My favorite incoherent MRA blogger at the moment is our dear friend Christian J from the blog What Men Are Saying About Women. In recent days, Dr. J – famed inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipsis – has delivered up some truly inspired prose. I’d like to share some of the highlights (by which I mean lowlights) from a few of his recent posts.
Here he is, attempting to explain the “hookup culture” of the youth of today:
Women dish it up on a platter in line with their feminist education (free love/free sex mentality) to the alphas as they turn them on, the most, in the hope of either pretending to be carefree and casual about it all or they just have a high sex drive that requires servicing on a regular basis. It’s not that difficult..
No, no, not difficult at all.
Here he is talking about, er, pussy power, and somehow stumbling on to the subject of international finance:
The girls ofcourse have been trained to think that they can get away with just about anything as they possess the magic “V” which has a very high trading component as well as a social exchange rate, not unlike the Euro or an open ocean oil exploration license, but the magic “V”is more mobile and comes with it’s own carrier and operator, batteries not included though. Perfect really, when you think about it.
Here’s the opening sentence of a post of his about chivalry, and how feminists all secretly love it:
As feminism gets messier and even more morose, one does have to wonder what efforts those masterminds of insanity will do to cover their obvious and blatant erroneous experiments on human biology.
I don’t know if it’s even possible for me to get messier or more morose.
Here he is waxing poetic about the dreaded mangina:
[N]o one really considers them to be anything but a waste product, whose relevance is yet to be determined. A pretend girlie-man if you like, who wavers between reality and the dream state of their female masters. A neutered sycophant living on a different plain where reality and fantasy mix to form their delusional, ethereal world..
And let’s finish up with this muddled attempt to call feminists a bunch of lying liars:
We have on numerous occasions, demonstrated the continual lying and misinformation that the feminist hegemony consistently wallows in without what they believe is, in any fear of contradiction.
I have no idea if the second half of that sentence is the result of some sort of grievous editing error, or if he actually thought it made some sort of sense. With Christian J, it’s impossible to tell.
WAIT! CB! *poke poke poke*
do you have any IMs or FB? 😀
…
…
…
uh oh 🙁
Okay now I feel bad 🙁
Maybe I should back off so that Chuckadee can argue w/ Ozy and CB 😐 As long as I’m here he’s just gonna be obsessed with convincing me that I’m not influencing him xD
No, it’s just super late. I always feel like the last woman on Earth at this time of night.
I’m going to make
four posts first to…
DAMMIT KATZ! xD
You ruined it D:
I was gonna make 4 posts to fill up the sidebar first xD
Yes, I suppose asking for evidence to support one’s claims isn’t very liberal of me. Would you prefer me to make declarations and just know the truth in my gut, rather than actually supporting my fact claims with evidence?
Too Stupid to Know He’s Stupid.
A good argument would have included evidential support for your claims, not baseless assertion.
The following LA Times excerpt (JUne 9, 2011) sums up quite nicely why it is pointless for me to respond to objections made by liberals:
The pearls to swine argument continues to stand.
(DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way).
“(DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way).”
“Apologies, to the less literate among us, for my polysyllabic vocabulary.” That would have been a little more impressive =P
Quoting Ann Coulter to prove your point? Yeah, you are definitely “gifted.”
“(STANDARDIZED DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way).”
I think Scott Adams has given himself away again.
Chuckeedee: And what stopped the banks from doing that stuff before? It’s a word that starts with “r” and ends with “egulations.” What did Bush slash? Oh, dear, I wonder…
In which another MRA is missing so much information they come off sounding like someone who’s angry that the mean old scientists aren’t letting them use their Large Hadron Collider to look for Phlogiston (hey Chuckdeedee- your separate bell curves don’t exist either!)
And oh dear, prick of the day, my vagina’s “magical” power is to occasionally seep a spermicidal bleach that gradually fades my black pants (British use of pants there, not American). “Vagina” is presumably my vulva’s stage name for when it puts this magic show on in Vegas.
If I’m the “wolfie cow” here, go right on ahead. Being peeved that I’m not breaking myself to be nice is just one more little drip, drip, drip of gender policing for women like me, but it’s easily counteracted by ignoring it and carrying on regardless.
Think a set up where women are too pressured to base their entire well being on the approval of others, just as men are too pressured to do the exact opposite is far from helpful, especially when it causes males (yes MALES, like in a wildlife documentary…) to fall behind with social skills needed to get on life and end up frustratedly blaming equality for failing’s they can’t even register. Like all of this site.
Because women are doing relatively well – up until the point the gender that has not been trained to read and kindly respond to the needs of others, with the perpetuated system that says they’re not supposed to empathise either – shirks “his” share of the baby raising.
Because then you’re left with a baby boy filling his tiny head with the notion that watching, waiting and anticipating his needs is a behaviour that applies to women, not him and the cycle begins anew.
So thank you attentive dads, for breaking the system that keeps making these fuckwits.
Woah, that’s a lot of big words. Can you put a disclaimer on that or something?
🙂 obligatory Ami-style xD 🙂
Oh, so Chuckee is a devotee of Ann Coulter? I guess that makes sense. Both like to accuse their detractors of being teh stoopid when, in fact, we’re just not buying their snake oil. At least Coulter provides (highly deceptive) foot notes to support her dubious assertions.
I guess there’s a grain of truth in Chuckie’s “proximity” theory – that you can’t fuck someone you’ve never met. And internet/long-distance relationships notwithstanding, the majority of relationships still form because two (+) people got to know each other and liked each other, which, again, you can’t do if you never meet.
But the “women who sleep around a lot must be sleeping with troglydytes while men who sleep around are sleeping with hotties” makes zero sense. It’s the whole 20% of men get 80% of sex thing all over again. Dude, you do realize that (if you’re talking about heterosexual sex) men and women are having sex with each other? In about equal numbers? That the “retchworthy” men those evil sluts are sleeping which also count in the column of “men who sleep around”?
Honestly, the only way I can make it work in my head is if all women are very hot (or at least not “retchworthy”, whatever that means). So it’s degrading for women to sleep around because men have a normal distribution of attractiveness on a bell curve and women don’t, so they’re bound to sleep with someone”below them” in terms of looks.
Gah. I thought last night’s city council meeting was nonsensical.
I’ve never thought of it this way. That every face that has inclined kindly towards him with interest and care has been a female face, so children expect that of *women* in future. That’s just how their faces are supposed to look… And the shock and anger when they don’t. Thanks for this. (I guess for women, the kindness never really goes away when talking to other women. Although it would if we were demanding more. Or in the opposite direction of age. I’m expected to be endlessly supportive of my younger-than-me students, but they get to be sulky brats in return.)
Well, no, actually, it doesn’t. I mean, if you’d like to say you’re lazy, feel free; I’m lazy too sometimes. But I don’t crow about how I’m lazy because my opponents drove me to it, and I don’t expect people to believe me when I won’t support my claims. Because I’m not a moron like you are.
Good old Subprime mortgage crisis. If I recall correctly, we’re talking about the one that pretty much every major bank, not just Fannie Mae, was involved in, yes? ’cause a single bank isn’t really powerful enough to cause that kind of problem by itself, insufficient money to fund every mortgage during the housing bubble.
You do realize that regulations stripped during Clinton and Bush the Lesser’s terms permitted the crisis, yes? No, of course not.
@Sharculese
Is she? My mistake. Sorry.
MBA’s spouting dumb is to be expected.
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/66889/detail/
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual… down the memory hole.
Revoking major parts of the Glass-Steagall Act? Well, Clinton screwed the pooch with that one. You’d think that he’d have remembered the S&L implosion and vetoed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
(Standard Disclaimer: Apologies to the less Googled among us, for my lack of links. I find it more economical to write this way.)
I’m catching up on Ami for filling in the sidebar.
Everyone must be exhausted from a late night of troll hunting.
Kristinmh is at least trying, so allow me to suggest a thought-experiment. Pairings between men and women don’t have to match up one-to-one. Consider an extreme situation in a population of, say, 100 men and 100 women, where one woman, as a prostitute, services 100 men and 99 women do without. It’s a real possibility, especially when you factor in prostitution, where a prostitute services way more men than the average woman. In terms of averages, men and women will always balance out equal, but in terms of raw numbers, the situation is way different. Of course in the real world the numbers won’t be that extreme, but the main point is that it will never be one man to one woman – it still finishes up that a smaller proportion of women finishes up servicing the greater number of men. The question then becomes one of, are the pairings like-for-like and one-to-one? Does hypergamy rule and is it the alpha at the top of the pekcing order? Or does the reverse to hypergamy hold true – meaning, is it the dudes at the bottom of the barrel getting the greater numbers? Is it, in fact, mainly the bottom reach of the male bell curve that finishes up being serviced by the middle spread of the female bell curve? And how might this then impact on the laws of supply and demand, where women are being removed from the market by degenerates (hypothetically speaking), with all these poor, deprived manlets from the middle spread deluding themselves with the entirely false myth of the supreme alpha getting all the babes? Bottom line? There is no alpha king. He’s but a figment of the PUA’s imagination. This is a thought-experiment based on extremes – extend this now to the real world, to consider how it might play out.
DISCLAIMER – Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way.