Category Archives: MGTOW
“Twats wear heels in order to elongate the appearance of their legs,” and other insights from MGTOWforums.com
Woman oppressing man with evil lying makeup
Some things I learned on MGTOWforums today. (Each headline links to the comment’s source.)
women gain a sexual satisfaction from lying. the bigger the lie, the greater the thrill.
Don’t fall for that old “lipstick” ploy. Her lips aren’t really that red!
EVERYTHING relating to female appearance in based on deception. Women put blush on their face and lipstick to suggest that they’re sexually aroused thereby causing men to get stupid and malleable in their presence. Twats wear heels in order to not only appear taller but also to elongate the appearance of their legs. They wear spanx to conceal their flab. They shoot botox into their face to appear to have that last vestige of fertility. They put hideous silicone filled sacs onto their chest to create a more alluring figure (although as any man who’s actually ever felt these knows it’s like playing with a skin wrapped basketball). They paint their nails to create the illusion they’re always clean. They shave and wax and pluck to show off as much bare skin as possible – to conceal the fact that they’re hairy beasts.
DO NOT fall for it when marriage legislation is once more made rational. It’s simply a trap to lure men back in, and when there’s enough suckers in the Ponzi scheme, those at the top will abscond with it all once more.
Hunting the mammoth prepared men to be CEOs, but women?
most women simply can’t hack it at that high of a professional level. Their minds and bodies are simply not designed for that. Not surprising given how nature has clearly designed them to bear and raise children.
Vaginas are doin’ it for themselves:
They are organized into cunt coalitions. we are fucked.
Too many women spoil the everything:
It has already been said in several posts in this thread but it bears repeating since it is the simple quintessential truth: Women. Ruin. Everything.
Ha, ha, you’ll get yours, pretty lady who some day won’t be so pretty:
Mother nature is the ultimate bitch to all aging females. Most women don’t have her slim body type(easier to trap a man), so what’s a girl to do? What’s the ‘moral of the story’ for the average LADY with ‘high’ expectations but not much to really give a man in return??? Easy, find a clueless blue pill sucker(who has never been to this site)….er husband material as soon as possible before your looks really start to take a dive. You ladies can call me an asshole all you want but I’m only speaking the truth.
Let’s spread some racism on this misogyny sandwich:
How about you get your expanding ass off your chair and go visit the ghettos where there are no men. Hey, at least they are ‘matriarchies’ where women are ‘free,’ boys grow up to be feral animals, and emotions run high without logic!
Also, I learned that the new go-to derogatory term for women is “ankle.” Why? Because, according to the Online Slang Dictionary, “[a]n ankle is two feet beneath a cunt.” Here’s an example of the term in use, courtesy of MGTOWforums:
Dealing with an ankle that don’t understand the phrase “Not my child not my problem, ‘ya ankle bitch”?
It pays to increase your word power!
EDITED TO ADD: If you have trouble visualizing the “twats wearing shoes” mentioned in the second quote, regular Man Boobz commenter Polliwog has helpfully provided this [NSFW] picture.
BREAKING: Paul Elam of A Voice for Men is pig-biting mad at a dude who doesn’t hate Katherine Heigl
Over on A Voice for Men, noted human rights advocate Paul Elam has responded to criticism from a fellow antifeminist internet warrior in his typically logical, understated manner. Some highlights:
He’s whining, about jack shit, on behalf of a misandric cunt. …
Matt Forney just jerked off all over his bed sheets. And now it appears he is standing there like a virtual ‘tard, grinning about it and drooling.
At issue? Mr. Forney wrote a post some months back critical of the faux “offenders registry” called Register-Her, a pet project of A Voice for Men’s JohnTheOther in which female “bigots” – that is, feminists – are “registered” as “offenders” alongside female criminals. (Forney’s post originally appeared on the thankfully now-defunct blog In Mala Fide, but Elam only discovered it after Forney posted it on his own blog.)
In particular, Forney disagreed with Elam’s decision to “register” actress Katherine Heigl as a “bigot” after she made a Funny or Die PSA about spaying dogs and cats. The problem, for Elam and crew? That in the video she pretended to be a crazed testicle-hater obsessed with cutting off all balls, including those of human males. The AVFM crowd whipped themselves into a frenzy over this one, with Elam’s Number One Stooge JohnTheOther writing, in all seriousness:
Katherine Heigl’s supposedly humorous claim; that her advocacy of neutering pets is an outlet for her desire to chop human male’s balls off shouldn’t be taken out of context. The context being that she’s a creature of hollywood who lives in california – the same state which earlier this year saw Katherine Becker cut her husband’s penis off for the “offense” of wanting a divorce. …
We know it’s a joke. That’s the point. It’s both shocking, and plausibly deniable. It also wouldn’t be funny to most people if there was not an element of truth in it. Heigl’s “joke” included the word “yet”. This is an obvious nod to her awareness of increasing cultural acceptance of male-targeted violence and mutilation.
