Search Results for troll of the year
AskMen.com’s Creepy Dude Survey
Dude, do you have a moment to take a quick survey?
So AskMen.com just put up the first segment of its annual 3-part Great Male Survey. Filled with strange assumptions and sometimes creepy questions, it’s a survey that reveals at least as much about the survey makers as it does the survey takers, and what it reveals ain’t good: it seems to have been written by a jaded ex-romantic ( or a committee of such) only a few short steps away from full-blown MGTOW-hood.
The survey starts off with a fairly innocuous question about basic compatibility, but quickly veers off course with question #2:
How important is it to you that your wife/future wife signs a prenup?
Hold on a second, daddy-o! We haven’t even determined if the little missy has “wife potential” yet — as question #3 puts it.
After one more question about marriage, the quiz moves on to cheating and then (perhaps inevitably) to the issue of divorce:
Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?
Then it’s onward to kvetching about what a naggy shrew your partner is (assuming you haven’t already finalized the divorce):
Followed by the classic “Would you dump a girlfriend if she became fat?” (Just in case you’re wondering, ladies, nearly half the American guys in last year’s survey said “yes.”)
Next we get to what we might call the “creepy controlling asshole” portion of the survey. After asking whether we’ve ever snooped through our partner’s email or Facebook messages, they pose this doozy:
That quiet clattering you hear is the sound of a thousand creepy dudes Googling to see if this is possible – and, if so, the best place to put the chip.
After several more questions about Facebook and the internet, a few badly conceptualized questions about romance, and a bunch about sex, the quiz moves on to some good old-fashioned slut shaming, asking men to quantify the number of sex partners a woman is allowed to have before they consider her “promiscuous.” Ladies: you’ll be glad to know that 41% of American dudes who took the survey last year consider any women with more than 9 lifetime partners to be dirty sluts – sorry, “promiscuous.”
Then of course it’s on to an attempt to quantify exactly when women start getting all old and ugly:
Yes, one of the possible answers is “18.” You may be slightly reassured by the fact that zero percent of last year’s survey takers gave that answer. Six percent said “20,” though, and 24% said “30.”
Then we have this curiously worded question on workplace sex:
So the idea that your partner might be a big higher up on the old org chart isn’t even a possibility? What is this, 1962? Did they borrow this question from Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl? Or find it scribbled on a napkin on Don Draper’s desk just before he impulsively proposed to his new secretary?
I think we need to design our own survey.
(Note: Cartoon above borrowed, of course, from Comically Vintage.)
>Non-haters gonna non-hate: NiceGuy Edition
>
 |
| From NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum. |
* I despise the entire female sex. Period.* I hate only “western” women.* I only hate feminists and women who take advantage of sexism.* I just blame feminists.* I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.* I have no animosity towards women of any group. I’m only here to learn more about MRAs.
I’m not one who hates … I find that I don’t enjoy the company of women very much, as they tend to talk about things I really don’t give a crap about. Besides, they really wouldn’t like to hear what comes out of my mouth since, if I were to really say what I thought around them without restraint, they would go into knee-jerk, defensive mode. They’ve been so conditioned to fight and argue with what is simply, to me, a male point of view on things. It’s like being around children. ..I will say this, I love ladies, the female equivalent of a gentleman, a gentlewoman. Unfortunately, that’s a rare breed these days. What we have are a bunch of emotionally immature, emotionally unrestrained, emotionally violent, toxic, unappreciative, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-serving, unempathetic, exploitive, arrested adolescents with vaginas, bad attitudes, and an incredible amount of contempt.Now, I don’t mind holding my tongue around ladies. But the moment women declared themselves equal to men, they opened the door to being talked to as men.
I voted: “I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.”Mostly because they have nothing to offer other than whining usually. …
When women talk they make me “ZZZ”.
 |
| Tiny kitties are honest about their hatreds. |
Maybe it’s because I’ve only done american chicks but to be blunt having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn’t join in and you can hardly tell the difference.
I don’t hate women, but, after working with a bunch of them and seeing their true colors, I don’t care to be around them. I don’t hate sewers, either; I just don’t care to spend time in them..
