>
 |
| 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.
>nickEvery mra I have ever read wants to dial back time to limit women's choices. So much for your small subset of big boys. Then of course you accuse feminists of having feeble minds. Great logical thinking there.
>KaveFirstly I am not involved with the MRA movement but I know for a fact that the majority of MRAs don't want to limit women's choices.There are shock jocks who hang around MRA sites or men who simply believe in male supremacy. Just like there are female supremacists around or females who believe men's rights should be taken away.It’s a two way street.But besides, how society was generations ago, this was not the cause or fault of men who were out of the big boys club (government power)But if anyone was to say that more than a small subset of women are evil oppressors, it’s likely to be laughed at by feminists or made out to be a big misunderstanding. But what else is new?
>So you are saying that post conquest rape never occurred? That fathers from the bottom to the top of society did not dispose of their daughters as they wished? That a woman was never stoned for adultry by a town hellbent on punishing wayward women? That the lack of access to education was not an issue as even the parish priest or local school gladly would have welcomed girls but for those mean ol' men in government? Nope, it was just a couple of men who did this. Every other man would have treated all women with kindness and respect but for those awful awful powerful men in government. Are you really that dumb Nick? Or just that desperate to be blind so your worldview is not shattered?
>"Unless you are still in grade school, saying "I know you are, but what am I?" also fails to constitute an argument."—CBThat's my point which you are borrowing—you don't have an argument yourself and you are being deflective, with a personal attack snuck in. You are employing an appeal to hypocrisy.Nice try—keep it up, and I'll be through with you. If you follow any of my posts, you will realize I have little patience with those I can't take seriously.
>"Bald assertions based on no evidence do not constitute an argument."—CBI could provide a truckload of evidence, but what does it do any good if you would be dismissive of all of it? It's pointless if you can't even accept any basic premise as viable.BTW, I wasn't speaking to you at first, it was Marissa, instead. Stop being so crass.
>" . . . because generally speaking I think it's a good idea for people to actually know a little bit about something before writing about it."—DavidObviously, you don't know enough about MGTOW. You base your accusations and ridicule on soundbites and resentful remarks, rather than the underlying rational(s) for it. You also associate crazed killers or dregs with it by implication, even if you claim you don't overtly (ref. "Misogyny Has Consequences"). Hell, as much I'm critical of feminism, even *I* don't couple all feminists with extreme factions and individuals (Dworkin, Solanas, Bishop, etc.).
>"Just like there are female supremacists around or females who believe men's rights should be taken away."—NickThis is one of the major things I'm against completely. I honestly think the majority of the pro-feminists here believe they are for "equality" and they are not, have hidden agendas, kow tow the party line at the end of the day, or simply do not care whether men have rights or not as long as they get their way. Period. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; ultimately feminism is female supremacy, a struggle for control and power that doesn't pay any heed for trampling men underfoot. More than quite a few feminists either secretly enjoy this or publicly revel in it. All justifying it with little or no guilt. It's downright disturbing.
>"Hell, as much I'm critical of feminism, even *I* don't couple all feminists with extreme factions and individuals…""I've said it before, and I'll say it again; ultimately feminism is female supremacy, a struggle for control and power that doesn't pay any heed for trampling men underfoot."Um.
>@wytch> I could provide a truckload of evidenceLet's hear some, then.Instant zero if you trot out the Forced Labor Convention of 1930.
>"BTW, I wasn't speaking to you at first, it was Marissa, instead. Stop being so crass. "Crass is defined at dictionary.reference com as, "without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts."What is so insensitive, indelicate or unrefined about participating in a blog discussion? Why would one doing so be considered gross, obtuse, or stupid? Surely you don't think that only the person you've addressed has the right to respond to you. If you do I would suggest you are the one being obtuse.
>Gerda Lerner is amazing. That's all, carry on.
>That's my point which you are borrowing—you don't have an argument yourself and you are being deflective, with a personal attack snuck in. You are employing an appeal to hypocrisy.Never said that I had an argument–what I said was that you had no argument. Your response was the usual "but, but…feminists!" twaddle that you and your MRA friends believe passes for actual reasoned discourse. As for the alleged personal attack, well, if the shoe fits…Nice try—keep it up, and I'll be through with you. If you follow any of my posts, you will realize I have little patience with those I can't take seriously. Well, now, that would just break my lil' ol' heart, now wouldn't it? I think you take yourself entirely too seriously, my dear wytch.
>"I've said it before, and I'll say it again; ultimately feminism is female supremacy, a struggle for control and power that doesn't pay any heed for trampling men underfoot. More than quite a few feminists either secretly enjoy this or publicly revel in it. All justifying it with little or no guilt."[citation needed]
>WytchCupcake why are you so sensitive? Are your hormones acting up?
>I could provide a truckload of evidence, but what does it do any good if you would be dismissive of all of it? "I COULD show you some evidence, but I won't, cuz you'll just laugh!!"Contrast Wytch's attitude to what just happened: that is, evidence for patriarchal enforcement of curtailed opportunities for women was demanded, and ample evidence was provided. It was then dismissed, without any content-based critique, by those who demanded it. Talk about projection.
>Some Man Going Tantrummy Over Women wrote: "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."So much transference you could cut it with a knife. Think Germany 1940: "Waa! Holland hit me first!"Transference from where? From society in general. Marketing, media, men's socialization and women's. "Cupcake" is a stand-in for forces one doesn't dare speak out against (other men) and forces one is unaware of at all (the media…you're soaking in it).
>To clarify: If a man doesn't stay up to date with all strictures and norms on manliness, he's toast. With men and society as much as with women.