Today I’m feeling lazy, so I’m just going to pass along some thoughts from Mark Minter, a fellow best known, insofar as he is known, for leaving melodramatic manospherian manifestos – look, three “m’s” in a row! — in other people’s comments sections. I’ve written about him before — twice! — and he’s recently returned to his old habit of leaving his droppings in the comments here.
This little masterpiece of purplish prose, however, was left in the comments section of Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog (and brought to my attention by a commenter here), where he gets a much friendlier reception than he gets in these parts. His topic: Returning to the United States after spending time abroad. (I’ve cut out big chunks of his comments, as Minty is a tad long-winded.)
I have been back 3 years and I do not seek to engage America in any way. I stay home, on the internet. I shop in the middle of the night for food. When I must be out in the day, I move quickly, efficiently. I interact little with this society that I am no longer a part of. Some of that is age but a lot of is that I have killed my American self and I feel no affection for it, no loyalty to it, and I shall discard it forever, soon. The only connection is feel to it is you, you band of renegade rebels to whom I feel a kindred spirit.
We few, we happy few, we band of douchebags!
Despite the claims of feminists, America is the Matriarchy, the land owned and dominated by women and their mangina menservants, their guards, their infrastructure that so caters to them, their laws.
Yes, it’s true. Along with its mangina manservants — hi, everybody! — America has a Matriarchal Infrastructure. For example, this power plant, located just outside Dacron, Ohio, is devoted entirely to providing electricity for women’s Hitachi Magic Wands.
Anyway, back to Mark’s riveting ruminations:
You see it when upon landing in America. In other places, immigration is almost a “lip service”, a gang of sorts to get money from you when you arrive and when you leave. The security you must pass, when entering. is almost a joke compared to what you encounter when you arrive in America. And it is far greater when you leave, those airlines and airport security forces have a procedure that is not so much that the idea of the country you are leaving, but rather the dictates of America, and its women.
Clearly, only women want border security. If it were up to men, anyone could just waltz in no questions asked, carrying bombs, heroin, large snakes, strange insects, bootleg t.A.T.u. CDs, what have you.
And here you are not a man, but a functionary, a manservant, a slave to women. You see it when you arrive, you feel it, you know it, that stripping of your masculine dignity that begins the moment you leave the plane and enter an American terminal, that herding, that loss of the you that is you. And you see it as you come out on these clean, lit streets, this great giant boring shopping mall, all designed for women, all policed for women, all at the behest of women and those manginas that have bought in … .
Damn you, America and your good lighting! Fuck you and your infernal lack of litter!
It is more than merely cultural, more than social, it is even biological. This matriarchy has dominated even nature here, controlled every last aspect, even the dirt, even the germs, all of the animals, and certainly, all of the men.
It’s true. ALL OF THE ANIMALS. Even my cats are women. Spoiled, pampered women who expect everything handed to them on a silver platter!
Well, not so much a silver platter as little paper plates. Also, I make them poop in a box. But you get the idea.
If you stay, you will remain in angst, a slave to women.
When I close my eyes the image I see is elsewhere.
Weird. I see the completely unilluminated inside of my eyelids, which is not a terribly interesting view.
And when I die, the fact I got to live elsewhere for a time, will dwarf what I feel about here. It is the basis of my rants about marriage and this American life as a married man being insipid, stupid, and a waste of the life of man. Because it ties you to here, it chains you, it removes your option, your hope, that you might leave, and seals your fate as a slave.
So, I guess … don’t get married then? Problem solved!
I don’t think the women of Matriarchal America are going to miss out greatly from you removing yourself from the marriage market. So, seriously, go right ahead.
NOTE: There is no Dacron, Ohio.
(I think he has to pee?)
Of course they criticized your language — not because it’s the kind of English a foreigner would write, but because your writing reveals a vulgarian of low intelligence. You are incoherent; that’s the point. Which leads me to believe your rantings have about the same quality in your native tongue.
Shocker, Dane has to use the little boy’s room.
And then he tripped over a bathmat, fell face first into the toilet, and drowned. Because he was too stupid to think “oh, maybe if I sat up I would be able to breathe again”.
Hang on, before I catch up with this thread: Pell? Looks like it and he has a love of short male names.
I’m smelling sock here. Tom’s English level and typing seem suspiciously variable, and his little temper tantrums are rather Pellish.
Yep.
My money is also on Pell. Although excessive smileys always makes me think Om Nom…
@ Kitteh’s
you may be right. These bits, especially
struck me as rather pellish
Your english is pretty good as expected but theres nothing there that is even the slightest difficult for me to understand and is not impressing anyone,
I see someone doesn’t understand what language is for. If we wrote in a manner to abstruse, you wouldn’t understand, capiche? That would defeat the purpose, which is to convey meaning.
That, even with such simple words as you are using you are failing to make any points of note… well that’s a lack in your skills. I’d say you don’t manage much better than a Level 2 proficiency.
And he says “females”? That’s a clincher.
And I made a typo… “Too abstruse”. Had it been a grammatical “to” it would have been followed by, “abstrusely” but such a construction lacks euphony, and as such is to be avoided, unless there is a more pressing need for some sort of punctuated expression.
Some of Tom Dane’s bigoted opinions, in the off chance he tries to back track
Now, one might say lots of women could like serial killers and it would still be a statistically small amount, but his argument was that “people (as in women) who through themselves at serial killers cannot be taken seriously”. So you can’t take any woman seriously because a small, small percentage of them throw themselves at serial killers.
See:
Tom Dane, on men’s qualifications:
Tom Dane on women’s habits:
Tom Dane on the infamous “foreign women” the manospherians are so obsessed about:
Tom Dane on sexism:
Tom Dane on saying one thing then contradicting himself in the next sentence:
Tom Dane on Manboobzer’s sex lives:
(also note the rating of women as numbers, which he later claimed everyone does so it’s okay)
TL;DR Tom, it’s not your language that is making people not like you. It’s your opinions. And they are not just as valid as non bigoted opinions.
APEX FALLACY!
That hurt my ears.
Is it just me, or is it really creepy and gross when misogynists talk about having sex in terms of “getting pussy?” It sounds so degrading and objectifying. Yuck.
It is creepy and gross. It talks about it as if there is no woman there, the only objective is to have sex.
Well, for most of those guys, a woman is the annoying and disgusting fleshy protuberance that surrounds a vagina, not only unfairly and cruelly denying them access to that vagina whenever they want but also having the temerity to have feelings, desires, needs, ideas, opinions, etc. that really only belong to actual humans (you know, men).
Yurgh.
On the other hand, Katz has several whole blog posts devoted to kittens, did you all see?! I’ve gone back there repeatedly to cheer myself up whenever the trolls get too tedious! I think this one is my favorite. Bran gives a hearty “pbbbbbbbbt” to misogyny.
“Is it just me, or is it really creepy and gross when misogynists talk about having sex in terms of “getting pussy?” It sounds so degrading and objectifying. Yuck.”
Yep. Like gillyrosebee said, they object to vaginas having women attached to them (although they mostly seem to obsess over breasts as well). They’re pretty much summed up by the turd who made a phone app (I think it was) of a picture of a woman’s torso, to be attached to a Fleshlight.
Of course there’s some conflict for these scum as well: they hate women and want access to our genitals without the bother of us being people, but at the same time a lot of them seem to get their kicks from the idea of hurting or distressing us. They’d miss out on that if they just did the logical thing and kept to Fleshlights or sex dolls.
It’s one more reason why this whole “alpha cock carousel” thing makes me laugh. Seriously, if the penis is the only thing of interest, there are frankly better substitutes out there, and have been for a century-plus! The idea of being interested solely in the genitals is something I can’t imagine feeling. It’s the person they’re attached to that matters. But that goes back to MRAs basic problem – if they’re not diagnosably sociopathic, they’re doing their damndest to imitate it, because other people (women most of all, but not solely) as people is a concept that seems to elude them.
Losers, losers, losers …
::glances sideways and smiles::
“Getting pussy” is short for the entire package, otherwise we would just use artificial, thats pretty obvious no reason for that pointless post, and being critical about some parts of female behavior is not being a misogynist in that case you would be misandric since you spent ur entire life critizing men 🙂 :). Try to read my posts more closely next time :),
Btw, a pussy is a vital part of it, would you sleep with a man with no d!ck 🙂
Hey, Tom, do you still think that all women are irrational because a small portion of them write fanmail to serial killers?
Because if you do, I see no reason to engage in you. 😉
And yes, I would sleep with a man with no dick. And misandry does not exist on a institutional level, not that I’d expect a troll like you to understand what institutional means.
And if you want to say “getting pussy” as short for the entire package, just say “getting laid”. It’s one syllable less long and doesn’t sound like it’s referring to a disembodied vagina.
And Tom demonstrates so many levels of fail, I don’t know where to start.
Sure, sure, you merely criticize women for being uppity and taking away men’s ice cream, but as long as women relegate themselves to the role of servants and sperm receptacles, you LOVE them. It’s not that you hate women, you merely criticize us for acting as though we are human beings and argue that we should be dehumanized. Not misogynistic at all, right.
And incidentally, we mock misogynists, not men. Unless you are arguing that dehumanizing women is a standard part of male behavior and thinking (which would make YOU a man-hater), mocking misogyny isn’t criticism of men.
I don’t know, that depends. Some men have no d!cks for one reason or another, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are incapable of sexual expression or pleasing their partner. Jesus, it’s not like any kind of “new” thinking either, this area is covered in the Kama Sutra. And by the way, your comment strongly suggests that like all men who regard women as mere accessories, you have not the least idea of what it takes to be a good lover.
…Yes?
Worst gotcha ever.
It’s only personal, but what matter most (from a “getting pleasure” pov) to me in a sexual partner would be them having a mouth and hands. Also being bi means that I obviously do not accept only one kind of genitals in my bed-fellows. And to finish, there is the fact that “man with no dick” is neither a theoretical idea or even a extraordinary rarity: many trans men fit that description.