Search Results for troll of the year
The Five Million Mark
Change “years to earth” to “page views,” and forget about all that “cities in flames” stuff to make this picture actually relevant to the matter at hand.
Just wanted to let you all know that Man Boobz has just passed a milestone of sorts: FIVE MILLION page views. Thank you, loyal visitors and annoying trolls alike! No, seriously, thank you!
We’re also just a handful of NWOslave screeds away from 180,000 comments. Which is actually even more amazing. Thanks again, loyal readers, for making the comments here so entertaining and educational. And thanks again, trolls, for giving us so much more material to work with.
Tom Martin, UK MRA: Child prostitutes should be prosecuted for “preying” on pedophiles
[Trigger Warning: Child rape]
Tom Martin is doubling down on his own reprehensibleness. You may recall the utterly repellant things the prominent British Men’s Rights Activist – he’s the guy who sued the London School for Economics for “misandry” and got his case thrown out – has been saying in the comments here about child prostitutes, and which I highlighted in a recent post.
Now he has returned with some even worse comments. Here’s his “solution” to the problem of child prostitution. (Emphasis mine.)
Pedophiles should be removed from society and given compassionate treatment for their illness.
Child prostitutes should be put back in school, or if repeat offenders, prosecuted for attempting to profit by preying on the mentally ill pedo population.
Pedos have an incentive not to re-offend – to keep their liberty, and avoid a secure treatment unit.
Child prostitutes should face a choice between their freedom (apart from when at school), or, if they continue avoiding school to go whoring, then incarceration and school.
In another comment, Martin suggests that child prostitutes are economic free agents just maximizing their profit potential:
The child prostitutes say they’re not victims.
And the fact they take money off a punter for sex, says it’s not really rape.
Pimps are not controllers, they are in truth merely agents for the prostitute, so don’t blame them exclusively either.
I’m calling manboobzers human whores. A trait shared with animals, but one humans have the cognitive powers, awaredness, and choice to transcend.
If your 10 year old doesn’t know what a whore is, but is one, then something’s wrong with that kid’s education. Perhaps they’ve been reading manboobz articles and taking Cuntrelle literally in between poundings.
Tom Martin: Worst person in the world?
(Note: Tom Martin has confirmed that this is indeed him posting comments here on Man Boobz by sending an email from the account associated with his website Sexismbusters.org. Also, he’s retweeted quotes from his comments here. Contact him via his web site if you are skeptical.)
Spinning the Eivind Berge arrest: Reddit vs. The Spearhead
Berge: Too provocative for his own good?
The spinning of Norwegian Men’s Rights blogger Eivind Berge’s arrest for threatening police officers has begun.
Over on Reddit, the leading hangout for the Men’s Rights movement’s “moderates,” most MRAs seem to want to have nothing to do with Berge’s extremism (which is good), to the extent that many of them are declaring him not an MRA at all (which is ridiculous).
Sorry, guys. Berge may literally be the world’s worst MRA, and one that most MRAs have been content to ignore, but he’s still an MRA. He’s described himself as such many times (e.g., here); he has many of the same views and obsessions as “mainstream” MRAs; and he’s even got a few outspoken MRA fans. And while some Reddit Men’s Rightsers were distancing themselves from Berge in the wake of his arrest, others were respectfully discussing a blog post from Berge’s girlfriend Emma the Emo (who shares many of his views) taking aim at what she called “American pedophile hysteria.”
Over on the Spearhead, the more reactionary W.F. Price has a rather different spin on Berge, as encapsulated by the title of his blog post on the subject: “Eivind Berge Arrested for Provocative Rhetoric.”
Evidently, threatening to stab a police officer (and announcing the day on which you plan to do so) is merely a sort of rhetorical flourish.
It’s a strange and often incoherent post, in which Price seems to argue that Berge’s threats don’t count as real threats because … he made them publicly? Here, you make sense of it:
Eivind Berge has been posting some pretty provocative stuff for quite a while now, including his desire to kill police for enforcing misandric laws. I agree with his girlfriend that it was a bunch of hot air, but he got arrested for it anyway. Despite his support for Anders Breivik, who decimated the youth wing of the Marxist/Islamist Norwegian left in a solo Knights Templar crusade last year, I seriously doubt Eivind would have carried out any violent acts. Breivik, who really meant business, kept his plans to himself.
The truth is that people who manage to pull off spectacular terrorist attacks are almost always those who don’t say anything about them beforehand. Think Mohammed Atta vs. James Ujaama.
Yeah, it’s not like Osama bin Laden ever made threats about attacking the US. Or that abusers who threaten their exes ever actually harm them. Or any of a million other examples in which someone who issues a threat carries out said threat.
The lesson here is that if you want to be political, there’s a sort of tortoise/hare dynamic at work. The impetuous, fast hare tends to run out of steam (or run into trouble with the law) fairly quickly. The slow-and-steady tortoise, on the other hand, keeps trudging on and wins the race. …
[T]hreatening to kill people openly and loudly is essentially worthless.
Is Price really equating terrorists who plot their attacks secretly with the slow-and-steady tortoise who wins the race?
Who the hell knows. But he is clearly offering an apologia for making violent threats on the dubious grounds that those who threaten their enemies openly are somehow therefore not dangerous.
Later Price offers this completely clear cut and definitive repudiation of violence.*
We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that violent action will do us any good. Of course violence does work, but the power of the state is so overwhelming today that individual acts are almost certain to fail. Furthermore, those who are willing to unleash violence on others must be prepared to die themselves, and must lead by example. Somehow, I don’t think many of us have reached that point. It’s a long road to get there, and I hold out the hope that it will never go that far.
[T]he point is that anyone who condones violent action loudly and publicly, but doesn’t back it up, can’t be taken seriously.
In the comments, Eric complains that men who commit violence for putatively political reasons may suffer the indignity of being called bad names:
As we have all seen repeatedly, violence against men is socially and politically sanctioned violence. A man committing violence in defense of his rights is labelled a ‘terrorist’ or an ‘extremist’. The case of Thomas Ball is a perfect example. …
The feminist elites are bullies who are aware of their power and our inability to ‘push back’ in any way that will cause them deserved pain (at least for now). But like all bullies, they are also rabid egomaniacs and fear anyone who doesn’t bow slavishly to their power. The more men who are informed as to their true nature and who are taught to despise them, the weaker these bullies become because their fear of exposure and losing their power is a mania.
I guess Eric’s main beef is with the English language. I’m pretty sure that using violence to cause “deserved pain” in an attempt to intimidate your political enemies is basically the dictionary definition of “terrorism.”
Further down in the comments, Eric sets forth a curious little conspiracy theory involving, well, me. In one comment, he suggests that the attention I’ve given to the Berge arrest
illustrates that the anti-MRM forces are primed and ready for a ‘false flag’ or provocateur-instigated ‘incident’. … The feminist elites have noticably shifted from typical ridicule to painting the MRM as a dangerous extremist movement.”
In a followup comment, he elaborates on this peculiar logic:
Futrelle … does seem unusally worked up. …
I have the feeling that something ominous is in the wind.
This kind of language out of the Mangina League; the SPLC’s attention; the spate of troll and provocateur attacks and hacking on mens’ blogs; this crap going on in Scandanavia—there’s definately a pole-shift among our enemies and it stinks of orchestration.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t make up many years worth of threatening comments from Eivind “killing at least one cop is on my bucket list” Berge. So does this mean that Berge is some sort of deep-cover feminist operative? What does that make Paul “fucking your shit up gives me an erection” Elam?
–
*
Mammoth FAQ
A mammoth, hunted. By leocigale
We Hunted the Mammoth: The FAQ-ening
Q) A mammoth, huh? What’s this blog about?
A) Misogyny, not mammoths.
Specifically, this blog focuses on what I call the “New Misogyny,” an angry antifeminist backlash that has emerged like a boil on the ass of the internet over the last decade or so. These aren’t your traditional misogynists – the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who make up much of the far right.
These are guys, mostly, who range in age from their teens to their fifties, who have embraced misogyny as an ideology, as a sort of symbolic solution to the frustrations in their lives – whether financial, social, or sexual.
Some of them identify as Men’s Rights Activists, trying to cast their peculiar struggle against what they see as the excess of feminism and the advantages of women as a civil rights issue of sorts. Alongside those who explicitly label themselves MRAs we find a great number of antifeminist and antiwomen activists we might call Men’s Rights-adjacent – like those in the Skeptic and Atheist subcultures who still haven’t gotten over an offhand remark Skepchick founder Rebecca Watson made about a dude in an elevator a couple of years ago.
Others proclaim themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), declaring a sort of independence from women – while spending much of their time on message boards talking endlessly about them.
Still others see themselves as Pickup Artists (PUA), or masters of “Game,” espousing elaborate “scientific” theories of male superiority while trading tips on how best to pressure or manipulate drunk women into bed. This misogynistic wing of the PUA subculture has a considerable overlap with a subset of traditionalist and far-right blogs. Many of those in what has come to be called “the manosphere” — hey, don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with that name — don’t simply embrace misogyny; they also proudly embrace “scientific” racism and other bigotries.
Still, while some of the New Misogynists see themselves as conservatives, even “neo-reactionaries,” many identify themselves as libertarians or even as liberals. Theirs is a backlash that frames itself as a step forward.
That said, there are numerous posts here that don’t have anything to do with MRAs or MGTOWers or PUAs or any of their ilk. Sometimes I like to post cat pics.
Q) Ok, but you still haven’t explained the mammoth thing.
A) This is a reference to a quote I once posted from a dude who felt women weren’t sufficiently appreciative of what men had supposedly done for them over the ages. Here’s the quote, in all of its weird glory:
We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?
Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?
How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.
We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.
This quote is such an amazing clusterfuck of misogyny, entitlement and unwarranted self-importance – not to mention historical ignorance – that the bit about mammoths became a catchphrase around here, neatly conveying pretty much everything this blog is against. And so I decided to make it the name of the blog.
Q) Wasn’t this blog called Man Boobz before?
A) Yes. That was a name I came up with on the spur of the moment when I first started this blog. But it was kind of a dopey name. It didn’t really fit what the blog has become, and I got a bit tired of explaining it to people.
Q) What were you thinking?
A) You see, the “Man Boobz” in question are the misogynistic dudes I write about on this blog. The term “boob,” in addition to meaning “breast,” can also mean “a nincompoop.” It’s a … double entendre? Ha ha!
Q) But you call yourself Manboobz, right?
A) No. I did post as Manboobz on a few sites, but just to identify myself as being connected to this blog. I’ve switched to using my real name.
Q) And what is that?
A) David Futrelle. I’m a freelance writer and blogger living in Chicago, and the guy behind the Confused Cats Against Feminism blog. For more on my illustrious career, see the David Futrelle FAQ.
Q) Do you hate men?
A) Nope.
Q) You’re against the Men’s Rights movement. Are you against men having rights?
A) Of course not. As hundreds of posts on this site show pretty clearly, the so-called Men’s Rights Movement is a hateful, reactionary movement driven largely by misogyny and hatred of feminism. It doesn’t help men. It encourages them to scapegoat women and stew in their own bitterness.
Q) Are you a feminist?
A) Well, yeah. Somehow this wasn’t really a big deal to anyone until I started making fun of misogynists online.
Q) If you’re a feminist, why do you let misogynists and other trolls post comments on your blog?
A) The point of this blog is to expose misogynists and the terrible things they say. So if misogynists want to come here and expose themselves with their own words, I say, why not let them? The feminist commenters here generally enjoy batting them around like a cat toy. That said, I ban those who are abusive, and I’m now setting aside some “no-troll, no-MRA” threads for those who want to discuss the issues, or whatever else they want to discuss, without being derailed or dogged by misogynists.
Q) Are you secretly funded by the international feminist conspiracy?
A) No. I’m not funded by any organization. Some readers have very kindly given me donations. You can too, if you wish. Click that button over there on the right.
Q) Do you advocate killing children?
A) No. Misogynists are assholes, and they tend not to like this blog. So they make up ridiculous shit about me all the time. If a misogynist or MRA says something about me, it is most likely completely untrue. Check their sources, if they have any, and you’ll see that their claims are bullshit.
Q) I heard some MRAs call you fat. Are you fat?
A) Yes, I am fat. This is one of the very few true things MRAs ever say about me. For some reason they like to mention this a lot, as if it’s somehow a rebuttal of what I write.
Q) What’s with all the cat pictures?
A) I like cats.
Man Boobz: Bewildering MGTOWers since 2010. With kitties!
An MGTOWer-enraging Catbunny. Found on Reddit, in one of the few threads there not full of rape jokes.
The reviews are in! Man Boobz continues to confuse and enrage the Manospherians of the world. Over on MGTOWforums.com, Armageddon15 lays out this 2-point critique:
I went over to that pathetic excuse for a site to see what cherry picked articles they’ve been going through lately, and I have 2 things I’d like to bring up..
1. What the hell is it with that guy and animals? Posting pandas, cats, bears etc. Maybe he should post youtube videos about that full time instead of the shit he calls writing.
2. The comments on the articles are the most unorganized, random thing I’ve ever seen on a discussion board. I can’t even follow what the hell is going on. They go on tangents in every other comment in ways that don’t even relate to the original post. How do you even have a discussion over there? They got an end of the year troll award going on over there, but I don’t know how any troll has the patience to write on that site for any length of time without blowing his brains out.
Boogeyman is also bewildered by the comments here:
Yes, I’ve noticed he’ll get hundreds of comments from his hairy armpitted fans but only a small % have anything to do with the subject. His article will be about date rape and he’ll have 300 comments about coffee cake recipes and Lady Gaga’s fashion sense.
Huh. I think I missed that one. We did have one thread recently that suddenly veered off into a discussion of bra sizing. So there’s that.
But if what we’re doing here is causing so much consternation amongst the MGTOWers of the world, we clearly need to do more of it. And so, a video no MGTOWer can possibly rebut:
The rest of you: you know what to do!
“Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood,” and other observations on love and life from Chateau Heartiste
I mean, my shoes are totally better than his!
Today, a GUEST POST from Catherine! Thanks, Catherine! And the rest of you, enjoy!
Over on Chateau Heartiste, the (He)artist(e) Formerly Known As Roissy devoted a recent post to the conundrum of handsome men coupled with ugly women. It’s essentially an open thread for the denigration of women who don’t live up to Roissy’s porntastic standards (17 to 20 years old with a BMI of about 18 *and* a D cup, and related WTF?! attributes), as well as ragging on those awful beta manginas who are punching below their weight – or, to quote Heartiste himself, are “polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.”
I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.
He’s just getting started.
What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.
Speaker: Any questions?
Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…
Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…
So obviously the young good-looking man is totally under the thumb of the big fat evil feminist woman, who has sucked out his brains and reduced him to a quivering lump of hesitation and uncertainty!
As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.
So, sniveling, indecisive beta manginas are repulsive… but not as repulsive as a corpulent woman! Gotcha, Roissy.
After getting in a few more digs at the contemptuous, unsympathetic wife, Roissy sets forth his views on various types of couples. First, the kinds of couples that should be allowed to exist:
Handsome man with beautiful woman
All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. …
Ugly man with ugly woman
All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.
All is well in the world of alpha males with hot babes, but those in ugly people combos need to find some highly diverting hobbies to keep from offing themselves.
Now Roissy turns his attention to two apparent mismatches, and delineates his usual double standards:
Ugly man with beautiful woman
Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.
Moral: ugly men are permitted to have counter-balancing attributes! Can you guess what is coming next?
Handsome man with ugly woman
Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.
Women have no value beyond their looks, so the pitiful man dating someone wretchedly below Roissy’s artificial standards must likewise be sub-standard, in some way invisible to us, to have abased himself so humiliatingly.
Having drawn these pictures, Roissy rounds out the post with a sermon on female ugliness, which is to be universally shunned:
There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.
And we’re back to the disparaging references to pigs. Why, oh why does Roissy hate pork so? (That he detests women is more or less expected.)
In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.
And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.
What the hell was that? I’ll quote it again: “Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.” Oh, the huge manatee! Shrink in terror from the impending doom to be brought about by porcine-human hybrids!
Naturally such hyperbole is a cue for some predictable misogyny in the comments, such as the following from regular tool Tyrone:
That’s why its good to be older to get a good sense for how a woman will age. There are loads of women who look hot when young but turn into cattle as they age. Mom is usually a good bench mark. If you’d do her Mom, you’re probably safe. Check out how Ginger Lynn looks like nowadays. You’d never recognize her from her porn days.
A view right in line with Roissy’s famed dating value regimen that women lose value once they’re older than, say, 29; and Tyrone follows it up with some white supremacism:
White people won’t survive without more kids. Smart white men need to breed more in our country- with white women.
What, you might ask, about women with great bodies but unappealing faces? One Anonymous coward urges his brethren to go for it :
[O]ne of my biggest regrets was not doing a girl who had the hottest body around but an ugly face. Temporarily of course.
But for fuck’s sake don’t marry them. Right, tenderman100?
Some years ago, before I was married for the first time (twice married, twice divorced) I was banging this babe. Amazing body. Amazing tits. But a kind of a bucktoothed face. When I first met her, I thought, wow what amazing tits…yeah she’s kinda ugly but she’s friendly and I just have to see those tat tas. Well, not only did I see them, we banged for a few months. She was incredible in bed, highly orgasmic, very flexible (did ballet). Haven’t seen her in decades, but if she is a fat cow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yeah, she was ugly but she pounded like a pro. So it isn’t always what it seems. Then again, I would never have married her.
If not marriage, then what about a long-term relationship? Over again to Tyrone:
A good woman who has reparable shortcomings is still a good option for an LTR. Fugly is a whole different animal.
But if you marry one of them, Tyrone adds, make sure you have a contingency plan!
My wife knows if she ever lets herself go, talks about divorce, whatever that pisses me off enough to leave, I will simply disappear into the night. No arguments or emotions, it will be a complete coup de main. There won’t be anyone around to serve papers to. I’ll be overseas in an undisclosed location screwing LBFMs.
In case you don’t already know, LBFM is short for Little Brown Fucking Machines, a term of art to refer to Asian women (frequently underage) sought out by sex tourists — which should be sufficient to outline Tyrone’s sophisticated moral principles. He continues:
I say this with no emotion or bravado, just let her know its a fact that she must deal with. Marriage is like defense policy, the best defense is a good offense. Strike first, strike to kill. Identify a location and buy yourself some property there, so you have somewhere to go. Move enough money there to live well until you can start a bar or whatever to live. Plan this for a few years in advance if need be. Life is too short to be some stupid broad’s wage slave.
How charming!
Heartiste really has a way of bringing out the best in people!
MGOTWers in Space
Women always go for the alien alpha assholes.
So a six man crew has just touched down on Earth after a nearly two-year Russian expedition to mars. Well, that’s not quite true. The five men have returned from an imaginary trip to a fake mars; in reality, they spent the entirety of the “mission” sitting in some trailers in a parking garage in Moscow. Except for a brief interlude in which several of the fake marsonauts took a brief stroll on the surface of fake mars – also inside a trailer in the parking lot.
The idea behind all this? To see if six dudes could manage to stay sane while stuck in cramped quarters together for the length of time it would take to go to mars and back.
One of the many weird details about this weird faux-mission is that it was an all-dude affair. None of the marsonauts were women. Not, evidently, because the mission planners thought that women would be less capable than men of handing the pressure of a fake (or even a real) mission to mars. But because if they sent any ladies along, the men would want to have sex with them. As one news account explains:
Controversially, the experiment did not include a woman, with researchers clearly wanting to avoid it degenerating into a scientific version of television’s sexual tension-filled “Big Brother”.
When the “returning” marsonauts stepped out of their “spaceship” at the end of the experiment, the same news account notes,
They were each presented with a flower by young female researchers in white coats as a reward for their endeavours.
It has not been confirmed if the marsonauts popped boners at the sight.
I for one support the notion of male-only spaceflights, real or phony. And not just because the ladies would turn our space capsules into deep space slutmobiles. Just imagine what would happen if a female-infested space crew had an encounter of the third kind with some really handsome space alien dudes – the interstellar equivalents of Brad Pitt. You know what would happen next: those dirty sluts would sell out our planet for a ride on the little green cock carousel.
Ah, who am I kidding, those sluts would sneer at the little green men, holding out for the tall greys.
Audiovidual supplement: Three videos. One, Rachel Maddow talking about the mission at its halfway point. Two, a brief look at everyday life on the “spaceship.” And last but definitely not least: a video of the fake-mars walk. Inside a trailer. You have to watch at least a few seconds of that one.
“Remember that pussy is a biochemical WMD; wherever it is used, there is mass chaos and destruction.”
Spock tries to warn the Captain about the evil vagina.
The daffy, excitable Man Going His Own Way who calls himself MarkyMark may be my favorite manosphere blogger of all. Not only does he bring the lulz himself – who can forget the time he wrote a completely unironic point by point rebuttal of an Onion article? – but he also helps to bring attention to the equally stupefying work of others.
In his latest post, he directs our attention to some observations made by fellow MGTOWer Spock’s Disciple on the Happy Bachelors forum on the subject of pussy and its discontents. “This is good stuff, stuff my boys need to read,” Mark writes. “[Spock’s Disciple], like his hero, applied cold hearted logic when analzying pussy. The Force is STRONG with that one!”
Yes, he actually wrote that. I don’t think it’s a joke. I think he honestly does not know that there is a difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. How that is possible, I do not know.
Anyway, on to the eminently rational Spock’s Disciple, reflecting on the irrational power of the ladybits:
Remember that pussy is a biochemical WMD; wherever it is used, there is mass chaos and destruction. How many wars and conflicts have been fought at the urging and behest of women? More than any honest man would admit to and would be proud of.
Young men are apparently helpless in the face of the punany:
The need for pussy is a very real and built in addiction for men. We are hardwired by nature for sex and procreation. … [T]he sight and sound of pussy blinds younger men and allows them to be controlled by women though their hormones.
The, uh, SOUND of pussy? If I had to pick just two (or three, or four) sensory experiences relating to the vagina that would be generally considered appealing to heterosexual males, I’m not sure “sound” would make the cut.
But eventually even the horniest dudes start to get less horny – and thus less hypnotized by the power of the pussy. The only trouble is that by the time they lose interest in sex most of them are married, and they’re now stuck with the woman whose vagina formerly had them in thrall. It’s a grave injustice.
[W]hen most men pass the age of 30-35, they begin to awaken from this biochemical “dream” and what do they awaken beside? What do married men look forward to the next 30-50 years of their lives? Sleeping with a living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? Looking forward to the time when the woman undergoes the process of metamorphosis, into a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?
This seems a tad alarmist. I mean, if your wife turns into a monster zombie-mummy – as all women apparently do after they hit their mid-thirties – you could always get separate bedrooms.
But Obi-Wan’s Spock’s Disciple has a more radical solution: don’t get into bed with the ladies in the first place!
Pussy is indeed way overrated and if younger men could get a shot of “anti-testosterone” for a few weeks, they could see through the eyes of men who are 40+; without the haze of hormones, you cannot believe how much farther you can see! It’s the difference between seeing the horizon through LA style smog and seeing the horizon from a high mountain in the Rockies.
Pussy is a man’s Achilles heel; once that man realizes this and takes the appropriate steps, he’ll never lose his peace of mind again. To these skeptical young men I say, there is an infinitely vast arena where you can have anything you desire, and can succeed at anything you wish to try for; all you have to do is see women for what they truly are, and become a master of the beast within; once you do that women’s true face will be visible to you, and you’ll never again partake of that foul potion.
It is possible to tame that beast, and indeed it is a certainty that you will learn much from the process of taming it; all it takes is patience and time. Look at your fellow men, your brothers in arms, and look at their almost invisible chains, and wonder at why you would desire such an existence for yourself?
And, hey, if all else fails, MarkyMark adds some advice of his own: pay a visit to Pamela Handerson before going out on the town with one of those vagina-people.
[T]here is one thing that the younger men can do until their sex drives die down permanently: masturbate before going out with a woman. … To put it another way, since the little head had been, shall we say, quieted down, the bigger head could work properly; the bigger head will then allow you to see a woman for who she REALLY is.
If you’re a fan of Spock, and looking for appropriate masturbatory material, might I suggest this?
New Men’s Rights subreddit moderator thinks violence against women is just hilarious
Recently Kloo2yoo, the founder and longtime moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, stepped down. The remaining moderator, IgnatiusLoyola, has just announced his successor, a long-time commenter in the subreddit who calls himself AnnArchist. (Despite the female-sounding name, he’s a guy.)
This is an, er, interesting choice, as AnnArchist is a misogynist asshole who thinks that violence against women is hilarious. Indeed, he’s posted in the BeatingWomen subreddit, a thoroughly vile little forum devoted to posting pictures and videos of women being violently assaulted. He says he enjoys this particular subreddit because “I have a sense of humor so I can laugh at it.” Here’s one recent post of his, and another. I don’t know exactly what was in either video, since they’ve both been removed my YouTube, the first for violating the site’s rules against hate speech, the second for its “shocking and disgusting content.” If you look through the comments on these submissions, you may also note that the r/beatingwomen regulars, in addition to being misogynist assholes, are also racist as fuck.
“Welcome AnnArchist,” the_real_misogynist wrote in response to one of these postings, “with posts like that you’ll fit right in here.”
Needless to say, AnnArchist doesn’t find violence by women against men quite so risible.
AnnArchist has also advocated murder (many, many, many times), endorsed vigilantism against a specific young woman, and suggested that false rape accusers should be stoned and/or jailed with the word “liar” tattooed on their faces.
He refers to women as “whores” and “cum dumpsters.” He’s boasted about “persuading” girls to have sex with him after they’ve said “no.” (Meanwhile, he’s said that if he woke up next to a trans woman after being drunkenly “tricked” into sex he would violently assault her.)
Oh, and there’s this bit of wisdom:
If you hyphenate your child’s last name, well its just pathetic. It means the mother was an uncompromising shrew.
I’m sure there are many other vile comments in AnnArchist’s past; these are simply the ones I uncovered with a couple of Reddit searches and by going through his most controversial comments. Indeed, as he himself acknowledges, “there is no limit to the amount of screwed up shit that I’ve posted.”
So why exactly was he picked as a moderator? Is he truly the best that r/mensrights can offer?
Apparently a lot of the r/mensrights regulars think so; most of those who’ve commented so far have praised IgnatiusLoyola’s choice, and have dismissed the critics as “trolls.” (EDITED TO ADD: The tide seems to have turned; there are now more comments up critical of AnnArchist’s promotion to mod, and posts defending Iggy’s decision aee getting some downvotes.)
EDITED TO ADD: Just wanted to highlight one of his comments on the false accuser he was targeting:
I hope she was harassed. Fuck I hope her house was firebombed. Lets be clear, I really will applaud anyone who does anything to her, be it slash her tires or slash her throat.
Here’s the full quote in context. (EDIT: AnnArchist has edited this comment to remove the violent bits. Luckily, someone got a screenshot.)
And here is a comment of his on a specific female judge:
I hope someone kills her.
Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals him to be a rabid antifeminist with views strikingly similar to many MRAs
Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed more than 90 people in attacks on Friday, was motivated by a toxic mélange of far-right ideology largely revolving around his intense hatred of Islam. The 1500 page “manifesto” he posted to the internet – what appears to be a grab-bag of his own writing and material cut and pasted from assorted right-wing sites and even the Unabomber’s manifesto – crackles with denunciations of Muslims, “Marxists” and the assorted other bogeymen that haunt right-wing dreams.
And it’s also filled with denunciations of feminism that could easily have come from the posts and comments of Men’s Rights and misogynist “manosphere” blogs like The Spearhead, In Mala Fide, and, well, quite a few other sites I write about regularly on this blog. (Not to mention a few of this blog’s misogynist trolls.) In passage after passage, the ideology is the same, the language is the same, even the specific obsessions are the same – from no-fault divorce to the evils of “Sex and the City.” (Download the entire thing from the links here.)
I haven’t had time to go through the manifesto in great detail yet, but I wanted to share with you some selections from it that I think will strike most readers of this blog as strangely familiar.
The following selections, denouncing, among other things, the “’Sex and the City’ lifestyle,”appear to have been written by Breivik himself:
It’s the destructive and suicidal “Sex and the City” lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) which we are taught to revere as the truth. In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess. The perfect matriarchy has now been fulfilled and complete equality has finally been achieved. The fact that mankind will seize to exist within three generations with this type of regime is irrelevant. Long live cultural Marxism! …
Isolated, “sex and the city lifestyle” is relatively harmless, but if you glorify it and ram it down the throat of mainstream society like we see today it becomes a lethal and destructive societal force as we are witnessing which eventually leads to a complete breakdown of moral/ethics, the nuclear family model and a sustainable fertility rate which again is leading us to the extinction of Europeans.
Breivik goes on to rant about STDs and no-fault divorce, before moving on to another favorite obsession of manosphere misogynists, the supposed sexual “capital” of manipulative women:
Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. …
He also blames women for the spread of what he considers evil “cultural Marxism” and multiculturalism:
Fact: 60-70% of all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists are women. This partly explains why the gradual feminist revolution is directly linked to the implementation of multiculturalist doctrines. These feminist cultural Marxists do not only want more benefits and rights for themselves. They want it all, and have more or less been awarded with everything they could ever dream of achieving. They now have complete matriarchal supremacy domestically and exercise substantial influence in politics. …
Obsessed with the purported danger that Islam will outbreed the West, Breivik offers an assortment of creepy solutions to increase the fertility of Western whites. (It’s not altogether clear to me if these are all his own views, but they certainly are consistent with what he says elsewhere in the manifesto.) After suggesting limiting contraception and banning abortion, Breivik offers this “solution”:
Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.
Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor’s degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD. …
And then he’s back on his “Sex and the City” hobbyhorse:
Discourage women in general to strive for “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles. The mass media are currently actively glorifying/encouraging “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles which involves the glorification of casual sex, multiple sex partners and generally an extremely liberal individualistic lifestyle hostile to the traditional nuclear family values. As such, the non-restrictions of the mass media is the main cause for our unsustainable fertility rate of 1,5.
The indirect media/government glorification campaigns through individual artists, various series, movies and media coverage in general should reflect this new shift (no more glorification of “sex and the city lifestyles” or equivalent portrayals. No longer should women be pressured to have equal success regarding their career as males.
Womens “new role” should be actively illustrated and glorified through series, movies and commercials. This will involve significant restrictions in media freedoms and rights. These restrictions and reforms will result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,2-0,3 points.
The end result for implementing the above reforms would be an increase in the fertility rate up from 1,5 to approximately 2,1-2,4 which would be sustainable.
However, this will also involve significant restrictions in women’s rights and media rights.
And, like many in the manosphere, he also holds out hope for “artificial wombs,” which would of course reduce the inconvenience of relying on women to cooperate with his plans.
Large chunks of the manifesto consist of cut-and-pasted blog posts from an anonymous far-right Norwegian blogger known as Fjordman, whose now defunct blog can be found here. (According to Andrew Brown in the Guardian article linked to above, Breivik and Fjordman are not the same person.)
Here are some selections from the Fjordman posts that Breivik includes in his manifesto. Again, much of this will seem very familiar to many of you, I am sure.
For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. ….
The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilisation as whole. …
Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow? …
Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.
If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell. ….
Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. ….
it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. … At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon? …..
The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands. ….
Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalisation is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries. …
radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilisation, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims. …
Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by… Islam. And feminists still aren’t satisfied. ….
Feminists claim that women have been victims of men, that men have oppressed women for centuries and that the sexes are equal. Denying this will result in the smears “misogynist” and “male chauvinist pig”. But equalising the sexes has led to a crippling feminisation of Western society … portraying women as oppressed victims and the equals of males is one example of how the pursuit of equality is being used to destroy our society and undermine – and therefore be in conflict with – Mother nature. ….
I’ll continue going through the manifesto to see what else I can find. If any of you decide to do the same thing, and find other selections in it that you find telling, please post them in the comments below.
I would also like to find specific writings on manosphere blogs – posts or comments – that directly parallel these selections from Breivik’s manifesto. If any of you are willing to help, again, please post your findings in the comments below, along with URLs to the sources of the manosphere quotes.
Ideas have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences.
For more on Breivik’s misogyny, see this post on Red Light Politics.
PZ Myers has more on Breivik’s noxious ideology, including his hatred of atheists, here.
