Some thoughts on divorce from a delightful, and recently divorced, Red Pill Redditor by the name of vengefully_yours. (Divorced? Yes, that’s right, ladies: he’s available!)
![vengefully_yours 36 points 1 day ago (57|21) I have been divorced a month now, and I timed buying some land for about a month after it would be final so I could close on it today and her name is nowhere on it. Its mine. No trollop nor cheating whore will be able to wrest it from me by taking off to fuck some other guy. I will never again marry, and most likely never tell a woman I am not blood related to that I love her. This is my life, and I am living it how I see fit. I do what I want, when I want to do it, and no female has any say in how I go about it. Its not as if my ex wives had any say what I did anyway, but now I dont have to listen to them bitch that I am spending more money on cars than I am on them. Fuck yes I am free, and you're damn right I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources. That might sound like I hate women, I dont. I love and adore them, but damn you just cant trust them. permalink source give gold save hide child comments [–]Cyralea 24 points 1 day ago (38|14) This is RP shining true. Don't hate women. They are what they are. Trusting them makes you the idiot, not them.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/selfwarmingfleshlight.png?resize=529%2C441&ssl=1)
I’m glad he clarified that he doesn’t hate women, because some people (you know, manginas and feminazis) might have jumped to conclusions based on, you know, reading his comment and understanding his words.
Thanks to maniacalnewworld in the Blue Pill subreddit for finding this golden nugget in the shitheap.
We’ve got a law firm in Chicago that uses the same overall appeals. Some of the commercials are merely annoying; others will induce outright frothrage at how skewed and twisted the underlying assumptions are.
katelisa – if we’re talking Western societies, the phenomenon of women not working outside the home has been very limited. Basically it meant those who were of the upper classes, or middle classes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Earlier, you get women involved in the trades and the family businesses, and women of the peasantry have always worked outside the home, or done “not housework” in the home; it was a matter of survival. Even among the nobility, it wasn’t a case of women sittng around at home doing nothing; they were very active outside the home, at court if they were high enough up the scale, or politically involved.
Cf. The woman who is ‘above rubies’ in the Proverbs passage is clearly working her Levantine backside off, if you actually read the entire text. And she is clearly in the propertied class! One wonders what is left for her husband to do? This was before coffeehouses, after all.
@kittehserf: I know. It just pisses me off that they think that all women are good for are “fluff” jobs, when in fact, women have ALWAYS done back breaking work that needed to be done (and that would most assuredly have most MRAs’ backs broken in one day). Just as the “female” jobs nowadays are vital to a functioning society.
I can think of two interpretations of “fluff” job. The first is a job that isn’t essential in the sense that society would keep on going even if the entire profession in question went out of existence. Obviously lots of jobs are fluff jobs in this sense. Take everything that has to do with TV, for instance. If all TV sets and everyone working in producing TV programs would disappear tomorrow, it wouldn’t be the end of civilization as we know it. Or take everything that has to do with PR and advertising – you could have a functioning economy without it. LOTS and lots in our society is non-essential in this sense.
But I really don’t think that’s what they mean by fluff job. Considering stuff David has been quoting before on this site, it seems to me that they think a fluff job really is a job of the kind that actually only exists in sitcoms – people whose jobs are vaguely defined but sort of means they have to go to an office in heels and smart clothes each day, and at the office they spend all day scheming and gossiping.
Going by earlier quotes on this site, it really does seem as if lots of MRA:s honestly believe that companies hire women merely to be at the office each day, and that’s it. There’s nothing they need to actually DO to get their salary. I really think that’s what they mean by fluff job, and it goes to show how completely detached from reality they are, thinking people are hired merely to exist in an office between nine and five each weekday.
I worked with a woman last summer who was amazingly super-duper-hot. I still managed to work side by side with her and have clear-headed, adult conversations with her. It CAN be done…
~~Channels MRAs~~~
No! You are lying.
No! She was never attractive.
No! She hated your guts.
No! You are [choose one:] a) one of those super-duper-hot jerk guys who steal all the womminz b) a beta male who was walked all over and taken advantage of.
No! All of the above!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yikes, that was a frightening excursion for a moment…
No! I’m a woman myself! I don’t even know where that makes me fit into the grand scheme of things! 😀
An email harpy who only pretends to like women to attract the attention of men and then denied them that by not hitting on her!
…evil harpy
Email harpy makes no sense
I was about to ask you about that.
The harpies totally support me in email.
*Consults MRA handbook*
Oh, the whole strategy changes then. They now have a wealth of insults available to them, even more ability to “doubt” your veracity (and state so loudly and without allowing you to get a word in edgewise because why would you have anything to say /s), and can choose to denigrate you in sexist, heterosexist and/or ableist ways.