Category Archives: oppressed men
Happy Pride Day, non-existent gay men!
Well, you're no lady. But I guess you'll do.
Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)
Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.
Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.
Let’s let him explain this:
Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.
Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?
As Rookh sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.
[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.
A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:
Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.
Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.
Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.
Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?
No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:
As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.
And so, in Rookh’s world,
homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.
Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!
[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.
Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.
Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:
Court’s free!
Arms and the Men’s Rights Movement
Democracy is not a First-Person Shooter
Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
All this has inspired some in the MRA to start talking ominously about violence. On The Spearhead, W.F. Price has responded to this talk with a piece suggesting that the time isn’t quite right for the MRAs of the world to take up armed struggle. Not just yet, anyway. As he puts it:
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
The ironically named Firepower, meanwhile, took a little swipe at Ball’s own actions, but didn’t challenge his advice for the rest of the men of the world:
What IS crazy is having to point out that setting YOURSELF on fire is a ridiculous way to “win” anything.
Set your enemies on fire. To even have to remind this questions the long term chances of victory for such a pathetic lot.
Jean Valjean suggested that political action was pointless — due to all those damned women who vote:
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) — you knew we were getting to him, right? — expressed his profound disappointment that more Spearheaders weren’t willing to embrace a violent solution:
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
How the Other Half Lives, according to dudes who have no fucking idea how the other half lives
Remember, T-Shirts are available!
It’s always handy when one of the MGTOW brethren sums up one of the tribe’s beliefs in a handy little post. The following is what every single MRTOWer out there (not to mention many MRAs and PUAs and even some non-acronymified misogynists) seems to believe about how women live their lives today. When I say “every single MGTOWer” I’m not really exaggerating for impact – well, maybe a teensy bit. But I don’t think I’ve ever run across an MGTOWer who doesn’t take all of the following on faith.
Like many manosphere beliefs about women – like the whole “women only fuck the top 20% of men” thing – there is of course not a shred of evidence for any of this. It’s an essentially religious belief, accepted on faith. MGTOWers are like monks in the douchiest religion ever.
Anyway, fresh from a post by “Rogue” on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, here’s how all you ladies are living your lives:
The modern woman’s life plan goes like this:
Step 1) From first sexual awakening throughout her twenties, fuck as many Alpha Asshole men (hereafter referred to as AA) as she can in a quest of sheer narcissistic hedonism. May give birth to an AA spawn during this time; party lifestyle and general female educative path (elementary teacher, social worker) results in shaky finances.
[citation needed]
Step 2) Oops, getting close to or past age 30? Find a Nice Guy Beta (hereafter referred to as NGB), dupe him into marriage with sex (he’s generally grateful for the attention, having had less than stellar success with women throughout his twenties), use his money to stabilize shaky finances. Strong likelihood of having another child or two; may again be AA spawn due to affairs. Pack on 30 pounds of fat (at least!). Cut off sex with NGB since she now has him over a barrel and was never really attracted to him in the first place. Get steadily angrier and more dissatisfied.
[citation needed]
Step 3) Divorce at or slightly before age 40; attempt to remount AA cock carousel, this time as a cougar. Fail miserably because no AA wants an old, fat female body and a loose pussy that looks like a hunk of roast beef that’s been worked over with a dozen ball-peen hammers for a month. Said failure twists her mind until her only remaining pleasure in life is to fuck with ex-NGB in various ways such as taking him back to court to raise CS payments, or denying him visitation rights to his children.
[citation needed]
Step 4) Accept that she’s past her time for the AA cock carousel; become a companion to many cats.
[citation needed]
And what’s with all the cat-hatred, anyway? Cats are adorable, endlessly fascinating little monsters who do no harm to anyone, unless you count all the times my cat has attacked me without provocation and the fact that she just threw up her dinner and is now insistently demanding a second dinner. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Jackie Brown, you can trust cats to be cats.
Anyway, back to the sermon:
The marriage strike is just an attempt to short-circuit steps 2 and 3, and force women to ride step 1 as long as they can, then transition directly to step 4. Will women like the result if, instead of rushing to save them at age 30, men just shake their heads and walk away? I think it’s an experiment worth trying.
Once again: please, please, please walk away. Walk far away. Become monks in your douchy religion. Just remember that most monks who take a vow of chastity don’t spend the rest of their lives whining about how women are a bunch of filthy bitches.
