The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
Women should be replaced by better technology.
Consider the many fine benefits of this plan:
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Tell me more about this brave new world of which you speak, in which men can live their lives free of bitches:
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
But some of his comments are so clearly and obviously correct, so pithy and wise, that they get upvotes. Like this one, suggesting that female demand for iPads and mobile phones is one of the central driving forces behind war:
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
“( I am not religious but consider myself a Buddhist, and many Buddhist leaders like the Dali Lama advocate that celibacy can be freeing for men). ”
Sopoke? It’s just another religion, why the hell should I care what it has to say?
“I then preach hoe being celibate can make better men because we are no longer sex crazed animalistic pigs that view women as sexual objects to be owned.”
Protip: Not a dichotomy.
“Tony Porter talks about this “Toxic masculinity” how men thining with their cocks is torturous because your in bondage to sexual addiction and some women will try to control a man with their sexuality.”
BULLSHIT. Tony Porter said jack all about women controlling men, but he said a shitload about men doing violence to women because of their toxic masculinity.
samuel plenty of people manage to have other hobbies and interests while still making sex a part of their lives.
The Birds and the Bees? Which birds? Which Bees?
Cuckoos sneak their eggs into other birds nests. There are other birds in which the first to hatch kills all the subsequent chicks. Blue-footed Boobies (of which I am terribly fond) engage in siblicide in the event of food shortages.
Bees… Honeybees are sterile, but they are also engaged in lots of orgiastic plants sex. All those flowers they visit, they are using the bees to do their fucking for them, and they have sex with dozens of other flowers.
Makes Adam and Steve getting married and adopting look so much more reasonable and sedate.
Clarification: Blue-footed Boobies: When there is a food shortage the larger chick shoves the smaller out of the, “nest” (which is a ring of guano) and the adults refuse to feed the smaller chick.
It’s because I’m a big strong man that I say those things with conviction. I do not have to accept anything feminists tell me is acceptable. I think for myself, not like feminist sheep who follow.
The Irony, it BURNS. If I choose to express my “manly-man” ability to think and believe what I believe, it’s brainwashing by feminists.
That I can use my Manly Brain to look at scientific ideas and measure them against the world as it is, and see they correlate better than anything else… I’ve been brainwashed.
He, however, takes the writings of a bunch of shepherds as the map of all the universe and the mores for all the world, all without the least sense that he’s acting sheeplike.
The Government does. Mandatory classes for pre-adolescents. I’d say my tax dollars are being used for indoctrination. Kinda sticks in my craw.
Says the man who wants to enforce his views on others.
The Irony, it BURNS.
Samuel: Unless you know the women who post here, personally, you won’t “see” them asking men out.
In my eperience, women asking me out isn’t uncommon. It’s not the majority, but it’s not insignificant. The same is true of my friends.
As a personal data point, my fianc&eactute;e proposed to me.
“The only hugs I want would be from Snowy, or any men here not the women.”
Oh, would you like a hug Samuel? Tell you what, show me the feminists who call men gay wimps and I will give you a hug! If it’s so common as you say it shouldn’t be too hard to do, right? And then you’ll get a hug! Okay?
Don’t look at me. I’m not hugging anybody.
It’s okay Spearhafoc, I’m willing to take one for the team.
yeah snowy as an adorable cartoon terrier it is not really your place to be refusing hugs…
Samuel: Do we generalise? Yes, of course we do. It’s a quirk of the human mind; it seeks patterns.
What do we base this generalisation on? The writings of MRAs. This very blog is a long catalogue of MRA/MGTOW writings. As a data sample it’s fairly large. It suffers from selection bias; non-misogynist writing isn’t mock-worthy. That’s part of why we ask people who say the MRA is full (as you do) of non-misogynist moderates to show us their writings.
Why? Because the patriarchy hurts men too.
So far no one has done that. You keep saying the lurkers support you in e-mail. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
Put me in the chorus of people who have problems with your writing skills. There are flaws in your structures. I too thought you were not a native speaker of english. I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with people who are not native speakers of english. Others have had to deal with my not being a native speaker of Russian.
It is not mockery to think this. It’s a function of systemic problems with how you structure sentences. You have subject/verb disagreements. You lose track of plurals. There are times the tense of your sentences changes mid-stream. Not every so often (which happens to everyone), but frequently enough that I’ve started to not be completely derailed when it happens.
I thank you for the paragraphs. They help a lot.
I’ll give him as many hugs as he likes if he can just make one post without a glaring grammatical error.
Samuel, seriously, these things stand in the way of comprehension. We have to decode your posts to figure out that “weeend” probably means “weekend” or what the verb is supposed to be in a sentence like “I just was very offended Holly you who have strong writing skills mocking some man has less strong skills.”
You seem to want communication to happen, but that requires you to actually make an effort to be understood.
I don’t think we can say that those figures (pre… oh, 1700?) were, “gay”, as the idea of sexuality was very different. I don’t really think the Greek/Roman models of male/male sexuality were healthy, and a lot of the Christian revulsion toward homosexuality was based on the cultural treatment of the, “passive” partner.
By the time we get to the renaissance we find that the sense of rigid attraction still hasn’t come to being. The homosocial nature of public society (NWO that doesnt’ mean sex, it means same… so men were spending public time with other men, and not with women), meant that apart from prostitutes there wasn’t a good outlet for sex, and most men weren’t able to marry until they were in their latter 20s (and women didn’t marry until early 20s, at least for England, about which I have the most information).
Given the stong emotional bonds, and the ways in which they were described, it’s hard to say if Shakespeare liked men as well as women. The sonnets aren’t clear (that they were commissioned by the Duke of Southampton’s mother to encourage him to marry and provide an heir doesn’t help, as some of the early language is therefore constrained; but it does seem he had occasion to meet Southampton; who was a damnably attactive man, in some ways almost girlish in appearance, at least until his latter 20s; in later life his hard-living seems to have taken a toll, and those portraits paint a more dissolute appearance.
But the starting around 100, the subject moves from that of a man to that of a woman, and the voice is harder to map to a specific person.
The short version, the idea of a rigid sexual interest (for males, or females) is a more modern idea, and the past points out that the idea of straight/gay as a dichotomy is recent, and probably false.
Nobby: I referenced Adniral Hopper the last time we tried to point out to NWO that there are LadyBrains which seem to be powered by Hamsters Of Unusual Size.
^It’s true; personally I’m inclined to reserve judgment about the rightness or wrongness of their social structure (being monogamous myself), but calling them gay, or even bi, is simply not that accurate. They just had different ideas about sexuality. (Roman men weren’t allowed to marry until they’d been discharged from the army at age 30.)
Leonardo da Vinci wrote about his disgust for the act of reproduction, how much more beautiful the male body was to the female one, is known to have had long-term relationships with young men, and was at one point arrested for sodomy.
I think it’s safe to say he was gay.
Pam I will respond to to you and Rutee
Rutee said
“Tony Porter talks about this “Toxic masculinity” how men thining with their cocks is torturous because your in bondage to sexual addiction and some women will try to control a man with their sexuality.”
BULLSHIT. Tony Porter said jack all about women controlling men, but he said a shitload about men doing violence to women because of their toxic masculinity.
Bullshit to you Rutee Tony Porter stated that men have objectified women as sexual objects.
Porter is amazing in his insight. In Mr. Porter’s video of his talk. He nails it.
He WAS CLEARLY SAYING THAT MEN HAVE OBJECTIFIED WOMAN IN THE PAST AS SEXUAL OBJECT TO OWN AND POSSESS AND RAPE AND HARASS, FOR FUCKING CRYING OUT LOUD, HE WAS SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE MAINLY OF FEMINIST WOMEN. MR PORTER SAYING THAT MANY WOMEN ARE VERY VERY ANGRY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAPED, MOLESTED, TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS.
Supposedly this still goes on in some third world countries. So I as a man who is trying to be more fucking responsible and not objectify women and use them as body parts just so I can ejaculate is NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE. It is being a sexual male pig who. THINKS WITH HIS COCK NOT HIS BRAIN.
Ladies on this sight I basically debate from the point of view but believe me I am just as harsh with my fellow MRA’S that think with their cocks not brains
. As Porter said IT US MEN THAT BLEW IT WAS WELL MEN HAVE FOR YEARS OBJECTIFIED WOMEN AND RAPED WOMEN AND HARASSED WOMEN AND USED WOMEN AS POSSESSIONS, I SAY NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT I AM MOCKED BY WOMEN FOR BEING CELIBATE AND NOT OBJECTIFYING THEM. WHAT GIVES?
I read one comment on another blog by a female who responded to a comment pertaining to this. She was honest with me. She wrote to me that for years women were not able to be sexual because of the slut label.
a man sleeps around he is rewarded as a “don juan” and high fived but if a woman does it she is pejoratively called a slut.
Now that things are changing such as the “slut walk movement” and women being able to be more expressive sexually , she was upset because now many men are choosing not to objectify woman as objects and breasts and being celibate
For her she was upset that she wishes the sexual liberties that women have now are sort of wasted in her opinion because men are now being responsible sexually. For her it was “bad timing”.
Many men like me,Tony Porter and others are now choosing celibacy or monogamy(Mr Porter is married) and refuse to think with our cocks.
WE MEN HAVE ALSO GOT TO LOOK AT OURSELVES AS WELL! I
Believe I can be as critical to mRA’S as well as women.
Samuel, just so we’re absolutely clear on this particular aspect of your worldview: Do you believe it’s possible to be sexually attracted to someone without objectifying them?
Samuel – Being attracted to women is not objectifying them. Sleeping with women is not being a sexual pig. There’s things in between.
You can be attracted to someone and still respect them and honor their choices. You can have sex with someone and still see them as a whole person. These are what most people do, really.
Now that things are changing such as the “slut walk movement” and women being able to be more expressive sexually , she was upset because now many men are choosing not to objectify woman as objects and breasts and being celibate
The first Slut Walk was in April of this year.. xD And suddenly everybody’s going celibate? o_O And the effects have alrdy been felt? xD
Where is this comment btw? :3
And so, women say “nobody deserves to be raped, and how you dress doesn’t prevent rape” and the reaction by men (that are emailing you, surely) is “I’m taking my toys and going home”? xD
Is this how you believe is the best way to fight rape and rape culture? o_O I mean, you can be as celibate as you want, lots of ppl don’t do things for their own reasons, I just mean… you rly think this is preventing rape? o_O (and you rly believe rape is just about horny guys? xD )
Believe I can be as critical to mRA’S as well as women.
Where? Certainly not here, where you praised NWO as a great leader of MRAs xD
Is this another sekrit email thing? XD
dude it is totally possible to not objectify women without having to go to extremes to do it. youre not gonna objectify women, great. you shouldnt, but that should be a basic part of being a decent person, not some lofty code of honor.
Samuel, I don’t think Rutee was calling bullshit on that portion of what you stated earlier was spoken of by Tony Porter, she’s calling bullshit on your ascribing this portion to Tony Porter:
“…and some women will try to control a man with their sexuality.”
OK, Samuel, I really think you just want to go back to your MRA blogs and say, “see, they mocked me!”
You’re incoherent and seem to be wishing that we’ll tell you the magic formula that will allow women to see you’re “safe” so you can get some.
Samuel, this is what you said:
“Tony Porter talks about this “Toxic masculinity” how men thining with their cocks is torturous because your in bondage to sexual addiction and some women will try to control a man with their sexuality.”
This is how Rutee responded:
“BULLSHIT. Tony Porter said jack all about women controlling men, but he said a shitload about men doing violence to women because of their toxic masculinity.”
And then there’s this:
“Bullshit to you Rutee Tony Porter stated that men have objectified women as sexual objects. Porter is amazing in his insight. In Mr. Porter’s video of his talk. He nails it.
He WAS CLEARLY SAYING THAT MEN HAVE OBJECTIFIED WOMAN IN THE PAST AS SEXUAL OBJECT TO OWN AND POSSESS AND RAPE AND HARASS, FOR FUCKING CRYING OUT LOUD, HE WAS SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE MAINLY OF FEMINIST WOMEN. MR PORTER SAYING THAT MANY WOMEN ARE VERY VERY ANGRY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAPED, MOLESTED, TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS.”
What on earth does this rabid spiel have to do with the concept of women controlling men with their sexuality, which is what you claimed Tony Parker talked about, and Rutee claims he didn’t talk about?
Samuel seems to think he’s deigning to honor Rutee and Pam with replies while ignoring everyone else. Except his reply is “BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHITT!!!!!!!!1111!!
NWO called me a boy pretending to be a girl, on the v thread we’re on xD
any criticism from Samuel, the great supposedly queer-positive MGTOWer? xD