Monty Python has a famous series of sketches featuring a confused Robin Hood wannabe named Dennis Moore, who ultimately (spoiler alert) ends up stealing so much from the rich that he renders them poor. Confronted by this fact, Moore (played by John Cleese) is momentarily dumbfounded. “Blimey,” he says. “This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.”
Over in the Red Pill Subreddit one fella is having a similarly difficult time trying to understand what’s gone wrong with what he sees as the proper distribution of, well, pussy.
Yep, we’re back in the land of pussyconomics again. (Technically, macropussyconomics.)
Things might be a little easier to understand, Red, if you were to actually think of women as human beings and not simply as walking, talking pussy banks.
Feminists don’t see “pussy” — or sex in general — as a female asset, much less women’s “biggest asset in the marketplace.” They see sex as an activity that men and women and others can do with one another and mutually enjoy, if they’re into that sort of thing. They don’t see “slut shaming” as a devious way to drive up the “cost of pussy.” They see it as a retrograde practice that’s shitty for women and generally makes sex worse for everyone.
I know this is all a bit radical to believers in old-school pussyconomics. But as hard as it may be to believe, Red Pillers, asking you to regard women as human isn’t just, you know, some perverse demand feminists have come up with just to be mean to men. It actually makes understanding the world a bit easier.
This will definitely be on the final exam.
H/T — TheBluePill
BONUS PICS OF CATS IN WHEELBARROWS
I mean, I couldn’t really let these go to waste.
[This content has been removed due to copyright infringement]
ALSO A WOMBAT
AND ORANGUTANS
AND PUPPIES
AND THE OLD SWITCHEROO
“You got your evo psych in my voodoo economics!”
Would this make “trickle down economics” some kind of very specific fetish?
Hold on I thought Red Pillers don’t like marriage?
Two bad tastes that are even more horrid together!
Voodoo economists indeed.
A lot of these manospheres are libertarians. A lot of them are libertarians because of the Ron Paul movement, who introduced them to Austrian “Economics” and got them to believe they actually understood economics. Combine with with the logic that there must be some reason that these awesome, high-status guys can’t get laid aside from the fact that they’re not that awesome or high-quality and you get, this.
There’s a reason why hard science practicioncers, or even other social scientists, don’t really ake economics seriously as a science. Economic terminology and frameworks, all too often, are used to support particular agends.
The prime example of internet echo chambers in action. Of course there are various subtle versions of “pussyconomics” in the mainstream, something that other feminists have explored. These guys however have just…almost deliberately…divorced themselves from reality.
Quality Comedy: The moment the frothing rage against feminism pauses, they notice one of the self contradictions in their understanding of their enemy.
Obviously they’re far too devoted to their worldview to change just because they confused themselves again. The realization that women are people, who will each judge you based on their own individual personalities, and that having sex with one requires a modicum of empathy, would cause their psychological understanding of the world to implode and their physical heads to explode.
They’d have an easier time explaining things if a fish rode a bicycle past their house because they’re the sort who inspired that quote.
Well, I certainly find their various interpretations of marriage loathsome….
I hope this post doesn’t seem out of place given what’s going on; I wrote it before I learned about the threats towards Sarkeesian, and forgot that I had it scheduled to go up this morning.
I’m working on another post about Sarkeesian at the moment.
Does this guy think that only 20% of men get married? Even with the most twisted logic, how does this make sense in a world where almost everyone does?
No. The concept (such as it can be referred to as a concept) is that 20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women because all sex is without commitment and nobody ever gets married anymore.
Yes, that’s kind of a hole in the logic, isn’t it? The part where neither the premise nor the conclusion is backed up by reality?
Well of course. If feminists were smart we’d create pussy banks to control the supply of HB4+ pussy, oppose any government regulation that would protect the average joe from inferior quality or even predatory pussy products, and allow the pussy banks to grow so large that their collapse would destabilize the worldwide supply of hot pussy to the extent that it would DESTROY ALL MEN! At this point Obama the drama llama would be all “they’re too big to fail” and start pumping in reserves of HB8 government pussy that he and his evil feminist co-conspirators have been hiding in a vault somewhere. This, of course, would only increase the feminist pussy bank’s control of the world’s pussy supply.
Ultimately, whether Obama saves the pussy market or not is irrelevant. If he succeeds, us feminists will be one step closer to total market control and therefore total control of men. Remember that vagina power is how women control men! Men never do anything for women because they want to or because it’s the right thing to do, so feminist control of the pussy market is a main feminist goal.
