>
It’s not hard to find misogyny on manosphere sites. Hell, on some sites, like The Spearhead or MGTOWforums.com, it’s hard to find a discussion that’s not overflowing with misogyny.
What is hard to find, sometimes, is misogyny that is interesting. As I poked around on the regular sites today the misogyny all blurred together into one giant mass of “I’ve heard it all before.” Here, it’s: women are all dirty whores. There, it’s: those damn bitches will get their comeuppance when we Go Our Own Way. Yeah, yeah. Tell me something I don’t know.
So I’m going on strike today for better misogyny.
In the meantime, I present: a cat trying to jump onto a dresser. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that cats can also do this.)
Maybe I’m just being cranky. There may well be some genuinely interesting misogyny I missed in either or both of the threads I linked to above. If you find some, feel free to post it in the comments.
—
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.
>Perhaps more importantly, cats can also do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzjgBAaWZw
>I almost want to take a break from misogyny, too, but I just saw this on Tumblr and it's reasonably interesting.That Tumblr blog is run by two women, although they appear not to be of the feminist persuasion.
>DragonLady…*ROFL* I never get tired of that one!
>That was awesome DragonLady, thanks. Once upon a time I was a happy bachelor with two awesome cats, Puff (yea, exactly, as in the magic dragon), a soft and gentle orange house cat, and Kidiki (a little bit of a more obscure reference, like Japanese horror movies?), a semi-feral who I adopted and socialized. I met a girl, now my ex-wife, and I happen to know she deliberately put Puff out of the house, I never saw him again. For Kidiki, she was more subtle, but, once the first kid came, she had him out too. I was able to control the situation enough to find him a good home, where I understand he was happy for a year or two before he got out and was never heard from again.
>That is a terrible thing to do to a cat. Anyone who does that to my cat gets summarily dumped.
>Children make men slaves to a woman in today's society, Elizabeth. They must keep her happy to keep them. A man makes his efforts, sacrifices things that are important to him, but the results are still the same.
>You should have dumped her before you had kids.Oh and stop blaming women for the fact that you got a bad lawyer.
>Maybe you could watch c-span instead. Didn't a congressman recently claim one could get pap smears at walgreens?I thought that whytry on the slut thread was almost there with this bit:"Is this the greatest achievement of feminism? Women turning into feral creatures, or are women by nature so blinded by their own lust that, eventually, they can't even distinguish an Alpha male from a beta male, and proceed into falling into an orgy of sexual activity with no sight, no restraint?"And nightstorm on the comeuppance thread gets some credit for use of the imaginary word "usery" (I would assume that this was a mere misspelling of usury if I were being generous, but that still makes no fucking sense in context either)."Left and right, I was denied and only offered fake friendships that involved usery. And if confronted by the fact that usery is wrong, they will make a comeback statement to justify themselves saying "well if your that stupid, you deserve it!" Sugar, spice, and everything nice. Thats just now a distance fantasy of mine. " (fyi, fake friendship and hating him for being nice apparently means nothing more than not fucking him upon command)Maybe I am being unkind, though, and nightstorm's friends are all his bankers and he lives in the middle ages, where some people actually thought usury was wrong.
>Elizabeth, I'm quite certain that you know that the quality of the lawyer has nothing to do with the systematic and deliberate removal of millions of men from their children as a matter of social policy. And don't try to put it on women, it is not about women it is about ideology.
>And since you got me going:David,I understand that MGTOW are easy pickings. They are self-described as bitter, broken people who don’t want to try to fit in to society anymore. So…why can’t you just let them GTOW? For crissake, they don’t want to bother anybody, they don’t want to engage anybody, the just want to GTOW in peace, maybe vent a little bit on their boards about the reasons why to eachother in what they imagine to be a safe space. Why fuck with them, just let them GTOW which at this point is all that they ask of the world? I guess if you didn’t spend 80% of your recent posts on them then you might have to actually address the genuine grievances of the proper MRMs. To hard. No one http://www.mykeru.com/2011/03/31/vladek-filler-matters/ is making any important posts about justice http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/04/12/writing-in-tongues/ or honesty. It is much easier to fuck with broken old men. How brave of you to fight them while cowering before Feministe posters who don’t think that you have the right to chose words that only a disturbed person would consider abelist. But, of course, you don’t have the right to make that sort of judgment, because you have a penis.
>There just isn't anything new in manosphere land, is there?It's all hypergamy, rationalization hamster, red pill, blue pill, sluts screwing 20% of the male population and 80% never get to leave their genetic legacy, false rape, sperm stealing (put tabasco in your soiled condoms!), big daddy gubmint whores, cat herding, cuckholding, women initiating 70-80-90 percent of divorces, more women commiting domestic violence than men do, child support and alimony thieves, thugs and bad boy loving women, bitches watching Sex and the City, reading Eat Pray, Love, eating cupcakes, and oh my god I hate women but why won't they fuck/love/worship me?It does get to be one big hangover-like blur. They're gonna have to step it up or I'm leaving. And I mean it!
>Katz,Keep telling your self that. Then, you won't have to listen when MRMs make an actual point. Convenient. Yes, they are all the same, conflate them all.Try these and see if they fit into your paradigm:http://www.mykeru.com/2011/03/31/vladek-filler-matters/http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/04/12/writing-in-tongues/There are a growing number of leftist men who have been fucked over enough to see the light. The MRM has become something very far from the right witn parody as presented on this site.
>Nobody's got nothin? Bam. Ok, goinna sleep. Gotta work tommorah so, won't be back for 12 hours or so. Get ur arguments in order, lookin forward to gettin back into it. You still will think that you are all the big fucking victims of society because you have to drive a little futher or pay a bit more for your birth control or abortion or whatever, while we get our fucking children removed from us by armed agents of the state as a matter of deliberate social policy. But you guys are the victims, of course. You depend on it as a matter of ideology so no reality will filter in. Good night.
>Well, in the Vladek Filler article, it looks as though the author is taking a case of prosecutorial misconduct and conflating it with the Violence Against Women Act. I don't really see how VAWA caused the prosecutor in the Filler case to go off the rails, however, if that's in fact what really happened. The author makes a lot of dubious statements, such as alleging that VAWA presumes that women are always the victims in domestic violence cases (in fact, as the author admits later, it says just the opposite). The author also states that the policy of No Drop Prosecution means that women reporting domestic violence must always be presumed to be telling the truth regardless of the circumstances; somehow I doubt that's required under the law.I'm not a lawyer, but I'm inclined to doubt that the author of that post is interpreting the law correctly. Any lawyers want to chime in? DarkSideCat, are you out there?
>Victor-yes it does. A good lawyer is able to work out an agreement and show the judge why you should have equal custody with the child(ren). You instead view it as "oh everyone is against us poor men. We have no way of gaining access to our children because women are evil. No wait, women are incapable, it is the system."If you lost custody completely, there is a lot more you are not telling us.Also, I would think you could have figured out she was an unwise choice from the first time she treated your pets badly.
>victor-I'm not blaming you or anything, but why did you get together and have kids with someone who seems so incompatible with you?
>How did we go from Kittehs to the MRA… Victor, a lot of men are deadbeats. No. A lot don't deserve to have even a single relationship with any women but are. I come from a family who lost a member due to domestic violence (beaten so badly her kidneys failed. The family only moved after my generation took a stand. I was complicit, if I made my stand earlier he would have been kicked out earlier. It's the honest truth of the situation that silence encourages the action.) Your arguments are old hat. And I really don't think you realise that. Women have more freedom, you need to step up "your game". They have higher standards and this often means that they also are allowed to behave like idiot men. Yes sometimes you run across Idiot Women, they are allowed to be that you know. And perhaps you should pick people by personality rather than what they look to date. You would be surprised how well that works.
>If you and your children are separated by 'armed agents of the state,' it's usually because a judge thought they were in imminent danger… from you.
>"Armed agents of the state"English translation: restraining order.Victor is definitely not telling us everything.
>So I’m going on strike today for better misogyny.I believe the preferred terminology is "going Galt".
>@Captain Bathrobe, the large majority of VAWA provisions regarding federal funding distributions, not actual law enforcement regulations or criminal statutes. The actual criminal provisions carry no presumption of any such thing. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/federal_violence.pdf The criminal provisions, as you can see, mostly involve maintaining prohibitions against stalking across state lines and maintaining court orders in regards to protection across jurisdictional lines. The original VAWA act contained civil penalties, but these never went into effect (in what was actually a tenth amendment and commerce clause case, the Supreme Court declared this an overreach of federal power into traditionally state controlled areas-which is why so much of the next draft contained the terms "interstate" in the criminal provisions). Vladek is not talking about a VAWA conviction, period. Also, the case he cites has a prosecutor acting improperly (and a judge as well), winning, and then having the ruling strongly and immediately reversed upon appeal. Going purely by Vladek's story, the entire trial was declared void by the appeals court. That is a pretty heavy ruling and a pretty harsh declaration against the trial level judge and prosecutor (provided the defendent is acquited, the next move, if you were the defendent's attorney, would be to refer him to a plaintiff's lawyer for a civil suit against the jurisdiction). I am still not seeing where VAWA comes in, as this was not a VAWA case…
>Oh, I wanted to add that there are certain effective VAWA provisions regarding immigration law and military offenses, but those provisions are restricted to certain narrow issues (immigration covers issues of sponsoring spouses and family members who are abusers for the most part, by allowing an imigrant to petition to not be deported/allowed to maintain residentcy, despite a divorce or the withdrawal of the sponsor).
>You know, I'm going to be generous and give Victor some benefit of the doubt. His ex-wife apparently didn't have a problem with throwing his beloved cats out, it might just be that she was malicious enough to frame him for being dangerous when he wasn't.In that case, he might have been a victim of a bad lawyer and a lack of understanding about his own rights.However, I do agree with many of the others here that her getting rid of the cats was a definite red flag. You might have nothing but the purest love for someone, but if that someone doesn't seem to care when they hurt you and ignores your interests, the best thing to do is get out as soon as you can.Reminds me of that one annoying song I keep hearing on the radio, Grenade. Every time I hear it, I'm rolling my eyes so hard they're probably scratching my brain, because one, he's the one that's saying he'd do all this crazy stuff for her, she's not demanding it of him, and two, if she's really the type of person that would watch him BURN TO DEATH and he knows this, somehow I don't think it's her personality he loves.
>@ AmnesiaYeah, I hate hate HATE that song too. It's like, dude, get the fuck out of that dysfunctional relationship and find someone who appreciates your willingness to commit suicide in a multitude of gory ways. I mean, I don't know what the hell taking a grenade is going to do for your girlfriend, unless you're living in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you should at least get with a woman who'll appreciate it. Fucked up shit like that is why I stopped listening to pop music. A co-worker of mine gave me a mix CD with that song on it and it really ruined the rest of the CD for me.
>@SallyStrangeA Darwin Award story I read: Two guys died jousting on motorcycles over a woman. When the woman heard about it, her response was, "I didn't even like either of them." Moral of this story: Jousting on motorcycles does not get you laid. Unless you're pursuing a necrophile. And they think you have an attractive corpse cause hey, even necrophiles might have standards.(And for anyone who doesn't know, Darwin Awards are given to people who improve the human race by removing themselves from it.)