Category Archives: MGTOW
Spearheader “warns” women to stop being so feministy, or else!
More mustache-twirling from the MRA crowd.
Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:
The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.
I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.
Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.
So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.
1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women
or
2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it
What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.
In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.
Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only 8 downvotes.
Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:
The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female. This is not surprising. Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism. I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade. As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me. They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …
By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted. There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism. There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot. There will be more men who are completely fed up with women. Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.
“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.
Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.
Fox News Doctor Dude: The Hunger Games Will Make Teen Girls Violent, Unfeminine
Do NOT catch this fever. Symptoms include: Being a girl. Shooting people with arrows. Catching on fire.
Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
Empirical & Prima Facie Evidence That MarkyMark the MGTOWer is a Nitwit
Christina Ricci was cursed to be in this thoroughly mediocre werewolf movie.
Empirical means “derived from or guided by experience or experiment.” Prima Facie, in legal terms, means something that is self-evident.
So I was intrigued when Man Boobz Man Boob All-Star MarkyMark recently promised, in the headline to one of his blog posts, to present “Empirical & Prima Facie Evidence Women Should NOT Vote.” I’m game, MarkyMark. Where exactly do you find the empirical evidence for this evidently self-evident proposition?
In a vast collection of empirical observations called “The Bible.” Specifically, the book of Genesis (not the one with Phil Collins in it).
If you remember Genesis 3 in the Bible, you’ll remember that God gave men & women their respective curses after The Fall. For men, it was to “labor by the sweat of their brow all the days of their lives”; IOW, men were cursed with work. Women were cursed “with pain in childbearing.”
So far this empirical evidence is pretty powerful. MarkyMark continues:
Now, what feminism sought to do was, in ADDITION to having their own curse, was secure for women the curse of men too. And women FELL for it-real smart, Ladies! Not only did you swallow the feminist bullshit hook, line, and sinker; it looks like you ate the rod, reel, and line to boot! Only women could do something so foolish, idiotic, and STUPID.
And now he comes to the nub of his argument:
Though many arguments could be made against women’s suffrage, though many arguments could be made against giving women the right to vote, this situation right here provides both empirical and prima facie evidence that women are NOT smart enough to vote; they do not have the mental wherewithal to vote. I mean, come on! How stupid do you have to be to DOUBLE your cursings from God? …
Seriously, men do NOT go around seeking to add to their curses in life. Have you ever seen men CLAMORING to experience child birth, and all the pain that goes along with it?! No, you have not. …
In closing, though many arguments could be made against women’s suffrage, we don’t need many arguments; we only need one: women, not men, chose to DOUBLE their divine curse; women, not men sought to ADD to whatever pain child birth brought into their lives; finally, women did this eagerly, accepting men’s divine curse with gusto as they STAMPEDED into the world of work. That alone shows us that women cannot think causally, linearly, logically, or for the good of others. Therefore, women should not be allowed to vote-end of story.
After all this talk of divine curses, I thought I would share with you a Divine blessing. Here’s Divine, with her 1983 club hit “Love Reaction.” I think they call her Divine because she sings like an angel. And yeah, the song does sound an eensy teensy little bit like “Blue Monday” by New Order. Her producer was sort of known for completely ripping off other people’s songs.
“It must be cotton pony rodeo time,” and other incredibly brilliant insults that will totally make the ladies cry.
This one is also hilarious.
In the war of ideas, it is important to be well-armed. And that’s why one brave antifeminist warrior named Roy Scott Movrich has supplied his fellow warriors with some potent verbal ammunition, a full clip of misogynist insults designed to reduce all women in the immediate area to blubbering tears.
As Roy explains:
Feminists have gotten away with shaming language for too long. Far too long.
Its time we got our own back.
And since women in general have not stood up to defend men, it stands that all women are tarred with the same brush. Therefore ALL women are to be denigrated equally.
Fair’s fair.
Here are a choice sampling of insults to deride women with.
Try them and see. I did. And watch their ordure (translation: s**t) hit the roof!