No, I have no fucking clue what on earth he means by that bit about the word “yet.” He goes on:
Male targeting violence persists and escalates because in the unconscious reptile corner of men’s minds, they think nodding along with whatever vile , violent, murderous shit the nearest vacuous barbie utters in her you-go-girl bubble of social enablement might get him approved for access to the magic vagina.
Like Elam, JohnTheOther apparently writes all his posts for AVFM with steam literally coming out of his ears.
Here’s the video in question. (Sorry, it won’t embed.) As you can see, the real butt of the joke is Heigl herself, and more generally narcissistic celebs who glom onto fashionable causes for all the wrong reasons. It’s not really a castration joke; it’s an actress making fun of her own reputation for narcissism. (And the video is also a serious attempt to raise awareness about the need to spay and neuter pets.)
Katherine Heigl, attempting to lull a dog into a false sense of security so she can remove its balls.
Forney, in the blog post that roused Elam’s incredibly easy-to-rouse fury, suggested that AVFM’s claimed outrage about Heigl’s video was both silly and a bit unconvincing:
Were you honestly offended? Did that video get you mad? It didn’t get me mad. I thought it was stupid and unfunny, but aside from that, I don’t care about it. After watching it, I just shrugged my shoulders and closed the tab.
Forney went on to suggest that any MRAs who were offended by the video were, well, basically a bunch of “phony pussies,” a virtual mirror-image of the Politically Correct:
In trying to gin up indignation over Heigl’s ball-cutting comments, Register-Her.com and the MRM are seeking to perpetuate our politically correct regime, not burn it to the ground and piss on its ashes. …
The men’s rights movement wants men to keep picking at their scabs, to wallow in self-pity for all eternity. That’s not a satisfying goal for me, or countless other men who want to rise out of the mud. Until MRAs address this issue, their movement will be stuck in neutral, regardless of their occasional victories.
Yes, that’s right. A dude posting on In Mala Fide — which was known for its blatant misogyny and its proud racism, among other terrible things — is the closest we’ve got to a “voice of reason” in this particular debate.
Elam, an MRA scab-picker extraordinaire, lashed out in barely coherent rage to Forney’s charges:
[T]his kind of chicken-shit nit picking by a supposed sympathizer is far more pathetic that the Heigl video could have ever hoped to be.
Why would the Heigl video hope to be pathetic? Also, how exactly can a video hope?
I write people like you off all the time. But then you have the gumption to parrot a bunch of keyboard courage about crushing your enemies? And you make fun of guys who get fucked over by the system? What a laugh. I don’t mean what you said, but you, personally.
You may be every bit as brave as your words. I doubt it, but I don’t know. What I do know is that your article is a misandric piece of shit. Based on your rhetoric, though, I would lay dollars to doughnuts you have never crushed so much as a Dixie Cup at a water cooler. Your kind of man never does.
Says the man whose entire life is devoted to bashing out angry internet screeds, and whose only known attempt at real-world organizing collapsed before it really even began.
You just shit on those out there taking the hits and doing the work, likely because you lack the conviction to stick your neck out for anything really important to anyone but yourself.
Personally, I would not talk to MRA’s about picking scabs until you quit being one.
I’m not sure if Elam is calling Forney a “scab” as a sort of random insult referring back to his mention of scabs, or if Elam thinks that Forney is a “scab” violating some imaginary MRA “sex strike” – or “cock blockade” – by not hating on the ladies every second of every day. I’m guessing it’s the latter, because Elam really is that delusional.
–
EDITED TO ADD: Matt Forney has responded to Elam’s little tantrum here. At the end, he says this:
And since I can’t end this post without mentioning that David Futrelle has (reluctantly) defended me on this issue, mainly because Elam’s neckbeard fans are going to brandish Futrelle’s article as proof that I’m an evil crypto-feminist racist mangina, let me just say that Futrelle is an even more pathetic bitch than Elam, and I don’t want his support.
Don’t worry, lil dude. I don’t actually support you. I simply agree with you on a couple of points: that Elam is a total drama king, and that anyone who believes (or purports to believe) that Heigl’s video is something to get ENRAGED about is a twit.
The Punch and Punch Show: Men’s Rights Redditors fantasize about how much easier life would be if they were gay
God made Punch and Judy, Not Punch and Punch
So the other day some of the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit were having a strange little conversation. One Men’s Rights Redditor posted a clip from Bill Burr, in which the comedian complained that when his girlfriend hit him, he couldn’t hit her back without getting himself into a lot of trouble.
Instead of pointing his fellows to, I don’t know, resources for male victims of domestic abuse, the OP joked “This Is Why I Wish That I Was Sexually Attracted to Men.”
Yep, that’s right. He wants to date other men so, if the need arises, he can punch them.
Naturally, this being Reddit, other straight dudes jumped in with their own fantasies about how much easier life would be if they were gay. After all, jacKofKats pointed out, dating a guy would mean you could play video games with the very same person you have sex with, something obviously impossible in heterosexual relationships.
Oneiorosgrip agreed with the original poster that life would be much simpler and easier if guys could hit their mates:
Dolanduckeroo expressed envy towards his gay friends, who apparently lead lives of ease and endless zipless fucks, all the while being appreciated for who they truly are.
A few actual gay men wandered into the discussion, hoping to inject a bit of realism, pointing out (among other things) that gay men actually face something called “homophobia” — look it up if you haven’t heard of it — pretty much every day of their lives. Naturally, they got fewer upvotes than the “wish I were gay” fantasizers.
Men Going Their Own Way: Best and Worst Case Scenarios
MGTOW: Best-Case Scenario
Worst-Case Scenario:
Even-Worster-Case Scenario:
Also, it goes without saying, the entirety of MGTOWforums.com, NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, Happy Bachelors Forum.
Note: If you actually watch any of these worster-case videos, please go back to the best-case scenario video to remind yourself that there is hope for our world.
EDITED TO ADD: The fellows at MGTOWforums.com have responded to my post yesterday about them. Enjoy.
It’s a Tsunami! It’s a Coiled Spring! It’s a Mixed Metaphor MGTOW MANPOCALYPSE!
The Apocalypse: Zombies Going Their Own Way
It’s time for another mixed-metaphor MANPOCALYPSE over on MGTOWforums.com! This time the Nostradamus Going His Own Way is a fellow calling himself Swetnam. Here are his dire predictions:
I like to talk of men’s rights as a tsunami crashing against the shore..but men’s rights are just the cresting wave. Just behind that are a vast array of other things generated by the cultural earthquake that hit the western world in the late half of the twentieth century.
Huh. So everything since the 1950s sucks? No television, no internet, no video games, no microwaved Hot Pockets? Do you really want to go back to listening to Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters? (Actually, the Andrews Sisters sort of kick ass, but never mind.)
If I may coin another metaphor…the anglosphere is like a coiled spring. That spring is coiling ever more tightly, and someday it’s going to break. When it does, all hell will break loose. It wont be pretty. In fact, I think there is going to be terrible violence ahead, as decades of suppressed anger and frustration finally break free. Blood and Iron. And some of us now will be around to see it. What will emerge from the other side? I honestly cannot say I know.
Ah, he’s dancing that old dance, the dance called “you ladies better shut up or angry dudes will beat the shit out of you. Oh, but not me. I’m not threatening anything. I’m just predicting. I don’t not-so-secretly relish these violent fantasies.”
Speaking of dancing:
I have a good somali friend. He used to say to me that his worst nightmare would be the day that white men learn to dance. I asked him why? He said that if white men are learning to dance, that means they cannot find other ways to attract women or show status. if that happens, then white males will become the new gangsters, but vastly more numerous, organised and with an institutional memory of happier times. They will look at the people who now stand above them, and see them in alliance with the people who once stood below them but are now equal to them, and hate them both with a rage that can scarcely be imagined. And they will act on that rage.
I can’t say i disagree.
Of course you can’t.
Elsewhere in the same thread, Womanhater offered some equally dire “predictions,” with a side order of blatant racism.
In my opinion, the veneer of mystery and respect that once adorned womanhood is gone forever. Some men will engage with them long enough to fuck them. Some men may find a tolerable one or two of them to procreate with – on his terms when the laws are changes (and they will eventually be changed). Many men will simply not see any point to it.