Oh, and before anyone pops in with a “why do you pick on the outliers, this guy doesn’t represent bla bla bla,” the post (which naturally got nothing but huzzahs on NiceGuy’s forum) was also highlighted on the MRA blog What Men Are Saying About Women as an example of “superb” discussion of the Woman Question. This bullshit is Manosphere-Approved bullshit.
Are false rape accusations the fault of feminism?
Holly Pervocracy's SlutWalk sign, which apparently causes false rape accusations.
If you thought the “meat market” guy from a couple of days ago – you know, the one prattling on about the “market makers of pussy” — was risibly wrongheaded, here’s an even more insidious attempt to reduce the complexities of human sexuality to a question of “supply and demand.” Over on The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan has a new post with the title:
False rape claims: increasingly a tool to skew the current economies of sex, where sex is cheaper than most women prefer
As you might imagine, the post itself is based on some fairly twisty blame-the-victim logic – with some feminist-bashing thrown in for good measure. Let’s wade through the muck here.
According to Harlan, the “cultural tenets governing sexual encounters” have gone all loosey-goosey in recent years, due to birth control, a general loosening of sexual mores and “the feminist-inspired norms that pressure young women to ‘party like the guys.’”
I assume you have all read Mary Wollstonecraft’s classic A Vindication of the Rights of Women to Get Totally Wasted and Fuck Some Dudes.
But, alas, feminists totally don’t understand the law of supply and demand –and that in the market of sex, they are the supply and not the demand (because it’s not like women ever really want to have sex themselves). As a result, the feminist-inspired young women of today are totally flooding the market with cut-rate pussy.
As Harlan explains:
The experts tell us that men have a much easier time obtaining sex than they did in days long gone. … Women who’d prefer to put a higher price tag on their sexuality are finding themselves locked out of the market.
The results are all too predictable. Women are having sex more often when they secretly are conflicted about it. We’ve frequently reported here about the proven gender “regret asymmetry” where young women have much higher levels of after-the-fact regret than men following sexual hook-ups. Regret too often is transmogrified into feelings of being used, and feeling used too often metamorphoses into a false rape claim.
Does Harlan have any evidence to back up this hypothesis? Yes. And it comes straight from his ass.
Having studied the false rape phenomenon closely for a number of years, it is my conclusion that young women are increasingly resorting to false rape claims as an inappropriate method of skewing the current economies of sex, which favors men and which makes sex cheaper than most women consciously or subconsciously prefer.
In other words: he has spent the last several years searching out news stories on false rape accusations to post on his blog. Because there are almost 7 billion people on planet earth, he has been able to find a fair number of such stories. So he’s concluded that there is some sort of “false rape epidemic” going on. In other words, his conclusion seems to be based almost entirely on what’s known as the “availability heuristic,” which, as Wikipedia puts it, “is a phenomenon (which can result in a cognitive bias) in which people predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.”
Were I to start a blog entitled “The Dudes Peeing on Things You Shouldn’t Pee On Society,” guess what? I too could cite many examples, drawn from the newspapers of the world. Were I to do this for several years, my brain would be stuffed full of stories of men urinating on just about anything that can be urinated on, from prayer rugs to cough drops. This, through the power of the “availability heuristic,” might convince me that we faced an epidemic of inappropriately urinating men, and that this epidemic was getting worse by the hour. (I mean, before I started specifically looking for such stories I almost never heard about this terrible social ill.)
But back to Harlan and his argument, such as it is:
Women are pressured by feminist-inspired norms to make themselves more available to men than ever, but they have also learned that crying rape after-the-fact is a culturally accepted, indeed, feminist approved, antidote to sex they feel was too cheaply obtained. Instead of saying “no” up front, they are retroactively saying “no” — with false rape claims — after-the-fact. And society has given this backward state of affairs its imprimatur.
One solution? Women need to stop having so much sex — for the sake of teh menz. Or as Harlan, still working the creaky economic metaphor, puts it:
One cure is to enhance the value of female sexuality by decreasing the supply and thereby reduce both regret and false rape claims.
But, darn it, this won’t work, because women are out there marching in the street for the right to, you know, have sex when they want to with consenting partners without being shamed for it.
That, of course, can never happen in a society where “slut walks” are celebrated as liberating events, where colleges excuse women from underage drinking charges so long as they report they were raped, and where false rape claims are routinely excused and implicitly encouraged. In short, it can never happen in a society that encourages young women to be promiscuous and to then tell rape lies when that promiscuity results in an unfavorable sexual experience.