A few of Roy’s insults are borrowed from literature (mostly from Shakespeare), but most of them are originals. In a manner of speaking.
He starts out with a puzzler:
Your’s is even smaller than mine.
Presumably he is suggesting that cis women/feminists have some sort of symbolic penis, and that this symbolic penis of theirs is smaller than his non-symbolic penis
He continues on with several other comments in this vein:
It’ll be way bigger than anything you’ll ever have.
The one you try to have is even smaller than mine.
And of course this classic:
Mine isn’t too small, your cooch is too wide/large/loose.
Then we get some vibrator-shaming:
Oooh! Bad mood! Did you run out of batteries?
And some wildly unoriginal negs:
You sound really old.
You don’t look your age. [Pause] You look [longer pause] old.
You look good enough to be my great-great grandmother.
This one might not be terribly successful with total strangers:
You were/are a lousy lover.
And then it’s back to the vagina:
You must be having constant periods.
It must be cotton pony rodeo time huh?
Note to self: Find out if anyone in the history of the world has ever referred to a woman’s period as “cotton pony rodeo time.”
Then on to cats, spinster-shaming, and general unpleasantness:
Did one of your cats just die?
You must not be married yet.
Can’t have kids huh?
There’s nothing a woman can do for me that my right hand can’t do better.
Even dung beetles are higher than women and feminists.
And back to the vagina again:
You obviously have one of those super large and deep ginas a man has to strap a plank to his back to prevent him falling into.
Note to self: Find out if there is anyone who refers to vaginas as “ginas” who is not a misogynist asscrack.
If you need more, Roy suggests that you can basically go with
[a]nything that implies her plumbing isn’t clean, has diseases or a foul smell.
After delivering this list (and some Shakespeare quotes), Roy somewhat confusingly concludes that insulting women is actually a waste of time:
[A]t the end of the day, given that women are devoid of logic and wit, using such choice insults is wanton waste.
Better to ignore them completely.
And since modern women, with their over-inflated sense of entitlement cannot abide being ignored, this is just as dramatic and effective as any insult.
In other words, the chance that Roy has ever used any of these insults in a conversation with a woman is roughly zero.
The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement
[TW for the comments to this post; discussions of rape and abuse.]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to tracking and exposing hate groups, has just published a detailed report on the misogyny and violent rhetoric so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement — as well as the actual violence inspired by this sort of hatred of women. It’s a piece you all should read, even though few of the details will be new to long-time readers of this blog.
Arthur Goldwag, an expert on conspiracy-mongers and the far right, argues (I think correctly) that the Men’s Rights movement is largely a backlash against the many successes of feminism over the last several decades:
It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.
[Thomas] Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations.
The Men’s Rights Movement, as it exists today, is not a civil rights movement; it is a regressive, hateful reaction against a civil rights movement — that is, feminism.
Those who truly care about the rights of men, and who are not motivated by a hatred of women or feminism, need to repudiate the hate and the violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Movement as it exists today. Only then can there be a Men’s Rights Movement worthy of the name.
EDITED TO ADD: The SPLC has also put up a guide to some of the more hateful sites in the manosphere. Longtime readers will be familiar with most of them.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And a piece debunking some Men’s Rights Myths.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN, AGAIN: The discussion of the SPLC report on the Men’s Rights Subreddit is surprisingly reasonable, so far. (I mean, compared to what I expected. Meanwhile, over in this thread, the Men’s Rightsers are behaving as they usually do.)
Uteruses Versus Duderuses
Apparently a lot of ladies have these things living in their lady regions.
Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
It gets worse. According to a dude called Joe Zamboni over on The Spearhead, some of these uterus-having ladies are at risk of developing something called Golden Uterus Syndrome, or GUS. First described by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Zamboni notes,
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
“Great article Joe,” wrote Pendelton.
The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.
And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.
Why do people put up with these nagging hoyhums ?
Stonelifter added:
woman have the golden everything syndrome. They think you owe them for life if you had sex with you once; sex which they also enjoyed as well as you.
They make you diner once, you owe them for life
Admittedly, if a woman builds you an entire diner, I think you probably do owe her for that.
Durandal worked in a bit of “we hunted the mammoth for you” as well:
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Orecret also predicted the end of the world as we know it (and he feels fine):
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!
There is some here.
Quiz: What makes an MRA maddest? (Pussy-begging A Voice for Men edition.)
Pussy begging at its worst
Several days ago, angry-MRA-dude hub A Voice for Men ran a guest post from someone identified only as Phil in Utah entitled “How I became an MRA: Domestic violence advocacy.” After Phil’s post in question drew some criticism from some of the AVfM regulars who didn’t see it as radical enough, site founder and head cheese Paul Elam felt it necessary to take Phil to task for one of the statements he made in the post.
So let’s have a quick quiz. Here are three quotes taken from Phil in Utah’s post. Which of them is the one that drew Elam’s ire?
- “[F]eminists only support the rights of women who agree with them, and have no qualms throwing disagreeing women under the bus.”
- “[T]he idea that women are hurt more than men by being abused is a load of crap.”
- “I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.”
ANSWER: Did you guess #1? Wrong. While this statement isn’t actually true, Elam didn’t object to it. How about #2? While this statement is also untrue – numerous studies show that women are far more likely to be seriously injured by domestic violence than men – Elam didn’t object to it either. Nope. He objected to statement #3. That is:
I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.
How could any decent human being possibly object to this? Here’s Elam explanation:
I admit I flinched a little when I read this. Clearly these are words rooted in old world sexist notions about violence; that somehow men who brutalize women are worse than women who brutalize men. It is old programming that tends to swim around in the unconscious even after the first few rounds of red pills.
Now, I should note that Phil didn’t actually say, or imply, that “men who brutalize women are worse than women who brutalize men.” Indeed, he spent most of the essay arguing that DV against men needed to be taken more seriously. If anything, he minimized violence against women, by denying the fact that women are indeed more likely to be seriously injured by their male partners than male partners are to be seriously injured by women.
Evidently, for Elam and others on AVfM, straightforward expressions of enmity against men who brutalize women are a form of “latent misandry.”
But we’re only just getting started here. As it turns out, Elam was less troubled by Phil’s “misandry” than he was by some of the nastier attacks on Phil and other
new MRA’s who are ‘getting it’ but have not had the time or opportunity to fully refine their understanding of the modern zeitgeist.
Indeed, one commenter had even gone so far as to call poor Phil “pussy-footed.” And yet another called him a “mangina/white knight.” This, Elam announced, would not do!
MRA’s name calling and shaming other MRA’s is not constructive. It is petty alpha-gaming … .
In other words, it’s the sort of thing that guys do to try to impress the chicks. And that’s bad.
[A] significant part of the dynamics that hinder progress in the MRM is the innate friction between men which is driven by an undercurrent of sexual competition. Our unfortunate programming is to apply downward pressure on each other in order to vie for sexual selection.
On MRA blogs, this is often described with the scientific term “pussy begging.” Elam continued:
Feminism is an outgrowth of chivalry. It is dependent on male sexual competition to thrive. In short, misandry, feminism, the stinking lot of it, is a human problem rooted in men’s mindless competition for women. We don’t get out of that competition by simply rejecting women or Going Our Own Way. We get out of it by identifying and respectfully challenging the elements of that competition when they prove dysfunctional, as in going after MRA’s for blood any time we imagine they are not 100% on message. This conduct, when distilled down to its essence, is just a tell-tale artifact of pussy-centric masculinity.
So, in other words, MRAs who call other MRAs pussy-begging manginas are themselves … pussy-begging manginas.
Such is MRA logic.
A Very Spearhead Valentine’s Day
The Spearhead, in a nutshell.
Turns out the boys at The Spearhead are celebrating V-Day in their own special way. I thought I’d share this lovely e-card I found there. And a couple of little rants from the comments. First, here’s Eric, with this sweet little tale:
Earlier, I was waiting at a bus stop near some restaurants and saw, in 20 minutes’ time, 9 couples going out to ‘V-Day’ dinner. The women were dressed up, hair done, &c.—and in 8 of those cases were dragging along some piece of human waste who looked like he hadn’t been near either a bathtub or a jobsite in months!
It’s amazing how little sense of shame these bitches have to be seen with these louts and thugs. Of course, none of them would ever dream of being seen in public with some respectable-looking guy.
Just as an aside, the 9th couple I saw was a tall, handsome, clean-cut, well-dressed looking guy who had an aura of confidence and intelligence about him. And the woman with him was Asian! LOL
LOL indeed, Eric. LOL indeed.
(NOTE TO SELF: Find out why what he said is supposed to be funny.)
And now, let’s listen to whatever the fuck Poiuyt is on about:
On behalf of women, owed and entitled to valentines, the sexist-police-state sanctions plunder, rapine and murder of men and of children pursuant to its repugnant social policies. How can mutual appreciation exist in such environments of one sided self love of all things female ?
In such a state of extracted obligation and responsibility by one side of partnerships for the undue benefit of the other side, there can only be hatred, contempt, jealousy, indifference, cruelty, maliciousness and spite.
Relationships are no longer mutual, voluntary nor free in gendertopia. They come with such attatchments and baggage by outsiders to it, as to effectively be man-traps. Why would any man willingly expose himself or even his kids to expropriation, torture or even death ?
Gendertopias caste of sexual aggrieviance hacks lack the natural human feelings of kinship or sincerity. And their poison has spread because of this, meaning everything moral and material is to be appropriated for the woman, only for the woman and no one else but the woman. There now isn’t anyone left amongst men, women or the pawned, bartered and pledged children cappable of knowing genuine love.
And a happy Valentine’s Day to you too, Poiuyt!
I can’t wait to see what you have to say about Arbor Day.
Also, “cappable?” Did you take spelling lessons from this guy?
An Anti-Valentine’s Day message to all the Men Going Their Own Way
Even cats are discombobulated by the evil that is Valentine's Day
Today, on this terrible so-called holiday, devoted to hearts and flowers and men giving things to ladies that are on average more expensive than the things ladies give to men, statistically speaking, I would like to relay a few words of hope to all the brave and noble Men Going Their Own Way, from our friend Spidey on MGTOWforums.com. Yes, it is true that “Valentines day is nothing more then another day where women have their egos inflated.” But remember this:
For every one of you that stays single, there is some b**** out there spending valentines day alone unable to force you to waste time and money on her
Stay strong, fellas. Resist the lure of the evil ladies and their never ending hunger for diamonds and chocolate and your precious seed.
Today, fellas, take a few moments to silently relaxate. Here, author Ronald Chevalier (who couldn’t possibly be Jemaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords) illustrates how, without threatening your seed.
.
Are dog bitches superior to human bitches? A misogynist dingbat says yes.
Bitch, please.
At some point, you’ve probably all heard some douchebag offer some version of the following bit of misogynist humor: You shouldn’t call a woman a bitch because that’s an insult … to female dogs!
A traditionalist Christian named Walter Allen Thompson has expanded this dumb joke into an even dumber essay. And he seems to literally believe it. As he explains in the essay, which has been posted on the Very Dumb Government blog (and which I ran across thanks to a link from our pal MarkyMark):
[W]hen some of you call a woman a “bitch” think about what you are saying. The word “bitch” means a female dog. So if you are going to use the word with its true meaning, you would actually be insulting female dogs, because the dogs have better behavior than many women. … I would never insult my dog by calling Gloria Allred a “bitch”. … I would call her a feminist but not a bitch. The feminist movement has made many of our women unseemly wenches.
Walter clearly holds a much higher opinion of his dog:
I love my bitch and I don’t want to say anything to offend her. My bitch is sweet, my bitch is lovable, my bitch is kind, my bitch is considerate, and she hardly causes me any trouble.