But I am speaking of the generations of men who have yet to date or perhaps to even have been born.
Those of us in the 15-45 age bracket who’ve had to grow up and endure the bullshit of the past 2 or 3 generations of twats will either ghost or pump n’ dump. Only those men born after the gender war is concluded will even consider something more.
The women aged 35 and up are irrelevant since they’re past the biological point of no return anyway.
Well, hey, at least Womanhater grants women ten more years of non-irrelevance than does W.F. Price on The Spearhead.
Those 35 and under will likely be the ones who will bear the brunt of what I’ll call the Male Awakening. They’re most likely to end up single and childless in mind numbing drone jobs.
Those women under the age of 20 who actually pay attention and see how this lifestyle will leave them a few decades down the line however, they’re the ones who have a chance at some form of successful relationship and children, but a LOT will have to change between now and then.
Translation: You ladies better date me OR ELSE!
Most likely, truth be told, the West and its founding race will simply die off due to the advanced stage of the feminist cancer. Who and what replaces it I guess will be unveiled as the decades pass.
“Its founding RACE!?” Did we just take a detour into Klanland?
Oh, but there’s more. Legacy – possibly a Brony? — offers this awkward metaphor:
Like air, society doesn’t notice male slavery until the workhorses start missing from the stables.
TheManWithThePlan offers this sort-of plan:
If by swing the pendulum violently back you mean men having their own gender roles revolution (which could very likely fuck women over big time without taking away any of their rights), then yes that’s probably going to happen. I don’t see anyone “forgiving” people for the BS that’s been happening. Hell half of men out there have been fucked over by their wives, I doubt they’ll just say “it’s okay women 100+ years ago had it bad as well, so I deserved it” and move on.
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and these guys can’t wait.
EDITED TO ADD: The fellows at MGTOWforums have offered a rebuttal, of sorts, to this post.
Immodesty Daze: The Thinking Housewife thinks “immodest dress” is a form of violence towards men
From Liberty University’s dress code for women (and, evidently, mannikins). Click on the picture for more details.
We’ve heard before from numerous MRAs and MGTOWers and other backwards dudes that women who dress like “sluts” deserve to be raped. You may remember my post about the patriarchy-loving MGTOWer who calls himself Drealm, who thinks that immodest dress is an assault on men, because it excites them without giving them the opportunity to, well, rape the women who so cruelly give them boners. In Drealm’s mind, almost any form of clothing on a woman that in any way shows her shape is suspect – as does uncovered female hair.
Obviously, I think all of us will agree that certain kinds of clothes are inappropriate in certain settings – no one of any gender should be teaching kindergarteners wearing nothing but a thong – but invariably those who complain the most about women wearing “immodest clothing” have a much broader notion of “immodesty,” which includes things that most of us just consider “clothing” – shorts, short skirts, any top that shows even the tiniest amount of cleavage. (Click on the picture above to see more about Liberty University’s dress code for women.)
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not confined to religious fundamentalists and weird dudes lurking in the dark corners of internet. Recently, Laura Wood, the self-identified Thinking Housewife behind the blog of the same name, has declared that “immodest dress is a form of aggression.” The heart of her post is a reposted comment from a reader posting under the name of Arete, arguing that immodest dress is a form of violence towards men similar to and in some ways even worse than actual violence from men towards women.
Immodest dress is analogous to male violence. Men who flaunt their muscles and crush beer can’s with their fists (not that I have seen much of that lately) are telling the weaker world around them, “I could crush you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.We’ll see. Depends how much you annoy me.” Women are stronger than men in this one way – the sight of their women’s bodies is overpowering to men. Immodest women are saying to men, “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.”
Both behaviors are flaunting the power that one has over another weaker being and both behaviors used to be considered uncouth.
But as the myth goes: only men have ever been violent towards women not the other way around (women have no power over men whatsoever – don’t you know!) and so now that we have entered the great age of woman – when she will get her revenge for all the injustices against her by men through the ages – both real and imagined — she has decided to take her “pound of flesh.” But instead of a swift cut right above the heart like Shylock she wants to get men where it really hurts– tease and taunt with the sight of her own body, forever reminding men of their weakness before female power.
So apparently a woman giving a man a boner by wearing an outfit less modest than a nun’s is worse than a dude literally punching a woman.
Laura’s comments make clear she agrees with this basic assessment, though (in a moment of generosity towards her own gender) she acknowledges that some women may not be conscious of the enormous power they wield over men every time they put on a tank top.
In the comments, Fitgerald expresses his enthusiasm for Arete’s thesis:
This is sooooo true… as a male I can ABSOLUTELY attest to this. …
As a celibate male I must actively work at constraining sexual response to females flaunting their wares.. “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.”.. yeah right. If I was an alpha male – strong, thin, tall, tanned.. definitely — I’ll also have to be honest and say it does piss me off, but suppressing ordinary human responses is part and parcel of not only being a civilized human being, but a Christian which constrains me further. …
Women are the sexual power brokers. They can and do decide with whom they pair and mate with. Men are essentially powerless save those few well endowed “alphas” (rich, physical specimens, powerful) who are like kryptonite to many women. Any male that is half-aware knows the look: “Yes.. look at me.. I’m sexually desirable. See my power. Feel my power..” Oh, then the look away: “But you aren’t worthy of me.” Happens EVERY day.
Yep, another misogynist furious that women get to choose who they have sex with. Dude, SO DO GUYS. If two people are having sex, both of them have to agree to it. Otherwise it is rape. Everyone is their own “sexual gatekeeper.”
Robin offers a mild dissent, noting that some of the “immodest” dressers may be victims of sexual abuse. But they still deserve “righteous judgement,” at least when this judgement is ostensibly tempered by “love.”
I was once one of these women: a female friend was loving enough to take me bra shopping as a thirty-three year old adult and teach me about covering my body so as not to invite further abuse. Other people waited patiently and said nothing; this was a disservice to me as I could have transformed more quickly if people would have had the confidence to open their mouths and teach me the truth. Others condemned me without knowing my story, and I withdrew in offense.
While it is true that immodest dress is a form of aggression in feminist women, I want to bring to light that sexual abuse of young girls has become so prevalent that many women we see walking around today dressed as prostitutes may still be ensnared and imprisoned by their victim mentality brought about through no fault of their own due to horrendous acts of abuse against their bodies as children. I believe it is important that these women do not experience condemnation, but rather righteous judgment in love so as to bring about repentance from this behavior so that they may be healed and be examples to others.
Laura feels the need to reiterate that some women and girls really have no excuse for being slutty sluts:
I know teenage girls who are sweet and innocent, and have never been abused, who dress like tarts. It’s everywhere. They see it and they imitate it.
I’m interested how Laura knows that these girls haven’t been abused. Does she know the intimate details of all of these girls’ lives? Or does she just have powerful Abuse-dar?
Mary, meanwhile, argues that the real villains here aren’t women – but evil feministy feminists.
I have too many female friends who have had their hopes dashed/hearts broken/been humiliated at the hands of average-looking, low status guys to buy that women have all the power. These average young women were doing what they thought they were supposed to do, what they were told everyone was doing – having premarital sex, that is. They were told by feminists that it was as fun for them as it was for the men if only they would get into the spirit of it, that it would lead to ultimate happiness, that it would benefit them. Many girls of average attractiveness are giving themselves away, sometimes over and over again, to unworthy men and to their own heartbreak, while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background. I don’t call that sexual power. That men are more vulnerable to visual cues doesn’t make all men innocent, just as some women’s extreme immodesty doesn’t make all women sexual power brokers. …
That’s what’s so diabolical about today’s extreme immodesty: many of these women are just trying to be relevant.
Apparently the readers of The Thinking Housewife, like many MRAs and other manosphere dudes, seem to have forgotten almost entirely the old stereotype of the hairy-legged, man-hating feminist; these days, they seem to assume that any woman who wears skirts above the knee and doesn’t hate sex is a feminist.
Setting aside the ridiculousness of the “sexy clothes are an assault on men” argument generally, I can’t help but wonder how many men out there – beyond Drealm and Franklin and assorted religious fundamentalists – actually, honestly feel “assaulted” when they see a woman they find attractive wearing something that shows off her figure. Somehow I suspect that most straight guys who are interested in sex – including most of those railing endlessly about evil sluts online — actually find this sort of thing … pleasant. Most of those guys complaining about immodest dress would, I think, feel rather disappointed if women actually decided to cover up – and not just because it would rob them of yet another excuse to demonize the ladies.
A Voice for Men: Say no to homophobia! And then watch this hilarious video bashing lesbians!