Harlan ends his piece with a call to lock up false accusers for a long time.
Certainly malicious false accusers should be charged. Women who identify the wrong guy in a lineup? No.
And it would be nice if Harlan extended the sympathy he shows for falsely accused men to real victims of real rape, a much larger group of people than the falsely accused. But instead he writes pieces like this one, and links in his sidebar to a host of misogynist blogs that, among other things, routinely joke about female victims of rape and murder, that urge men on juries in rape trials to vote to acquit the accused even when he’s clearly guilty, that claim that age of consent laws are inherently man-hating, and that think it would be great if sex robots and artificial wombs rendered women obsolete.
Those actually interested in helping those falsely accused – rather than supporting Harlan’s retrograde agenda — would do better to support The Innocence Project, and to stop reading Harlan’s drivel.
Men’s Rights Reddit explains it all to you
Apparently we feminists simply can’t understand the Men’s Rights Movement, because
feminist ideology is still stuck in the 19th century concept that women are second class citizens when objectively they are in a better position than men. … The[y] just cannot grasp that in modern western society men are second class citizens.
Luckily, the good fellows at the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit are here to put us straight.
Oh, and while they’re at it, they would also like to explain to us at great length why the whole Slutwalk thing is so silly. I mean, telling women to not dress like sluts if they don’t want to get raped is just good common sense! And obviously dudes have a much greater understanding of the topic of rape and personal safety in general than silly ladies with their silly lady brains and their silly tendency to get drunk on silly lady drinks.
Because Reddit Men’s Rights is not completely dominated by retrograde MRA misogynists, there are actually some decent comments mixed in with all the patronizing nonsense. Enjoy?
Ozymandias asks: Who cares about Men’s Rights?
The Who does not care (about its equipment)
Great post by Ozymandias on her blog on the subject of “Who cares about men’s rights?” (Answer, Ozymandias, for one.) She offers a devastating critique of the Men’s Rights Movement and a critique of feminism I think I half-agree with as well. (She critiques feminists for not caring enough about men’s issues and responding to them with “but what about the menz” mockery; I think she’s got a point, but the fact is that lots of feminists do in fact work on behalf of men and men’s issues, from feminists involved in fighting for men and women falsely accused of sex crimes to feminist shelter workers who work on a regular basis to help male victims of abuse.)
Anyway, you should pop on over and read it.
It’s being discussed all over Reddit as well.
The post also inspired a debate on the old “chicks only want to date jerks” thing, which she’s broken out into a separate post.
EDITED TO ADD: And now The Spearhead has noticed the post.
Fear and loathing on a date
Let me tell you more about the Pussy Pass ...
The Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit is awash in mini-manifestos. My favorite of the most recent batch, a rousing 3-part rant running under the title “Do not fear them!”
Who is “them,” you ask?
Women who might just decide that they don’t really want to have sex with some dude who keeps going on about how men are the most oppressed group in the world.
Responding, apparently, to a comment in an earlier thread suggesting “that being publicly vocal about the way men’s rights are trampled on and ignored is a great way to lose the opportunity of getting laid,” manifesto writer Kuppers argues that it just ain’t so — but when it is, just bite your tongue for as long as it takes to get into her pants.
He starts off with a strange variant on the notion that there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you feel that women won’t want to have sex with your Men’s-Rights-espousing self, Kuppers suggests, it’s
because your brain was conditioned in a small communal/tribal setting. A group of angry women was a serious threat to your prospects of reproduction. As you know, women often act like herd animals, and view acceptance and appreciation from their peers of their choice of man to be important. This is completely moot today. There are millions of fish in the sea.
Aside from that final truism I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about. I don’t recall growing up in anything that might possibly be considered – literally or figuratively – a “tribal setting” ruled over by a group – sorry, a herd – of “angry women” hell-bent on keeping me from reproducing. Is this a common experience? Also, I have precisely zero interest in “reproduction.” Indeed, I sort of make it a policy to only have sex with women who are at least as interested in preventing reproduction as I am.
On to point two in this curious document, which is that ladies love dudes with strong opinions:
Women, while they do not always explicitly say so and sometimes contradict so, sincerely do appreciate a man who has strong internal beliefs and principles, and does not compromise that for the sake of assuaging someone else’s sensitivities, including theirs. A man who is willing to pretend he is something he is not, isn’t attractive on a deep masculine level to women.
