Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
I’m pretty sure time-traveling feminists are involved somehow.
“I want to see Chuck and his theory of Women Destroy Society by Dating Ugly Dumb Losers team up with MRAL and his theory of Women Only Want Perfect Eight-Foot-Tall Blonds Who Look Like Brad Pitt to forge a Grand Unified Theory of What Women Want. ”
Even better: Make it a documentary.
I would livetweet it nonstop.
While you’re at it, try reconciling Brandon’s Women Who Rely On Their Partner’s Income/Benefits At All Are Lazy Leeches with DKM’s Real Women Want To Stay At Home Make Babies And Be Totally Submissive.
But…but by I thought that women were the ones who enjoyed spitting!
Upon men in particular. Or is there a spitting hierarchy? Who spits upon whom?
and do women have time to change diapers when the are busy spitting and eating bonbons (hopefully not at the same time – bonbons are sticky!), anyway?
Ohhhh, if they start fighting, can we throw jelly on them?
I wish women got some say in these determinations of “what women want,” but apparently this is a strictly external study. It’s like researching lab rats; obviously there’s no point in asking the rats.
In a weird way, MRAs who want female partners oog me out worse than MGTOWs. At least the MGTOWs (if they keep their word on what that means) can’t hurt anybody.
Holly, how on earth could us women ever know what we want? We need PUA douchebags to explain our desires to us, because what we think we want is wrong.
My boyfriend has two other girlfriends. He’s a short, intelligent, polite, kind guy who swishes when he walks, loves comic books and NPR, and goes into raptures about ANOVA and T-tests. Please explain this with the “WOMEN ONLY LIKE THUGS!” theory.
ozy: You must not be a real woman (just ask Meller).
Actually, wouldn’t they be able to get pretty accurate responses from us? Consider that 1) everything that women think is absolutely wrong and 2) women also constantly viciously lie: therefore the things we say are in fact accidentally true! OMG dudescience breakthrough! (It’s cool bros, you can sign your names on my findings; that’s how dudescience rolls!)
HMPF! Anyone who doesn’t accept my n=2 animal data as totally legit is a thug in my book. Fucking stats nazis. *goes to berate guinea pigs for their cruel probably-entirely-purposeful unreproducibilties*
If STFU Parents! has taught me anything, it’s that changing diapers while eating bonbons is a terrible, terrible mistake. (This doesn’t answer your question, but at least now you will never ask me anything again. :D)
well lookie here… my very own fan club! My we have been busy 🙂
An actual demonstration of Ann Coulter’s theories about how liberals “think”.
Here’s an interesting site:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44026
links are provided for anyone who wants to purchase her book 🙂
So Chuckeedee has reduced his arguments to, “I am right, and you are wrong; so there.”
Chuckie’s last post is a masterful void of content. He’s avoided saying whether he likes, agrees with, or approves of Coulter, her article, or her book, and has used surgically-placed smileys to maintain the “I was just joking defense” if necessary.
Wow. You good people are so incredibly patient. I see chuckeedee has been here, banging the drum for his “thug” and “thugspawn” theory of women’s sexuality.
Now, it’s important to note that on at least two separate occasions, chuckeedee has disavowed his own theory. A few weeks back he began a post with something like (and I’m paraphrasing) “I don’t think it’s necessarily true that women chase thugs…” Oh, how the worn has turned. Of course, even if he hadn’t directly contradicted himself, his “proximity” theory -based on the belief that women are inherently stupid- would be a natural contradiction anyway.
This, naturally, brings us to the bell-curve ” thought experiment.” Which is proven, apparently by chuckedee witnessing what he presumed to be a date between a woman he finds attractive and a man he also finds attractive. And, yes, this bit of anecdotal evidence does on fact run counter to the premise of the bell-curve “thought experiment.” But why split hairs?
Especially when considering that at no point has chuckeedee ever explained what aggregation of data -even thoughty-experimentally data- his bell curves are measuring. He’s also never provided a definition for “thug” to lend that theory some heft. Though, I have long maintained that his definition is basically “man a woman willingly dates who isn’t chuckeedee.”
But, hey, who isn’t impressed by arguments and assertions that read like an incessant, and especially idiotic, game of Calvin-Ball? Aren’t we all just wowed by people who debate with all the intellectual consistency and acumen of the average four-year old? Just remember to put the play-doh and Legos away when you’re done, chuck. Grownups hate inadvertently stepping on children’s toys.
Am I forgetting anything?
Oh yes: according to chuckeedee, a truly good woman would literally be unable to hear a man yelling something like “I want to lick your pussy! Hey! I’m talking to you, bitch!” while she walked to work/school/home/the store/whatever. Apparently, having a working wet of both ears and outrage, means that you are innately and possibly biologically attracted to the handful of men who behave this way. It’s all very scientific you see. Also: rape fantasies.
So remember ladies, between the “thug,” “proximity” and “bell-curve” theories (contradictory though they may be) try to control yourselves when you’re out in the big world, minding your own business. You are mere seconds away from grabbing the next asshole who yells “Nice Ass ” at you, dragging him into the nearest alley and fucking him, Nancy Botwin-style. Stay strong in the struggle.
Ah, chuckeedee: proof that the line between drunk and stupid can be negligible.
Nobiyamu: Ah, chuckeedee: proof that the line between drunk and stupid can be negligible.
Or at least indistinguishable.
I almost did that one time! Luckily I happened to be perfectly equidistant between the catcaller (describing my ass to me, natch) and the thug (mugging an old lady) so I was frozen in place until my gay friend could slap me across the face and drag me away. Whew!
We laugh, but let’s take a listen with our Nun-o-vision: “I want to [donate to] your [charity for orphans]! Hey! I’m talking to you, [ma’am, and God bless]!”
Wow, chuck was right. I will never mock him again.
Ah, Ann Coulter.
The stated exception that establishes the rule that women can think.
Remember, according to Roissy, this is an axiom, so I get to bring it up to axiomatically prove whatever I want.
Nobbynyamana conveniently distills all the liberal debating methodologies, with all its contradictions and misrepresentations, in one single post.
Can it really be that difficult to understand my fundamental premise? Namely, fine, moral women choose fine, moral men. Skanky, immoral women choose skanky, immoral men (and all the subphyla within, like thugs and degenerates). The anecdote that I provided does not contradict my observation that many women are equipped with a radar to seek out thugs like a pig sniffing out truffles.
Now do I really need to define “thug”? Why stop there? Do you want me to define the word “define” as well, or maybe “maybe” as well, or “well” as well? Type “thug” into Google, and voila, a definition will be forthcoming. For example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thug
The bell-curve thought experiment illustrates a point, providing a metaphorical picture that, for ordinary folk, is easily understood [for those who “get it” just bypass this one paragraph]. Pretty much any parameter within a population is statistically distributed, and it is usually the normal distribution that provides the best fit. The most intelligent in a population will have the fewest numbers, and will be at one tail of this normal distribution (by custom, usually the right tail is selected, defined at the 2.5% or 5% or 10% level of significance), and the least intelligent will also have the fewest numbers, and be at the opposite tail (customarily the left tail at the 2.5%, 5%, 10% levels of significance). People of “average” intelligence are represented in the middle spread of the bell-curve (most people have average intelligence). Very basic stuff. Judging by your comments, we can be forgiven for thinking that you might be representative of the left tail in the distribution – though it could be that you simply may not have studied statistics. For the less gifted among us, or for those who haven’t a basic knowledge of statistics, I already suggested a couple of parameters, like intelligence and health. I don’t why I’m having to explain this. I would have thought that even liberal courses would have covered this basic stuff.
[resuming normal programming]
Pure misrepresentation – but hey, it’s just what liberals do. No contradiction at all.
where did I say that? Show me. Do a copy-paste, quoting the excerpt in context. And by “in context”, I mean, don’t quote something like “women are inherently stupid” and omit the phrase “some people believe that”. [gawd, like debating with a child]
More misrepresentation. And it just goes on and on and on.
And it is Nob that contradicts him/her/itself from beginning to end. Amusing to see that even at this level of pure, distilled absurdity, subsequent posters do not find it embarassing to be associated with Nob.
There are liberal statistics courses? As opposed to conservative ones?
Sadly this seems to be the standard internet conservative worldview these days–the world is falsely split into either conservative or liberal [statistics, astronomy, geology], evilutionist or creationist [statistics, astronomy, geology], etcetera. Being steeped in idiots like Ann Coulter ruins your brain.
hahahaha more deliberate misrepresentation. Do I really need to spell it out? I never said liberal statistics course. I said “I would have thought that even liberal courses would have covered this basic stuff” (meaning, the topic of statistics). Get it?
So you baselessly assume someone is taking or has taken “liberal courses,” whatever the fuck those are, and then complain about being misrepresented. And then you get upset when someone extrapolates from the vaguely defined “liberal courses” to their logical result. Oh, he said liberal courses. Silly me. Cleared that right up. Sorry bub, you don’t get to claim misrepresentation when you’re introducing an unexplained vague term. You aren’t even representing yourself and have done nothing to show my representation wrong.
But Moewicus: He called you a liberal, as Coulter has explained, all liberals are wrong; about everything.
Since you are a liberal (after all, you disagreed with him, used facts, and linear arguments and even took advantage of sarcasm), you are wrong, QED.
Do I have to spell everything out for you?