>
 |
| Serves you right for being a lady, lady! |
In a discussion of Britain’s financial troubles on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a dude calling himself rebel managed to tease out some good news in the prospect of complete financial meltdown: the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!
Let’s face it: feminism was possible only through oppulence [sic]. The richer the country the worse it got.
Now the opposite is happening: we may have to suffer not being able to buy that new pair of shoes, but women will become less arrogant when they will have to live on bread crumbs.
I say keep them starved, skinny and obedient. Civilization is harmful to men: it causes women to go haywire.
If the economy tanks, men will be the winners.
“Oppulence?” Apparently, in the brave new post-civilization world, correct spelling will be a luxury we can no longer afford.
EDIT: Screencap for those not registered at Happy B:
>If you're counting on women engaging in survival sex as your only hope of getting laid, it's probably time to stop and reassess how you got so far off track.
>Beyond the fixation on women having to be skinny, what is this obsession with wanting women to be obedient all about? Do adult men want an adult partner or do they want a child (though, perhaps, of adult age) for their partner?
>If you're counting on women engaging in survival sex as your only hope of getting laid, it's probably time to stop and reassess how you got so far off track. This might be a more cutting insult if 'getting laid' was the only thing these guys cared about. As I've mentioned before, though, it's fairly inane as far as shaming tactics go–many of the most die-hard misogynists either have no trouble getting laid or genuinely no interest in doing so.That said, Mr. Futrelle, is it just me or do a lot of the quotes you link to end up asking for a request to login to whatever forum you drew them from? Maybe it's just me, but I think you have to have an account at happybachelors, the mgtow forums, and so on, and so forth. I'm not sure if this is the case, but if so, have you ever thought of taking screencaps or something of the threads to provide context for the folks who don't really want to sign up for these places?Finally–and if you feel I'm being a gratuitous guest, by all means feel free to delete this comment as you see fit–not to tell you how to run your own blog, but don't you think it's somewhat hypocritical to chuckle at spelling errors other people make on forums and comments and the like when you make them yourself? I'm obviously not going to go through all your posts and comments to ferret out mistakes, but I'm just saying that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There are obviously far more cutting critiques of the loonies you run across than "snarky" pokes at their writing skills.
>@thevagrantsvoice,On more than one occasion, here at this site, you have referred to yourself as being, perhaps, a"gratuitous guest". I'm just curious as to why you choose to refer to your presence here in that manner.
>Politeness/propriety. Since this isn't my blog, I recognize I have to right to tell Mr. Futrelle what to write about or how to do it, so whenever I critique his posts or his other guests here, I try to make it clear I don't want to cause trouble–i.e be a 'gratuitous guest.'I do this everywhere else I go as well–if I criticize an MRA on his blog for something he's written, I first mention my intent isn't to boss him around or be a 'gratuitous guest.' I learned the hard way after making a bit of a fool of myself at some other places (some MRA, some not) that it's better to err on the side of circumspection when hangin' around places which aren't your own.
>Er, I mean I *don't* have the right to tell Mr. Futrelle what to write or how to do it. Excuse me 🙂
>Thank you for responding and satisfying my curiosity. Your reason for doing as you do makes good sense.I sort of thought that the first "to" in your "have to right to" might have been an error. I figured you meant to say "no" instead of "to".
>"many of the most die-hard misogynists either have no trouble getting laid or genuinely no interest in doing so."OR… we'd all be like David."the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!"Hasn't failed yet."Do adult men want an adult partner or do they want a child (though, perhaps, of adult age) for their partner?"As most of as aren't gay we prefer the latter.
>As most of as aren't gay we prefer the latter. Ah, but then you'd have the standard MRA complaint of women being "stupid, (childish) parasites. If you folks do prefer the latter I get the feeling it's the lesser of two evils for you, at best.
>vagrant, I do appreciate the politeness, but your comments would be completely fine to post here even if they weren't quite so polite. I sometimes do screen caps when quoting from forums that require registration; I should probably make that a more general practice, though it can get a bit cumbersome when quoting a number of comments from one discussion. evil, what does sexual orientation have to do with preferring young and/or childish partners over independent adults?
>Factually inaccurate. Men have been hit harder by the recession than women, with more men being laid off. This is because the traditionally male-dominated industrial/manufacturing sector has been adversely affected during the past few years, with massive job-outsourcing to the slave labour markets of Asia compounding unemployment in the West. Those jobs aren't coming back.So, really, women are the 'winners' in this recession:http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40766449"The unemployment rate for women is almost two full percentage points lower than the rate for men, and women dominate fields such as healthcare that are expected to see the biggest job growth in the next eight years.Women also earned the majority of bachelor's degrees in the last decade, giving them a better shot at high-paying jobs…"
>Blackwell, I don't think Rebel in the OP was talking about just the recession, but rather a full-blown rollback of civilization itself–i.e he's not looking forward to massive unemployment, he's looking forward to humanity being thrown back literally into the Stone Age. This is somewhat ironic for a few reasons, but I suppose that would be better off for a whole 'nother post in and of itself.
>That's interesting, I just read a sentiment very similar to rebel's (if slightly more rational and less hate-filled) in some old Germaine Greer (The Whole Woman, 1999):Men have still not realized that letting women do so much of the work for so little reward makes a man in the house an expensive luxury rather than a necessity. Many of the women who will this year shed a husband who thinks that he has behaved as well as could be expected will do so because he is just too much trouble. The cost in human terms of feeding him, grooming him, humouring him and financing his recreation is way out of proportion to the contribution that he makes in return, even if he is an attentive and sensitive lover. It seems bad is bad all over.
>thevagrantsvoice, you may be right, but I see a mixing of macro- and micro- economics; the process of societal collapse is already beginning (with the country getting poorer), with a projected total economic meltdown leading (ostensibly) to the end of female privilege. I think he's wrong on the micro-level, with the country's worsening economic conditions leading to harsher consequences for men. I'm not sure at what stage it would become worse for women according to the poster, or why men would be any better off if civilization collapsed completely and we were all living off 'bread crumbs'. What incentive would there for women to be 'obedient' if we were all that badly off?
>What incentive would there for women to be 'obedient' if we were all that badly off? Well, in the MRA view, technology is the *only* thing that allows women to be uppity, disobedient, and illiterate. Since they're so vastly inferior to men physically, Rebel is reasoning that without technology, i.e when civilization collapses entirely, women will have to submit entirely to men for protection and survival. If they act as if they have "rights" and all that, men will reject them and leave them to die.That's how the thinking goes, at least.
>So what exactly is stopping them from going off into the woods and living without technology? I'm using my hopeful voice.
>"the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!"Hasn't failed yet."Yeah, like in Afghanistan.Meandering here. Wonder what makes "Rebel" and "evilwhitemalempire" appear to think they would be anything close to an alpha male in this collapsed civilization they envision?