>
 |
| 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.
>I was doing some reading for a class tonight and I came across more stuff that nicko might find interesting. In fact, I was struck by a few things that I underlined specifically for his benefit.Source: Wiesner, Merry. "Early Modern Europe: 1450-1789". 2006: Cambridge University Press.Though the broader scope of the selection I was reading tonight is "Cultural and Intellectual Life: 1400-1600" you'd have to be dense not to suss out the institutional gender discrimination. Indeed, women were tightly controlled by men, who had all the power, and prevented from rising in status. Any typos are my own, as I'm full of wine right now."By 1580, in the province of Electoral Saxony in central Germany, only 50 percent of the parishes had licensed German-language schools for boys, and 10 percent for girls;""By 1675 in Electoral Saxony the numbers had increased to 94 percent for boys and 40 percent for girls."Common educational practices in Europe:"boys often went for half half a day for three or four years, and girls for an hour or so a day for one to two years.""Boys who had mastered reading in the vernacular might start basic Latin training, while girls were taught sewing and embroidery"Educational inequalities based on gender are evident, particularly in the middle class, for example, in the English middle class:"In East Anglia, in eastern England, for example, 49 percent of male tradesmen and craftsmen and 6 percent of women in the decade of the 1580s could sign their names, proportions that had only risen to 56 percent and 16 percent in the 1680s."Things were particularly bad for women outside of Catholic countires:"In Protestant areas, education for girls beyond basic literacy in the vernacular was available only through private tutors."However, even in Catholic Italy: "Students at Italian universities were generally young men" and in Catholic Paris beginning university students were generally "teenage boys".It's important to note, that these institutions of education were controlled almost exclusively – with incredibly few exceptions – by men. And that misogyny dominated political theory.Women only "accidentally" came to power in early modern Europe and "Theorists vigorously and at times viciously debated whether this was appropriate" and there was a recurring question of which was "the stronger determinant of character and social role, gender or rank?"John Knox, a popular protestant theorist called the rule of women "unnatural, monstrous, unlawful and contrary to scripture; being female was a condition that could never be overcome, and subjects of female rulers needed no other justification for rebelling than their monarch's sex."Yikes. But it gets worse for women's access to politics. The dialogue of political theory belonged to an academic world from which we have already seen, women were excluded.The French political theorist, Bodin said in 1576 "that the state was like a household, and just as in a household the husband/father has authority and power over all others, so in the state a male monarch should always rule". Popular English political thinker, Robert Fillmer (b 1588) said that rulers derived "all legal authority from the divinely sanctioned fatherly powerof Adam, just as did all fathers."
>Public education was not the only source of access to the world of arts and academia. There existed universities and salons/societies, though women were excluded from the former and marginalized in the latter, "though most of these [societies] were made up only of men, because they were less formal than universities or academies, women sometimes participated."Indeed, women were almost entirely excluded from the world of art:"Women were not allowed to study the male nude, which was viewed as essential if one wanted to paint large history paintings" and "Neither did women learn the technique of fresco […] because such works had to be done in public, which was judged inappropriate to women. Concerns about propriety and morality thus limited the media [women] could use as well as their subject matter."So there's some more reading for you nick. If you still have arguments that men have not held dominion over the autonomy of women in history I'd like to hear them.
>And patriarchy is to blame for everything in the world blah blah blah yada yada yada women are perfect princesses who could do nothing wrong.Um, no. It's telling that you go from "patriarchy is to blame" to "women are perfect princesses." Patriarchy is not a collection of men. Patriarchy is a structure. It's not about men doing bad things, it's about masculinity being privileged. Which, as many feminists will readily point out, Hurts Men Too. Saying that someone is privileged or marginalized has nothing to do with whether they are a good or a bad person, it just describes their position in society.
>"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."Was anybody else turned on by this? Autobiographical. I'm such a narcissist.
>"It's not about men doing bad things, it's about masculinity being privileged."–MarissaWhat a crock of shit. I will not accept anyone stomping all over my rights, especially feminists. If anything, upper class white women have more priviledge, rights, license, and luxury in the US than anyone else. If you can't accept this you are in denial or a bold-faced liar."Which, as many feminists will readily point out, Hurts Men Too."Feminist hurts men. It neglects them. It views them as second-class citizens. Or worse.You state this after the gross and inaccurate assumption about male priviledge you present. The former statement alludes eroding away whatever intergrity and power that men have at their expense, and then you claim that patriarchy hurts men as well although feminism has proven (over and over again) that they are largely out for power and control.So, it's about shifting power and damning masculinity. Got it. What hypocrisy. And hubris.
>The Gods of all the major religions are male. Talk about hubris. Jeez. @Johnny – Thanks for the reading material. Interesting note, in the 1800's, in the US, more women could read than men because of the nature and time it took to farm the land without modern mechanization, but of course women weren't allowed to do anything with that education, except become teachers and teach our children. Which is no small thing, it's just made to seem small by those who seek power. It's one of those forgotten truths about how women have shaped our country. If your mother could read, you would learn to read. It was the one of the first building blocks of having a solid middle class and a stable society. That's what they are trying to do in Afghanistan. If you educate women, you have an educated society. That's why the taliban fight so hard to prevent it. It's not that they don't want women to read, they don't want them to teach their sons and daughters to read. It's too bad that so many women don't realize our power. So often we're told that we're only good for pussy, we're ugly, we're bitches, we're stupid and less than. Every year less and less of us are believing the lies. They certainly aren't believing it in Egypt. Good on them.
>"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? " Well, yes. Some of us have friends of both sexes who we do not fuck and actually enjoy spending time with due to their personalities.
>Dear wytch,Bald assertions based on no evidence do not constitute an argument.
>I AM MAKING CUPCAKES RIGHT NOW. CUPCAKES FOR THE SUPER BOWL.
>"Bald assertions based on no evidence do not constitute an argument."—-CBWhy don't you tell your fellow feminists that?
>wytch, in this thread I see a lot of people providing evidence to back up their claims. They all seem to be feminists. Nick demanded evidence, then when he got it, he went all entitled princess on us and refused to read it.
>So, it's about shifting power and damning masculinity.Yes it is. Glad to see you understand. But seriously, go to any major feminist blog (Feministing, Feministe, Pandagon, and use their searches to look up "masculinity". Or search the phrase "patriarchy hurts men too."
>shaenon: I JUST ATE A CUPCAKE! WHILE WATCHING THE PUPPY BOWL!
>David said:"wytch, in this thread I see a lot of people providing evidence to back up their claims. They all seem to be feminists. Nick demanded evidence, then when he got it, he went all entitled princess on us and refused to read it."David, firstly, how can perceptions of patriarchy from feminist minded people be an argument towards what I quoted before.?This is why I just rolled my eyes and gave up yesterday.Feminists are so deluded with the female oppression thing and patriarchy in the past that it can be beyond ridiculous a lot of the time. But hey, its way easier to overly exaggerate something or simply make things up when you are not talking about the present.It's laughable to say that every woman or most women were oppressed by ALL MEN or patriarchy it’s self.Did feminists do another one of their manipulated surveys to each or most women about what goes on behind doors in each family house hold back in them times? Or do they just like pulling these things out of their ass because it's completely easy to accuse men of anything and so many people will simply believe it without any concrete fact presented.The ONLY men who oppressed women in the ways of limiting their choices in life were a small subset of men in government. Not patriarchy or men in general as men in general didn’t have a choice neither. This small subset of men didn’t just make life hard for women; they also oppressed most men in society. I really don’t see how a man is showing dominance when he is her financial slave. And before he becomes to that status, he has to get down on his knees in a submissive position and ask for that honour of being married…or in other words, be her financial pay piggy.Wow women were so oppressed….that it was the norm to give women royal treatment. Just as they did of being first to the life boat, giving up your seat for a woman, lighting their smokes.Anyway, back to the story of evil men and patriarchyCarry on…
>nick, again, Gerda Lerner is a very highly regarded historian. If you read her book you can see exactly what evidence she uses to reach her conclusions. Unlike you, she pulls nothing out of her ass. As you would know if you actually read (or even read about) her work before dismissing it. (You would also know that she deals in great detail with issues of class, which you have ignorantly assumed she ignores.) Where exactly are the sources for your various generalizations about patriarchy? If you demand evidence, then immediately dismiss this evidence without even reading it, there is pretty much zero point in discussing this with you.
>David"Where exactly are the sources for your various generalizations about patriarchy?"What are my various generalizations? What are you talking about?Sorry, I am not a feminist, so that means I don't generalize patriarchy or misinterpret patriarchy by blaming the cause of everything that goes wrong on patriarchy.I have a more open mind than "that" or most feminists."If you demand evidence, then immediately dismiss this evidence without even reading it, there is pretty much zero point in discussing this with you."Instead of asking me to read a lot of crap from feminists which will be time consuming at its best, why don't you tell me the exact places in these web pages that actually provides hard proof of whatever you are trying to point out?My time is not easy. I shouldn’t have to read a whole novel worth of information which is likely a waste of space just to see what ever points you are trying to make.The simple fact is that all or most men were not oppressive towards women. To blame patriarchy on everything is as foolish as it is to blame matriarchy on everything if females are in power of government.For example; in QLD Australia the Prime Minister and Premier are both women. If anything goes wrong in the society I live in, I guess I can use feminist logic and blame it all on that evil matriarchy heh. Not the individual women in these positions themselves.
>NickIf you have no time then what are you doing here? Pure excuses. No backup for your claims and a refusal to even look at evidence you yourself demanded. And then you wish to be taken seriously?
>Yes Kave of course, its evidence to cite a web page about someone who defines their theory on patriarchy.It's not that I am not taking this topic seriously, I am just not taking the so called evidence seriously.As I said, instead of expecting me to do a large amount of time consuming reading, why not point out the exact places in these web pages that points to concrete solid evidence instead of a person just making assumptions on a web page about patriarchy?
>nick, there is no magic paragraph that somehow sums up everything there is to know about patriarchy, and cites all the evidence there is for it. If you want to discuss patriarchy, and in particular how feminists understand patriarchy, you will probably have to do some reading. If you don't want to do that reading, that is of course your right. But if you don't, then you probably shouldn't go around making assumptions about what feminists believe about patriarchy, since you clearly know nothing about the subject. When I critique, for example, MGTOW, I don't just make up shit about them; I actually read what MGTOW have to say, and react to that. (And I don't mean just the particular stuff I write about here; I've done plenty of reading beyond that, because generally speaking I think it's a good idea for people to actually know a little bit about something before writing about it. If you want to critique feminists, it would probably be a good idea for you to learn a tiny bit about feminism. That will require some actual reading on your part, including actually reading some feminist writing.
>"But seriously, go to any major feminist blog (Feministing, Feministe, Pandagon, and use their searches to look up "masculinity". Or search the phrase "patriarchy hurts men too.""—MarissaI have, and I realize how embittered, hypocritical, and angry Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, and the rest of them typically are.
>David, I just find it laughable how feminists claim patriarchy when it was just a small subset of men in government (who have nothing to do with the rest of men) that limited women's choices. As if men had much more of a choice when it came to lifestyle.Secondly, it's ludicrous to say that all husbands or most husbands were patriarchal/controlling/domineering within marriage or towards women in general.
>I find it amazing that Nick thinks that oppression of women was done by a tiny subsection of men throughout history.He is happy to ignore the vast amount of non-ideological first, second and third source material on the issue. Multiple sources were provided beyond David's favorite and yet to Nick they show that it was not an issue of women being oppressed as a systematic basis. And that somehow it was a group of men not related to any of the rest of humanity-what little harm done to women was done by some aberration rather then the entire society.Elizabeth I's statement of having the heart and stomach of a king had to be said because she was truly thought of lessor simply because of her sex even though there was abundant evidence to the contrary.
>Elizabeth What your little feminist feeble mind can't understand is that 99 percent of men in society didn't have a choice neither. It was not their choice to limit women's choices. It was the big boys who had control of society who made things how they were.It's totally sexist and idiotic to blame a whole gender for all the problems women had. As it is to say that all or most men were controlling chauvinists who dominated women's every move in the household.Can you please stop discriminating my gender?
>"Bald assertions based on no evidence do not constitute an argument."—-CBWhy don't you tell your fellow feminists that? Unless you are still in grade school, saying "I know you are, but what am I?" also fails to constitute an argument.
>If you want to critique feminists, it would probably be a good idea for you to learn a tiny bit about feminism. That will require some actual reading on your part, including actually reading some feminist writing. QFT