>
 |
| Future revolutionaries? |
On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks! — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.
To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble” is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was
a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife … As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.
I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.
But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:
We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly. Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.
So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”
This solution?
Urinal flyers.
Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”
I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)
Here’s his explanation:
Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals. When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level. Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time. …
If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come. Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal. The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted. Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day.
Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.
All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:
And another one, perhaps my favorite:
Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:
The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?
Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It
Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.
Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere
All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,
plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.
Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.
Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.
Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:
Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation. Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .
Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for
that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted. They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women. But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.
So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.
>"Nicko: You need to find a new crowd or go after a different type of woman. That is not 100 percent socially acceptable; going "dutch" is more the standard of the day; also, if you're making verbal statements like "I don't owe women shit on a date," you may want to tone down the hostility when out in public, it tends to be offputting to most women."If it's not 100 percent socially acceptable, why isn't it condemned in the same category as men expecting sex on a date? Why aren't women socially ostracised for having such demands?If women are making verbal statements like " I don't owe men sex on a date" they may need to tone down their hostility when in public.But of course, female privilege again. It's acceptable for a female to act hostile towards things that many men may want but it's not acceptable to be hostile towards things that many females may want. Instead, we get the response: you will never get a woman with that attitude.
>Nicko: Well, okay, you finally said what your beef is. You figure x amount of dollars entitles you to x amount of sexual services. The answer is obvious; hire a sex worker. You state exactly what you want and you pay an exact price; no guessing how many drinks equals a blow job.So do women still "owe" sex on a date, even if they pay their own share of all expenses, down to the last quarter in the parking meter?
>KatzI never said that women owe men sex or whatever if men pay for their drinks. In fact, these women owe men nothing as these men are dumb enough to buy them drinks.But never mind
>nicko81m,She heard what she wanted to hear and now she can't unhear it. It's like this all the time.
>Right, Nicko and Witman, buying her a drink will not get you anywhere. Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however — that charms women's panties right off. And since, as you so insightfully noted, women flirt with you for no other reason than to con you into buying them booze — you know, the world's most precious and valuable commodity — it wouldn't hurt for you to say to every woman who flirts with you: "Knock it off right there, princess! If you want to fuck, fine, but I ain't buying you shit! That means no free bum wine, and if you use my bathroom after I'm done, I expect you to contribute to the electric bill and the water bill. Also, to pay for the wear and tear of the toilet seat. I ain't paying for your bathroom privileges, princess!" I guarantee, after a gem like that, she'll want to be your slave forever.
>I'm just confused by the idea that anyone would think that a format normally associated with "for a good time call …. your mama!" is a good one for disseminating serious advice. Isn't taking advice from bathroom graffiti generally considered a bad idea? So this is admitting that they are targeting those w/o any sense at all. I know they tried bathroom advertising PSA stuff a while back all over the place, and it seems to have wisely disappeared. Yes, captive audience, but you shoot your message in the foot when you use this format to get it out.
>"feminists barging into men's rooms to inspect for evidence of 'misogyny'"I would venture a guess the walls of men's rooms already have misogyny on them and always have, yet feminists aren't barging in to "inspect" it. A pathetic cry for attention if I ever saw one.
>"feminists barging into men's rooms to inspect for evidence of 'misogyny'"As if women never actually have to clean men's rooms when the joint is closed.But I'm still tickled with the idea that men will show us horrible feminists something when they have sex with sex robots. It's a good idea, honestly — takes them out of the breeding stock so, whether misogyny is nature or nurture, they will have less and less influence over the next generation.I guess the pee posters are their start at "recruiting" (like teh gheys!).
>@Amused"Right, Nicko and Witman, buying her a drink will not get you anywhere."Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out? I see a little panic at thought of losing a female perk! You girls have been lobbing out shitballs for 60 years and you get offended when we hand out umbrellas. Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked. We're just helping them deflect a little shit while they're at it.
>"I think that's a great idea, bringing in more men might move the MRAs out of their SCUM phase." MRAs are in a Society (for) Cutting Up Men phase?Are you serious?
>"Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked."Feminists are strong, independent women. Or that's what we've heard ad infinitum. So I will gladly let them try to live up to that standard, with or without me.
>"Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out?"Because you say it as if women are trying to make you think that buying them a drink will get them into bed.
>If a male goes to a bar, what on earth obligates him to buy a woman a drink? Perhaps in my parents' time that might have been the case to get a little something something but nowadays go on craigslist or AFF or whatever and find a chick there-just remember to be careful that she is not insane.And YES there are perfectly sane women on those types of websites who want nothing more than a slap, giggle and tickle. So the whining over the buying of a drink seems misplaced and rather illogical.
>"Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out?"What's offensive, Witman — besides the sheer stupidity — is that you have to "get the word out" that (oh, horror!) them uppity bitches won't put out for a swig of beer. Your own language suggests that certain segments of society still cling to the idea that buying a woman a drink entitles a man to sex, maybe even the use of her uterus for his reproduction. What's offensive is this drivel that if a woman merely makes eye contact and smiles, is merely friendly, then she's entered into a "contract" whereby she gets a drink and he gets her body, her services and control over her life. It's offensive to me as a woman AND as a lawyer. What's offensive is the mind-boggling complaint that flirtation constitutes some elaborate con for booze, combined with interpreting everything short of the most blunt and scathing rejection as "flirtation", combined with vociferous complaints about said blunt and scathing rejections as being unnecessarily cruel. For God's sake it's not that hard: don't treat women as commodities that you buy; take "no" for an answer; appreciate friendliness and civility, even if you want more; understand that we don't want or expect your generosity, but if you do decide to be generous, be sincere about it and don't act like a douche; you are not being "oppressed" just because you spent money on your haircut, your clothes, your bus ride to the bar and your drink, yet didn't get laid. I see a little panic at thought of losing a female perk!What perk? Half the time, that drink may have roofies in it, anyway — and I'll stick by my radical feminist conviction that being drugged and raped isn't a perk, even if you bought the best roofies on the market and they cost you a lot of money. The other half of the time, the recipient is expected to repay for that drink — in ways that are worth a lot more than what that drink actually cost. There is a price a woman is expected to pay for those "free" drinks, and in my opinion, it is entirely too high.You girls have been lobbing out shitballs for 60 years and you get offended when we hand out umbrellas.Not having sex for beer = shitball? If that kind of belief isn't a manifestation of entitlement, I don't know what is.Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked.Nope. That's not the message. Had it been the message, it would have conveyed the idea that — for the millionth time — you should just take no for an answer. Rather, the message is: "Them bitches got so uppity, they won't even fuck you for a drink. Join other angry dudes who think this is a huge injustice and a gross violation of our inalienable right to put our penises in any female we find desirable. Learn what you can do to put them in their place."We're just helping them deflect a little shit while they're at it.Rejecting your advances in a nice way isn't "shit". Dashing your hopes of getting into someone's pants isn't "shit". That's normal human interaction. When you whip out a thick wad of cash and buy champagne for everyone with the intention of shoring up your own ego, women refusing to believe you are a big shot isn't "shit" — it's just a normal and expected outcome of posturing. Treating every woman who has a conversation with you as a busted fraud who was only being friendly in order to take your $5 and give you blue balls — that isn't "deflecting shit"; it's pure insanity, and any man who follows that strategy is guaranteed to end up like George Sodini.
>The only people whining about it appear to be those who are in danger of losing their free-night-out privilege.Flirting and touching are ways that women get men to buy them drinks. This happens as a natural part of our biology. Nothing obliges us to buy drinks and that is our message.BUYING THAT GIRL A DRINK WILL GET YOU NOWHERE! Save your money and get a prostitute. At least she will shut up and leave when you're done.
>"The only people whining about it appear to be those who are in danger of losing their free-night-out privilege."Being pestered by douchebags isn't a privilege. Nor is that night ever "free"."Flirting and touching are ways that women get men to buy them drinks. This happens as a natural part of our biology.Oh, so women have a "hard-wired" drive to obtain … alcohol? Why? Because it's more likely to cause birth defects at conception? Jesus Christ, why don't these people read an actual textbook."Nothing obliges us to buy drinks and that is our message."I don't think there is anybody you believes you are obliged to buy a drink. What we dispute is your belief that buying a drink entitles you to sex.BUYING THAT GIRL A DRINK WILL GET YOU NOWHERE! Save your money and get a prostitute. At least she will shut up and leave when you're done. I would think a prostitute costs more than a drink, but hey — I'm sure you know this market far better than I. But then, by going to a prostitute, a misogynist does all the other women in the world a huge favor.
>Prostitutes (in the long run) cost far less than those few drinks.Few drinks might lead to a second date … all the way to marriage. Two kids, two cars, dog, big house and then the proceeds of your work go to her when she decides to trade up.No the prostitute is one that you can trade up weekly. If you only see a prostitute as often as you "see" your wife, the cost differential is enormous. You can even go with the high end prostitutes and still save money.
>The prostitute is less likely to give you a disease than some bar skank that puts out for drinks.
>I'm disappointed at the lack of Blogger profiles for the majority of your readership, David. It makes it harder for me to troll. :/
>" . . .it's pure insanity, and any man who follows that strategy is guaranteed to end up like George Sodini."—AmusedMost men don't end up like George Sodini. So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
>Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however — that charms women's panties right offYou feminuts seem to talk about entitlement issues a lot but I never hear you idiots direct the criticism at women when it comes to entitlement. Why is that? Oh that's right, today’s feminists are one sided bigots.Let's face it; women are the biggest offenders of chauvinism in 2011. Why is this? Because they simply get away with it. It a man even dares to call out on it, he will likely get belittled.There are women everywhere that actually believe a man is not to the same standard/worth as them unless he opens his wallet. Women are the biggest offenders ever of poisoned entitlement issues. That's the total irony of the feminist stance when it comes to whining about males having entitlement issues.Yet the chauvinism even goes deeper. We will get threatened with rejection from the almighty pussy if we show hostility towards such atrocious behaviour against men. Even that we have every god damn right to have hostility towards such behaviour.And all of this is socially acceptable. Women (the so called under privileged gender) can get away with such sexist, chauvinistic, behaviour at any place and any time. When it comes to dating, women get a pussy pass for nearly all forms of sexist behaviour. To sit here and tell me that males are the privileged gender is friggin hilarious. I will never pay a prostitute, let alone, I would never pay a woman anything in the mentality that I owe her some financial burden because of my gender. I don’t owe women shit. I am perfectly entitled to have this stance. Yet, me as a man is likely to get shamed in the dating scene to have such a mentality while women can be highly aggressive towards having their stance of not owing men anything.Fuck you!
>Amused – 'Being pestered by douchebags isn't a privilege. Nor is that night ever "free".'I hear that. Especially the types that lose their minds when you turn down their advances.
>They are just devaluing pussy below the $2 beer mark into the realm of having to throw in a toaster if you open an account with them.Men need pussy like we need a cactus in our ass.
>"Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however — that charms women's panties right off . . . "It often does. Regards of it's "politically correct" or "sexist" or not to agree with it, there are a lot of aggressive and angry men that get women's attention. And women keep coming for them for years and years until they slowly realize that they are jumping in the fire for them.Sometimes like attracts like. More than you think.I had a relative that married a man that was a real prick. I'll call her Haley here. Nearly every friend I had thought it was the wrong move. He was a violent meathead that could really done damage to her. She wasn't a saint herself during the course of the marriage, and even provoked and attacked him as well.Needless to say, I was dead set against them even thinking about matrimony in the beginning but it wasn't my call. Her ex-husband even called me when they got engaged and asked for my blessing. I said no and protested by not showing up at the ceremony.She consciously sought him out. Just like many other women seek men like this out for whatever the reason. It happens. When the divorce was getting finalized she admitted to me that no one, including myself, could have convinced her from steering away from him. This is one of many lessons that would chip away at certain feminist notions about many women and how they behave, as well as motivations. Haley picked this brooding asshole on purpose and all the "she was a victim" of his abuse during their marital life was not the complete picture. And she was abusive, too. I wasn't happy about Haley's choice but there was nothing I could ultimately do.Angry, aggressive men do attract women. The real question is what are feminists doing about this in order to prevent it?
>So would you say that aside from being a masochist, Haley was also emotionally and physically abusive?This means (according to feminist logic) that this pattern of her abuse toward him would justify him slapping her around so long as he used the love side of his hand. It seems like they had a symbiotic relationship.Question: Did Haley then go on to date/marry another brute?