Blog Archives
Complementarian Loner: “Due to their lame, banal talking, [women] show they are only good for sex.” So online sexual harassment of women is just peachy!
Complementarian Loners, a relationship blog of sorts run by two kinky but reactionary Catholics (and which I’ve written about before), describes itself as “primarily a blog of ideas.” The main idea seems to be that women are awful, worthless creatures. Surprisingly, it is CL, the female half of the blogging team, who is often the most vociferous on this point.
In a post unironically titled “Tits or GTFO (a.k.a. How Women Ruin Everything),” CL defends the regular harassment women face when entering – sorry, “invading” – “male spaces” online. As she writes:
Too many women will waltz in and expect to engage everyone, with no sense that perhaps they should just hang back once they’ve had their say if they even have it. They talk and talk and talk, derailing conversations, going off-topic usually to talk about themselves, until all that’s left is a room full of clucking hens and all the smart guys eventually get fed up and leave.
They want to be considered equals yet prove they do not deserve it both by showing that what they really want is to be up on that pedestal and that they are incapable of rational thought.
MGTOWer: Raise girls to be farmers to keep them from becoming whores
Let’s say you’re a dude who thinks that All Women Are Like That, except possibly for two or three of them. Let’s say you think women today are the equivalent of rattlesnakes, or unexploded grenades, or hungry, hungry alligators. Let’s say that you think marrying a woman “is like playing Russian Roulette with a fucking Gatling gun and hoping that the one that might actually hit you is a blank.” Let’s say you think that women are
Hypergamous
Materialistic
unfaithful
almost Bi Polar like mood swings
entitled
completely self serving
histrionic
parasitic
hard wired for alpha cock
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c): It’s “a disaster to say ‘never hit women’…..it destroys the womans ability to bond closely with the man via a good spanking.” [UPDATED WITH NOLAN RESPONSE]
Some misogynists seem to have a really difficult time telling the difference between consensual kinkiness and domestic violence. Over on the Happier Abroad forums, our old friend Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) – who doesn’t really seem to be all that happy, honestly – tells the fellows about a woman he recently met. (Note: the faux ellipses in the quotes to follow are all from the original.)
I am now able to look a woman in the eyes, even from some distance, and know if she is a decent woman or not. I only developed this two years or so ago and have only had it happen 4 times. I am not saying that it is ONLY these women who are decent women….I am saying that the 4 this has happened to turned out to be pretty good women…
By a “pretty good woman” he seems to mean a woman who hates women nearly as much as he does:
Man Boobzers Join the Poster Revolution Against Misandry and Mean Ladies!
As I noted in my last post, the gang over at A Voice for Men have launched a veritable POSTER REVOLUTION against the evil gynocracy, by which I mean a couple of dudes have designed some posters and a couple other dudes have put some of them up.
Much like the web site they represent, these posters are dumb and ugly and incoherently angry. Feeling generous, some Man Boobzers have designed some more posters for them to use, trying their best to capture the unique qualities that make A Voice for Men posters so, well, special. Cloudiah has collected them together on her hilarious blog Artistry For Feminism. And Kittens. Check them out!
Roosh the PUA dude: Women are “lubricated holes that exist mostly for a man’s sexual pleasure.”
Our dear friend Roosh, the pickup guru, has written some (self-published) books! One of them is called Day Bang. It’s an instructional manual for dudes who want to know how to convince ladies to have sex with them … in the daytime. It contains this bit of wisdom:
When it comes to how you view the girls you’re approaching, I’d be careful about having too much respect for them. While I’m not saying you should hate women, my initial impression of them is that they’re lubricated holes that exist mostly for a man’s sexual pleasure.
Yeah, nothing even vaguely hateful about reducing women to a body part.
I know all too well that putting them on a pedestal will make it challenging to get to sex within a short amount of time since girls can literally feel when you value their pussy. It’s a fact that nothing dries up an individual pussy more than if it suspects it’s being idolized by a man.
And nothing makes a woman’s vagina dry up and sew itself shut faster than learning that the guy macking on her is relying on a book that describes women as if they are their vaginas, and vice versa.
Ann Coulter channels Men’s Rightsers in her latest attack on single women
While single herself, the always belligerent Ann Coulter seems to have a bit of a grudge against other single women — single mothers in particular. In a recent appearance on Fox and Friends, Coulter complained that the Democrats — and the media — were paying too much attention to what women think, and suggested that Romney could win the election without appealing to women — or at least to single women.
Ronald Reagan managed to win two landslides without winning the women’s vote, but it is as you say, it’s striking, it’s not the women’s vote generically, it is the single women’s vote. And that’s because single women look to the government to be their husbands and give them, you know, prenatal care, and preschool care, and kindergarten care, and school lunches.
National Review: Hey, ladies! Romney’s a total rich guy alpha. Why aren’t you lining up for some of that?
National Review has delivered unto us a puckishly paleoconservative cover story with a very Redditesque headline: “Like a Boss.” Which is perhaps appropriate, in that the story that goes with the headline uses the faux logic of evolutionary psychology (always popular on Reddit) in order to argue that Romney, a true alpha male, should be getting something like 100% of the female vote rather than trailing Obama by ten percent in this rather important demographic.
The article, by Kevin D. Williamson — no, not the Dawson’s Creek dude — starts off terrible:
What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse.
Yo, dudes: Alpha males are a myth, according to actual experts on wolves
Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)
Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:
Heartiste: Women athletes are mannish uggos because “women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally.”
So over on Chateau Heartiste, the Dude Who Used to Call Himself Roissy seems personally affronted that the female athletes in the Olympics, by and large, didn’t live up to his wet dreams of Perfect Womanhood. In one post, he hails a Turkish newspaper columnist (yes, the same one we talked about here) who complained about the allegedly unwomanly bosoms of female Olympians, and offers his own less-than-complimentary assessment of their looks:
Who with the eyes to see hasn’t noticed the narrow hips, the grotesque six-pack abs (never a good look on women), the chest “stubs”, the linebacker shoulders, and the manjaws of an inordinate number of the female Olympians?
So why does it matter that Roissy/Heartiste couldn’t get a boner watching the Olympics? Apparently because these women are violating the PRIME DIRECTIVE, which forbids representatives of the United Federation of Planets from “intervene[ing] in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any planetary social system.”