True, up to a point, but you might want to keep all that shit about women being angry reproduction-threatening herd animals to yourself. That might not go over so well on your first Starbucks coffee date. Or ever. Protip: Misogyny aside, very few people want to get with people who refer to sex as “reproduction.”
But if your desire for sex outweighs your manly desire to be truthful about your obnoxious beliefs, well, that’s all good too – if by “all good” you mean “you can still have angry sex with women you despise if you just keep your pie hole shut for a few hours.” Or, as Kuppers puts it in his third and final point, which he apparently doesn’t realize completely contradicts point number two:
The kind of woman who a) wants you to be subordinate to her crazy foaming feminist nonsense, and b) has no tolerance or patience for your concerns, is not worth anything more than a cheap, well-protected fuck anyway. Fine, keep your mouth shut for the couple of hours it takes to get her into bed, but you’d be mad to pursue anything more serious with a woman like that.
Men’s Rightsers – such romantics at heart!
“No I won’t read your literature … bitch!” and other thoughts on female fiction from the dudes of The Spearhead
This better not be written by some dame!
So Esquire magazine recently posted a list of “The 75 Books Every Man Should Read” on their website. Esquire being Esquire – that is to say, a men’s magazine that had its glory days in the era of Mad Men and that seems to be aimed mostly at old farts (and aspiring old farts) — only one book of the 75 was written by a woman. (That’s 98.67% male, for those of you with lady brains who can’t do the math.)
The internet being the internet, some people noticed that the list was a wee bit heavy on the dudes, even for a men’s magazine, and pointed this out. The bloggers at the Joyland Publishing blog suggested that while the books on Esquire’s list were “mostly fantastic,” it might behoove men to pick up a book or two written by a woman once in a while. And so, with the help of some of their readers, the two assembled a list of “250 Books By Women All Men Should Read.” (Why 250 and not, say, 75? Because they got a lot of suggestions.)
Here’s a little one-question quiz for you all: What title did W. F. Price at The Spearhead give his post on the controversy?
A) “Some Great Suggestions for Books by Women You Guys Might Want to Read.”
B) “Did You Know There Are Female Authors Besides The Chick That Wrote Harry Potter?”
C) “Feminist Publishers: Force Men to Read Women’s Lit”
Yep, the correct answer is C, of course. Apparently a couple of bloggers suggesting some books by women that men “should” read is some kind of Gestapo-like imposition upon men by “Feminist Publishers.” Price grouses:
[I]it strikes me as rather mean-spirited of females in the publishing industry to denounce even ineffectual efforts to introduce men to literature. By all accounts, publishing has come to be dominated by women, and men are reading far fewer books than women these days. Given this state of affairs, you’d think that the women in the industry might be a bit gracious and let the boys pick and choose which titles interest them.
But of course that won’t do, because feminists must find fault with any and everything men are involved in. …
The implication [of the Joyland Publishing blog post] is that men should be forced by political pressure to read female writers (sometimes these feminists come off as whiny, annoying girlfriends complaining that “he just won’t listen to me!”).
Or, you know, it might just be that the writers of the blog post, and those who wrote in with suggestions, really enjoyed the books in question and thought that dudes might just enjoy them too. Sort of like when a friend tells you that you should totally watch the movie Dogtooth, because it is so fascinating and creepy and awesome. Or when I tell you right now that you should go watch Jane Austen’s Fight Club on Funny or Die.
Naturally, the comments from Spearheaders were even more ignorant and obtuse than Price’s post. The basic theme: Bitches can’t write for shit (as far as I know).
In case you think I am offering an unfair characterization of the, er, debate, here’s one Spearheader’s contribution to the discussion:
when a man says “no, I won’t read your literature”, you have to respect that, bitch.
And another’s:
I basically do not read anything a wimminz has written, not even in my favourite genre of science fiction, because every single time I have tried they have been unmitigated fucking crap full of feminazi girl power bullshit and emotional baggage and basically very little hard SF…
And still another’s:
I never read anything written by women unless it happens to be instructional and related to work. Pretty much all the fiction I’ve ever read is by and for males. If I read some non-fiction for fun it’s always got a male author. I realized a while back that my cd collection is about 98% male. When I was a kid I never thought about it, it just came naturally. Now that I’m older I intentionally avoid anything by women.
