About these ads

Category Archives: the enigma that is ladies

When you assume: A “Nice Guy” launches a pre-emptive strike

Sexy buff party guys

Sexy buff party guys

So I’ve been reading Reddit’s CreepyPMs subreddit a lot lately, where the recipients of bizarre and, well, creepy personal messages share them with the world. As you might imagine, some of the creepiest come from complete strangers on dating sites, like the following message received by a young woman on MeetMe, who put up a profile stating that she was looking for friends only (she already has a boyfriend) and that she would talk to anyone.

Well, one young man didn’t quite believe her, and sent this message:

assume

He doesn’t judge, huh? That’s the most judgy non-judgemental message I’ve ever seen.

If you haven’t already checked out CreepyPMs, go take a look. You can lose hours in there.

 

About these ads

Red Piller: “Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. “

How to totally score with the babes.

How to totally score with the babes.

Over on the Red Pill Subreddit — where manly ALPHA MALES trade tips on how to totally dominate the ladies with their awesome ALPHATUDE — one enterprising fellow has a suggestion for aspiring lady-dominators: take a tip or two from professional dog trainers and treat your bitch like a bitch!

TRPsubmitter, an official Red Pill Subreddit Endorsed Contributor, explains how you can use the magic of Operant Conditioning to train your gal:

Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. Both substrates (dogs, women) have innate submissive/obedient tendencies that should be emphasized along with unwanted behaviors to be diminished and punished. If you know anything about dogs, you know that many “incidents” are often the fault of the owner failing to provide a proper outlet for a dog’s energy or natural predispositions.

Women have natural predispositions too: Attention-seeking, curious, emotional, irrational, solipsistic, unable to constructively deal with stress/criticism, likes to blame others, etc. Almost all of these can be subjected to a combination of operant conditioning.

Yeah, that pretty much describes all possible predispositions women might have. Because women are terrible!

Read the rest of this entry

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

Artist Louise Bourgeois also pretended to like dongs.

Artist Louise Bourgeois also pretended to like dongs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh.

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

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

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

Men’s Rights Redditors baffled by women who don’t like the word “cunt.”

So the fellas over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit were having a little discussion the other day about the word “cunt,” and wondering just why so many ladies get so offended by that word. I mean, it’s just a word. (Not like “creep” which is the worst possible thing anyone could possibly call someone else, and a clear abuse of their human rights.)

Funcuz, for his part, blamed Oprah for the unpopularity of the word “cunt” among women:

Hardwarequestions, in a rather circular manner, blamed the offensiveness of the word “cunt” on women, for being offended in the first place:

The only one who seemed to think the insult was genuinely a big deal was expletive-deleted, who rather likes it that way:

Calling women cunts: Men’s Rights Activism at its finest!

Tommy Wiseau’s The Room: An unintentional MRA classic?

A rare non-misogynistic moment in The Room

You may have heard of, if you haven’t already seen, the stupefyingly terrible film The Room. The film is so bafflingly inept and nonsensical that you’re hardly surprised to learn that writer, director, and star Tommy Wiseau had never made a film before; indeed, you might find yourself wondering if he’d ever even seen a film before.

The Room (released, barely, in 2003 and available on DVD) is a mawkishly melodramatic, and deadly serious, drama about a man betrayed by his fiancee, which Wiseau has been trying to market as a quirky comedy  because no one can watch the film without laughing at his hero’s travails. Rent The Room if you want to stare dumbfounded at your TV for an hour and a half some night. Seriously, rent it.

Seeing it for myself the first time not long ago, I was struck by the manosphere-style misogyny that pervades almost every frame of the movie. It’s not an MRA film, and Wiseau is no MRA, but somehow he manages to encapsulate every terrible stereotype about men and women that most MRAs seem to believe.

The film tells the sad story of Johnny (played by Wiseau), a good-hearted, long-haired banker with an unclassifiable accent who is betrayed at work (he doesn’t get his expected promotion) and, more importantly, by his “future wife” Lisa, who blithely cheats on him with his best friend.

