Category Archives: men who should not ever be with women ever
Manosphere blogger: “Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.”
Beta male oppressed by feminism.
Does anyone read newspaper comics any more? Does anyone even remember reading newspaper comics? One of the worst of the bunch is a mawkish little one-panel strip called “Love is …,” with a simple formula: a little drawing of a plump, happy, naked couple (minus sex organs), with a caption starting off with the words “love is.” The more popular strips were turned into greeting cards. I actually have an oil painting someone made of the Love is couple that I found in a thrift store for $1.47. The caption: “Love is … letting him win once in a while.”
The strip began in 1970, and the creator turned it over to the current writer and artist in 1975. I have no fucking idea how on earth he can come up with a new “love is” caption every day. His life must be some kind of existential hell. He must spend hours just staring out the window looking for inspiration. Love is … a dog taking a shit, no. Love is … a fat guy waiting for a bus … no. Love is … sitting alone in my underwear wondering what has gone wrong with my life.
Anyway, the reactionary Manosphere blogger Dicipres has decided to do a similar thing with the phrase “feminism is.” Only without the little naked couple. Here are some of his captions-without-pictures.
Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.
Feminism is a family which hates itself.
Feminism is a line drawn inside your home between you and your wife.
Feminism is a woman furious over ‘rape culture’ and who masturbates while fantasizing being beaten and raped. …
Feminism is a woman who cannot be loved anymore since she hates the domineering man she lusts and sexually despises the submissive man she likes.
Feminism is alimony and every other weekend
Feminism is a son hating his father
Feminism is equality as the only measure for progress of a society …
Feminism is a demographic annihilation due to low birth rates
Yeah. I don’t think any of those are going to work as greeting cards.
And what do these guys have against women with short hair?
Men’s Rights Redditor explains the mate choice process of the human female, and also why she won’t pay for dinner
Stuck-up females waiting for men to bring them dead animals for dinner.
So over in the Men’s Rights subreddit, the fellas are doing their best to address the burning Men’s Right issue of “date inequality,” or, as one recent poster put the question,“Hey feminists. How come men are still expected to pay for dates?”
I’m pretty sure that feminists aren’t the ones expecting men to pay for dates, so I’m not sure why feminists should be held to account for something they’re not doing, but in any case, the Men’s Rightsers don’t seem much interested in hearing explanations from feminists. No, they’re rather offer their own theories.
Enter a new convert to Men’s Rightsism called MrKocha, who enlists the aid of SCIENCE to offer his own explanation of this terrible date injustice:
A creepy expat in Southeast Asia explains why money = tits and how this makes exploiting poor women for sex ok
The sexiest man alive?
Over on Random Xpat Rantings the terrible excuse for a human being who calls himself Xplat sets forth an intriguing proposition: for men in search of sexy times, having money is the equivalent of a woman having tits.
In other words, it’s not absolutely necessary for a man to have big bucks to garner the attention of the opposite sex, just as it’s not absolutely necessary for a woman to have something in the tit department in order to garner the attention of men, but it helps. A lot.
Oh, by the way, the title of the post in which he sets forth this theory is “ALL women are inherently gold diggers down to their pussy juice.”
Let’s let him explain, in his own icky way:
Roosh V, trolling for page views with deliberately offensive posts, finds some supporters in the Men’s Rights subreddit
The glamorous life of an internet king
So our old friend Roosh Valizadeh seems to have fully embraced the Matt Forney school of misogynist internet celebrity, posting over-the-top offensive posts in a transparent attempt to gin up controversy and blog traffic. And it’s working: he’s brought an avalanche of well-deserved hate down upon himself. But don’t worry: he’s still got some supporters — not only on his own blog but in the Men’s Rights subreddit.
The post that’s been keeping the servers hosting Roosh’s Return of Kings blog busy lately is a guest post by Tuthmosis with the title “5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder.”
Dalrock on why men should avoid women who’ve wasted “a lot of courtship” and “used up their most attractive/fertile years.”
Woman with surplus courtship
Dalrock, a manosphere traditionalist with a great love of charts and statistics and other accoutrements of SCIENCE, has managed to figure out a way to stretch “don’t be so picky, ladies, or you’ll get old and ugly and no man will ever want you” out to 1500 words.
Here are a few of them:
How not to get banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit
Let’s say you wake up one morning and you decide, for some reason, that you’d like to make it your goal for the day to get yourself banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit.
If you’re a feminist, it’s not hard. I managed to get myself banned there some time ago and all I had to do was … well, I’m not exactly sure what it was I did. Actually, I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, Reddit-wise, other than argue with the regulars there. It’s possible I may have engaged in some light sarcasm. So maybe try that.
If, on the other hand, you hate women, all you have to do is … well, again, I’m not sure. Because earlier today, as one friend of Man Boobz pointed out on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit, a dislikeable fellow who calls himself sciencegod posted an elaborate, graphic torture fantasy to the Men’s Rights subreddit. I’m posting it below as a thumbnail; click to see it full size, but TRIGGER WARNING because it’s very graphic.
It got some downvotes, and the mods deleted the comment. But it didn’t occur to any of the mods, evidently, to actually ban this user from the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Because obviously anything he might ever have to say on the subject of Men’s Rights is much more worthwhile than anything I might ever have to say on the subject.
I asked the mods why they felt it necessary to ban me when they wouldn’t ban someone like sciencegod, and here’s the response I got back:
![sillymod [M] via /r/MensRights/ sent 51 minutes ago We don't answer to you. You have zero influence through which to get a discussion out of us. Goodbye.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sillymod.png?w=604)
This is pretty much the answer I get whenever I ask them anything. I could ask them if they thought the sky was blue and they’d send me the same response and probably put something in the sidebar saying the sky was red.
Ironically, elsewhere in the Men’s Rights subreddit today I learned this:
Huh. Where on earth might I have gotten the impression that there are MRAs who hate women?
Oops. There’s that sarcasm again. When will I ever learn?
Men’s Rights Public Relations: Don’t call all women crazy bitches, even if they totally are, because feminists might catch you.
This quote from the Men’s Rights subreddit was featured on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit a week ago, but I can’t resist reposting it here, since it’s such a marvellous distillation of Men’s Rights LOGICS at work.
![jabberwockysuperfly 60 points 7 days ago (93|33) We appreciate your solidarity. However, please refrain from making statements like "women are all crazy bitches" regardless of how true it might be; feminists mine this subreddit in the hope of finding this kind of statement so they can use it to discredit this movement. permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]lolyesok [S] 30 points 7 days ago (33|3) Woops, I'll edit that out when I get to a computer. permalink source save parent give gold [–]theskepticalidealist 15 points 6 days ago (19|4) They'll quote that too.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/crazybitches.png?w=604)
That’s right: while we of course agree that women are all crazy bitches, we generally don’t like to say that sort of thing out loud, at least here in this subreddit, because our actual opinions are so foul they discredit us every time we say them out loud in public and the evil feminists cherry-pick our statements and reveal to the world WHAT WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
And jabberwockeysuperfly won himself 60 upvotes for that wondrous bit of SUPER STEM MANLOGICS.
Later in the discussion, our dear old friend Pecanpig clarified that even if there are some women who aren’t crazy bitches, they’re definitely a bunch of bad … oranges?
![dejour 13 points 7 days ago (29|16) It's not true though that all women are crazy bitches. So she shouldn't be saying that. For me the point though is that some women are and the legal system and public shouldn't assume that women=good, man=bad. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]Pecanpig 5 points 6 days ago (8|3) Depends on individual circumstances, if you eat 10 oranges and they are all bad then for all intents and purposes oranges are bad, that can be true despite contradicting your own experiences with oranges or whatever.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/badoranges.png?w=604)
Orange you a strange one, Pecanpig.
“Rex Patriarch” explains why women, like dogs, are incapable of love
Is it love — or do they both just like spaghetti?
The charming Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Rex Patriarch has written up a short treatise entitled “Women Are Incapable of Love.” (He’s also posted a video by another MGTOWer making the same point, but we’ll just ignore that for now, because I didn’t bother to watch it.)
Anyway, here’s Rex’s argument, such as it is:
Look guys, women are like pets.
Do pets love you?
No, of course not but they do feel the warmth which is the love you may have for them. At a minimum you are their meal ticket. That in of itself is why they stick around.
Same same with women. As long as you are their meal ticket they “love” you but the very moment you can’t provide for them. The very moment they find a better deal, find some higher status.
Watch how fast that “love” goes out the window.
The reason being is it never was there to begin with. It was just something they were telling you to keep the goodies coming. Up until they could find something better. If they can.
The thing is men can love women all they want or none at all but don’t expect them to love you back in the same measure. They simply do not have the ability.
What’s interesting about this argument, insofar as anything about it is interesting, is that he’s not just, you know, wrong about women. He’s also wrong about pets.
Now, anyone who’s bonded with a pet certainly feels that their pet loves them back. (Or at least some pets do; I’m pretty sure the turtle my brother had as a kid didn’t really love anything other than worms.) Still, some skeptics insist that we’re just anthropomorphizing when we look at our pets and see love in their eyes.
But researchers are increasingly seeing harder-to-dismiss signs that animals may have emotions remarkably like our own — and that they can indeed feel love. By scanning the brains of dogs, Emory University neuroeconomics professor Gregory Berns has found that dogs and humans are alike in some key ways:
All in all, dogs and humans show striking similarities in the activity of an important brain region called the caudate nucleus. So, do dogs love us and miss us when we’re gone? The data strongly suggest they do. And, those data can further move humanity away from simplistic, reductionist, behaviorist explanations of animal behavior and animal emotions and also be used to protect dogs and other animals from being abused.
You can read more about his research, and what he sees as its implications, here.
More on animal emotions here and here.
You can also learn a lot about how animals — including the animals called humans — think and feel by just fucking paying attention to them and having a tiny bit of empathy. This is apparently a bit too much for some people to manage.
Fidelbogen writes a manifesto (and it’s even more turgid than you’d expect)
How to write a manifesto: The Fidelbogen way
If you’re starting up a political movement and want to get the asses into the seats — and then out into the streets — it’s helpful to have a stirring manifesto.
Men’s Rightser on the Bechdel Test: “Why do Women need to talk to each other ? I don’t get it.”
Talk amongst yourselves.
So some Swedish movie theaters have decided to institute a new rating system to let viewers know whether or not the films they show pass the Bechdel Test — that is, if at any point in the film two female characters have a conversation about something other than a man.
Over in the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fella with the classy handle classypedobear takes strong exception to this terrible affront to human decency. His argument?
Wait. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TALKING ABOUT KITTENS?
Thanks, AgainstMensRights subreddit!
