Apparently, or so I’ve learned from the manosphere, every single thing that women do is designed to torment men. Yesterday, we learned that women with jobs are leeching off of men just as much as women without jobs.
Further proof of female perfidy can be found in a recent post on the popular manosphere blog In Mala Fide with the provocative title Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men. Guest poster Giovanni Dannato lays it out for anyone who needs convincing:
When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.
The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.
Amazingly, the fact that a woman might show some cleavage does not automatically mean that she wants to have sex with every single man who sees her.
She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. …
There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. …
Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.
That’s right. Women are like gum. Or that pizza Spicoli had delivered to him in class in Fast Times at Ridgemont High that the mean Mr. Hand forced him to share with everyone. And if you gum-pizza-ladies are not willing to share yourself with every horny man (and, presumably, lesbian) who happens to notice you in your slut uniform, you are committing a terrible infraction.
Oh, sure, wearing a totally cute outfit is not specifically against the law, but, as Dannato reminds us,
looking for refuge in explicit written law is inherently disingenuous. …
[W]omen exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon.
So how can men defend themselves against such evil feminine perfidy? By yelling “hey, whore! How much?” or “can I squeeze those titties?” or “Can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?” Because street harassment – sorry, catcalling – is
a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only.
What else are men supposed to do?
[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.
And women won’t even admit that when they put on a cute outfit and leave the house that they’re doing it to torment men.
Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.
And now these evil women have come up with an even-more-dastardly-than-usual way to torment men “[i]n the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.” Yep, you guessed it: The SlutWalks. Large groups of women tormenting men with sexy clothes in unison!
Apparently overwhelmed by contemplation of the sheer feminine evil of the SlutWalks, Giovanni ends his post abruptly at this point.
I admit I don’t have the patience to wade through the comments. If any of you do, please post any of your findings below.
EDITED TO ADD: Ironically, Ferdinand Bardamu (the guy behind In Mala Fide) aids and abets the evil sexy-woman assault on men with his own retro porn site Retrotic. NSFW, of course. And if Dannato’s post is to believed, not safe for straight men generally.
NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.
So, just to be clear, white people will be in charge in mellertopia?
I really don’t see how that could work with the fact that it’s supposed to be a libertarian utopia…
Now, Kryrie, to be strictly accurate it probably would be straight white MEN in charge in Mellertopia- and I’d bet dollars to doughnuts it would be straight white men who had the correct attitudes towards women, no manginas or feminist lapdogs allowed.
DKM:
Please go Galt yourself all ready. If christian white men were really so superior and so much better at running society, you wouldn’t be whining because they’d still be in charge. Just like the rest of the boneheads in this world, your view of reality requires that you completely ignore any and all instances where the non-white non-christian mongrels and degenerates have defeated and outdone you. It’s the only way you can maintain this illusion of superiority. I’d feel sorry for you if it wasn’t for the fact that you and those like you continue to pump this venom into society’s veins in a desperate attempt to become part of history, even if you have to scrawl your names across its pages in blood.
I grew up – indeed, have spent most of my life – in one of the three most multicultural cities in the world, and have never once felt marginalized. Nor can I recall a single instance in which I have been discriminated against because of my sex or skin color.
Which is hardly surprising, given that in the real world, or at least the real English-speaking world, white males still very much hold most of the cards. You have only to look at the political leaders – the US still hasn’t had a female President, while the UK and Australia have had just one female prime minister apiece – and there are countless thousands of other examples I could easily draw upon.
In fact, out of all current English-speaking societies, New Zealand seems to be the one that’s closest socially and culturally to your beloved 1950s – and yet it’s one of the most overtly female-friendly societies on the planet in terms of women in high places. Which must rankle somewhat.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m curious about that 1700 start date for Magical Unicorn Land. Weren’t white people in charge of Europe before that? If Unicorn Land is brought about by white men’s white maleness, then shouldn’t it have existed before that time as well?
I really want to know more about this. It’s promising to be hilarious.
@Need to know: Yes, of course, but that’s the great thing about kyriarchy: it’s a system in which you can be both the oppressor and the oppressed!
Which mean a white woman slave-wife could have a black woman slave-nurse or whatever, or that some job or places would be for some colors of skin only.
Good old times. [/sacarsm]
So, DKM, just for fun, who do you despise more, ‘modern’ white women or black men? (I guessing women, the misogyny will beat the racism. Brotherhood and all that.)
*pops in*
aww…Meller’s a white supremacist as well as a male supremacist to is he? no surprise there.
Hey Meller? white people “succeeded” at the expense of everyone else (colonization, the slave trade) people don’t just sit back and accept that shit anymore.
Thank goodness your type of attitude is becoming more and more rare.
Also the US isn’t failing because of multiculturalism. It’s failing because the people at the top are being greedy assholes.
Yes, China’s success has nothing to do with the society being largely monoracial – it’s because it’s a dictatorship where people are paid the merest fraction of what they’d expect in the West, and enjoy far less in the way of safety standards at work or indeed basic human rights.
Which is why manufacturing has shifted over there: just imagine how much an iPad would cost if it was made in the US! (Someone proposed that it might be as much as $10,000, but I don’t know if that was plucked from the air or actually calculated).
Wow… I missed this bit of nonsense.
Woodrow Wilson was one of the degenerate and renegade Whites who put his own personal well being and power above the interests of the larger nation, and–in 1917–the world and the White (European) race as a whole! He had a choice to remain neutral, and to remain out of Europe’s hopeless autogenocidal war, and to insist upon a negotiated peace between the Central powers and the Allied Powers; or Britain and France would never see one thin dime of Amercan aid! He also has the choice to avoid sending the Lusitania into Submarine infested waters off Irelandin 1915, and still did nothing!
Just how was Wilson supposed to impose this negotiated peace? Impose an embargo?
What was going to be the situation? Do you think a
stats quo ante bellum was going to be acceptable? Would Germany be allowed to keep some of the territory it had taken? What about the neutral states it had swept through?
Given the way in which Wilson’s 14 points were rejected, after we took part in the fighting what hope do you think there was of some sort of brokered settlement? Germany was convinced (in in 1918) that she had not been defeated in the field, so there was no hope of her being gracious,and France and Britain had spent too much blood to accept less than a total victory.
It’s interesting that you 1: name the interwar years as being from the end of one war to the end of the next, and 2: don’t see the Nazi State as being the source of the disproportionate suffering of the Jews; rather implying it’s somehow the fault of Wilson.
The racist shit… it’s no less stupid than your fembots and Slaveholding Libertopia; except that more people are actively working to manifest the illogical unfairnesses and inequalities which go with it.
It’s not surprising you finally let your mask slip here. It’s not as if you do terribly much to hide it. The “tone” of the larger society you are praising is the tone of a minority oppressing everyone else. It’s Jim Crown and apartheid, it’s those, who by fortune of geography and history had the means to conquer, and mistook disparity of force for a difference of wit.
It’s Bush being given a place at Yale because daddy is rich, having the Sultan of Brunei hire him; becuase daddy was VP, and being paid millions to not find oil; then being hired by the Rangers to be paid millions of dollars; because he had a famous name, and thinking it was his own merit all the way: never realising his daddy had been born on third, and his grand-daddy before.
That’s your, “racial superiority”. It’s a myth, a fable, a lie you tell yourself; just as you think women are intellectually inferior, and secretly want to be slaves. It’s a salve to the failures you’ve racked up. The problem isn’t that blacks, latinos, southeast asians, women et alia are being given the rights they deserve, it’s that you aren’t the special snowflake you want to think you are.
Meller – “When White men, as White men were the recognised leaders of families, churches, businesses, the Armed Forces, and academia, the society by and large functioned. Poverty, to the extent that it existed, was temporary, people expected their children and grandchildren to do better–often much better–then themselves, problems that bedeviled their economy and society were seen,perhaps mistakenly, to be temporary, there was limitless opportunity for anyone who would work and apply himself and his G-d given talents, and it was understood by everybody that intelligence, aptitudes, talents, and educability differed between people, this was natural, in accordance with the order of the universe, and most thinking people were happy with it. There was a place for every man, and every man (and woman) was expected to be in their place. there was far more progress in the arts and sciences in any half century between c.1750 and 1900–in Europe and the USA–than in the entire damn planet for the previous 10,000 years! The twentieth century promised to be the best time of all, before that wretched slime Woodrow Wilson decided to “make the world safe for democrazy”, and ruin and bankrupt the old order for good!”
Meller, what you just said, all ethics aside for the moment, was absolute historical and rhetorical SLOP, (And furthermore an argument for statism and imperalism, whether you believe so or no) AND I DON’T BELIEVE YOU DON’T KNOW IT WAS SLOP. I will give you one chance to rewrite it, or elaborate, preferably with citations, or I will assume that is the best you can do. Really, you claim to be well read? One. Chance. Honestly, forget what I said about going back to Libertarian Kindergarten. Libertarian pre-school is more like it. You embarrass yourself.
OH, since you’ve had obvious problems interpreting your supposedly beloved Rothbard in the past, you do know that the provocative “Egalitarianism As A Revolt Against Nature” and other writings in which he criticised “equalism” or “egalitarianism” were about EQUALITY OF OUTCOME, (The socioeconomic/statist/progressive/etc model) and not about EQUALITY OF AUTHORITY? – The libertarian perspective, AND the one that is incredibly hard to square with your apparent view of humanity. Honestly, prickly as he was and like to play rhetorical and word games, Rothbard was likely one of the greatest defenders of equality the 20th century had. You may not like him as much as you think you do. Just saying.
For more: http://mises.org/daily/804 Equality: The Unknown Ideal.
I await your attempt to make some sort of sense and back your wild assertions up. Also, please read that article. Carefully.
zhinxy: It is the best he can do. Manboobz seems to be the only place his shit gets challenged. His posts to racist boards get some feedback (mostly folks saying the KKK isn’t quite useless at keeping blacks down, and it shouldn’t be abandoned for more effective groups of racists: which is Meller’s position).
If you look at the dogs’ breakfasts he serves up on things like the WSJ, HuffPo, the Spearhead, etc. you will see that he’s bringing his A-game to us.
Oh dear, I’ve seen his stormfront and AVFM postings, but I see I’ve just scraped the surface.
I don’t go to stormfront avfm. I google him and look for his more interesting snippets; the one’s he is sending to place which are (putatitvely) less echo-chamber than those two.
Ah. I’ve just gone where pointed for mellleriana, I haven’t done my own research yet. We’ll see if he decides to agree to that “Libertarians Of the World! Is Meller A libertarian?”-off I’ve offered him. I may have to dig deep.
Hey Wetherby, how do you come to your conclusion that New Zealand is closest socially and culturally to the 1950s?
What’s especially amusing (in terms of DKM’s silly remarks), is that Wilson was one of the most overtly racist presidents to occupy the Oval Office. He instituted segregation in DC, and his favorite movie was Birth of a Nation. If he was a renegade white person, I wouldn’t want to meet Mellar’s idea of a loyal one.
Woodrow Wilson was one of the degenerate and renegade Whites who put his own personal well being and power above the interests of the larger nation, and–in 1917–the world and the White (European) race as a whole! He had a choice to remain neutral, and to remain out of Europe’s hopeless autogenocidal war, and to insist upon a negotiated peace between the Central powers and the Allied Powers; or Britain and France would never see one thin dime of Amercan aid! He also has the choice to avoid sending the Lusitania into Submarine infested waters off Irelandin 1915, and still did nothing!
Well, it was kinda hard to ignore Zimmermann Telegram. What exactly was Wilson supposed to do about that, once it had been made public? Say “Oh ha, ha! Those Germans are such cards!”
[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity.
I’m detecting an unacknowledged kink here.
Is Meller Jewish all of a sudden?
i’m pretty sure in one of the many stormfront link dumps he said something along the lines of the only problem with the holocaust was that hitler took it too far, so no. but the g-d thing always jumps out at me too.
“I’m detecting an unacknowledged kink here.”
I keep saying that a lot of these guys would be so much happier if they’d just embrace their kinks, which means admitting that they are kinks. Look at Meller – he has a doll fetish and also very strong dominant tendencies involving a need to control women that pretty much meets the clinical definition of a fetish. That could be managed via a kinky relationship, but as long as he won’t admit that it’s a kink and keeps trying to get the world as a whole to meet his sexual needs by making all women appropriate partners for him he’s going to be a very frustrated, unhappy person.
Sharculese – The “g-d” thing is also not uncommon among certain evangelical sects. It seems to have come from the Adventists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Movement), but I’ve also seen it used by non-Adventists of the conservative, Pentacostal persuasion.
I have Jewish friends who do the same.
PKFAE: That, actually, isn’t because writing The Name is forbidden, but because destroying a written copy is. To make it possible to throw away things which have had The Name written on them, a letter is left out, which gets around the proscription.
The evangelical sorts take it in a different way, from the commandment to not take the name of the lord in vain. So they (hypocritically, IMO) pretend they aren’t really using the name, though they want to have all the power they see in it.
I thought he wasn’t a believer, although he thought there is a lot we could use from patriarchal religions (ie, the patriarcal bits). But I might be confusing him with NWO. Damn, my memory is weak.