Search Results for mgtow
Bla bla pussy cartel bla bla cock blockade
Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.
The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.
He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.
I mean that quite literally. Our excitable MGTOWer friend MarkyMark recently drew his readers’ attention to a 5-year-old post by Fidelbogen with the enigmatic title “Ideas Which Go Against the Grain,” which offers, yep, a 3000-word précis of the evils of pussy power. Perhaps against my better judgement, I’ve decided to give it a detailed look. Strap in!
I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:
Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.
Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:
This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.
In other words: vagina=power.
I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.
Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!
The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.
And this leads to, yep, the dreaded Pussy Cartel:
Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …
Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.
Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.
So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:
Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.
So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”
The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.
After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:
Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.
Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)
At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”
Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.
And then he comes to his point:
Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.
Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.
Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.
And he comes to another point:
Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.
Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.
And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.
Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.
So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.
After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”
[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.
Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.
I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.
Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:
The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.
The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,
I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!
Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:
So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.
They threw a harness around a paradigm?
The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.
So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies. (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)
More blabbity blabbity:
The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.
After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:
My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.
Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.
Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.
Will the coming apocalypse put bitchy ladies in their place?
Men: We all know how to wrestle bears.
Angry manosphere dudes sure do love them some apocalyptic fantasies! Which totally makes sense, since they all seem to imagine the apocalypse as little more than an opportunity to deliver a big “told you so!” to women and “manginas” and probably their pet goldfish.
Over on MGTOWforums.com, our robogirl-obsessed friend avoidwomen has been reposting assorted comments he’s apparently found on The Spearhead, and which he just loves, loves, loves! Unfortunately, he hasn’t provided links or any other information about them, and Google didn’t much help, so I don’t know who exactly should get the credit for the following bit of postapocalyptic fiction.
It’s sort of long, but I think you’ll pick up the gist of it right away. (It also sounds really, really familiar – have I written about it before, or is it just that MRAs and MGTOWers are so predictably unoriginal?) Are you sitting comfortably? Good. Let’s begin:
An economic collapse will put women in their place. Virtually no women have the skills necessary to survive in the real world. They can survive in this artificial politically correct, multi-cultural, anything goes, “death to the West, death to the white male patriarch” system that we are presently in….
As the economy declines even further the government will be forced to make massive cuts. … The first things on the chopping block will be entitlements, the sort of entitlements that have enabled women to use big government as a substitution for a stable nuclear family, a family they would only be able to have by behaving themselves and conforming to acceptable standards of behavior as determined by their fathers and later their husbands.
And now we come to the payoff:
In the near future women will be given the choice of starving in the street, finding some way to hunt/fish/garden on their own, or conforming to the standards men set for them and being kept alive by men who actually place value upon their continued existence.
Let’s throw some Ayn Rand into the mix:
This dysgenic society favors the weak and indeed it subsidizes the weak at the expense of the strong and the fit. … We are ruled by thieves who steal from the productive and give to the idiotic masses to keep themselves in office at the expense of the intelligent, the creative, the productive, the true movers and shakers of society.
Can I have some “we hunted the mammoth” to go with that “Atlas Shrugged?”
We build civilizations yet we are penalized at every step of the way in every aspect of our lives. Instead of being allowed to innovate, invent, and create, we are made to subsidize the recklessness of unworthy women, tens of millions of illegal aliens, and any other group that some clique of weak and effeminate politicians decides to cave to.
Hmm. That’s pretty good. But still not quite melodramatic enough. Can we add some big blustery clichés to the mix? Some “we stand on the edge of a precipice” sort of shit?
We stand on the cusp of the precipice, gazing down into the abyss.
Oh, ok. I didn’t expect you to take me quite so literally. But never mind:
After our civilization is pushed over the edge a new one will emerge from the void left by the collapse of the old one. All we have to do is make sure it is to our benefit rather than to our detriment.
And now, back to all those mean bitches who were so mean to us:
The prospect of starvation, death by exposure to the elements, or being turned into a prostitute by a street gang that openly dominates some X number of city blocks in the absence of big government police, should be amply adequate to put most women in their place.
You can almost hear the writer jazzing in his pants as he writes this.
The question is not one of “will they come crawling back to us” but rather, “how do we respond when they do finally come crawling back.”
Yeah, ladies, maybe we don’t want you after all!
Most of them are bitter, selfish, self-absorbed, idiotic, brain-dead, used up whores, and I have no need for such creatures in my life. They don’t know how to cook, how to clean, how to butcher livestock, how to till a field, how to cultivate crops, how to hunt game, how to fish, how to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, how to zero a rifle, in short they have no practical useful skills for existence outside of an artificial globalist “post industrial” financial/retail services economic structure.
Ooh! In your face, ladies who can’t cultivate crops and take down bears in hand-to-hand combat!
Did your feminism prepare you for BEARS? I think not!
In addition they don’t even know how to treat people, especially men, in a right and proper fashion.
Um. What happened to hand-to-hand-combat and all that survival-of-the-fittest stuff? This seems a tad, er, petulant.
I personally have no use for a bunch of used up whores who “had their fun” and now expect men who know what is what and have their act together, to put their lives on the line to keep them safe.
Ah, now we’re rolling again.
Screw you, whores! It’s all fun and games until the economy collapses and the BEARS show up!
Hopefully in the new society, the one on the way, women will be treated as perpetual minors with no contractual capacity and no right to ownership of property. … what we cannot achieve politically will be achieved socially and physically by the nature of the coming collapse/implosion.
Yep, ladies. It’s our way … or the BEARway! (By which I mean, “the highway, except that the highway is covered with BEARS!”)
Never forget, that at some point back in time, EVERYTHING women have they obtained from MEN, either via big government initiated wealth/resource transfers, or because men were foolish enough to dote on them in some hope of obtaining sex/sexual access (or even just the affections/approval) from some creature that was doubtlessly a used up whore.
So there you have it. Our glorious future!
I’m not sure how the robogirls fit in all this exactly. If the economy collapses and we’re fighting the BEARS in the streets, won’t that put a little dent in production of robogirls?
Never mind. That’s a mere detail. The important things to remember are: Apocalypse soon, women screwed, men happy, BEARS.
Maybe she’s just not that into you, because women are incapable of love
Maybe the MGTOWers just need a hug from this strange bald man with no pants. Or toes.
Sometimes the fellows on MGTOWforums.com get all philosophical on us. At the moment they are discussing a question of great import: Are women incapable of love to the degree men love?
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Actually, screw them. Maybe it will cheer me up:
And if that didn’t do the trick, how about this?
I think we have a new [NSFW] catchphrase!
A You-know-whatted Circus in action.
MGTOWers have such a way with words. Here’s MrLahey on MGTOWforums explaining his movement in a nutshell:
[W]e’re voting with our feet, and the best way to say no to the cunted circus is to stop feeding it with your participation.
They’ll only notice you when they’re short your money.
“Cunted circus.” Lovely. I will be working it into as many conversations as I dare. Assuming I can figure out how to use it in a sentence. Can you?
(I’m taking off the “cunt” filter for the occasion.)
Flo the Progressive Insurance gal: a “symptom of a decaying society.”
A tool of the matriarchy?
It may be hard to find a summer blockbuster movie in which two female characters have even a single conversation about anything but a man, but MRAs and related species seem to believe that the entertainment industry is one giant conspiracy against men. Why? Because sometimes men are portrayed as buffoons.
Given that it’s hard to have comedy without buffoons, I have to admit that this is often true. Of course, given that the buffoon role is generally a much better role than straight man (or woman), I’m not sure how this is a grave injustice against men. I’d love to see more female buffoons. Like this:
I doubt the guys at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum spend much time watching old French and Saunders specials. No, they seem to prefer watching those Flo the Progressive Insurance gal ads on YouTube until their heads nearly explode from anger at Progressive’s insidious misandry.
For you see, in these ads – I’m not going to bother to post one, since I assume most of you have seen them — Flo is sort of quirky and charming, but the guys are all, well, to me a lot of them also seem quirky and charming, but to the MGTOWers they – and by extension all men — are being played for fools.
Oh, and apparently these ads also portend the end of civilization. As Juno3 puts it,
Just another symptom of a decaying society. …
Imagine the ad agency staff, probably a bunch of dykes with a few dudes wearing pantyhose to work.
If that were a show — a sort of lesbian revamp of Mad Men, perhaps? — I would totally watch it.
The other commenters aren’t quite so worried about the end of the world, but perky little Flo really seems to get under their skin. G40IntercontinentalGhost writes:
Am guessing she’s the one with the irritating, smirky assed grin on her face that looks like said grin is/was the result of wiring being put in some mighty sensitive places. KEE-RIST on the Concorde! From under what rock(or cock as the case may well be) did Progressive Insurance find that twat? I’m also really glad that my u.s. Driver’s License(Washington) expired some time ago.
I kinda like Flo. Now that I know the MGTOWers hate her, I feel a lot more comfortable admitting that.
If you’re going to get angry at car insurance ads, get angry at this shit. That jingle just makes me want to punch someone.
More violent talk, more excuses for terrorism, this time from the inaptly named Happy Bachelors Forum
Try pointing the finger at yourself, for once.
On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:
This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …
If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.
You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.
It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.
Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:
[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.
Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.
Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.
And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:
Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.
Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.
Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.
Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.
khankrumthebulgar gives his real name
khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).
spocksdisciple comment
khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment
Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 4: If They Are Not Restrained
In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, Tiny Bunny and Small Dog make an excursion to NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, and consider the view of one fellow there who feels women should be restrained so that they don’t all become sadists and sluts. Also, there is a discussion of ice cream.
Here’s the original comment from the forum. (I edited it a bit for length and clarity in the video.)
All women are instinctively sadists and sluts if they are not restrained by the society.