It’s always,er, instructive to see what some random guy who apparently reads mostly instructional manuals has to say about the literary controversies of the day.
There were, of course, more thoughtful analyses, like this earnest comment from the excitable, exclamation-point-happy David K. Meller:
Women write for an audience of their own level–to wit themselves! Most men are simply too intelligent to be interested in what passes for literature scribbled by women! …
Correct me if I am wrong, but is most woman’s “literature” one more kvetch klatsch of women–or girls–getting together to complain about, to defeat, or to evade the workings of us evil, letcherous, abusive, horrible M-E-N! There is no point in men reading such drivel …
There may be better days coming; when women are once again taught the arts of pleasing men, in their creating a comfortable environment for the chosen man in their lives, and when they again will use their ability to read to discover new and better ways to do this, and their ability to write to communicate these truths to others of their sex! Until that happens, literacy for women, much less dominance in authorship, editing, and publishing has been, and is, a BLOODY MESS for everyone, especially men!!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Yes, women should really only be allowed to read and write if they are reading or writing instructional manuals on how to cook and give better blow jobs, possibly at the same time.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! to you too, good sir.
Speaking of which — the blowjob bit, not the PEACE AND FREEDOM!! — the commenter calling himself dragnet suggested that young men such as himself were simply too busy to read much of anything. They have other priorities:
The vast majority of my reading is for work, research, and classes. …
Frankly, I’d rather be getting laid than reading a novel after a grueling work week. The three or four hours I sometimes have free on the weekend when I’m not working or working out or sleeping or eating, I’d rather be out with my friends or getting serviced by whatever girl I’m with at the time.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a penis, must be in want of some girl to service it.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!1!!
Anyway, ladies and manginas, any good lady books you want to suggest for the dudes of the world?
The Gropes of Wrath
Evil woman oppressing men
In various countries around the world, women and teenage girls are regularly groped while riding commuter trains. This, I suspect, is not news to most of you; indeed, I know one reader of this blog who’s had this happen to her. In Japan, one survey found that two-thirds of female passengers in their twenties and thirties had been groped. Because the problem is so prevalent in that country — and the authorities are so ineffective at controlling it – some train lines have instituted women-only train cars in an attempt to cut down on groping (and on false accusations of groping as well). “Women-only” train cars have also introduced, in a limited way, in India, where harassment of women in public – known as “Eve teasing” – is distressingly common.
So what’s more appalling – the fact that groping on trains is so common in Japan that two-thirds of young women commuters have had to endure it themselves, or the fact that a small number of train cars have been set aside for women in a fairly half-assed attempt to curtail some of this groping?
For a lot of MRAs, the latter. The subject came up on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit recently, inspiring some of the regulars to fulminate against this allegedly misandrist outrage. Fatalistic pulled out the n-word and this facile comparision:
Here’s what I’m seeing here: “At least we let you in the back of the bus, nigger.”
ExpendableOne, meanwhile, managed to work in a staggering number of standard-issue MRA complaints into this one sentence:
I think it’s discrimination and subjugation entirely based on misandry, negative male type-casting/stereotyping and anti-male heterophobia.
Ztakn seemed to suggest that it was all part of some oddly indirect money-making scheme on the part of, I guess, women:
To keep it short they exploit and propagate fears not only demonizing men in society but also terrorizing women and scaring the shit out of them making them more paranoid than they need to be.
And then they do it for money.
How would that work exactly?
1) Get groped
2) Set up women-only train cars
3) ???
4) Profit?
Given that the Men’s Rights subreddit is one of the few Men’s Rights forums online that is not completely overrun with misogynist fanatics, there were others who responded more reasonably. Alienblonde noted:
In Japan it’s a massive problem where school girls get groped by older males on trains in peak hour.
Happened to me in Europe too when I was back packing. Some old Spanish guy sat beside me and decided to feel me up.
Women shouldn’t have to deal with this and unfortunately, until it stops happening, I think [women only train cars are] justified.
Naturally, this being a Men’s Rights forum, she quickly found herself the focus of a game of “blame the victim.” Fatalistic accused her of “[j]ustifying discrimination with this all men are potential criminals feminist dogma.” When she pointed out that she was not, in fact, doing this, he moved on to castigating her for not making a public scene when she was groped:
You should out the people who actually do these things rather than treat the rest of us as criminals by default with disgusting bigoted policies and the back of the bus mentality.
When she pointed out that this could have put her in more serious danger, he merely scoffed:
You would have to be paranoid and spoonfed the most egregious of feminist women are helpless, men are unstoppable beasts that need other men with guns to drag them away dogma to believe that all but the most psychopathic would persist or try to harm you if you outed them to a crowd for their actions.
Easy for you to say.
Of course, when women DO confront sexual harassers on trains, as I noted in a post on the infamous New York Subway flasher last November, they get reactions like this sarcastic Reddit comment from one member of the men-are-oppressed club.
Yes, because obviously her heterophobia needs to be glorified… Penises are so disgusting and scary, obviously women should totally be justified in fearing them and there couldn’t possibly be any kind of misandry involved with such contempt, befuddlement or “helplessness/horror” to the mere sigh[t] of male anatomy. /s
Yep, if you’re a woman on a train, not wanting to have some random dude pull his penis out and rub it on you is “heterophobia.” Who knew?
In the case of the subway flasher, the alleged perp did indeed flee when confronted. (He was later arrested.) That’s pretty much the best-case scenario. But it’s hardly the only possible result, and it’s understandable why a woman riding the train to work (much less one backpacking alone in a foreign country) would hesitate to publicly accuse a groper of groping her. Having women-only train cars cuts down on the number of times women are put in this difficult situation.
Yes, in an ideal world, there would be no need for women-only train cars. In an ideal world, men wouldn’t grope women on trains.
The Cock Blockade
Benedict Arnold: Don't let your dick be like this guy!
There are a lot of manosphere misogynists and MRAs who think that “Game” (pick-up artistry) offers a sort of liberation for guys who heretofore have been at a horrible disadvantage to stuck-up bitches in the dating arena. But there are others – and the blogger at Omega Virgin Revolt is one of them – who think that spending so much time trying to figure out how to impress women is not only a waste of time but a sort of capitulation to the evil that is women. To put it in the parlance of the manosphere: If women are just a bunch of cunts, why waste your life chasing pussy?
I recently ran across a comment on the blog Omega Virgin Revolt that explains this particular theory quite cogently. Well, as cogently as these guys ever get. (I’ve taken the liberty of editing out some of the less-comprehensible bits.) According to this anonymous non-Gamer:
Men have so much power that they literally give it away… [by] chasing tail. Biological impulses my ass. Humans have this thing called the ability to think and the power to choose. It’s why we are at the top of the food chain yet there are much larger and stronger creatures that exist. Apply that to women and sex as well. If [men would] go on a sex strike like the MRM should have [done] as one of it’s primary objectives … .
It’s like Lysistrata, only with penises.
Which makes men who chase after women sexual strikebreakers. Scabs. Traitors. Collaborators. BeneDICK Arnolds who are quite literally sleeping with the enemy.
Who in their right mind thinks that fraternizing is going to get them anywhere? First off it makes men in general look like … out of control [scum] who only want sex and gives women even more reason to view us all like that. Well I myself am not manipulated by sex and once men get to that point, women simply can’t overcome that. And you know why? Because they have to bring something else besides it which many unfortunately don’t comprehend.
Yep. We’re back to the MRA misogynist theory – discussed here previously – that the only thing women bring to the table, as possible romantic partners and humans, is the vagina. And that when men “call them on it,” as it were, they will collapse in a heap, realizing they can’t lord it over men with the power of their vaginas any more.
Our anonymous philosopher then makes what he evidently sees as a highly cutting remark about feminism:
Isn’t that actually being a true feminist and the basis to which we should all hold women up to?
Um … yes? Feminism does indeed suggest that the worth of women does not inhere entirely in their vaginas, at least not any more so than the worth of men inheres in their dicks.
What do we want? Genital equality!
When do we want it! Now!
But back to our anonymous friend and his manifesto:
You go to war, the first thing you do is try to embargo or blockade your enemy’s means of getting supplies to keep their own war effort going long before the firs[t] shot is fired. But these days, men are giving women all that and much more just to turn around use on them.
That’s right, fellows. He’s talking about a cock blockade. Cut off their dick supply at the source!
Urk. Let me reword that last bit:
Keep your dicks locked down, far from the grasping hands of desperate women. Starve them out.
Soon enough they’ll surrender, and come out waving white flags. And, presumably, their panties.
Profit??
EDIT: I changed the title to one that darksidecat recommended. It’s really a much better title.
