Category Archives: oppressed men
>Manwiches
>
So I’ve been trying my best to make sense of a strange, turgid, conspiratorial post over on Rebuking Feminism, a blog run by a fellow calling himself Bwec who sometimes comments here.
This doozy of a sentence, loaded down with strange quasi-Marxist jargon and missing a couple of commas, will give you an idea of what I’m up against:
When females are the primary means of resource production themselves, when they own the means to male production (and thus transference of male resources without a fair social contract between men and women in marriage and thus divorce) plus own the means of human production i.e. total control over reproduction and conception the Matriarchy and dream of female supremacy will be complete.
The gist of it seems to be that, uh, women are taking over the world.
But there’s one paragraph that suggests that women have an even more evil agenda than merely lording it over us men. If I’m reading it correctly, Bwec is suggesting that the ladies want to … eat us.
If males served no other purpose than as food after mating she would surely consume us. It is this aspect of female nature which has been obscured as of late but men have known it since the beginning of time.
Yes, instead of wanting to make us sandwiches, they want to make us into sandwiches!
If this is true I would like to assure all female readers of this blog that, while I have good taste, I do not taste good.
>Pee-ple Power
>
 |
| Future revolutionaries? |
On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks! — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.
To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble” is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was
a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife … As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.
I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.
But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:
We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly. Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.
So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”
This solution?
Urinal flyers.
Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”
I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)
Here’s his explanation:
Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals. When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level. Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time. …
If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come. Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal. The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted. Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day.
Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.
All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:
And another one, perhaps my favorite:
Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:
The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?
Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It
Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.
Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere
All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,
plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.
Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.
Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.
Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:
Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation. Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .
Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for
that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted. They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women. But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.
So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.
>All the single mothers
>
 |
| It’s the one in the middle that’s the problem. |
Fellas, be careful out there, lest you run across the single gravest threat to modern man, and probably civilization itself: the single mom. These money-hungry, baby-hungry monsters will seduce you and abandon you, after extracting from you the magical substance that allows them to pop forth babies that you will have to pay for forever. Young or old, straight or lesbian, they all want your sperm and your money.
At least that’s the argument of a dude calling himself The Fourth Planet on the LoveShack.org message boards. I’ve put some especially good bits in bold.
[T]he time has come to look at male sexuality as a weakness that makes men vulnerable to all kinds of predator. It’s a sexual vulnerability that makes you prey to baby mama or baby-hungry women. …
Your sexuality is tolerated only when it’s necessary to provide young women, long past menopausal women, lesbians, single mothers by choice … with children. In other words, only for as long as it serves women’s needs to satisfy their baby urges. …
Women’s sexuality gives them, and the state, almost unlimited power to control men. As long as women are free to use their power of sex to exploit men, then all the things we resent in women will continue and get worse.
Our weakness for pussy is … being used to destroy us. …
You must reject single mothers because she represents all of the things that destroy men, our children, our families, and our communities. …
Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man’s resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man’s child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That’s because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.
Damn those sneaky, sexy ladies and their sneaky, sexy sexiness! If only there was a way to get rid of all desire altogether.
>Air conditioning for women: A terrible injustice
>
 |
| Fuck those bitches. They didn’t invent air conditioning! |
How to win friends and garner dozens of upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit: Bash out a barely coherent stream-of-consciousness rant suggesting that women are ungrateful bitches because they don’t mine coal, and didn’t invent air conditioning or hunt mammoths. Of course, no one posting in the Men’s Rights subreddit has done any of those things either, but apparently everyone with a penis gets automatic credit for them.
Here’s the post, from some dude called TheGrendler:
We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?
Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?
How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.
We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.
Shame on you,
You hedonistic, narcissistic, sociopath metastasizing cancer.
Whatever happened to live together die alone?
Damn you ungrateful sluts for enjoying air conditioning, despite the fact that it was invented by a dude! (Probably. I didn’t check.) Only dudes should enjoy things invented by other dudes! Jonas Salk was a dude! Only dudes should get the polio vaccine! How do you like your polio, you fancy-shoe wearing bitches!!!?? You should have thought of that before you went and didn’t invent the motherfucking polio vaccine!!!
And you can just forget about reading any motherfucking Dostoevsky! Only dudes can read Dostoevsky! You filthy whores stick to Jane Austen!
Sorry, I got carried away.
>All the problems in the world — solved!
>
 |
| Adam Smith: Legendary Cockonomist |
Sometimes mean people criticize Men’s Rightsers for complaining endlessly on the internet without offering any real solutions to the problems they complain about. Well, the meanies can’t make that criticism any more. Because now we have what is essentially a solution to all the world’s problems, in the form of a five-point “agenda for Nice Guys” set forth by a fellow called genepool on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Forum. It starts off with a bang:
Elimination/reduction of welfare and government’s socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don’t pick you shouldn’t get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children.
You may have to read this one twice to understand all the nuances. Anyone having trouble with the cock-centric economic theory here should get out Adam Smith’s Wealth of Cocks and remind themselves how the Invisible Handjob of the market really works. I quote:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their cocks. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their hard, throbbing dicks, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of our cunts.
Cocks are led by an invisible handjob, or maybe a blow job if she’s drunk, to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, to advance the interest of the society. And possibly to stick it in her butt if she’s a real slut.
Let’s skip point 2 for a moment to quickly cover the last three:
Privatization of marriage. … I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?
 |
| Damn you, genepool! You have foiled my plans! |
Exactly. Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so.
The remaining two points: Legalization of prostitution, and limits on child support for rich dudes. Both total no brainers.
But it is point 2 that is genepool’s truly visionary notion:
Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You’re rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn’t kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won’t do that out of altruism. You need [incentives]. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it’s consensual, it’s win win and it should be legal.
Win win? Something this brilliant deserves at least four wins. Win win win win. A solution to nice guy loneliness AND the Holocaust! Imagine Anne Frank, sitting quietly up in that attic, scribbling away in that diary of hers. What if she could have gotten on the internet and snagged herself a sweet, shy pedophile in, say, New Jersey? That’s at least slightly preferable to a death camp, right? Problem solved!
Genepool, you are a genius.
>Justifying Marc Lepine’s Murderous Rampage
>
 |
| One of Lepine’s victims. |
The 21st anniversary of the Montreal Massacre this Monday naturally inspired some discussion anongst Men’s Rightsers and Men Going Their Own Way. And so it was only a matter of time until someone posted something essentially justifying Marc Lepine’s murderous rampage. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forums, Kargan3033’s only real objection to Lepines’ actions was that he picked the wrong targets — women who weren’t actually feminists. Here are the key parts of what is his own Lepine-style manifesto. It’s badly written, and full of typos, but it’s worth slogging through simply because it is so utterly vile. I’ve bolded the creepiest parts.
Was ML right in doing what he did?, in my opinion yes and no, yes that he had the right idea and no that he picked the wrong targets.
If I was ever to pull an ML, I would go to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and start handing out some FMJ [Full Metal Jacket] love notes to them, not some innocet person in the streets that I would run into, why you might ask, that simple to make it clear to the femanazis and their goverment whore misters that “You keep pushing and abusing men you will pay for it with your live’s blood personaly” and by taking out the femanazis and the evil scum sucking traitors who sold out their fellow men for a wiff of pussy and more power you would be sending a clear message to the public that one you are not some crazed gun man who walked into the local walmart and capped off a bunch of random strangers and second of all that the reason why you went postal was because of the shit and abuse that you suffered because you are a man thanks to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and you settled the issue with them Personaly which would give you more respect in the eyes of men and most of socity at large because you delt with the ones who pushed you to far instead of gunning down innocent men, ladies and child who happened to be in the worng place at the worng time.
Also by taking out the femanazis and their goverment puppet masters you will inspire other men who are to the snaping point to got after their True Abusers and not innocent people.
All in all we are going to see more and more MLs as the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies keep puting the screws to men which in turn will cause them to tighten the screws to the men and boys which will inspire more revenge and the spilling of their blood untill western socitey tears it’self apart.
Kargan3033 was so proud of this comment he posted it to AntiMisandry.com. He was quick to add that it was “not a call to violance” [sic]. Really? Then what on earth is it?
People like this aren’t just wrong. They’re dangerous.
>Faking it
>
 |
| Should this be the MGTOW logo? |
So some researchers at the University of Kansas asked a couple of hundred college students some very personal questions, and as a result we now know that lots of guys fake orgasms. 25% of the guys reported that they’d faked an orgasm at least once, often as a quick way to bring sex to an end. Roughly half the women were orgasm-fakers.