Lisa is portrayed like the evil bitch villain in nearly every MRA urban legend: she’s a self-absorbed twit who, in addition to cheating on Johnny, falsely accuses him of domestic violence and fakes a pregnancy just to fuck with him.

Johnny, meanwhile, is supposed to be seen as a loyal, helpful, compassionate man who cares deeply about his friends and treats his adored “future wife” Lisa like the princess he tells her she is.

I say “supposed to” because Johnny is hardly the great guy Wiseau thinks he is. For one thing, everything he does and says is bit … off, as if his body has been taken over by a space alien who’s learned everything he knows about women (and human interaction in general) by reading comments on Reddit and watching Christopher Walken as “The Continental” on Saturday Night Live without getting the joke.

For another, he’s a rage-filled narcissist with a bad case of “nice guy” entitlement and absolutely no self-awareness. When his friend Mark tells him about a woman beaten so badly she ends up in the hospital, he responds with a hearty laugh. (“What a story, Mark!”) And when he confronts Lisa about her false accusations of domestic violence (“You are lying! I never hit you!”), he angrily shoves her down onto a couch. It doesn’t seem to occur to Johnny (or to Wiseau) that this too is a form of domestic violence.

When, after learning of Lisa’s betrayal, he trashes their apartment and [SPOILER ALERT] kills himself with a conveniently located pistol, Wiseau presents it as the ultimate comeuppance to the cruel Lisa.

While you have to see the whole film to truly appreciate its epic badness, the following clips will give you some idea of what I’ve been talking about.

First, the trailer, which tries its best to cover up the film’s true weirdness:

The infamous “roof scene” in which Johnny tells Mark (the guy Lisa is sleeping with) about Lisa’s accusations of domestic violence:

A compilation of some of Johnny’s best (i.e. worst) moments:

This one (ignore the misleading title) gives you some idea of Lisa’s oblivious evilness:

Here’s Hitler reacting to the film. (Note: Not the real Hitler.)

And here, if you dare, is the whole damn movie in its entirely. (If you’re pressed for time, you may want to fast forward through the film’s five completely unerotic sex scenes, set to the worst slow jams ever recorded.)

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and here’s the scene the gif above is from. Johnny is the most efficient flower buyer and pug-petter in the world.

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:

Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?

As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.

I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.

This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.

Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.

But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:

Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.

Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.

For example, you can just call them sluts:

Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.

You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …

Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.

Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,

I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.

Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.

Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?

Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!

I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!

NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.

This post contained some

All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.

Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.

Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:

[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.

(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)

In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.

Revver started things off with this lovely thought:

Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.

 How easily they make themselves look like fools.

Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:

Women judge men by pre-selection.

If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …

Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). …  Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?

(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)

Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:

Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …   

The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …

The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)

In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:

Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.

The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.

Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:

My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. …  They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.

We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.

Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:

Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.

Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.

Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.

Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.

Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:

Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.

I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:

The Misogyny Album

Tired of reading long, rambling, barely coherent misogynist tirades? Would you prefer misogyny in convenient, e-z to understand chart form? Well, you’re in luck, because a Redditor calling himself firstEncounter has assembled a handy imgur album of “women logic” graphics and comics. Here’s one of them:

Oh, let’s do one more:

Oh, let’s make it an even three:

If you enjoyed these, there are 29 more for you here.

Why, you ask, has firstEncounter gone to the trouble of assembling such a giant stinky pile of misogyny? It’s not why you think! He just likes to put things in categories! As he explains:

I actually have entire imgur albums categorized by content. …

I don’t hate women, seriously. Nor do I believe the images within the album are accurate depictions of standard women behavior. I simply found them entertaining to some extent.

So there you have it!

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, firstEncounter’s little collection received (let’s all say it together) DOZENS OF UPVOTES on Reddit.

And thanks, ShitRedditSays, for pointing me to this.

Your penis, your choice — not your responsibility!

Ladies use these to extract money from helpless men.

When men and women have consensual sex, who is responsible? If you said “both, because they both agreed to and participated in it,” you might be some sort of misandrist feminazi. Because, as W.F. Price explains in a recent Spearhead post, it’s really women who are responsible for consensual heterosexual sex.

If you’re wondering how that could be, well, keep reading. Price starts off by considering what he calls “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”

If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists).

Why yes, Mr. Price, chances are that someone on my street has been raped recently. Indeed, I know numerous women who have been raped. I’m guessing most women don’t share the intensely personal fact that they’ve been raped with you, Mr. Price, because you’re the sort of person who likes to go around talking dismissively about “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”

Let’s continue:

Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

Well, that’s an interesting approach to logic: snidely dismiss the fact that rape is common, then go ahead and assume it’s true for the sake of the rest of your argument:

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

I cannot help but marvel at the twisted logic here. Women want the right to say no to sex they do not want to have. But getting this “no” to be taken seriously is such a problem that some women organize actual protests in the streets to declare that “no means no,” and this means that … they are the ones responsible for sex.

And if women are more responsible for sex than the men they have sex with, just who should bear the responsibility for the pregnancies that sometimes follow? I think you see where Price is going here, but let’s let him spell it out:

Let’s break it down:

    Men have a higher sex drive than women

    Men have less control over their sexual impulses

    Women value the ability to deny sex

    Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Since women sometimes say no to sex, they should bear all the costs of raising children?

It’s the strangest evo-psych argument I’ve seen so far: Since men are hardwired to be horndog sex-havers, they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for the consequences of this sexual activity, at least when it comes to contributing something to support the children that sometimes show up about nine months later. Ladies: think of the poor men, at the mercy of their boners! How dare you expect that they pay their share of the costs of raising a child?

In Price’s mind, child support is not only unfair to poor horndog men, it’s  a cancer destroying civilization as we know it:

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Raising a child as a single mom is apparently the easiest thing in the world. But making men pay for a portion of the costs for this child is tyranny!

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Despite his own handwringing about the state of The Family, Price doesn’t’ spell out how married men fit into his sex-responsibility equation. Are married men considered as responsible for babies as their wives? Is this responsibility retroactively nullified if they get divorced? It’s all very complicated. Which is, I guess, inevitable, once you arbitrarily decide that two consenting adults who have sex with one another are somehow not equally responsible for this sex.

Naturally, the Spearhead peanut gallery provided many more nuggets of wisdom. WGMOW – apparently a woman herself – gave Price’s bizarre argument a big ditto:

I don’t even see anthing debatable here. It is entirely the females who make the decision when and where to get knocked up, and then get child support from a man with the means to provide her with a bank account and credit cards seemingly for life. It there is no such man available she gets handouts from Big Daddy Government in the form of welfare, Sec 8 housing, free utilities, food stamps, free health care, free college education, and in some states, even a car.

These are the females that feminists say are “strong, powerful, and smart.” Bullshit. They are just as dependant as the females of the Victorian age. Then, they went from the care of their fathers into the care of their husbands. Now, they go from the care of their welfare mothers into the care of the government. All courtesy of our tax dollars.

AfOR put it even more bluntly:

The law fucks men over because they can be made to bleed more than a wimminz, they make better hosts for the parasites of society than wimminz.

Who exactly are the parasites here? The babies?

Hf seemed annoyed that women are allowed any autonomy at all:

Women typically struggle with knowing what exactly it is that they want. The “No Means No” movement is just as much trying to convince themselves and each other as it is trying to convince men. Deception is very much a part of a woman’s autonomy.

Nehalem provided a new slogan for the no-male-responsibility-for-sex-or-babies movement:

To get the point across more easily I suggest we modify a common liberal slogan and say:

Her body, her choice, her responsibility.

This being The Spearhead, it sort of goes without saying that each of these comments got dozens of upvotes.

Apparently, then, the only responsible course of action for unmarried women today is to never ever have sex with men. No sex, no consequences, no responsibilities to share with force upon men! But somehow I suspect that the MRAs of the world wouldn’t be happy with this solution.

 

 

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,523 other followers

%d bloggers like this: