Blog Archives
Red Piller: “Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. “
How to totally score with the babes.
Over on the Red Pill Subreddit — where manly ALPHA MALES trade tips on how to totally dominate the ladies with their awesome ALPHATUDE — one enterprising fellow has a suggestion for aspiring lady-dominators: take a tip or two from professional dog trainers and treat your bitch like a bitch!
TRPsubmitter, an official Red Pill Subreddit Endorsed Contributor, explains how you can use the magic of Operant Conditioning to train your gal:
Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. Both substrates (dogs, women) have innate submissive/obedient tendencies that should be emphasized along with unwanted behaviors to be diminished and punished. If you know anything about dogs, you know that many “incidents” are often the fault of the owner failing to provide a proper outlet for a dog’s energy or natural predispositions.
Women have natural predispositions too: Attention-seeking, curious, emotional, irrational, solipsistic, unable to constructively deal with stress/criticism, likes to blame others, etc. Almost all of these can be subjected to a combination of operant conditioning.
Yeah, that pretty much describes all possible predispositions women might have. Because women are terrible!
Men’s Rights Redditor: When the feminist utopia comes, male feminists “will possibly [be] used for breeding and then fed to sharks.”
At least let me be eaten by one of these.
Today I learned something from the Men’s Rights subreddit that’s, honestly, a little disturbing. In a topic with the title David Futrelle seriously needs help, I found the following exchange:
![EvilPundit 7 points 2 days ago* (10|3) Like Hugo Schwyzer, Futrelle is exploiting his position as the feminists' "trusty". He's a man who can be counted on to dish up dirt against other men, so he gets quoted by feminist media, invited to parties with the right people, and so on. He probably thinks they're his friends, but wait until he steps just one millimetre out of line ... permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]Alisdair_ 0 points 2 days ago (8|8) I think it foreshadows what will happen if feminists get their way with the human race. When feminist utopia comes and men are living in slums outside of the city walls the men who just pillage and slaughter other men will be lauded and taken in to be treated very warmly, possibly used for breeding and then fed to sharks. Some even outright say these things, but you see most of their actions foreshadow the same kinds of wishes.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/partiesbreedingsharks.png?w=604)
Ulp! I just signed up for the parties and the breeding. I didn’t know about the sharks.
Elsewhere in the thread, Alisdair writes of me:
I get the feeling that this is just one of those guys, frequently held in high esteem with the feminists, who basically want every man out there cuckolded. With the alpha cock and all of that.
He’s pretty much nailed it. Here’s my to-do list for today.
- Write blog post
- Candy Crush (9 hours)
- Play fetch with cats (4 hours)
- Clean litter box
- Get every man cuckolded (with the alpha cock)
- Go to grocery store
One down, five to go!
Redditor fights Jaclyn Friedman’s accusations of Men’s Rights misogyny with … more misogyny
Proper credentials are very important in internet arguments
Well, so far this is my favorite response to Jaclyn Friedman’s American Prospect piece on the Men’s Rightsers and that woman-hating problem of theirs. Because what better way to refute charges of misogyny than by declaring derisively that you “can usually spot whether or not a woman wrote a piece by the first few sentences?”
Let’s let rjworks13 explain just why Friedman lacks the intellectual heft to be taken seriously by serious men with credentials — sorry, CREDENTIALS — like him:
Oh boy.
I have to say that very favorite sentence of all in this wondrous bit of HeManWomanHatersplaining is this one, if it can even be called a sentence:
CREDENTIALS: I’m a long-time trained technical and creative writer from male-based military training and put to use over 20 years.
Oy. I can only assume from the evidence of this, er, sentence, that as a technical writer his job is to make sure that instruction manuals are as unreadable as possible. And that his “creative” writing most likely consists of many volumes of self-published Gorean porn.
If you want to compare Jaclyn Friedman’s CREDENTIALS with his, you can always go to her Wikipedia entry. I looked around a bit for rjworks13’s Wikipedia entry, but he doesn’t seem to have one.
rjworks13 was evidently so proud of this bit of writing of his that he deleted it. Luckily, I grabbed a screenshot beforehand. ABS: Always Be Screenshotting.
PS What’s “indifference propaganda?”
Ladies! What are your favorite Unchecked Feeemale Privileges?
So a fella on the Men’s Rights subreddit made this poster, which he’s planning to post in the vicinity of the Women’s Studies Department at his school, assuming he can find it.
Since I know that a lot of females read this blog, I thought I’d ask you all just which of these Unchecked Female Privileges (There’s Nothing “Benevolent” About Them) are your favorites. You can pick more than one! (I know how inherently greedy you feemales are.)
Has he missed any important ones?
Non-women are allowed to post in this thread as well, but only if they preface their comments with “If it may please the feemales, might I humbly suggest that … .”
Men’s Rights Jeopardy: I’ll take “Kill the B*tch” for two dozen upvotes, Alex.
MRAs: Perpetually furious
So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fella named dzogen came by to vent about his unfair divorce.
Seems his “freeloader and loser” of an ex-wife — a former drug addict — sits around the house eating bon bons while happily collecting $2500 a month in child support for the five year old kid they had together. Also, she treats him with disrespect. “Meanwhile,” the poor fella wrote, for an added dose of pathos, “I have to survive on PB&J.”
*cough*shitthatneverhappened*cough*
Red Pill Redditor on Women: “I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.”
Some thoughts on divorce from a delightful, and recently divorced, Red Pill Redditor by the name of vengefully_yours. (Divorced? Yes, that’s right, ladies: he’s available!)
![vengefully_yours 36 points 1 day ago (57|21) I have been divorced a month now, and I timed buying some land for about a month after it would be final so I could close on it today and her name is nowhere on it. Its mine. No trollop nor cheating whore will be able to wrest it from me by taking off to fuck some other guy. I will never again marry, and most likely never tell a woman I am not blood related to that I love her. This is my life, and I am living it how I see fit. I do what I want, when I want to do it, and no female has any say in how I go about it. Its not as if my ex wives had any say what I did anyway, but now I dont have to listen to them bitch that I am spending more money on cars than I am on them. Fuck yes I am free, and you're damn right I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources. That might sound like I hate women, I dont. I love and adore them, but damn you just cant trust them. permalink source give gold save hide child comments [–]Cyralea 24 points 1 day ago (38|14) This is RP shining true. Don't hate women. They are what they are. Trusting them makes you the idiot, not them.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/selfwarmingfleshlight.png?w=604)
I’m glad he clarified that he doesn’t hate women, because some people (you know, manginas and feminazis) might have jumped to conclusions based on, you know, reading his comment and understanding his words.
Thanks to maniacalnewworld in the Blue Pill subreddit for finding this golden nugget in the shitheap.
Men’s Rights Quote of the Day: “Your typical woman would be fine making most men live in cages.”
If women ran the world, apparently
Over in the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fella called EatsTinyBaldBabies offers this, er, insight:
It became quite clear to me some time ago that your typical woman would be fine making most men live in cages under 24/78 supervision if it meant they could feel just slightly safer about their lives. This is why feminists spend so much time lying to make them afraid.
Last I checked, he had gotten 18 upvotes for this BRAVE comment.
H/T to DancingMidgets in the AgainstMen’sRights subreddit for finding this little gem.
Facebook: Page advocating murder of feminist blogger “doesn’t violate our community standard on bullying and harassment.”
Several months ago, you may recall, feminist activists got Facebook to agree to remove blatant sexist hate speech from its site — much to the chagrin of many Men’s Rights Activists, like Paul Elam of A Voice for Men, who declared, in a post filled with alarmist rhetoric, that “feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview.” AVFM’s John Hembling, meanwhile, denounced the feminist activists as “fascists.”
Ever since then, Men’s Rights activists have been playing a game of “gotcha” with Facebook, trying to prove that the hate-speech monitors there only care about misogynist hate speech, and don’t actually care about hate speech directed at men. Every few days, it seems, there is a new thread in the Men’s Rights subreddit purporting to document this alleged “double standard.”
Ten days ago, for example, a Men’s Rights Redditor called dizzy_j got nearly 400 upvotes for a post complaining that “I reported three anti-men Facebook pages for gender-based hate speech today. Only one was removed.” Six days ago, DerDietrich got 580 upvotes for submitting this supposed evidence of a double standard. Trouble is, you can’t actually prove a double standard with a handful of examples.
But I would like to suggest an alternate hypothesis, which also fits the anecdotal data provided thus far by the MRAs, and provide an additional piece of anecdotal evidence that supports my theory and undercuts theirs.
My hypothesis is that Facebook is shitty at recognizing and dealing with hate speech and harassment, no matter whom it’s aimed at.
My evidence for this? Well, yesterday bloggers at Skepchick noticed a Facebook page targeting a specific feminist/skeptic blogger and asking if she “should … be murdered.” The anonymous poster — who identified her by name and posted pictures of her on the page — coyly avoided a literal call for murder, writing instead:
We should not ever break the law. Rather, we should advocate , through lawful land constitutional processes, to have the law changed so that it is legal to kill [name redacted by DF]. Alternatively, we should, where legal, request that [name redacted by DF] kill herself. Relevant laws should be changed so that suicide, and advocating suicide, is legal.
The Skepchick bloggers reported the page to Facebook for its obvious violations of the site’s harassment policies.
And they received this reply from Facebook (I’ve covered up the blogger’s name):
I think it’s fair to say that if Facebook can’t recognize a page calling for the literal murder of someone as harassment there is something very wrong with its system for dealing with harassment and hate speech.
The page has since been taken down, though it’s not clear if it was removed by Facebook or by the original anonymous Facebooker.
Get your act together, Facebook.
“ManSlug is a vile subhuman thing” and other insights from the Men’s Rights subreddit
Feminism brings another manling into the fold
I’ve learned a lot about myself in the process of writing this blog. For example, this week, I learned that I’m a “vile, subhuman thing” who “like licking sh*t of feminist’s shoes” and “just wants every man cuckolded.” Also, I have some interesting and specific tastes in porn that even I was unaware of.
I learned all of these things from the always reliable purveyors of accurate and unbiased information in the Men’s Rights subreddit, in a thread ostensibly devoted to my coverage of the recent events in Toronto, but which ended up being more devoted to my various alleged failings and my alleged preferences in the porn realm.
Let’s take a look!
Here’s a man who is evidently also a pig suggesting that I am a man who is also a slug:
But ThePigmanAgain was too late! For I was able to steal EIGHTEEN WHOLE TRAFFICS from the Men’s Rights subreddit that day before the moderators removed this thread from the subreddit, lest any more unwary Men’s Rightsers wander into my evil internet lair where they might find writing critical of the men’s rights movement and its farcical attempts at activism.
Evidently Alisdair isn’t one of those who actually clicked on the link to my post in the thread, because he apparently believes that my post was a do-it-yourself guide to cuckolding other men, or perhaps a guide to getting cuckolded. I’m not sure..
And then there’s JayBopara, a MHRA warrior who seems a bit obsessed with what he for some reason believes are my preferences, porn-wise:
![JayBopara [S] -2 points 4 days ago (5|7) This guy David Futrelle like licking sh*t of feminist's shoes, so this sort of article was predictable. My understanding is he also likes mangina porn. This guy Futrelle is the pits, and the sad thing is, there are so many pathetic manginas exactly like him out there. With so many manginas, I doubt the MHRM will gain too much traction. But here's hoping. permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]Dronelisk 2 points 3 days ago (6|4) ok fine no need to insult the author lest we fall into the same category as feminists and their ad hominem logical fallacies. wait did I just do that too? permalink source save parent give gold [–]JayBopara [S] 2 points 3 days ago (4|2) The reason I said those remarks was somewhere I read, and some places he posted he indicated a liking for mangina porn. Therefore I don't believe I've made an ad hominem attack. It appears from my research there is a link with people who are political manginas and those who like mangina pornography.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/maginaporn1.png?w=604)
These comments of his raise a few questions for me.
1) Where exactly is he allegedly reading about my alleged preferences in porn? The MakeStuffUpAboutDavidFutrelleWiki?
2) What on earth is “mangina porn,” anyway?
Asked this very question in the thread itself, Jay has this answer:
![JayBopara [S] 2 points 3 days ago (2|0) Mangina porn = femdom porn. Sorry if you guys didn't understand that. Porn which often is not about sex, as it is about women debasing, humiliating and violently abusing men. Apparently manginas get off on this porn. Mangina porn has nothing to do with transexuals or anything like that. Man·gi·na -noun- 1. A women-firster. 2. A pussy-worshipper. 3. A male who behaves or acts toward men in an overly aggressive way once feminist Maxims are questioned.](http://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/manginaporn2.png?w=604)
Ah.
Dude, hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure that you’re the only person in the universe who calls that “mangina porn.”
Also, despite the similarities in the first three letters of the words, and the involvement of women in each, there is no real connection between “feminism” and “femdom.” One is a social and political movement; the other is a kink.
Anyway, this is how the HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT FOR MEN AND BOYS OF THE 21ST CENTURY deals with its critics.
Well, its male critics anyway. It treats its female critics much, much worse.
Feminism is like anti-obedience school for dogs, explains Men’s Rights Redditor
Apparently feminism has turned the lovely and obedient ladies of yore into a bunch of wild wolves and dingoes — by preventing men from “putting the foot down” when ladies misbehave. At least that’s what the always awful Men’s Rights Redditor who calls himself Alisdair_ and the 41 terrible people who’ve upvoted his comment so far think:
Thanks to chewinchawingum in the AgainstMensRights subreddit for pointing out this lovely quote. Huh. There’s something that seems oddly familiar about chewinchawingum.