One college newspaper reporting on the study quoted a sex counselor who suggested a couple of possible reasons for guys to fake it: kinky internet porn, which allegedly makes “vanilla” sex seem boring, and antidepressants. The first explanation I don’t really buy, but the second makes perfect sense. Antidepressants are prescribed more than ever these days, and many of the most widely-used have relatively common sexual side effects — one of them being increased difficulty reaching orgasm.
That explanation doesn’t fly with W.F. Price over at The Spearhead. His theory, set forth in a recent post on the study: men can’t come because so many women are ugly, boring, smelly creatures who make strange noises. Forget Paxil and porn. Instead, just remember that (emphasis added):
some women are lousy in bed, just plain unattractive or boring. One sexuality counselor suggests that men are becoming “harder to please,” yet doesn’t seem to consider the fact that young women are possibly harder to look at and listen to than ever.
The simple presence of a female – even a naked one – is not sufficient to arouse a man, but today’s women may not have internalized that fact. There are a number of things that can turn a guy off during sex, including unpleasant odors, unpleasant sights, loose flesh, annoying or ridiculous noises, a woman’s lack of interest or enthusiasm or even a woman’s overenthusiasm/dominant behavior.
I’m not going to try to unpack every last bit of he-man woman-hating in those two paragraphs, but … “annoying and ridiculous noises?” Huh? Are women making fart sounds with their mouths? Practicing bird calls? Shouting out instructions in Klingon? Honking bicycle horns like Harpo Marx? I have no idea what sort of women Price is going out with, but I’m pretty sure most guys like the sounds women make during sex.
The other culprit in Orgasm-gate? Our “obsession with the female orgasm.” Apparently men these days are forced by unfair social norms to … actually care if the woman they’re having sex with enjoys herself. Even if she’s, you know, ugly.
Lots of young men feel pressured to have sex with women they are not all that attracted to, and today they are pressured to perform due to the obsession with the female orgasm, which sometimes results in men exhausting themselves by drilling away for unnaturally long periods of time. This can have a desensitizing effect and lead a man to want to simply end it in one way or another. And if she can fake it to get it over with, why can’t he? … Actually, when sex becomes a chore for men and all about pleasing a demanding woman, it should be expected that some of them will look for excuses to cut it short.
Somehow I suspect that sex with guys who think like this is always a chore, for everyone involved.
>Not-So-Beautiful Losers
>
 |
| Guys, they’re hiring! |
I’m beginning to suspect that the Happy Bachelors who populate the Happy Bachelors Forum are not quite as happy as they let on. Why is this? Well, when anyone suggests that their single status might in any way be undesirable, they don’t brush the comment off like most of us reasonably well-adjusted unmarried guys do. No, they get mad. Really mad. And they start talking about “femhags,” “fem-nags,” bitches and hoes (not the garden implement).
Here’s the thread in question. “analyzing” starts off the festivities by pointing to an email from a lovelorn 42-year old lass to an online relationship advice column:
Maybe I shouldn’t have waited [to get married], because it seems like every unmarried guy in the age range I’m looking for (40 to about 50) is a loser of one sort or another. If the guy has never been married, he’s either got commitment issues, or he’s lacking in social skills, or he drinks too much or has some other unattractive qualities. If he’s divorced, he’s either angry at women or so desperate to find a new one that he wants to hook up before he even knows you.
This comment is like a red flag to the Happy Bachelor bulls, who release a torrent of abuse that inadvertently reinforces every negative stereotype in the woman’s email. After a few comments lauding the superiority of young Thai and Filipina women over fortysomething American gals, spocksdisciple gets the woman-hating orgy underway. (I’ve bolded some of the best — as in worst — bits in his comment and some of the others.)
Women like this lack an essential quality to even begin to comprehend why they are such total failures in their relationships.
That essential quality is that of introspection and reflection, instead of asking what bad choices she’s made and her role in making these choices, she goes on the typical female tirade about how it’s the fault of all the men around her. …
I see lots and lots of cats in her future and nothing else, I will enjoy the upcoming decades as more and more of these useless bitches end up alone and going stir crazy. I’m betting that many of them will end up abusing drugs or alcohol to make their pain bearable. I will laugh at them because even then they will not look inwards to see if they were in part responsible for ending up alone.