Well, this is … interesting. So JohnTheOther has plopped out another rambling diatribe about evil feminists. This time he accuses them not only of “attacking male sexuality” but also (if I’m reading him correctly) of being a bunch of evil homophobes jealous that some men don’t want to have sex with women. You read this and tell me what you think he’s implying here:
Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.
JTO would love to compare these alleged gay-man-hating feminists to the proudly gay-male-affirming Men’s Rights Movement. There’s just one problem: As even JTO has to force himself to admit, there are more than a few homophobic dudes lurking around in the Men’s Rights movement. As JTO acknowledges:
[T]here is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or I suppose, transsexual.
JTO doesn’t like this, and says so:
[There] are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.
At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?
So: JohnTheOther has explicitly decided to speak up in favor of “the gay agenda.” (Yes, that’s the phrase he used.) And he’s even included lesbians in the deal – something allegedly pro-gay MRAs often have trouble doing – even though he sort of suggests at the end that he’s only willing to accept lesbians who are also MRAs.
But, hey, baby steps, right?
Well, John, if you really want to toss the homophobes out of the Men’s Rights movement, you’re going to have to start with A Voice for Men itself.
If you go to read JTO’s whole post over on AVFM, you’ll see a couple of “featured videos” in the sidebar from longtime AVFM friend and contributor Bernard Chapin. One of them bears the intriguing title “Feminist Professor Gloats Over Lesbian Chic.” The description, presumably written by AVFM head honcho Paul Elam, reads:
Bernard’s on a roll here with this one. And you will be rolling to [sic] as he delivers another thorough fisking, Inferno style.
Watch the video, here or there, or as much of it as you can stand. As you’ll see, it’s basically eight minutes of gratingly “humorous” lesbian bashing from good old Bern – whose preferred term for “lesbian,” incidentally, is “lesbobo.” (Evidently adding an extra “bo” to the old slur “lesbo” is hilarious.)
Chapin has produced more than 1200 videos; this is one of the two that AVFM has chosen to feature.
You want to stand up to homophobia, John? Take down that video. Apologize for hosting it. Apologize for featuring it. Demand that Chapin apologize for it — or kick him to the curb.
Meanwhile, AVFM is helping the guy behind the website Artistry Against Misandry publicize and raise money for an upcoming event; Elam himself says he’s already sent along a hundred dollars. Here are some examples of the sort of “artistry” that’s featured on the site:
This second graphic is not only homophobic but confused: Chaz Bono is a trans man, not a lesbian.
Speaking of transphobia, AAM also hosts several videos by “Creativebrother,” one of which is this not-hot transphobic mess:
John, I suggest you ask your boss at AVFM to get his money back from Artistry Against Misandry. Because, here’s the thing: if you actively support hate like this, people might just get the impression you’re a hate site.
EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, Elam proudly announces his own support of the “gay agenda” as well. Well, with 0.1% of it.
I don’t like most gay activists very much, and I oppose 99.9% of what passes as gay activism, but I don’t think it is very smart to forget that part of the reason they were led astray is because most “normal” men never gave them the dignity of being regarded as a man.
Forget gay marriage, forget bullying, forget AIDS: apparently the only real issue for gay men is evil feminist ladies calling them “fags” for not wanting to have sex with them.
Elam also has a most interesting explanation of homophobia, at least against gay men:
Gay men are bashed, when all is said and done, because they are not of utilitarian value to women, and because they are perceived as not having enough strength to be of utilitarian value to the elites.
Yeah, that’s probably it.
What about homophobia against lesbians? That’s easy: “lesbobos” are just naturally ugly and hilarious.
Trogdor Goes to the Store [TW: Misogyny, Ageism, Racism, Chicken Taquito Rolls, End of Civilization.]
A drugstore, as yet untainted by whores.
It’s been a long time since we’ve checked in with Trogdoor005, a young Man Going His Own Way with a vivid imagination, a love of bold text, and a deep hatred of all things female. In a recent post on MGTOWforums.com, the Trogger reports on a visit to a local drugstore, where he witnessed a loud argument between two women cunts. The argument is actually the least interesting part of his story; it’s what happens afterwards that really got my attention, suggesting that Trog spends most of his days in a constant state of boiling rage not only towards women but towards pretty much anyone and everyone who crosses his path.
In search of the chips aisle, Trog ended up over by the pharmacy.
As I pass by the pharmacy, I notice that most of the people standing/sitting there are older people … what looks like a handful of 60-75 year olds, baby-boomers getting their last few drop$ of blood drained by big-pharma before they croak. Perhaps a comeuppance of sorts, these are, afterall … the SAME people who embraced and got behind liberalism/feminism back in the day … effectively laying the “foundation” for the Matriarchy that we currently live under, among OTHER things … .
Damn those old people and their MATRIARCHY. Trogdor continues his wandering, and we discover that he hates young girls as well:
As I continued to make my way thru the store, I was particularly disturbed by a lot of the younger girls and their dress/ demeanor. Some of these girls didn’t look a day over 13 and here they were, already wearing those short-shorts that go all the way up to the ass, kind of like the ones described here. They of course, had their little “smartphones” in one hand whilst txting away feverishly … and some of their faces were already showing signs of a developing “thousand cock stare”, which should come as no surprise considering the rotten feminized culture they were raised in, having absorbed countless hours of Jersey shore and MTV poison.
What the fuck is a “thousand cock stare?”
I overheard a couple of brief comments as I walked by some of them, totally superficial bullshit … you can tell right away these girls are (unfortunately) gonna grow up to be more of the same generic, hypergamous, narcissistic American sluts that we are all-too-familiar with, TOTALLY worthless women just like their mothers in all like-li-hood were as well. You can tell just from the tone of their voices and their snobby remarks that these girls have no substance, no redeemable qualities … they emphasize and accentuate their “curves” because … that’s all they are! That’s all they have to “offer” … sex … their slimy hole. The future does not bode well for America with such a bad crop of “native” women having >51% of the vote and being “in charge” of reproduction …
Dude, if all you want is a slimy hole, buy a fucking fleshlight – there’s no shame in it — and shut the fuck up about actual women and girls.
Eventually, after witnessing another skirmish in what has become an ongoing battle between the two women cunts he overheard earlier, Troggy leaves the store. While he’s walking through the parking lot, a car drives by:
[A] busted-up piece of shit full of “gangsta” dressed caucasian younggins passes a couple of feet in front of me. The windows are open and it absolutely REEKS of weed … no doubt another batch of young men raised by single moms who, lacking the stabilizing influence of a father, turn to such things as a way to cope with their lack of direction in life.
I like how quickly he moves past hating on these guys to hate on their hypothetical single mothers.
Of course I also see a few single moms, thug-lets in tow, making their way to the store as I walk back to my car.
Evidently Trogdor has quite a developed single-mom-dar; I myself am unable to tell if a woman with kids is single or married or even the mother of the children in question. I’m also unable to tell by looking at young children whether or not they will end up as “thugs.”
On a last-minute urge, I decided to head over to the nearby 7-Eleven to get some of those chicken taquito rolls. On my way there, I pass a high-school baseball field, which was in the middle of a game. Something that stood out to me was the high percentage of Hispanic youth at this baseball game, virtually all the players on both teams as well as the parents present were Hispanic … a sign of the times and changing demographics.
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but these “changing demographics” are also responsible for the ready availability of chicken taquito rolls at your local convenience store.
Trogdor ends with some broader reflections on the end of civilization as we (or at least he) knows it:
Gents, when I step back and look at the “society” that we live in, I can’t help but think … “what a fucking mess” … and I’m sure I’m not alone. Anyone else feel the same way?
The whole thing is so warped, so backwards, so corrupted …
It seems that one of the key differences between a declining society such as ours and lesser “advanced”, but longer-lasting civilizations which have actually stood the test of time is that places like China, the Middle East, and India never gave power to/listened to idiots, hence their longevity and stability relative to a place like the United States … which is starting to come un-hinged/fall apart after only a measly 50 years (LOL!1!) of feminist assault.
Dude, the only thing unhinged here is you.
What must it be like to live inside the brain of an MGTOWer like Trogdoor, where everything from old people waiting for their prescriptions to women walking through parking lots with their kids somehow becomes evidence that civilization is in its final days?
Oh, the questions they ask!
Here are a couple of, well, let’s just call them very intriguing questions asked of me by a Men’s Rights Redditor. Since I can’t respond to them on the Men’s Rights subreddit — I’m banned – I thought I’d respond here:
Mr. Levelate, allow me to answer your serious questions with some equally serious questions of my own:
I’ve wondered for a long time how people like you react to the men’s rights mantra of ‘all women are wombats’, when you see a woman who isn’t a wombat, how do you explain this?
Also, many MRAs advocate turning all squirrels into bologna, what makes you think squirrel bologna would taste better than regular bologna, and what would the world do with all those extra uneaten nuts, were it ever to come to that?