And, and as we all know, ladies is trouble:
A dog will give a man unconditional love; whereas, a woman may or may not keep you around depending upon the prevailing winds. I don’t have to buy my dog a food dish lined with jewels…. My dog doesn’t run up a charge account at Macy’s, and she doesn’t spend $50.00 to do her nails. My dog doesn’t take drugs, drink alcohol, or crash my brand new car.
I don’t know from dogs, but if my cat were actually capable of any of these things, she would do them. That’s part of the charm of cats. They’re tiny little monsters – selfish, self-absorbed, amoral creatures we let into our homes because they’re cute, they’re fascinating, and they’re too small to kill us. Not that mine doesn’t try.
I wouldn’t put up with that from a human being, but I put up with it from my cat because she’s a cat, and had a rough childhood (she was abandoned) and doesn’t know any better. Generally speaking, people expect different things from their pets than from their romantic partners.
Well, not this guy:
All my dog needs is a little love, attention, and her food. Overall, the quality of life with my dog has far exceeded any relationship I have had with any woman. The value of any relationship depends upon unconditional love, and that’s more evident with my dog.
“Unconditional love” sounds nice in theory, but in practice as most of us know it’s really a pretty shitty idea. If someone behaves in a way that is unlovable – attacks you, deliberately poops on the couch, starts reading A Voice for Men — you’re not obligated to keep loving them. Loyalty is, by and large, a good thing, and most of us are willing to cut those we love a lot of slack, but no one should be expected to put up with intolerable behavior in the name of unconditional love. (Also, people sometimes fall out of love. I know, shocking.)
People demand a bit more from their loved ones than dogs do, and that’s a good thing. Also, people know things that dogs don’t, and that’s also good. Hitler’s dog loved him. But then again Hitler’s dog didn’t know he was Hitler. (Hitler returned this unconditional love by having poor Blondi killed just before he killed himself.)
Of course, our boy Walter knows that most love is not unconditional. Indeed, as we saw above, he’s got a long list of conditions — some reasonable, some not — that women will have to meet before he’ll be willing to even consider them over his dog. Here are some more of his conditions, which his dog fulfills but most women (in his mind) won’t:
She doesn’t mess with my mind; doesn’t say. She doesn’t tell me she loves me today, but tomorrow she wants a divorce. My dog doesn’t pole dance at drunken parties. My dog doesn’t pick up “stud muffins” at bars. My dog doesn’t make porno films. My dog doesn’t take me to court (you lawyers..don’t get any ideas) and she doesn’t make any unreasonable demands. It is a perfect relationship as I don’t have to entertain any of her relatives. My dog is my friend and not my adversary.
It’s a pretty revealing list. He’s upset not only by infidelity, but also by women changing their mind about things – “say[ing] yes today and no tomorrow.” (Saying “no” to what? Sex? Does he think he deserves the right to rape his wife?) His idea of a “perfect relationship” seems to be one in which he doesn’t have to deal with a woman’s wants, or desires, or even her relatives.
Walter rails against feminists and feminism, but it’s clear that he also has issues with traditional women actually expecting him to fulfill his role in a traditional male-breadwinner marriage.
If you want to know where you stand with a woman, just run out of money. If you have a woman that stays with you when you’re broke or in a setback, then you have a good one.
Here’s a hint: if you don’t want a woman to expect you to provide for her, don’t marry a woman who expects you to provide for her.
Also: try not feeding your dog for several days, and see how lovable she is after that. (Given the strange literal mindedness of so many misogynists, I should add: don’t literally do that. Just imagine doing it, in your head.)
If I was ever to consider getting married again, the woman would have to (at the very least) rise to the level of the behavior of my beautiful little dog. Dogs and animals stay within the natural order in which God created; many people do not.
No, that’s ok. Stick to dogs for now.
EDITED TO ADD: As Molly Ren points out in the comments, it turns out that some dogs do pole dance. Heck, some even lick the stripper pole, like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. (Well, not exactly like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls.)
