at least one where men are kept in a state of subservient subhumanism. Christmas has to go, along with all other religious holidays and traditional religions. All traditional religions and their associated holidays stress the importance of monogamous marriage and family; and feminists exalt feminine independence, abortion, and misandry.
But it’s Andybob who wins the thread with this unique close reading of the video:
Notice that she says, “downright creepy” at exactly the same moment that an image of a pair of jingle balls appears threateningly above her head. It this a feminist’s sledge-hammer subtle attempt to subliminally associate testicles with creepiness? Lesbians never stop trying to recruit.
Andy, I’m sure that you, in your own small way, have helped to make this ongoing lesbian recruitment drive a little bit more successful.
This post contains:
