About these ads

Category Archives: men who should not ever be with women ever

Rachel Swirsky climbs inside the mind of a violent misogynst

Harpy1

A couple of days ago, Rachel Swirsky — an award-winning science fiction and fantasy writer who posts at Alas, A Blog and sometimes comments here on Man Boobz as well — sent along a link to a brilliant, brutal, and horrifying short story she’d recently published in Apex Magazine. Titled “Abomination Rises on Filthy Wings,” the story is essentially her attempt to get inside the mind of a violent misogynist.

As the editor’s note to her story explains:

Swirsky wrote this piece after talking to multiple editors who worked with horror stories, all of whom reported receiving many submissions about men murdering their wives or ex–wives. Despite the fictional veneer and supernatural justification [for the murder], many have the feel of personal revenge fantasies, and most characterize the women through disturbing, misogynist stereotypes. Swirsky wanted to see if it was possible to write a story that included all the markers of the trope but nevertheless subverted it.

In writing the story, Swirsky told me, “I drew heavily on Manboobz for mood and imagery, to try to get the sense of the narrator.”

So, enjoy. But first, I should warn you that the story is very violent, very disturbing, and could very well be triggering. So giant TRIGGER WARNING.

Here’s the LINK.

About these ads

Roosh V forum members baffled that fat woman doesn’t welcome sexual harassment

Online dating: It doesn't always work like this.

Online dating: It doesn’t always work like this.

For a certain subset of horrible men, there are few things more infuriating than the fact that women they find undesirable can turn down men for sex. For this upsets their primitive sense of justice: such women should be so grateful for any male attention, these men think, that turning down even the most boorish of men shouldn’t even be an option for them.

Consider the reactions of some of the regulars on date-rapey pickup guru Roosh V’s forum to the story of Josh and Mary on the dating site Plenty of Fish. One fine December evening, you see, Josh decided to try a little “direct game” on Mary.

That’s what the fellas on Roosh’s forum call it, anyway. The rest of us would call it sexual harassment.

Read the rest of this entry

Real-World Man-activism: The photographic evidence

Q8DK3Oy

 

Above, a picture that’s been floating around online for a little while, helpfully meme-ified by Manception on the AgainstMensRights subreddit.

Below, a picture of an anti-abortion protestor at the Texas State Capitol that Amanda Marcotte posted on Pandagon a while back under the title Silent Mansplaining. Which pretty much sums it up.

 

k-bigpic

 

Have any of you run across any similar photographic evidence of real-world man-activism you’d like to share?

 

Women are lying when they say they want more dicks on TV, Men’s Rights Redditors explain

Artist Louise Bourgeois also pretended to like dongs.

Artist Louise Bourgeois also pretended to like dongs.

So for some reason the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing an article by Australian newspaper columnist Clementine Ford in which she expresses her desire to see more dongs on television.

As she notes, there are plenty of boobs on display on HBO shows like Game of Thrones, yet “rarely are we treated to the visual smorgasbord of a well stocked meat platter. ” Ford is sick of it.  “So bring on the parade of wangs, willies and woodies!” she demands. “I’m fond of a wand and I’m not ashamed to say it.”

I’m not terribly familiar with the writings of Clementine Ford, but evidently she’s not big on subtlety.

Anyway, the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit aren’t having any of it. Nuh uh. They ain’t buying it, ladies! You may write columns about how you want more wang on TV. You may talk about it with your friends. You may have gigantic collections of peen pics hidden away on your hard drive.

But the MRAs of Reddit know better. It’s all some devious feminist ploy, as Steampunk_Moustache helpfully explains.

Steampunk_Moustache 1 point 5 hours ago (2|1)  It's rather funny seeing feminists pretend they want to see penises just so that they can make this (weak) argument, isn't it?  Women don't want to look at dicks. Women don't get turned on by the sight of dicks.  Do you know who gets turned on by the sight of dicks? Ironically, straight men.

Huh. That took an odd twist at the end there.

But it’s our old friend Giegerwasright who provides the real answer, in the form of a wall-o-mansplainin’ so giant that I had to shrink the text to even screencap it.

giegerwasright 27 points 10 hours ago (31|4)  OK, my negroes. I'm going to lay this out for you. Because the women in this article and the writer of this article... they aren't interested at all in the male form. Not a single bit. They're just being spoiled brat children (as usual) stomping their feet and nasally sneering "what about you! what about you!" They're just looking for something to whinge about and make demands of (as usual) that they never really have any interest in making use of.  How may women in visual arts profess an adoration for the male form? Can you name a single female visual artist who has expressed her passion for that male form through her art in a manner that is sublime? I can't. I can easily fine male visual artists who do so. Michelangelo's David is a pretty classic example. Everything by Caravaggio stands out quite beautifully. Mapplethorpe's photos of men show a passion for the male form, a passion that ultimately killed him, that I have never in my life seen expressed in a single woman's work. Never. Women don't appreciate or even like the male form very much. They like what it gets them.  You're just as likely to find men who express that adoration for the female form as you will the male. I'd start with Mona Lisa, but I find that painting to be rather reserved and dispassionate. Take a look at the work of John Singer Sargent. Picasso expressed adoration for the female form both in and out of his cubist works. Monet, Manet, Van Gogh, to Man Ray and Helmut Newton. On and on and on is a list of male artists with a visceral and obsessive adoration for the female form.  And female artists? What do they like? Nearly unilaterally, they seem to prefer the female form as well. They are not driven by the same compulsion for the opposite sex that so many male artists seem to experience. They just aren't interested. What did Frida Khalo paint? Herself. Georgia O'Keefe? her vagina. Cindy Sherman? More women. Even pop photographers are more interested in the female form. Look at the work of Bunny Yeager. Women as artists are only concerned with their own form.  The only interest that women have in the male form is it's utility and as fodder for humor. "tee hee! a penis! tee hee!". These women aren't requesting "cocks". They don't want "dicks". They aren't raging for "erections". They want "dongs". Fodder for jokes. Remember when Ensler came out with the Vagina Monologues? We all know it here. The play waxed poetic about the beauty and versimilitude of the female organ. What did men get that year? That year, the penis got "Puppetry of the Penis". A joke. A ridicule. A parlour trick. A fucking carnival act.  So, when women clench their fists and bawl with quivering lower lip "Why dere is no dongz on da tee vee!?!?" I have to respond "Because you don't fucking want them. That's why."

Huh.

So why exactly are women pretending to be interested in seeing more penises on television? So they can point at them and laugh?

Women are such an enigma, especially if you just assume that nothing they ever say is true and that it’s all part of some weird plot to screw with men’s heads.

(H/t to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to geigerwasright’s lovely comment.)

Should gaming be a “safe space” for nerdy dudes who hate women? The Men’s Rights perspective

idiot-nerd-girl-reappropriated-05

I’m back from a brief vacation in Migraineland, and thinking about the ways in which Men’s Rights Activists love to appropriate the language of feminism and other progressive movements, usually in ways that are face-palmingly ass-backwards.

Take this recent discussion on the Men’s Rights subreddit of the dire threat of “fake gamer girls” invading the “male space” of gaming. The generically named guywithaccount sets up the discussion with this post:

Read the rest of this entry

Don’t call her “baby.” No, seriously, don’t.

Unless you're Kojak. Kojak gets a free pass with the word "baby."

Unless you’re Kojak. Kojak gets a free pass with the word “baby.”

So I read a lot of creepy shit doing research for this blog. But the manosphere blog Random Xpat Rantings — slogan: “Contemplative dominance for the modern man” — seems to be trying to take creepiness to a whole other level.

In a recent post, blogger xsplat attempts to explain “How to make an attractive woman fall for you on the first or second date.” One of his hints: “If you are way into the girl, it will be way easier for her to fall for you.”

But what if you’re dead inside and can’t feel love? Well, have no fear, because xsplat has an answer for you: Pretend that the women you’re dating are your children!

If you don’t know how to feel love, here is a trick that will work for some, if you let it. Men naturally feel paternal love. Women are neotenous. Evolution is accidental, however the coincidence is meaningful. Women are neotenous because that arouses men’s paternal love. Use that to your advantage. Consider her as YOUR child. This will open up a flood of love for her. It’s ok – it’s not real incest – don’t be an idiot. It’s a trick you are performing in order to commune more fully. To love her more. To enjoy for yourself the great rush of love.

Also, I have a long history of doing this, again and again. It’s not just an accident in my distant past. It’s what I do. It’s what I did today. It’s a formula. It’s a formula that might very well work for you.

If you’re giving out dating advice and you have to specify “it’s ok — it’s not real incest” you should probably start trying to figure out just how your life has gone so terribly, terribly wrong.

 

Red Pill Dudes: Marriage is worse than rape, but the feminist attack on marriage is even worser

Barley: The ultimate feminist weapon?

Barley: The ultimate feminist weapon?

So the uber-manly woman-hating woman-chasing alpha dogs over in the Red Pill subreddit are discussing the declining marriage rate. Which is a GOOD thing. Because marriage is for BETAs and FRUMPY WOMEN! It’s worse than RAPE!

Marriage is RAPE - so if marriage goes down, then it's a good thing.      permalink     source     give gold     save     hide child comments  [–]Max___Power 49 points 1 day ago (64|15)  No, it's worse. Marriage is institutionally promoted to men as a positive. If I ever took a contract to my lawyer where the other party could opt out at any time AND take 50% of MY shit with them, he'd chase me out of his office and yell at me to find a hobby. Yet men willingly purchase $30,000 flawed rocks for the privilege of asking a frumpy woman to sign such a contract. LO freaking L, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Huh. If any of these Red Pill dudes were to get married I’m pretty sure it would be be a completely, you know, consensual act on their part. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t rape a, you know, nonconsensual thing? (Reading the Red Pill subreddit, it’s sometimes hard to remember.)

At this point a fellow calling himself TheZimmerMan throws in his two cents on the subject. Like his fellow Red Pill alpha dudes, he’s no fan of marriage. But then he  remembers that feminists are supposedly plotting to take down western civilization by destroying marriage.  And feminists are bad, right? And so his brain sort of explodes, producing this wondrous bit of red pill word salad, sprinkled liberally with racism as well as misogyny:

TheZimmerMan 11 points 22 hours ago (21|10)  Society pressures men and women are fed that they need it since they are old enough to Disney. It is good that men are not allowing themselves to be victimized in this fashion, but remember that the dissolvation of the nuclear family was a feminist goal from day one. They want every one to be forced into a martiarchical structure by removing the father figure just like socially engineered anti-intellectualism and thug culture has influenced black families nationwide. They want everyone to be on welfare barley subsiding as the actual working men shoulder the burden by paying lifetime alimony, crippling child support, excessive taxes for entitlements, and other state enforced wealth transfers while being denied traditional provider respect and benefits. This is a mere segment of their war against everything it means to be a man as they seek social enslavement, state enforced burdens, and general malice towards our kind.  Thank God for red pill wisdom of female biological imperatives and alphaism allowing men to still retain personal control over our lives, it is the only thing confronting this madness of the ultimate shit test against the human race.

Wow.  Just wow.

I’ve never seen “Disney” used as a verb before.

Also, I’m not exactly sure what “they want everyone to be on welfare barley subsiding” means. Unless the government has started up some sort of barley redistribution system I can only assume he meant “barely subsisting.”

I also like the complaint about how the “actual working man” pays for all these evil welfare moms while “being denied traditional provider respect and benefits.”

In misogynist-speak, that’s code for “how come we have to pay money for welfare when we don’t even get to fuck the welfare moms and boss them around?”

Red Pill dudes: please continue your marriage strike. Also consider: A vow of silence? Moving to a desert island? Living the rest of your life in a hole in the ground?

(Thanks to Gemma_Lou in the Blue Pill subreddit for pointing me to this wondrous Red Pill discussion.)

