Search Results for mgtow
>A failure of empathy: Misogynists respond to the Arizona shootings
>
One thing I am struck by again and again as I read the blogs and the message boards of the manosphere is how little basic human empathy I see there, towards women in general and towards feminists of both sexes. We see it in the routine references to women as “whores” and “cunts” and other terms that reduce them to their genitalia.
We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed. You may recall my recent post about an MRA blog that basically celebrated the possible death of a missing Las Vegas dancer. The body of the murdered woman, Deborah Flores-Narvaez, has since been found. The news inspired a moderator of the Happy Bachelors Forum to start a topic entitled “Dirty skanky whore found dead.”
And of course we’ve seen similar reactions to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others. While many in the manosphere responded to the shootings like normal human beings (displaying honest shock and horror) and others responded like typical internet paranoids (wildly speculating on how this meant the government would take away all our rights), there were others who found ways to blame women for the shootings or to twist the issue into one of men’s putative oppression. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, one commenter found an ingenious way to blame women for the shooting:
He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that’s what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can’t think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.
Others complained that the news coverage was slanted by evil feminism. From the MGTOW proboards forum:
it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.
this really shows you how society values women over men. and she’s not even dead!
Over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, one member complained that Giffords was getting most of the news coverage and that the six others who were murdered in the attack, most of whom were probably men, were being ignored:
This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.
The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.
The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the four unnamed dead people were men. If they were men, they would be considered less human than the others. They are not even human enough for the media to investigate and name. Their death, by American standards, was a tragedy but less of a tragedy than the non-death of female politician.
This comment is jampacked with an assortment of bad assumptions. To correct the most obvious of them: Giffords has gotten most of the coverage because this was not a random murder, but an attempted political assassination. Gender has nothing to do with it. When people talk about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, they rarely mention the three others who were also wounded that day. (Except for James Brady, and that’s because he has gone on to be an influential gun control advocate.)
The male judge has gotten a good deal of attention, but isn’t the main focus of the coverage because he was not the target of the assassination attempt. The girl has gotten attention because she was a child. The other victims were not named at first because authorities had not yet notified their next-of-kin. There were three men killed in the attacks, two women, and one girl.
Meanwhile, on this very blog, a regular antifeminist commenter who calls himself Random Brother has made clear that he doesn’t extend basic human sympathies to feminists. Asking whether or not Giffords is a feminist, he explains:
I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. …
If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is precisely zero evidence that Giffords is any any way a “man hater”: Because she’s a human being?
Sadly, this failure of empathy isn’t confined to the manosphere, as Marianne Kirby notes on The Rotund:
Empathy is, in its simplest form, the ability to acknowledge the thoughts/reasoning/emotions of another person as valid. It is, so to speak, being able to see where they are coming from even if you do not agree. … Empathy is, I think, coming to the realization of our own humanity and the humanity of other people – we are all simply people. …
[W]hen politicians depend on hate and violent rhetoric to stir up their followers, no good can come of it. … It teaches them that these people who believe different things are “the enemy” – that they are a danger and must be eliminated.
Is it any wonder that some people reach a point where the literal elimination of those who are different becomes the end goal?
For a long time I labeled the MRA/MGTOW blogs I’ve put in my sidebar as my “Enemies List.” It was a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to Nixon’s famous “enemies list.” But many people took it literally, and some (even if they didn’t) worried that this kind of terminology could lead to precisely the sort of dehumanizing of the “enemy” I’ve been criticizing here. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, and after pondering several eloquent emails sent to me on the subject, I’ve decided to change my “Enemies List” to, well, a “Boob-roll.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “boob” as “a stupid or foolish person; a dolt.” The people I write about may be — at least in my mind — wrong, and foolish, and sometimes hateful assholes, but they are people.
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Women Are … Part 6: Herd of Hens Edition
>
 |
| We all agree that ladies are too conformist. |
Another installment of our popular “Women Are …” series, in which I collect examples of manosphere misogynists rudely generalizing about women like there’s no tomorrow. I’ll let you figure out the theme this time. It’s not herd, er, hard.
Women are: A herd of hens
All women constitute one huge herd. They are a uniform group, and their thinking always falls into line. I’ve actually had women make that “I’m so shocked noise” and then ask, “you don’t really think that do you?” Yeah, I do. I have a mind of my own.
They don’t search for facts, reality, or truth. They search for consensus and emotional validation. They are cackling hens. Cackle cackle cackle :)
Women are: Herd creatures who won’t date you.
Most women in a culture are nearly psychologically identical. So … if you arent successful with the first 25 women, chances are you wont be successful with any of women within that same subset, cause they are herd creatures and take cues from the environment rather than having any real personalities of their own.
Women are: Bleating, uncritical sheep
Women are like herd animals and desperately desire to belong.
Men on the other hand are critical and won’t blindly follow someone if they don’t merit our approval. This is the difference in critical, mature thinking, and sheep bleating.
Women are: A herd of orgasmic voters
Women love to vote (group herd orgasm with her sisters). … In fact, women love any group activity. Men largely want to be left alone to live their lives in freedom. … That is why men do not really care about government. Men do not need it. So men do [not] vote that much. Women love government so women love to vote.
Women are: A herd of Facebook cunts
The problem is Ameriskank mindsets, they are close minded and stereotype every strange man as a pedophile, creepy, or a loser….
You need INTELLIGENCE & an OPEN MIND to meet & understand NEW people and Ameriskanks have none of the above.
Ameriskanks are the ultimate HERD animal. I can not stand these fucking cunts from Junior High & High School messaging me on Fucking Facebook (all single moms) wanting to start a “friendship” aka “find a sucker to take care of my bastard children”.
Women are: Matrimony-minded herd creatures who hate doing chores
Women ARE herd creatures – the mentality of the group is more important than the self realized truth brought by evidence. However woman also demand products to do every chore for them, and ask the government to freely provide money to they can live without working either from government handouts or by getting government to enforce draconian laws that allow women to rip men off with the lie of ‘holy matrimony’.
Women are: Hormonal herd creatures unchecked by patriarchy
The problem is, too many women allow their emotions, their hormones, their herd instinct, and the media to run their lives. Again, in past eras, these were all checked by patriarchal institutions, but these have long since disintegrated.
Women are: Herd beasts who don’t want anyone to see them naked.
An ancient king was once faced with a rash of suicides of young women.
He ordered that the body if any woman who killed herself would be displayed naked in the public square.The suicides stopped.Shame works better on women than on men because women are herd beasts. Women care more about the opinion of the group than their own thoughts or even their own lives.
You know what’s ironic? Groups of like-minded lady-hating men gathering together online to talk endlessly about what herd creatures women are.
>Trogdor005 goes ghost
>
My new favorite commenter on the Happy Bachelors Forum is a fellow calling himself trogdor005, who pretty much lives up to his name, offering blunt misogynist rants with all the subtlety of a caveman. A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts. So here is the first in a new series, “The Wit and Wisdom of Trogdor005.”
Today’s topic: “Going ghost.” For those not conversant with the latest in angry-man slang, this is a term adopted by the manosphere that’s basically a variant on Men Going Their Own Way — that is, disengaging from women and as much as possible from society itself. A man who goes ghost is, of course, a ghost. Here’s how you use it in a sentence:
That creepy douchebag who lives alone in the basement apartment and scowls every time a women walks by is a ghost.
Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a woman who mocked the whole “ghost” notion:
I admit it, every time I read about some guy in the manosphere declaring that he or other men are going to go ghost, I laugh. I laugh real hard. When I have nothing else to laugh about because it feels as if nothing is going my way I think of those men, I laugh, and I am instantaneously cheered up.
The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor.
This post MAKE TROGDOR MAD! So he banged out a response. He began by showing off his hard-won font-size-modification and smiley skills:
Then he moved into the meat of his argument:
The bottom line is men can avoid women entirely and there is NO FORCE on Earth that can force us into “marriage” or even a “relationship” with a woman minus a gun to the head. Even if the Guv’ment succeeds in somehow “forcing” men to get married, we as ghosts know what makes you bitches tick and can simply become unemployed intentionally, become fat stinky slobs, treat you very nicely/well, or more devastatingly effective, say the words “I love you” and cause you to instantly lose ALL attraction for us and be miserable in your Guv’ment arranged “marriages” ;D … The icing on the cake is that, when you inevitably file for “divorce” after years of unhappiness/New Cock Urge it is YOU who will pay US men “alimony” and “child support” since we were unemployed during the “marriage” hahahahhahaha ;D
Yes, you heard it right ladies, even if the government gives in to your dastardly desires and actually forces men to marry you, they can defeat you without lifting a finger, literally, except when their fingers are needed to shove food into their mouths.
Trogdoor005 then rallied the troops with some stirring rhetoric:
Men are winning the “gender war” and there is NOTHING the wimminz can do about it … The matriarchy needs a steady supply of manginas/husbands to feed the system and keep it running, a ghost is the anti-thesis of the mangina/husband and therefore MUST be discredited, silenced, and destroyed.
Many of us men will go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives, meanwhile many of these same Femini-nazi bitches will end up with cats and vibrators in their old age.
Here’s where Trogdor005 went wrong: plenty of non-elderly women have cats and vibrators already.
Love-shyness and the perpetual resentment machine
>
 |
| She’s so smug, that Mona Lisa! |
Reading Love-shy.com, a forum for self-described incels (that is, the “involuntarily celibate”) and other “love-shy” guys, is a depressing experience. On the one hand, there are a lot of guys there who are genuinely hurting due to social awkwardness, depression, and other serious maladies that would be better treated by a psychiatrist and/or a good therapist than by talking to other equally miserable guys on an online forum.
And on the other hand, there is so much seething resentment among the regulars, not only of those women who have rejected them but women in general. The complaint is always the same: women only like “bad boys” and thugs, and refuse to date “nice guys.” That is, guys like those who post on Love-Shy.com.
In one recent, fairly typical, thread, an unhappy “nice guy” reports that a girl he had a crush on (and who, a year ago, had turned him down) is now pregnant:
And she lists herself as single [on Facebook], which means that she was knocked up by some loser. That could have been MY kid; instead, I’m left here wondering why she followed the stereotype, when I thought she was so different.
I swear, all women are the same. They ALL follow the same patterns. Even someone who considers themselves an outcast or eccentric themselves, they ALL follow the same patterns. Her boyfriends were always extremely good looking, too.
This is another example of a woman who is nerdy/geeky, and doesn’t like the nice guys. Pathetic, really pathetic.
So her crime is that … she is attracted to guys that she thinks are, er, attractive? Instead of a self-described “nice guy” who seems to think she has a duty to be attracted to him, and who is obsessive enough to still be nursing a grudge about her rejection of him a year earlier?
Others pipe up with their support:
This should be of no surprise to you. She clearly is a quasi-eugenicist that deemed your genes unworthy of propagation. She subsequently mated with another guy who had desirable genes so that she could have the best possible offspring. Classic eugenics, classic female hypergamy.
Yep. Women who are attracted to the attractive are “eugenicists,” essentially little Hitlers at heart. “Classic female hypergamy,” by the way, is basically a fancy way of suggesting that all women are essentially gold-diggers and/or alpha-dog seekers, going for men who are older and richer than they are or otherwise at the top of the heap. Get used to the term: MRAs, MGTOWs, and Incels use it constantly. (I should probably add it to my post on the lingo of the “manosphere.”)
Another commenter picks up on the “women are eugenicists” theme:
If a woman is ever talking to you and the words “nice” or “sweet” comes out of her mouth, you then know that she would rather see you hanging dead from a rope before dating/sleeping with you. She wouldn’t give you 2 dollars to save your life.
Women are not just turned off by nice, sweet guys. Women hate and despise them. They want them dead, they cannot stand undesirable genes.
A third puts it equally bluntly:
If you’re ugly, women want you to die of a horribly painful death, and she would LOVE to torture you so that you suffer as much as possible.
Still another pipes up with a story of being similarly “victimized” by his “oneitis” — that is, the girl he’s completely obsessed with:
She always says I’m a lovely sweet guy. We also have loads in common, in terms of values, interests, etc. Now I know these are all the kiss of death. Girls don’t really want these things (sweetness, kindness, loveliness). They want to spread the alpha male genes. … I am the victim of classic female hypergamy too. She’s with a doctor!
Meanwhile, another suggests that the OP is probably better off on his own, given that most women are lying, cheating whores:
you are used for attention whoring when the bad boy did all the fucking. Just get over asap man, can you imagine what would happen if she were your wife? More than likely she will cheat. Todays sad reality is if you are a shy, introverted guy you will always feel the threat of cheating even with your wife every fucking day of your life.
The only healthy thing in the whole thread? The OP reports that he’s deleted the pregnant ex-crush from his Facebook friends list.
You know what? Life is unfair. Love is tough. Some people are better looking than other people. How many guys want to be Don Draper, minus, perhaps, the constant boozing and fairly regular assholism? Probably every man who watches Mad Men, and then some. How many look like Don Draper? A tiny fraction of a percent of the former group. There’s a hilarious eposide of Between Two Ferns, Zach Galifianakis’ fake chat show, in which Zach confronts Jon Hamm, the actor who plays Don Draper, with the fact of his astounding handsomeness:
Zach: “Does it make you sick when you look in the mirror to see how handsome you are and to know that people are disfigured? And don’t you think you should think that?”
Jon: “I … I’ve really never thought of it that way.”
Zach: “You never thought, hey, uh, why is Jesus so cruel?”
Jon: “Well, I’ve thought that.”
 |
| How Incels see the world. |
So, yeah, some people have advantages in the world of love and sex. Attractive, outgoing, happy people generally fare better than unattractive, shy and unhappy people. (And it’s not like the guys on Love-shy.com are all unattractive — or that they have any great sympathy for women who aren’t hotties.) But even the beautiful people get their hearts broken sometimes. No one can simply have whoever they want. No one is entitled to have another person fall in love with them, or even just into bed. That is up to the other person.
Yes, there’s a difference between being rejected once in a while and being rejected all the time, or being simply so terrified by rejection you never even try to approach anyone. If you’re depressed, desperate, awkward and needy, as many of the “love-shy” seem to be, you’re going to repel most if not all of those you’re attracted to. This fucking sucks. But it’s life. The solution? Get some help, and get your shit together. Get your depression treated. (I’ve been on antidepressants for years; it’s changed my fucking life.) Get your social anxiety treated. Talk to therapists abut your issues. Get lots of exercise. See a sex surrogate if necessary. I’m not saying any of these things to be insulting. I’m saying them because they will actually help.
Some things you shouldn’t do? Embrace your (hopefully temporary) datelessness as a fucking IDENTITY. Spend all your time on a message board with others who’ve done the same thing. Cultivate your resentment of women for rejecting you, and receive validation from other guys for doing this. (Guess what? Just as most women can sniff out your desperation, they can also sniff out your resentment, and it’s not an attractive quality.)
Or, finally, to assume that things are oh-so-easy for women seeking love and sex. If you’re not aware of the problems women face in the world of dating, you’re just not paying attention. Are there women who are always (whether they like it or not) followed by a small herd of lovesick men? Yes. Are there women who are 30-year-old virgins? Yes to that as well. Love is tough, but demonizing the opposite sex isn’t good for anyone: you’re creating a perpetual resentment machine.
And it won’t get you laid.
>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.
>Johnny’s Turn to Cry
>
 |
| Boo fucking hoo. |
As many of you have no doubt noticed — what with the literally dozens of news stories and op-ed pieces on the subject that have appeared in the media in the last week or so — incoming Speaker of the House John Boenher is a bit of a weeper. While some have scoffed at his public crying jags, quite a few people, including some who don’t like his politics at all, have stepped forward to defend his right to cry.
Women have been especially quick to jump to his defense, at least when it comes to the crying thing. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus announced that she wanted “to celebrate the lachrymose speaker-to-be and hope that he helps make the world safe for public crying.” Rachel Maddow devoted a whole segment of her show to a defense of his shows of emotion — while pointing out that while Boehner has been moved to tears by the plight of American schoolchildren, his policies will inevitably result in massive budget cuts for education.
But the most, er, original interpretation of the whole crying thing comes from one commenter on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum, who sees this female defense of Boehner’s right to cry as … an evil female plot to make him look bad. As Phloridian put it in a recent posting:
By now many of us have become aware of the crying episodes of John Boehner who is soon to become the next Speaker of the House.
Women all over the media have been insisting that it is alright, but snickering about it covertly. The piece on 60 Minutes has virtually doomed any chance of becoming President and he is beginning to become a laughing stock.
This is why women are not to be trusted. They will encourage men to cry, and expose their vulnerabilities all in an effort to weaken the man. That’s what’s being done here and it sickens me.
Women are devious creatures indeed! It makes me want to cry.
>Women: Completely useless, or only partly?
>
 |
| Women: They can’t even walk properly |
Have you ever sat down to write up a little list of pros and cons, only to find that you can’t think of any pros at all? That was the dilemma faced by a number of regulars on the grotesquely misnamed NiceGuy MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forums when the subject of “what women offer” to men came up the other day. Nightstorm introduced the topic thusly:
It just seems women cannot offer a man anything these days. The days of “well.. I have a pussy”, just doesn’t seem to cut it anymore.
Don’t I know it! I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with the ladies that go just like this:
INTERIOR, FANCY RESTAURANT, EVENING
DAVID:
SEXY LADY
DAVID:
SEXY LADY:
DAVID
Oh, by the way, you’re paying for dinner.
And … scene!
Nightstorm, a fair and open-minded fellow, did concede that women had some good points, a few of them anyway, and set out to write up a list of pros and cons. First, the pros. Read this carefully, ladies. These are the only good things you bring to the table:
Pros:
Pussy
Emotional support (if its a decent chick) which can ranged from listening to you, to snuggling, ect.
Sammichs
Something cute to look at while they are young
A cure for lonliness
Yes, “lonliness.” Spell-checking is for bitches and hoes.
Predictably, Nightstorm’s “Cons” list was a lot longer. Some selected highlights:
Bankrupcy. A chick will cause your wealth to go DOWN. One of my cousins knew a guy who would literally be a millionare if his wife didn’t spend.
Bitching. Yes, they nag and vex your soul to death when they do not get their little ways.
Manipulation and Control. What? You don’t want to do the dishs for me? No sex tonight!!!
…
Loud. Women have high pitched voices, who’s bright idea was it to use it all the time making screetching noises?
Trashy. Once they get what they want (marriage), then they stop working on themselves. Now they let themselves go.
Divorce. See Bankrupcy. Once you wake up to these ho’s, they have alittle secret.. their taking HALF of what you own.
Cheaters. They will go sleep with other men if things don’t work out with you, you don’t mind.. right?
Entitlement. They deserve it all because they have been born with a pussy hole.
Dangerous. You can’t be you around women. One false word and it could be jail time for you till the manginas say its enough.
Naturally, others piped up with their own observations. Not many “pros.” Lots of “cons.” Some found it hard to think of a single good thing to say about women. IHateRegistering summed up his feelings with an enigmatic one-liner, declaring women: “Reused and retreaded wares at government-mandated retail prices.” (Uh, what?) Cherishthehate, living up to his name, concluded that women were more or less entirely useless:
I have let this question ruminate for the last couple of hours while doing other stuff. Basically I came up with nothing.
Pussy? Meh. … I once thought of trying gay just to get a decent blowjob. (jk of course :) ) …
Companionship? Again, I have known very few women who you could have a decent conversation with that didn’t focus on clothes, TV or their friends’ love lives. …
Women basically contribute nothing to a relationship, the onus is always on the man to keep them happy. If you ever ask a woman what she brings to the table in a relationship you will be mostly met with blank stares. It is a total non sequitur for them.
True, a couple of commenters did stand up to defend the virtues of women. Well, sort of. Seems like the ladies can be worth keeping around, so long as you keep them in check. As fschmidt put it:
I would like to remind the gentlemen here that most of the cons listed are the result of mistakes made by men, mistakes like giving women the vote. When properly managed, women are an asset.
Ah, giving women the right to vote. I always knew that was a terrible idea.
That and modern sanitation.
>All I want for Christmas is low self-esteem
>
 |
| Ho, Ho, Hoes! |
Don’t let it be said that Men Going Their Own Way lack Christmas spirit. On the MGTOW message boards today hanzblinx asks the rest of the fellows to “suggest a holiday gift for my gf.” Nothing fancy, just something that makes her feel special. Well, not that special. Actually, not very special at all:
OK I know the first answers will be..
apron
oven mitts
mop
dustcloth
g-string
but what exactly can I get my GF for Christmas for about $30 that would not inflate her ego too much? Is there a book? A CD? Anything?
Hmm. Given that she’s dating a dude who hangs out on the MGTOW message boards, I wouldn’t think there would be much danger of hansblinx’s alleged girlfriend having an excess of self-esteem, or really any at all, but what sort of gift do you give a gal that will help keep her ego permanently deflated? A framed picture of a female friend you think looks prettier than her? Sexy lingerie several sizes too small? A “Does My Fat Ass Make My Ass Look Fat” bumper sticker? An “I’m a Cunt” t-shirt? A “Shut Your Whore Mouth” needlepoint kit?
Actually, that last one sort of rocks.
>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.