Here’s the thing, Mr. Levelate: those things you think feminists believe? FEMINISTS DON’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.
That “all men are rapists” quote from Marilyn French you guys like to pass around? That was from a character in a novel.
The number of radical feminists who seriously want to get rid of men, or a significant number of them, you could probably count on your fingers. I’m not sure how many MRAs want to make squirrel bologna, but the numbers are probably similar. And, fyi, there are actually more than a few MRAs who fantasize about breeding certain types of women out of existence, like this dude on The Spearhead, and a small army of MRAs and MGTOWers who pine for the imaginary future where babies are gestated in artificial wombs and women are all replaced by sexy sexbots.
Listening to MRAs talking about feminism is a bit like sitting in on a book club in which no one has read the book.
MGTOWers agree: “Most American women have fallen apart or completely without value by 40.”
Future MGTOWer?
For a bunch of guys who love to pretend they don’t care about women, Men Going Their Own Way certainly do love to talk about them. So much so that I’m thinking they may need to update their little acronym to MGTOAW: Men Going Tediously On About Women.
Over on MGTOWforums.com, for example, the regulars are having their tenth billion discussion about how women totally get all ugly as they get older, while men get handsomer and more awesome. Gannicus, himself 40 years YOUNG, starts things off with this:
To me, one of the most obvious things a man should notice is that in the US, most American women have fallen apart or completely without value by 40.
Is it just me, or does that “in the US, most American women” bit remind you of Miss South Carolina and her “US Americans?”
I know some will say it happens earlier, but lets just stick with a round number. And lets forget about virtue, loyalty, honesty, etc for a moment, which we know is not exactly known to be a top export of American women. Just being completely shallow and superficial, based on appearance alone, I find it disgusting and repulsive to view virtually any woman at 40. I just turned 40 and I am proud of my appearance. I expect to continue taking care of my body,etc.
However, I feel that based on looks. weight, hair, facial quality, etc. that 1% or less of Amercian women at 40 are, shall we say,bangable or even tolerable if you had to stare at for 10 minutes. And lets not even mention that wretched term from a bygone era called feminity. That is almost unheard of in the US in any age group. …
Which then leads me to wonder what the hell do young guys think their female partners will look like at 40? I mean, do they think THEIR girl will be different?
I’m just throwing this out as a hypothesis here, but I’m guessing that “most young guys” aren’t angry, bitter, woman-hating assholes who think all women over 40 are hideous hagbeasts.
Back on MGTOWforums.com, Downandout repectfully disagrees with Gannicus thesis. He believes that many women get ugly long before they hit 40.
It’s not so much that American women hit 40, it’s that 40 hits American women. Hard.
Jokes aside, I don’t think you can peg it to one number. A lot of skanks are starting to look awful in their 20s. Take Lindsay Lohan for example. Girls are starting to drink, do drugs, eat shit, and party hard at a very early age. Their small bodies can’t take that kind of abuse, and it’s showing. On top of that, they wear pounds of makeup to cover up the abuse, which only further contributes to the problem.
Deathslayer quotes the expert testimony of a colleague who calls himself RealDealBrotha:
Look at how quickly these chick fall COMPLETELY off, yet they STILL think they can do everything a man does for as long as a man does it…. NOT! …
Look at all the females who whore away their prime years, or go into career mode, or just choose men for silly reasons and NOT try to better themselves enough to be WORTHY of a good man (who is NOT a simp) wifing them up. They have so little regard for men that they think that they can have good men at their beck and call after they’re aged out fat chicks dragging around kids who they had with other men. It REALLY does NOT work that way, yet they don’t ever figure out the obvious until it’s too late.
We see and hear this story all the time. It comes up so often, that it’s really funny to me now. It warms my heart to know how badly these arrogant, misandric, selfish, worthless women are doomed to crash, burn and live the remainder of their wretched lives as bitter old maids whose only value will be as jumpoffs for bottom-feeder men who lack the guts and the nuts to raise the bar.
It’s always nice to see MGTOWers complain about misandry in comments overflowing with angry misogyny.
Toadman, for his part, seems happy to ignore women altogether, celebrating his independence by sitting at home eating canned food that’s way past its expiration date.
I have an unopened can of pork-and-beans in the cupboard that will taste the same as when canned. It’s lasted longer than the 10-15 years of female fertile desireability. Talk about “shelf-life”.
As they say, living well is the best revenge.
