Oh, dear. Our old friend Roosh – the rapey, racist expat pickup guru – seems to be having some sort of existential crisis. In a new post titled “Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns To The Modern Woman,” – yes, really – he laments the sad fact that women are no longer forced to rely on men.
There is definitely not a single woman alive in the Western world who needs a man. While in the past a woman had to put forth effort to obtain a husband who would help her survive, today she is protected by a welfare state that ensures she will never go hungry or spend one night on the street.
The HORROR!
Well, Roosh can rest easy, because, at least in the United States, his nightmare of women not going hungry or being forced to sleep on the streets is just that, a bad dream. Presumably he will be pleased to learn that lots of women (and children) go hungry. Lots of women (and children) are homeless.
Even a child she has out of wedlock from a drunken night out will not have to suffer from her mistake, and that’s in spite of the fact that many nations already provide her with free contraception to compensate for her lack of judgement in selecting worthy mates.
A tad ironic coming from a dude who constantly brags about “raw dogging” it – that is, having sex without a condom – with drunk women he’s just met.
Anything required for a woman’s survival or pleasure can be easily achieved without her having to put forth commitment, sacrifice, or labor. She can shave her head, gain 50 pounds, and disfigure herself with tattoos yet still have many suitors to—at the minimum—have sex on demand.
Such a terrible injustice, that women Roosh finds unattractive are actually able to have sex.
Her food and shelter will be provided by a state which has embarked on an extraordinary effort to compete with men for her devotion and loyalty.
So instead of looking for women who say that they “need a man,” Roosh has begun to focus on women who say that they “want a man.” Unfortunately, when he’s asked women if they want a man, “[o]nly in a few instances did a woman outright say yes, and these usually happened in Ukraine.”
Huh. Not sure that’s a real scientific poll there kiddo, as I imagine that very few women are going to answer “yes” to that question when it’s asked of them by this guy:
Anyhoo, so all this has given poor old Roosh a sad. Because women who don’t need men, who actually have options in their lives, are less interested in jumping into traditional long-term relationships than those with few options in life other than hooking themselves to a male provider.
And so, Roosh has sadly concluded, the typical young women of today
will treat you as a distraction to her more important job, girls’ nights out, and social networking validation happy time. Men have become an utterly replaceable and expendable commodity in a girl’s life. Her interest in a man is not unlike her interest in a new television show or Apple product … .
Huh. Or perhaps this is because you’re dating women at least a decade younger than you, in their early 20s, and this is how people in their early 20s often approach dating?
When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall.
You see a what now?
Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat?
Dude, this metaphor really isn’t working for you.
We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.
Oh no! WOMEN HAVE CHOICES!
We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns.
Well, some men are.
With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye.
Gosh, who would imagine that the women you have one-night-stands with after meeting them in a bar would treat you like a one-night-stand?
Also, if your penis is actually shiny, you might want to check with your doctor about that.
The other side of this coin is that we no longer need women. We don’t need them to maintain our home or cook good meals for us. We don’t need them in an age where having children is no longer important or valued.
That is true. Men are not incapable of cooking. I can even manage a grilled cheese sandwich once in a while. And, no, you’re not obligated to have kids. Heck, as a man you can get away with not having kids and not even have to take a lot of shit about it.
Whatever natural connection that once existed between the sexes has now been severed. Neither sex needs each other so we dedicate ourselves to corporations, entertainment, and base pleasures instead, and this is a great tragedy that most people believe is a sign of progress, a cause for celebration.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I think Roosh think’s he’s had some sort of profound insight here. All because the 22-year-old women he spends his life pursuing don’t seem interested in properly genuflecting to him as a real man.
For the next girl I meet, I’m not going to ask her if she needs a man, because I know she doesn’t. Instead I will simply ask her if she wants a man, and if the answer leans yes, I will perform like the good clown I am so that she is entertained enough to have sex with me. Either she or I will eventually get bored and the relationship will end. Then I will simply repeat my performance on a someone new, because I’m a skilled clown, and that’s exactly what women today want.
You do that, Roosh, honey. Just try to make sure she’s actually sober enough to consent to your “performance” first. I know you have a little trouble with that.
Here’s a little video for Roosh to watch the next time he’s feeling down.
Basically they think of their place in society as being like the lion ruling over a pride, but in reality it’s more like a hyena or a vulture. They’re scavengers.
This. I’m always being reminded that they don’t see men as individuals, not really, any more than they see women as people. Other human beings aren’t real to them; the concept of being in love with one specific person and being uninterested in anyone else never seems to occur to them.
I didn’t know about that campaign. That’s funny/sad but not surprising. It seems self-defeating for them to remain so anti-immigration. Oh well. Not my country, not my business!
Fun anti-immigrant xenophobe anecdote time! One time I was doing door to door surveys for an election campaign. One question was “what’s the most important issue to you?” This woman said “keeping immigrants from taking white people’s jobs.” So much facepalm. I always think of that woman whenever I hear anti-immigrant right wringers try to claim their positions aren’t about racism. Yeah, right.
Yes. PUAs are the very definition of solipsism.
My husband and I are raising two children. My younger sister and her husband are raising no children. Of my six siblings, the ones who went to college (however defined) have not reproduced; the ones who did not, have. Higher education is a contraceptive!
Minor point, pardon the pun. My father’s VA disability benefits included extra payment for every minor child he and my mother were supporting. Without that, they probably would not have had seven. As number six, I am personally grateful for that.
Yeah that is because overall human population growth is irrelevant to demographic problems in single countries. If Africa and most of Asia have growing populations is causally totally disconnected from the situation in European countries or Japan. It is entirely possible that overpopulation is a problem on the global level, yet that falling population numbers are a problem in single countries. In fact that is what we’re currently seeing.
I agree entirely with “live and let live”, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t recognize that falling populations are in fact a problem on various countries’ national levels.
Using outdated wolf-related vocabulary to talk about humans is playing right into their game.
Predatory Omega is my New Wave band.
Prolly already mentioned, but maybe interesting to Manboobzers:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/high-court-to-rule-on-norrie-gender-neutral-fight/5360902
I’m now seeing a wolf deity saying “I am alpha and omega.”
RE: RandomPoster
No wonder why heterosexual (non-open)marriage is apparently dying in the West today.
…but homosexual marriage apparently has nothing to do with sharing responsibilities? What?
Yeah, homosexual marriage. But by and large, they don’t breed.
Some of us do. Some of us adopt. There is this amazing invention you see, called bisexuals. My husband is one. Also, we have SIX BILLION PEOPLE on this planet. Humanity is in no danger of going extinct.
the rise of single-parent families (ex. inner-city ghettos).
Wait, wait, so you want people to breed more… but only with two parents, and DEFINITELY not with polyamory, because… reasons?
Okay guys, which one of you decided to play an April Fool’s Joke on me? Where’s the camera?
RE: zoon echon logon
Regardless, the US doesn’t need to worry about it because we have a steady stream of young, productive, fertile immigrants.
Please tell me you didn’t intend this to be as creepy as it sounds.
RE: Octo
And shrinking populations *are* a problem, especially if it happens at European or Japanese rates.
Well, yeah, no shit… but you can’t GROW a population forever. Eventually, a crisis will hit, and having a bajillion kids just isn’t financially feasible. Populations HAVE to shrink sometimes. It’s an inevitability of life. Like, I get that it can cause concern… but seriously, we can’t just grow our populations forever. It’s such a constant, I kinda assumed we humans had figured it out by now.
You especially can’t have a population that just keeps growing indefinitely when your country is located on an island.
(I feel like this should be obvious, but this thread seems to becoming common sense proof, so let it be known that I’m not saying that the current population situation in Japan doesn’t present some serious problems. Still – islands, people. Rapidly shrinking population isn’t great, but rapidly expanding for ever and ever isn’t going to work either.)
Even when that island’s a continent it isn’t feasible. It’s like the whole “you have lots and lots of space in Australia” thing – yeah, well try living in the desert that makes up most of it, you ninnies! Where’s the food supposed to come from?
I really am trying to be polite here, but when someone blithely handwaves away environmental concerns I’m just not that inclined to engage in a non-snarky way.
RE: Kittehs
Where’s the food supposed to come from?
All the poisonous snakes and spiders, of course!
Move to the Empty Quarter and eat scorpions! And the occasional very lost hawk! And then you can drink…well, actually, you’re pretty much shit out of luck there. Plenty of space though!
Or the cane toads. They actually cook those things in the Northern Territory.
If Roosh were a clown, he’ d be Gacy
Hello again, been staying away from MRAs for, well, the obvious reasons.
But I was struck by how clearly this post illustrates how MRAs are NOT about human rights. The desires of MRAs are contradictory and actually are detrimental to the welfare of men and boys:
– they want the right to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term because “it’s their DNA too” but also the ability to back out of their parental responsibilities,
– they want the right to essentially abandon their children to be raised by women but at the same time virulently HATE single mothers and the fact that, due to the fact that their fathers never cared enough to raise them, their children don’t unconditionally idolize them (their mothers turn them against their fathers!)
– they want women to be financially dependent on them for their entire lives but then also want to right to toss the women they financially ham-stringed out the window without a penny
– they love to derail discussions about sexual violence against women by reminding us that men can be sexually assaulted too (as if we could forget) but then also want everyone to shut up about rape and give all rapists the benefit of the doubt
They aren’t working against a system of inequality against men, they are campaigning for the ability to choose when women are allowed to have sex and with who, get pregnant, have an abortion, have a job, initiate a divorce, etc. The only thing that is consistent in MRA logic is their desire to control and hurt women without consequences.
Nailed it, Emmy.
But at least for now, at current levels of population and prosperity, population growth would still be financially feasible in European countries, and in fact beneficial. I mean, we’re talking about a continent with rapidly shrinking population numbers if it were not for immigration, so it’s not like I’m hoping for a population boom here. But slight population growth, something above zero, say 0.1% or 0.2% population growth, yeah, that would be ideal. Or at least stagnation around 0.0%.
But that’s kinda off topic. My original point was that if you want population growth, as Roosh apparently does, then in industrialized countries reactionary gender policies won’t do the trick. Not only are such policies backwards and completely unethical – they aren’t even helping the “problem” (if you see it as a problem), in fact they’re making it worse! They’re *both* unethical and unpragmatical, that was my point.
And yes, well summarized, Emmy.
Interestingly enough the Japanese government seems to have finally figured out that hey, allowing companies to fire their female staff as soon as they get pregnant might not be a good thing if you’re trying to get people to make more babies. Whether or not they’ll be able to make a dent in the institutionalized misogyny in the workplace still remains to be seen, but hey, at least they’re finally admitting that it’s part of the reason women are opting not to have kids.
Awww…the poor widdle doosh set out to use women for sex then has a sad when women use him the same way, or at the very least don’t care enough to keep him around for very long.
Someone didn’t pay attention in kindergarten when you learn to treat others the way you want to be treated?
Also how sad can a person be to want to force half the population to be dependant on you for survival? She could care less about you, she’s only there so she doesn’t die in the street. Healthy people want relationships with people who WANT to be there. Not because they have to. Being someone’s last option because they have no other choice is just…ugh. No. I’d rather be alone forever.
But seeing as how doosh doesn’t give a rat’s ass about consent, its not surprising he wants to force women’s lives to depend on him and other revolting shits like himself. And no, men are definitely not clowns. Just him and all the other manosphere dwellers and nasty misogynists that frequently stink up the internet.
Yes, there are economic reasons to favor population growth in various developed countries, and serious economic problems might arise if we don’t have “enough” children here. But environmentally, over-population IS a problem, and it’s the WESTERN world that mainly use up all the resources and pollute the atmosphere. It’s us having more children that destroys the environment most of all.
It’s a common belief that the environment suffers from all these brown people having so many babies in southern countries, but it’s us northern whities with all our money that really use up the planet’s resources. This is not controversial among people who know anything about anything, although our politicians like to pretend that we’re way more environmentally friendly than is actually the case (by, for instance, only counting carbon dioxide emissions that arise from within our countries borders, while ignoring the emissions from the production in other countries of all the stuff we consume).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint (note that the top countries have very few citizens – in these countries, only the upperclass has citizenship). Basically, the more money people have, the more they fuck up the environment. That’s still true even if they drive hybrid cars, recycle garbage and whatever.