Marcus Aurelius commends what he sees as an excellent analysis, and adds his own thoughts:
[W]omen are not capable of introspection, its always someone else’s fault. They don’t realize that their being cum dumpsters, going for Alphas, and their hypergamy destroys their chance at landing a mangina. They don’t have a beta male mangina…because…they overlooked them…and still are. I think you are right, these aging women that are alone will be screwed up mentally. …
Women just don’t know what to do with themselves. … Coming home to a quiet and empty home for them…is like descending into hell because they don’t know what to do once they get there. Men get hobbies. For them Its get drunk, or watch So You Think You Can Dance or the Bachelor…hahaha…..nothing goes on inside those heads of theirs.
I’m assuming he’s not the real Marcus Aurelius — I’m pretty sure the original Marcus Aurelius never used the term “cum dumpster.”
Others contribute their own insights about women. In the process, Curiepoint explains why he never became a firefighter:
I find it an honor to be so offensive to the likes of women. After a lifetime of looking after everyone else, bowing and scraping for a meagre paycheck, and kissing the ass of a woman who voraciously consumed everything I had (two of them, actually) I am more than proud to stand in defiance of any woman’s shitty personality.
I wouldn’t piss on a woman if she were on fire. Chances are, that would amount to one huge, spitting grease fire, given how “hot” women are comprised mostly of blubber and cheap rayon clothing. …
Women aren’t worth the effort to work up enough spit to hurl at them. And, any man who would actually cave in to her demands deserves to burn right along side them. They are not men. Both barely qualify as being vaguely humanoid.
Lavastorm suggests that perhaps being a winner isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, based on the following (apparently typical) scenario:
So a “winner” is a “man” who follows society’s pre-programmed path to self-destruction (gets married, becomes the wife’s tool to keep up with the neighbors, works in a soul-destroying job, is destroyed by wife when she gets “bored,” gets blamed for “destroying the marriage,” is thrown to the gauntlet of dread judges, retarded pit bulls, and menopausing succubi who commence sucking his blood.
In case you’re wondering: No, he never closes the parenthesis. He’s Going His Own Way, grammatically.
>Straight talk on homophobia … on the Men’s Rights subreddit??
>
Oh Reddit. Sometimes you make me so sad. Case in point: the 5,415 upvotes Redditors gave to this old dog of a story, a blatantly misogynist, and blatantly made-up, revenge-vasectomy tale from the “Best of Craigslist.” Mitigating factors: the fact that some commenters correctly labeled the story a hateful fake; the 4,582 downvotes the story got (resulting in “only” 833 net upvotes).
But sometimes I’m pleasantly surprised. Even as I was contemplating the idiotic reaction to this idiotic vasectomy story, I ran across another headline: “Does homophobia affect straight males too?” Good question. Weirdly, the post was from the Men’s Rights subreddit. Hoping for the best but fearing the worst, I took a look. Lo and behold, the post had actually inspired a real, honest discussion of the issues.
The OP set the stage with a few specific questions:
Have you ever hesitated to become close to another male for fear that it might be misinterpreted by someone else? Was there ever a time you resisted getting close to another male emotionally because you were afraid it might be seen as sexual? Does the fear of being called gay or a faggot ever change the way you behave in front of other males?
Among the answers there were of course a few jokes, including one that was actually sort of funny:
dontputsaltinyoureye 9 points
it has had a tremendous effect on my life. i am unable to wear my avril lavigne [shirt] in public due to the fear. WHY CAN I NOT WEAR MY AVRIL LAVIGNE SHIRT?!
And there was the requisite reference to Glee:
AGenericGoon 44 points
I am heterosexual, and watch/enjoy glee.
I will take this secret to the grave.
But there were also a number of bracingly honest comments, comments that would not be out of place on a feminist or LGBT message board. Some commenters talked about being gay-bashed – even though they aren’t gay. Others talked about how hetero-normative gender roles force men to keep quiet about their feelings:
TheBananaKing 27 points
Absolutely. all -normative behaviours box people in.