Men’s Rights Redditor: It’s not sexism that holds back women in STEM. It’s just that women are inferior.

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the lovely IHaveALargePenis explains that it’s not sexism holding back women in science and technology. No way! It’s just that women are inferior at science and technology. No sexism involved at all!

IHaveALargePenis 10 points 1 day ago (15|6)      The fact that women are so underrepresented in many STEM fields indicates that there must be some educational, societal, or institutional force pushing them away.  There is. It has a lot to do with women though. First with STEM, the hierarchy in the workforce always favors the smartest/most knowledgeable people. This means you can't flirt your way to the top or simply just "make it" eventually.  The work is somewhat quantifiable, so people can be tracked in how much work they do. You can't sit around and chat or take extra time off and fuck around. People will find out.  Many fields have horrible deadlines and any person not finishing their work on time can slow an entire project and become the weakest link. When you're holding up something that thousands of people are working on, relying on, etc and they're all waiting for you, not fun. Additionally you'll be pushed to do overtime, heavy overtime. When it comes to software development for example, in the last few months leading up to release, you'll be better off bringing extra clothes and a sleeping bag to work. This can apply to virtually all other fields in different ways for different reasons.  Women and men study differently. Women are great and memorizing but don't focus on understanding. This is why there's a relatively equal amount of girls/boys in STEM the first year, but then it significantly favors the boys as time passes. The problem is that women do great on tests, but don't bother to understand that knowledge, which is fairly important later on and everything you learn will be used in the future (as you move from first to 4th year). This is why girls have been doing better (or so it seems) ever since standardized tests.  There are no problems in STEM for women. There's nobody out there trying to hold them back. My university cracked down hard on this shit, even had security cameras installed to ensure there was no harassment or sexism going on. And you know what changed? Nothing.      The key is attacking gender issues from both sides, rather than the BS of encouraging women to enter and just ignoring all problems men have.  What exactly is there to attack? There's 50% more women in college than men. Women have infiltrated every major out there outside of STEM. Do you know how HUGE STEM is? Let me tell you how huge it is. Go look up any non STEM focused University out there (MIT or Standord) and check the faculty for STEM or other majors. You'll find out quickly that the entire STEM curriculum has fewer faculty than a single major like business.

Maybe IHaveALArgePenis should have taken an English class or two and learned what “irony” is.

Also, uh, how exactly are security cameras supposed to guard against sexism? This is a new one to me.

Thanks to Wrecksomething on the AgainstMensRights subreddit for pointing me to this mantastic quote.

 

No, YOU’RE The [Anti-Woman Slur]: A Manosphere Debate [NOW WITH TRANSCRIPT]

Today, some comedy, in the form of an 8 minute excerpt from what was apparently an hour-and-a-half “debate” between John “The Other” Hembling, noted Men’s Human Rights Activist from A Voice For Human Men, and some dude from Manhood Academy, a Men’s Rights site that’s actually a teensy bit more obnoxious than AVFM, although in a much less interesting way.

It’s NSFW, unless you’re wearing headphones, due to salty language and near-constant anti-woman slurs.

In case you haven’t listened to enough of  JohnTheOther to instantly recognize his irritating voice, he is — uncharacteristically — the quieter of the two, er, debaters here, and a little bit on the defensive.

Thanks to the intrepid work of new commenter Thal, we now have a transcript!

Read the rest of this entry

Pickup guru and raving racist Heartiste warns his followers of the impending Whitepocalypse

So just move into your underground bunkers already, angry white dudes.

So just move into your underground bunkers already, angry white dudes.

Over on Chateau Heartiste, the Heartiste formerly known as Roissy is in full-blown white supremacist mode today.

Apparently what got dear old Mr. H in an especially racist mood was a comment from a reader called Libertardian who suggested that, while in the good old days, civilization used to rein in the alleged worst tendencies of women, “in the West we had to abolish civilization because it was hurting people’s feelings.”

This little comment was enough to send Mr. H into a full-blown keyboard-smash Whitepocalypse rage.

Read the rest of this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,503 other followers

%d bloggers like this: