>
 |
| The face (and torso) of evil. |
Certain kinds of stories are like catnip to the Men Going Their Own Way crowd: Stories about rich airheaded women. Stories about golddiggers and giant divorce settlements. Stories about idiotic or incompetent women. So it’s no surprise that the tale of Patricia Kluge and her not-so-successful foray into the world of winemaking has sent the fellows on MGTOWforums.com into full-on misogyny mode.
Kluge, you see, is the former wife of a media mogul, and her divorce settlement in 1990 netted her hefty alimony payments, which are variously claimed to have been either $1.6 million a week, or “less than $1 million a year.” The article linked to by the MGTOWers says she was rumored to have collected a settlement of a cool billion bucks and that the reported $1.6 million a week was just the interest on this vast sum. Who knows? It was a shitload of money. Plus a giant fucking mansion. Whatever the amount, Kluge has apparently blown through it all, spending huge amounts on ostentatious luxury crap and burning through tens of millions on her less-than-successful winery. Last month the bank repossessed her mansion.
So: this terrible woman was also a terrible businesswoman. Well, yeah. But to the fellows at MGTOWforums.com, her singular tale is a sign that women in general shouldn’t be trusted with money — or with anything else, for that matter. Chainlightning started off what turned into a veritable misogyny cascade by announcing:
Women should never have access to money. Look at what happened to the US since the 1960s.
Systems1082 saw Chainlightning’s “women shouldn’t have money” and raised him with “women shouldn’t have the right to vote.”
It actually goes back to 1920 when women were given the right to vote. They have learned they can vote themselves other people’s money.
Stonelifter took it even further, suggesting that some women don’t ever deserve the right to live:
i don’t understand why men don’t engage in more murder for hire
He followed this innocent little query up with a reference to the evil feminist Karl Marx and his followers at “some college in Berlin.”
it goes back to about 1870 so so when marx decided tearing down Western civilization was best achieved on many small fronts and women would be one of them. Cultural marxism was tied up into one neat package in some college in Berlin during the 1920’s but the idea to have women voting to fuck everything up came to marx at the tail end of his life
XTC pretty much trumped everyone by taking it back to the source: that bitch Eve.
It goes back to the garden of Eden when Eve screwed us all over.
So there you have it. Eve ate an apple, Patricia Kluge blew through money she didn’t really deserve to have. Therefore, women are evil.
Um, have you MGTOWers ever heard of Nicolas Cage?
(Note: Before you tell me that Nic Cage earned his money fair and square, I ask that you sit down and watch The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider, National Treasure, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Face/Off, and Con Air. Then get back to me. I will allow that he did a pretty good job in Kick-Ass.)
(Note 2: By “some college in Berlin in the 1920s,” Stonelifter was of course referring to an assortment of Marxist theorists associated with a research institute that started in Frankfurt, not Berlin, in the 1920s, but which achieved its greatest influence after it moved to New York in the 1930s because of, you know, Hitler.)
—
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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>"To claim that the mild ribbing that guys receive for abstaining from sex even slightly compares is inhuman and disgusting. Fuck you, String."Well, we could also be assumed gay until proven innocent, and assaulted. We could also be labeled a "creep" for not "getting laid," and be forced into a state of involuntary celibacy. This "mild ribbing" often culminates in social isolation and terminates with a man killing himself.That being said, thank you for your very courteous and insightful comment. As always, feminists are pleasant, reasonable people who are always smiling.
>"Is there something similar for men who aren't of high enough status?"Yes, loneliness, despair, forced celibacy, and eventually suicide. There isn't really an industry to help with that because are often shamed for seeking outside help and also a yearly income is not masked or adjusted as easily as a body part.
>23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man."Oh please. That is utter nonsense."No, and a lot of the men who are "virgins" and you have labeled as "unfuckable losers" can attest to this.
>Mr. String– I agree with most of your list. Sexism, gender roles and patriarchy suck for everyone. To compare "who has it worse" is as silly as any game of Oppression Olympics is. However, the only group of people working to end gender roles IS (certain segments of) feminism. We want men to not be shamed for their virginity, to not be expected to be violent, to have worth regardless of our status.Figleaf's Real Adult Sex has some VERY good posts on male feminism, the worthiness myth and the no-sex class. If you want, I can give you a list of interesting books about feminism that explain some basic concepts. Come and join us. The water's fine. 🙂
>The antidote to all 24: more feminism.
>Well, we could also be assumed gay until proven innocent, and assaulted. We could also be labeled a "creep" for not "getting laid," and be forced into a state of involuntary celibacy.Yeah, these things could happen. But they don't. Any isolated instances that resemble the above situations are certainly far outnumbered by the women who are punished by men for being a "slut."This "mild ribbing" often culminates in social isolation and terminates with a man killing himself.No, not really. The isolation and suicide stem from severe social anxiety, the same thing that prevents these guys from getting laid in the first place. I want nothing but for them to get help.That being said, thank you for your very courteous and insightful comment. As always, feminists are pleasant, reasonable people who are always smiling.I make no claims to being pleasant or always smiling. If you want a disclaimer before each of my posts, perhaps we can arrange it.
>23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man."Oh please. That is utter nonsense."No, and a lot of the men who are "virgins" and you have labeled as "unfuckable losers" can attest to this. You know, I thought this sounded like bullshit. I couldn't quite believe that men were having that much more trouble having sex than women. Mostly because of my friend the guys are getting more than the women. I haven't had sex in 5 years. When I tried to join an incel support group the guys all told me that it dodn't count. That I probably could have sex if I just got plastic surgery or something. Not like them.Anyway, let's go to the numbers. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequencyIf you look at the stats 90% of men and 86% of women had sex in the last year. So, the whole thing about how it's so much easier for women to get laid then men… bullshit. While there are more celibate single men than women in the 18-29 groups at 30 and older men have the advantage by a wide margine.Here's the rate of single men and women who reported no sex last year in the 18-24 groupM- 56.9 W-50.8OK, so more single celibate men than women in this age group, but not a HUGE difference in percentiles. Now, let's look at single men and women at age 30 who reported no sex in the previous year.M-39.6 W- 72.3 What do you know. That's MASSIVE. That's huge. That's a lot of women who are single and not getting any sex. And it's the group I fall into. Glad to know that I'm not alone.Look, it sucks when you're lonely against your will. I get it. I live it too. But that isn't the fault of women. It certainly isn't the fault of feminism. I have no idea why so many incel men blame feminism. What do you think things would have been like for you during the good old days?
>Well, we could also be assumed gay until proven innocent, and assaulted. Homophobia is (among other things) a manifestation of misogyny. Disgust towards men who could be so perverted as to assume the inferior feminine role of being penetrated during sex. Ergo, more feminism is the solution here. More equality and acceptance for masculine-identified women and feminine-identified men. More equality and acceptance for all sexual identities and gender identities. We could also be labeled a "creep" for not "getting laid," and be forced into a state of involuntary celibacy.If you are, in reality, a creep, then you should be labeled as such. Creeps don't get laid as much as nice people do. There's nothing any social equality movement can do about that. Patriarchy, on the other hand, does promise pussy to creeps as long as they conform to all the restrictive masculine stereotypes against which you chafe. You can choose one or the other–creepy patriarchal sexual coercion (ending the scourge of "involuntary celibacy" by substituting an epidemic of "involuntary sexual activity"), or sexual egalitarianism, wherein creeps don't get much sex.
>I also agree with most of Mr. String's list, and don't think he should have been told to go fuck himself. Most of the things he describes are due to an entrenched system that forces men and women into restrictive boxes based on their chromosomes. Feminists call this system patriarchy, and think that it hurts both sexes; MRAs deny that such a system exists. For every way that patriarchy damages women (women who have sex are sluts!) there is a mirrored negative effect for men (men who don't have sex are losers!). I, and most feminists, would love nothing more than to see a world where "men should be X while women should be Y" is an obsolete way of thinking. I just wish MRAs would work towards this, too.I do get a bit annoyed by the complaint that women only want to fuck rich men, and this is somehow due to feminism. In fact, feminists place less importance on their mate's income than do non-feminists.It also reminds me of the recent study showing that in in societies where income is distributed unequally, homicide rates are high and women are less empowered and educated, women prefer more masculine features in men. The authors say that such masculine features may be correlated with aggression and dominance. I wonder how this fits in with the MRA belief that feminism causes women to only want "thugs" instead of "nice guys." In fact, it seems the opposite- in countries with more gender equality, women prefer less aggressive men (at least as far as facial masculinity and dominance are correlated).
>What do you think things would have been like for you during the good old days?Back in the good old days women were obedient and submissive and didn't think they had a right to have standards. This was back before feminists invented the female orgasm.
>Can I say how much I despise the idea that women have an easier time getting laid than men? Apart from the numbers cited above, it requires a woman to not have standards. True, I could go to any Star Trek convention and be reasonably assured that there will be men there who will be willing to fuck me. However, this completely ignores the idea that maybe I don't want to fuck *them*. I've met many, many men who could barely pull together enough of a hygiene regimen to shower once a week; men who were flat out physically unattractive and men who treated me like an utter object. If a man is treating me like an object when we're both clothed, I shudder to think about the sort of encounter I can look forward to in the bedroom. If he doesn't care about what I have to say in a conversation, he probably also doesn't care if I orgasm or not. Pro tip, guys: spend as much time on your personal appearance as you would like a potential sex partner to spend on hers. This includes time spent on grooming, cleanliness, attention to clothes and attention to physical attractiveness. Because we have as much a right to an attractive, capable partner as you do.
>I don't think some men understand that yes, most women, even "ugly" ones can put up an ad on Craigslist and find someone who wants to have sex with them. However, finding someone who a) they can feel safe with and b) cares about showing his partner a good time is likely to be very, very difficult.I mean, if there were a news story about an unattractive woman who put up an ad looking for sex and then got murdered by a guy who answered, dollars to doughnuts the MRA boards would be full of dudes cackling and making jokes about the "fat ugly slut" who was stupid enough to meet up with a "violent thug."
>David: did you see this?http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/13/a-tale-of-two-earthquakes/See, the response to the earthquake in Japan has been more orderly because they are led by manly men there. Haiti is matriarchial therefore is was chaos after the disaster.Yep, the fact that Japan is the #3 economy and Haiti is… not, well that doesn't matter. It's all about manly men being in charge.
>"Can I say how much I despise the idea that women have an easier time getting laid than men?"I'd like to agree here and add to the statement. I would consider myself average looking. I do not go for "beautiful" men. I go for average looking guys, in the same socioeconomic class as me usually. Sometimes I *gasp* pick a guy who has a crappier money situation than I do. And no, they're not "thugs," they're unemployed and college educated like me. Plenty of those men still turn me down. Sometimes, no matter how evenly matched you are, a person just might not be in to you anyway.Then there are plenty of men who, no matter what, WANT that gorgeous supermodel. I would put most MRM men in this category. Constantly bitching about the beauty/money expectations women put on them, but then they won't accept any woman who isn't as gorgeous as Adrianna Lima. These are usually the guys that mock average looking women ruthlessly. Then fucking wonder why know one wants to fuck them. Must be hypergamous women! No asshole, it's because (when you HAD a girlfriend) you made a nasty comment about her boobs during sex and now she no longer wants you to see her naked for fear of getting critiqued again. @string"If you hate the MRM so much, who should answer for this?"The patriarchy. Not feminists. Not women. Not men. The patriarchy and its ridiculous "traditional" norms. I don't even blame the men and women upholding those beliefs, it's what was taught to them and it's hard to break cycles.
>A couple of posts were caught in the spam filter and are up now; it you've been following this discussion I'd recommend you scroll up and take a look. And just to add one more thought on the "men who can't get laid get mocked" complaint. SO DO WOMEN. And you know who loves to do this sort of mocking? MRA and MGTOW dudes who also complain about celibate men getting mocked. I couldn't even begin to estimate the number of posts and comments I've seen on manosphere blogs mocking fat women, women living alone with their cats, etc etc etc.
>I don't even blame the men and women upholding those beliefs, it's what was taught to them and it's hard to break cycles. Exactly. It's precisely parallel to other forms of bigotry. It's in our heads, all of our heads. It's part of our culture; you can't help but absorb a certain measure of it. That's why I no longer take it personally if someone tells me I said something racist. Instead of freaking out, "HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST!!?!!11!! I AM A NICE PERSON!!1!" I stop, pause, reflect, and say something along the lines of, "I didn't intend it that way, but I can see how it sounded racist. I apologize, I'll try not to do it again." Good people are racist. Good people are sexist. Good people are homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Having bigotry doesn't make you a bad person, but becoming aware of your bigotry and deciding that you're not going to try to do anything about it–well, then you start to enter into the realm of the deliberate douchebag. But simply having bigoted thoughts or feelings doesn't say anything about your character. The question is, what are you going to do about those thoughts and feelings?
>Can I say how much I despise the idea that women have an easier time getting laid than men?Apart from the numbers cited above, it requires a woman to not have standards. True, I could go to any Star Trek convention and be reasonably assured that there will be men there who will be willing to fuck me. However, this completely ignores the idea that maybe I don't want to fuck *them*.But you fail to realize that your overly-inflated "standards" focused on media-driven ideals of the "perfect man" (i.e. ~ underwear model, Harvard MD, millionaire, etc.) are actually what is causing you to not be as happy with your life as what you might otherwise be (apparently, it's getting harder for you to attract those manly-sculpted-millionaire-studs that every other woman wants) if it were not for the overly-superficial societal norms to which you cling.Like I've read elsewhere – Most women will choose "Five Minutes of Alpha Over Five Years of Beta".A woman getting laid is not an accomplishment at all. It's like giving a dog a Presidential Medal of Honor because he can lick his own balls.
>Drew-Yep. Those superficial women always lusting after conventionally attractive men like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. And the stars of the past like Gable, Bogart, and Spencer Tracy were all muscle bound uber handsome men. (Hint: Women are attracted to men because of some intangible they posess that isn't just how they look or how much money they make. It's their personality. I know that MRAs hate hearing this because there is no product they can buy that will cause them to have an interesting personality. They would have to go become interesting people first. And it is hard to be interesting when your mind is nothing but the same talking points over and over again.)
>Actually, my standards, I think, are fairly reasonable. I want a guy who practices basic hygiene, has a good personality and treats me decently. I've dated men who were significantly overweight but were an absolute laugh riot to be around; I've dated men who made significantly less than I did, or were unemployed, but I enjoyed the way they made me feel both in bed and out. Let me put it a different way – for a guy, getting laid means getting to stick their penis in a woman. But for a woman, getting laid means something different. I'm not even talking about the ev/psych bullshit of wanting to find a mate. The truth is, no matter how attractive or rich a guy is, if he can't get me off, or acts like getting me off is an onerous chore, I'm not interested. Yeah, if all *I* wanted was to have a few minutes of penetration, I could get laid pretty easily. But there's absolutely no guarantee that encounter would be fulfilling for me. If I had to choose between a Calvin Klein model who could care less if I enjoyed myself or a 'beta' who was as invested in my pleasure as in his own, I'll pick the 'beta' every time and that's God's honest truth.
>But you fail to realize that your overly-inflated "standards" focused on media-driven ideals of the "perfect man" (i.e. ~ underwear model, Harvard MD, millionaire, etc.) are actually what is causing you to not be as happy with your life as what you might otherwise be (apparently, it's getting harder for you to attract those manly-sculpted-millionaire-studs that every other woman wants) if it were not for the overly-superficial societal norms to which you cling.Thank god you're here to mansplain to the poor women of Manboobz how to be happy.
>DrewskiDaMan: I have standards for people I fuck. I like feminists, Star Wars fans, long-haired men and large-breasted women, gamers*, scientists and artists, hopeless romantics, guys who like cuddles. Not to mention the obvious good hygiene, niceness to me and willingness to spend Saturday nights playing board games or going to Broadway shows. :)I do not, however, like underwear-model Harvard-MD millionaires. Almost everyone I fuck is broke (yay college!). I don't like guys with muscles (give me a skinny boy any day of the week). I have never fucked a Harvard student or an MD.My standards are not particularly unrealistic or media-driven. However, I still HAVE them. There is a middle ground between "Do you have a dick? We're good" and "I will only fuck Dr. Blue Eyes 6', PhD." And this ground is inhabited by girls who want someone who'll laugh when they make a Star Wars reference in bed. *Seriously, pnce you go gamer, you never go back. All the button-mashing lends itself well to a very different kind of button-mashing.
>@ Ozymandias:Not to mention, being able to bond over shooting zombies together! I absolutely adore dating gamers, though I tend to prefer larpers.
>Okay, let's go through string's list one by one:1. Women are more likely than men to be killed by intimate partners. Also, men's increased participation in gangs and the police force accounts for quite a bit of this discrepancy. Besides, women make up only a tiny minority of murders-the men who are being murdered are being murdered by other men, for the most part, not by women. So how is this women's fault?2. Women have higher rates of suicide attempts. Men have higher rates of sucess. This appears to be because of the difference in methods (men use more firearms-women use more pills, the latter generally leaves a wider window for rescue). Women are diagnosed with depression at higher, not lower rates.3. Not true if you include rapes and sexual assualts. And, again, women are not often the perps in assault cases with a male victim. Again, how is it automatically a woman's fault if a man beats a man?4. Yes and no. Women who cry in public are seen as weak, pathetic, and undeserving of respect. However, as people tend to attach such roles to women to begin with, women are given less attention when they conform. A man crying receives more negative feedback precisely because he starts in a higher position.5. True, but there is little evidence that this is due to discrimination rather than averages in biology (sex differences in life expectancy do not decrease greatly in a class where men do little to no physical labour).6. This is absolutely untrue. Two words-welfare mother. Poor women are an incredibly and brutally villainized group.7. The first part is untrue, the second somewhat true. It is not easier per se for a woman to get a good partner. Women's value does tend to be less related to earnings, however, the flip side is that women who earn high wages often face trouble here. In addition, the brutal beauty standards hit women much harder.8. Yes and no. Women are often discouraged from true friendships and are encouraged to tear each other down. Men's friendships are often praised and depicted positively. At the same time, physical intimacy does tend to be policed between men more than women. So, I will give you half credit on this one.9. True, but these risky jobs pay far higher wages than other jobs for people of comparable education and social class. Men have access to both lower paying service jobs and higher paying risk jobs like construction. So, yes, the injury rate is higher, but the pay is generally double or more, a financial option which women are not given.10. See 9.11. Actually, you have it reversed, if a woman enters fights, her social position and worth are considered diminished. So, while there is a standard here that hurts men, women are hurt just as much by the flipside. The old "men are strong" "women are weak" line is hardly the fault of feminism either.12. Yes, because people, including those on this forum, tend to see women's percieved "weakness" as a benefit all of the time (<-sarcasm).13. Not completely true. Virually all intersexed infants are assigned female and their genitals are far more severely mutilated than non-intersex male assigned infants. Besides, men dominate the medical field in massive degrees and male parents almost always have a say in this. So, while some women are complicit in circumcision, men are participating in doing this at higher rates, not lower ones. When men do things to men, it is always the fault of women, that's your theme, isn't it?14. This is extremely variable. It is not true at all for butch women or for women known to be queer. 15. Isn't this what you said in 14?
>16. Bullshit. Women are expected to hide and supress emotions, just not the same ones that men are expected to hide and supress. Check out how women expressing anger are viewed.17. True, but mainly because they are primarily the ones putting in the work, but still lack a lot of power decisions in many cases. This is not the case for families where men take a more active role in things like childrearing, my grandmother's uncle was considered the emotional and cultural center of his family, to the point where relatives passing as white returned to the reservation for his funeral. But this man loving raised six nieces and nephews. You want the rewards of being the caretaker, do some of the work. 18. Allowed? Try "forced". Try "forced with minute and ever varying detail that can be used to excuse severe violence against me if I fail to conform". Try "forced to wear shoes that break my feet and permantanly damage my body". Women who refuse are brutally punished, so this is hardly a privilege.19. No. Women are seen as less valuable for being these things, however, as they are presumed to be these things already, they face less punishment when seen doing them.20. True. I will grant you this one. But there is a whole corallary of extremely oppressive expectations around women and mothering that should be discussed before you declare that you have it worse.21. False. Women are punished extremely for failure to conform to their gender roles. Queer women, for one, report higher rates of abuse by people in positions of authority than even queer men. While there are feminist spaces, they are few and far between. Most women do not have an accepted space to defy their gender roles or discuss doing so.22. Somewhat true. Women who are sexually inactive are shamed ("frigid", "stuck up", etc.), but I would agree less so then men. However, women are punished for being sexually active in a degree so high as to make this amount laughable.23. False. Other commentors have dealt with this.24. True, but then women carry a massive burden of expectations of responsibility and work around children as well.
>Victoria– True story: on our first "date," my boyfriend and I did a survival-horror oneshot RPG run by his roommate and he ended up feeding me to Cthulhu and a wolf at the same time.TRUE LOVE. And can you get this sort of story with Mr. Underwear Model Harvard MD Millionaire? No, you cannot.