Straight guy here. … there’s an awful lot of restriction and anxiety in inter-male behaviour. You can’t ever be sad or hurt – only angry. You can’t extend comfort or affection towards another guy, except via humorous taunting / rivalry / aggression (eg play-fighting), unless you’re very, very drunk. You have to do this kind of… reverse double-entendre the entire time, translating everything into John Wayne before you speak or act it, and back again to understand others. It’s a pain in the ass.
Others offered more personal takes on what it’s like to be a straight guy who’s frequently taken to be gay:
ecartes 9 points
I talk with a lisp and dress really well. I’m also heterosexual.
Almost everyone I initially meet believes, nay, KNOWS, that I’m, ACTUALLY homosexual. It’s weird, living with the thought that everyone I meet thinks I’m gay. Although I will never know fully the oppression that some gay people face, I feel like I’ve felt a lot of it just from being perceived as gay. …
And perhaps the most unexpected of all:
soylentcoleslaw 33 points
If I acted on my normal impulses, I’d be extremely effeminate. I love cute things and cute clothes, I have subconscious feminine mannerisms, and I’d love a strong partner who makes me feel safe and who would take charge. I’ve never had a gay fantasy in my life. The thought of being with another man just doesn’t do it for me, but given what I want and who I naturally am, I’m said on numerous occasions how much easier my love life would be if it did. As it is, if I want to attract someone new, I have to tamp all that down and put on my reasonably masculine face, and maybe if I’m lucky, I can reveal some of that side of myself gradually. But I can’t be totally myself. Never. … So I go on pretending to be manly sometimes and hopefully don’t screw up.
Oh, sure, there were some answers that were bluntly homophobic — redwood9 states plainly that “I just hate fags … I hate all cocksuckers and those who bend over and take it in the ass” — but they made up a tiny minority of the comments, and were generally downvoted.
So what’s going on here? Has the Men’s Rights Subreddit suddenly become a beacon of open-mindedness? Not exactly. Most of those commenting in the topic don’t appear to be Men’s Rights regulars, but Redditors who were drawn to the topic when it appeared on Reddit’s main page. Here’s what someone who is a MR regular had to say:
aetheralloy 0 points
“Bro’s” and “bromance” is the term often used to shame men … Women (feminists) in particular love to use it. …
The really interesting question here isn’t if it affects males, but why women are both extremely homophobic towards gay males while also willing to use them as emotional buddies.
Yeah, damn those feminist women and their hatred of gay men!
So, no group hug just yet. But it’s good to see an outburst of good sense in a discussion forum that’s often pretty backwards.
It’s just a pity that the moderator of Men’s Rights remains convinced “that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy,” as he puts it in the sidebar, and that the subreddit’s slogan remains “Earning scorn from feminists since March 19, 2008.”
Because, you know what? If you’re a guy feeling boxed in by normative gender roles, some of the best people in the world to talk to about it are, you know, feminists.
>QuoteOTD: Whatever terrible shit men do, it’s all women’s fault. Their sexy fault.
>
The quote of the day today is a long and rambling one, so buckle up. It’s from a comment on The Spearhead, by a fellow named Snark, which was enthusiastically highlighted by the Schopenhauer-loving, Age-of-Consent-Law-hating theantifeminist on his creepy blog. The theme of the post? Whatever nasty, violent, bad shit men do is all the fault of hot young women, who control men through the power of their evil sexiness.
Before settling into his argument proper, Snark gets one little point out of the way: he’s not talking about feminists, who are, he says, generally too old, or, if young, too “neurotic and/or ugly” to control men with the promise of sexy sex. No, Snark is talking about hot young women, who control men without having to resort to feminism. Oh, feminism is evil. But pretty girls are evil squared. So let’s begin:
There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.
Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.
Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. …
Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.
Hmm. So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins. And just imagine how much worse World War II would have been if he’d actually had two balls, instead of just the one! Let’s continue:
The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.
Poor men are stuck between their rock-hard dicks and a hard place:
The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.
Oh, and the way those ladies dress!
[T]oday we are subject to the new phenomena [of] ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. …
The pink wurlitzer? Do you mean … this? Never mind. Onward:
Our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.
 |
| How Women Rule the Universe |
And what set all this in motion? The bikini? The Wonderbra? Nope:
[T]his was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote.
The vote! That sexy, sexy right to vote.
Not that this argument, such as it is, deserves a rebuttal, but if men are naturally nonviolent, and women are the cause of their violence, why do gay men get into fights?