Present feminism has given complete freedom for women and has completely restrained and shunned all men.This present feminism invokes and encourages the very basic instinct of a woman – It encourages her how to be a slut & how to be a sadist.
One better e.g. that I can give is – If a woman beats her lover/husband with a machete and fills his body with oozing blood whole mob(which includes all men) cheers her with claps & encourages her to give the more brunt of it(click here).Or even if a woman kills a man in public she is seen as if she has done a heroic act in media,courtrooms & in public.Even if she is guilty of that serious offence she is acquitted.Like this there are many e.g. which I don’t even need to give.
Present feminism is a failed ideology,just look what it has given – there are single mothers,prostitutes,drug addicts(teenage girls & boys brought up by single mothers),recession for men,disjoint families ,higher divorce rates,depression,increasing violence among teenagers due to lack of care during their crucial childhood years,immoral porn culture which also encourages homosexuality,oppression of men,etc…
If soceity puts some restrain on women then definitely women can be beneficial to the soceity with their feminine touch.Restraining women is necessary to teach them discipline & such disciplined women are really good to soceity.In fact this should be the principle of feminism & we men would had undoubtedly embraced such kind of feminism.But what I said above is seen as offence in present feminism which preaches every woman to oppress men & treat them as slaves.
There was actually one more paragraph of this. Just more of the same.
Time for some ice cream, I think.
Women don’t have the “patients” for engineering
It takes MEN to build a bridge
Guys,
So the fellows over at MGTOWforums were pondering just why it is that there are so few women engineers. There were a number of theories advanced to explain this gender imbalance – women are “crap at math,” “their [sic] just too stupid,”“you can’t build a bridge with ‘feelings.’” (Snap!)
But it was shade47 who offered the most convincing theory. It all has to do with incentives:
Im an engineer myself and in my opinion women could be good engineers if they wanted to be but its a hard sell since they can make money by lieing on their backs and shitting out bastards. …
i dont think women above a five in looks would have the patients [sic] to deal with the hardship of actually studying when she knows that shell end up getting knocked up or married and stop working in approximately 5 years after graduation.
Ladies, focus on your womb turds and leave engineering to the geniuses who don’t know the difference between “patience” and “patients.”
MarkyMark, we hardly knew ye …
Farewell, MarkyMark, farewell!
Guys,
Are you sitting down? Good. Because I have some shocking news for you all: Our favorite MGTOW-blogger-who-believes-stories-in-The-Onion-are-real, the esteemed MarkyMark is, after five years on the front lines, calling it a day. In a post with the ominous headline Time to Wind Down …, Mr. Mark explains:
There comes a point when one gets over his anger at women, misandry, and so on. There comes a point where, at least for me, I simply acknowledge that women are what they are, and nothing will change that. How many times can I poke holes in their hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and double standards? After a while, it becomes old.
But fear not! MarkyMark has one final mission to complete before he rides off into the sunset: He’s got some book about women that he’s going to literally cut and paste into his blog, bit by bit, a process that he estimates “will take at least 6-12 months, perhaps more.”
In honor of his fine service to the men of the world, I will be going back through his archives in search of good stuff. Feel free to join me in this holy endeavor, and post your results here.
He also mentions this:
There’s also an archive of my rantings and ravings online, so now’s the time to find it.
I guess we’d better, huh?
Digital twats vs. the Pussy Pricing Cartel
Like women, pandas are too lazy to have sex properly.
So, porn. Apparently women just HATE it, and a fellow calling himself Womanhater over on the MGTOWforums is here to tell us the REAL reason why. Well, reasons. Obviously, everybody already knows
that porn makes men not have to deal with women, and therefore lessens the value of the snatch mafia and the pussy pricing cartel.
But, Womanhater thinks “there may be another factor at play.” Let’s let Mr. Hater explain:
[W]e all know that twats will throw sex at a man and lie to him endlessly to seduce him into legal slavery/marriage. But porn makes the sex she has to throw at him much more unpleasant.
Remember, sex is pretty unpleasant for most women to begin with:
We know that that vast majority of twats either do not enjoy sex at all, or they only enjoy it with thug cock. As such, they have to engage in a physically unpleasant activity with a man they’re not physically attracted to, but only financially attracted to.
But then along comes porn, and suddenly women discover that they have to actually make an effort as well:
Porn means that she cannot simply spread her legs, lay there like a dead fish, and let her victim bust his nut. Porn has made her have to act now too. She must work much much harder to emulate the digital twats her victim has been seeing for a decade or better, and only a true sociopath can fake emotion that well that long.
Also, they can’t get away with being big fat fatties either:
Porn has also raised the expectations of her victim vis a vis her physique, which as we all know is a challenge for Western women these days.
In the end, it all comes down to sheer laziness:
In short, if the twat wasn’t lazy, she’d not be trying to loot a man. And that laziness is exactly what has porn has challenged. While there’s still plenty of victims in the world for the vile cunts to loot and torture, they’re having to work much much much harder to do it now, and THAT is why the twats dislike porn.
QED!