I can’t stand to be around them for too long. It’s not hatred. I just can’t stand stupid people. Male, or female. And there is no question most American females are dripping with delusions, which in my book makes them stupid. And I’m at a point where women have nothing I really need. So it’s a complete waste of my time to even talk to one
i merely hate feminists, those women who latch onto sexism and how it has infected most of society. I aim for the cancer at the heart of the problem, they are the ones that need to be hanged.
>Incredibly Strange Antifeminist Bedfellows: Kay Hymowitz defends her attackers
>
 |
| Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay! |
This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz’ new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won’t let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men’s Right’s/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a “bitch,” an “entitlement whore,” a “cunt,” “a fugly tranny skank,” and someone who “on her best day … has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own.”
Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning … a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of “backlash” and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she’s quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that’s her real argument. Let’s let her explain:
[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. … That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.
At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don’t know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them … and others don’t!
Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.
As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, “that they’re all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots.” Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a “hotness” scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you’re confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.
But here’s a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don’t like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don’t be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women’s distinct personalities … interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.
Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating — some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! — even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she’s not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she’s so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it’s a bit of both.
The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses — it’s simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it’s pretty clear she hasn’t revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn’t a Men’s Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine “coming soon” whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also “under construction.”)
Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you — which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:
I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. …. this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. …
WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. … Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.
Somehow, I don’t think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates.
–
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.
>The Cupcake Files, Part Two: NiceGuys Edition
>
 |
| Grr! Argh! |
As I pointed out in The Cupcake Files: Part One, the Men Going Their Own Way movement has taken the deliciously innocent word “cupcake” and turned it into a synonym for evil-she-bitch-from-hell.
Today we continue our look at the characteristics of a truly modern cupcake — relying, this time, on the words of the good fellows at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum. (I’m too lazy to provide links for every example; they all can be found by searching for the word “cupcake” on NiceGuy.)
Cupcake: A fan of cocaine. And abusive criminals.
What attracts the hottest females today? Simple. He has to physically and emotionally abuse her, have a police record and a cocaine habit (and must share the coke with cupcake) then he fucks her up and down the stairs, gets her pregnant, then leaves her forever off to the next hairy hole.
Cupcake: Less interesting than your dude friends, except you can fuck her.
[T]ake away hormones and what’s left?? You’re going to hang around cupcake for: her intriguing political views?, her love of sports, cars and motorcycles?, her culinary skills and the fact that she’s a selfless friend? Point is most women these days have NOTHING to offer a man & reply solely on exploiting men.
Cupcake: The cause of global warming.
Global warming is caused by women, why do you think rich men tear down the planet to make so much money, because some gold digging cunt has to have $20K in cloths a week, 3 SUV’s a year, 8 million shoes, etc, etc
Women constantly brag that they control the world, well why are we blaming the guy destroying the forest to supply cupcake with bubble bath oil. That’s like blaming the slave picking cotton.
Cupcake: Controller of the Nookie Faucet. Not obligated to stick around if she doesn’t want to.
You can have all the discussions you want, but Cupcake has the unalienable right to Change Her Mind, at any time, for any reason or none.
Social convention, the divorce courts, a tradition of chivalry, and Cupcake‘s control of the nookie faucet all conspire such that if you don’t meet her demands, as they change and evolve, you’re fucking toast, Jack.
Stay tuned for The Cupcake Files: Part Three.
–
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.
>"Women are …" Part One
>
 |
| What a fucking douchebag. |
Here are some of the things I have, er, “learned” about women from reading Men’s Rights/Men Going Their Own Way blogs and message boards.
This is part one in what will be, I suspect, a very lengthy series.
Women are: The missing link
All in all I am thoroughly convinced that women have all contempt for human life and are the missing link between apes and humans. This is a gender war, a GENDER WAR! and small innocent babies that are murdered and children that get abused are caught in the crossfires, and these females are utterly fucking useless and a waste of fucking breathing space. They have shown their true colors and we don’t need them anymore.
Women are: Nuclear waste
I have come to the conclusion that it’s not enough to avoid romantic relations with women. A man should take extra precautions to avoid even the most casual contact. Regard them as nuclear waste or a highly contagious disease.
Women are: In violation of the Geneva Convention
Women have no idea what they want, they need to be told and controlled. If you are too nice or become apathetic, you are fucking doomed. Either way, if you get married, you are doomed. Women are cunts, and they are absolute masters of mental torture and abuse. If we simply hired bitches to interrogate and torture all captured terrorists, the war on terror would be over in less than a year.
Women are: Unlovable humans
Men are lovable humans, unlike women. Men are the greatest ever treasure of gold, whom women worthless could never compare to or ever hold a candle to. … the male sex is ever superior to the weaker female one. Men in India are mistreated vis-à-vis females, to get the bitches feel dignified. This is against nature. … Men are taken advantage of by bitches (the woman race). … Woe betide women. I hate them too much, girls too.
NOTE: These comments do not reflect the opinions of all MRAs. But these sorts of things are posted constantly on MRA/MGTOW blogs and message boards, and are rarely challenged. Some, like the first comment here, may even receive multiple upvotes from other readers,
>The Surreal Housewife
>
One of the things that still surprises me as I traverse the weird online world of anti-feminism is the number of women I’ve run across who think that they have altogether too many rights. I’ve written in the past about women who don’t believe they should have the right to vote. Today, Laura Wood, a proudly retrograde woman who thinks the solution to contemporary “cultural ruin” is for employers to start paying women even less than they do now. According to “Why We Must Discriminate,” a manifesto of sorts on her blog The Thinking Housewife:
Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. In order to reverse this state of affairs, a profound change in attitudes and prevailing mores is necessary. … First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.
It’s a strange manifesto and a strange blog. Unlike many of the reactionaries I regularly quote on this blog, Wood is not an idiot. Her tone is measured and cautious. If you accept her fairly ludicrous premises — the key ones here being that it would be desirable or even possible to undo decades of economic and cultural history to essentially return to an imaginary, idealized prefeminist world in which men could earn enough to comfortably support a family and women would work primarily for “pin money” — her manifesto almost makes sense. And yet what she is saying is, not to put too fine a point on it, vile.
She is utterly blithe, for example, about the effect her proposal would have on single and divorced women:
Divorced women would still receive the support of their husbands. However, parallel changes in divorce law are necessary to make for less incentive for women to divorce. Women should generally face the loss of child custody and a serious decline in income if they initiate divorce, except in the event of proven malfeasance on the part of the husband. Single women will still be able to find jobs and receive help from fathers and extended family. Most of them will not be rich.
Who needs a man-sized wage when you can just beg dad for cash when the rent comes due?
Wood not only thinks women deserve to be paid less than men for the same work; she’s also wary of women taking on almost any authority at all outside the home. While she’s admits it’s technically possible for women to be, for example, effective drill sergeants, she finds the idea vaguely abhorrent:
When women start barking orders at grown men, the delicate balance of power between the sexes is disturbed. Women are mothers and wives, lovers and friends to men. These roles are damaged by domineering bossiness. Male psychology is radically different from female psychology. After all, mothers are women. There is no more significant fact than that.
There’s more, much more. Troll This Blog has assembled a lengthy list of Wood’s more backwards utterances, from which I drew the example above, including some thoughts on race that would not be out of place at a (very polite) Klan meeting: “Only a society in which white men have been emasculated would see the sort of tolerance for and celebration of intermarriage we are experiencing today.”
Though I found her blog through links on a Men’s Rights blog or two, and her ideology is more or less consistent with some of the more reactionary MRAs out there, Wood is not exactly an MRA herself. Indeed, she has tangled with the Men’s Rights Movement on several occasions — lambasting commenters on The Spearhead for “juvenile” misogyny, and accusing MRA elder Paul Elam of “idiocy and hatred” for his, er, idiotic and hateful statement that if he were on a jury he wouldn’t vote to convict a clearly guilty rapist.
Wood’s enmity towards certain elements of the MRM has been reciprocated. Our good (not) friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog recently took on a “mangina” commenter at what he calls “The (Not) Thinking Housewife” for suggesting that the MRM had its roots in “radical homosexuality.”
This is one of those battles, to paraphrase Calvin Trillin, in which I can only hope that both sides suffer a defeat of humiliating proportions.
NOTE: Before any of the anti-feminists who regularly post here accuse me of lacking “substance” because I do not “rebut” Wood’s “arguments” in detail, I request only one thing: find me something solid to rebut. Wood, like many of those I write about, offers a lot of opinions — see the quotes above, and on Troll This Blog, for numerous examples — but almost nothing to actually support those opinions. Find me an example of an argument she has made that is actually supported with actual empirical evidence, with specific citations and/or links to sources, and I’ll have a go at it.
>Drama on teh Internets: Men’s Rights Reddit edition
>
Oh, the drama!
Like many online forums, the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit.com is a mixture of the good, the bad, and the very, very annoying. The good: A fairly large number of decent people there, ranging from moderate, non-misogynistic men’s rightsers to a few brave souls willing to stand up to the fanatics. The bad: The aforementioned fanatics, posting douchey rants, and quick to dismiss all opinions coming from women (“cunts,” “bitches”) and/or supporters of women (“manginas”). The annoying: The moderators of the subreddit, a touchy, ban-happy fellow who calls himself Kloo2yoo, and his ineffectual sidekick, Ignatiusloyola.
It’s Kloo who started up the subreddit, and Kloo who wrote the confrontational message that greets every visitor:
The men’s rights movement is just a collection of people who are tired of being taken advantage of, taken for granted, and lied to. Millions of people who have independently come to the same conclusions, usually the hard way. … This is not a feminist subreddit. It was created in opposition to feminism.
We are a million armies of 1.
In case you didn’t get the message, he adds:
kloo2yoo believes that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy, and encourages peaceful, but direct, action against it.
Message received: Feminists are the enemy. You are not welcome here. And indeed, visitors to the subreddit who display an excess of feminism have a tendency to get banned. (In some cases, after much protest from the decent folks in the subreddit, Kloo has relented and let them post again.) Quite a few people on Reddit now refuse to post in his subreddit because they don’t feel like wasting their time in a forum from which they can be arbitrarily banned at any point. (Ignatiusloyola doesn’t seem altogether happy with all of Kloo’s behavior, but will not stand up to him.)
It’s because of Kloo that I’ve put the Men’s Right’s subreddit in my “enemies list.” Now, I have nothing against him stating his own personal opinion, however stridently he wants. What I do have a problem with is his purporting to speak for everyone in the subreddit, many of whom think his talk of an anti-male “conspiracy” is more than a little loopy. And the banning. I hate the banning.
Yes, as you may have guessed, he’s banned me from the subreddit already; I had made only a handful of posts, most of which were straightforward and relatively nonconfrontational and, indeed, well-received by others in the subreddit. But Kloo saw his subreddit on my enemies list, and saw red. Never mind that he had already put feminists like myself on *his* enemies list.
Weirdly, after banning me, Kloo decided he wanted to debate some of the things I said in my Men Behaving Worse post, which had referred to his strange defense of the Women Behaving Badly posts that litter his subreddit. Only he wanted to debate me in private messages. I’m not playing that game.
So here’s my message to you, Kloo-dee: If you want to debate me, debate me publicly, in a forum where I have the right to respond. Debate me here, in comments; I will not ban you no matter what you say. Or unban me from the Men’s Rights subreddit, and debate me there.
Confidential message to Kloo: You just posted something in Men’s Rights about your troubles tracking down a particular blog post from a particular feminist from a year ago that you had lost the link to. Heh. I know exactly what post you’re talking about (and boy are you misremembering what it said). I’ll happily post the link for you in the Men’s Rights subreddit, but, in order for me to do that, you’ll have to unban me first.
This is one of the reasons it makes sense to keep talking to your “enemies.” They often know shit that you don’t.
EDIT: Some tinkering, added a link.