Of course, if Obama the drama llama’s bailout fails it’s all well and good. Consumer confidence in the pussy market will drop, and the men who don’t directly die from the lack of HB8 pussy will kill each other in fits of frustrated rage. (And of course they won’t kill women, because Titanic.) Since the irreversible death of all men is the prime goal of feminism, this would be a dream come true. Men and their penises are the Midases of shit, women are perfect, and women don’t need men to reproduce.
It would be utopia and you girls could live in it if you were just smart enough to listen to me. Why won’t any of you girls listen to meee?
No, no, see, the women eventually settle down…but only after they Hit The Wall (at age 22 or so) and lose all their looks and can’t get that sweet, sweet Alpha dick anymore. By then, the poor 80% betas are so desperate for pussy that they’ll marry anything as long as it has a vagina and will lie still long enough. But the slutty-slut-sluts have already conceived Alpha babies, which they trick the poor betas into paying for so they can sit around and eat bonbon-scented candles all day, or something.
Am I doing this right?
Ted: Dontcha know, women cheat on the betas with alphas and have the beta men pay for raising the children. Either that, or they waste their better years riding the alpha asshole cock carousel and then once their value has been driven to the ground due to copious amounts of fornication and decay brought by old age – which usually happens at around 25 years – they find themselves a beta to marry. That’s how it is, thanks to sexual revelation and stuff.
~*sarcasm*~
Oooo Karalora, you got to it first ! 😀
It’s really creepy how these guys see sex firstly as a transaction. Mutual feelings of love, companionship, or even the pleasure and excitement of casual partners almost never figures in. For fucks sake they constantly talk about the “dating market”.
Sadly, their thinking does have a method in it, albeit the very wrong kind. They see women as property, not as human beings, so naturally sex comes down to “buying” women. For them sex isn’t about any mutual pleasure or connection (how can you do that with someone you see as property), but about dominating and punishing.
This reminds me an awful lot of the extreme abuse prostitutes receive, because that sort of mentality is at it’s most extreme and because there is little protection of the law.
Plus they have their heads up their asses with all sorts of pet libertarian (as Falconer said) voodoo economic ideas.
Geez, I don’t think sex workers talks about sex as much as mras, puas or red pills.
That article pic is just brilliant. Nice comedic contrast to #gamergate.
How does that comport with the earlier assertion that the bottom 80% of men don’t get any pussy at all? Do women stop being pussy when they Hit The Wall? Then why do beta schlubs marry them? The betas want pussy, why would they settle for ugly, dried-up, old mid-20s non-pussy women?
So confuzzled.
But…. but most of those 80% of men are HAVING SEX WITH THEIR WIVES, even if their wives are older than 25. I don’t…
Oh, okay. I think I figured it out. In order for this to make sense, you have to completely and fully believe that any woman you personally find unattractive literally doesn’t exist.
Traditional misogyny wrapped up in libertarian “logic”. The new misogyny in a nutshell.
“The realization that women are people, who will each judge you based on their own individual personalities”
I’d honestly be interested as to what happens when they’ve tried to start romantic or sexual encounter with a girl/woman (I say girl because a lot of this stuff is based on events in their teens). I have a sneaking suspicion that if you really examined these issues, it wouldn’t be some vooodoothink about sexual markets and what not, but about personal factors – personality, attractiveness, sociability, etc.
Of course, what they’re really complaining about is that women can choose not to marry and have sex with people who lack some or all of those factors, which is pretty telling. They feel that women having choices works to their detriment.
Red pillers, like any other misogynists like anything that will allow them to blame feminists or women in general for something. I know PUAs, MRAs and MGTOWs hate to be mistaken for one another but they are conflated because ultimately, they have same view. The woman is always wrong and bad. In one comment they hate marriage and children because it’s a trap for men and allows women to steal their beta bux. On the other hand, they love the “traditional” Leave it to Beaver mode because women should be at home making their man samichs. Not out trying to steal men’s jobs and depriving them of steady pussy they can take whenever they want (because marital rape does not exist).
It’s pretty transparent and I don’t know how these dudes can argue they’re not misogynists with straight faces.
Those wheelchair cats in the picture at the top of the post are so sassy! They look like they’re staring down the red piller with the complete and utter contempt that only a kitty can muster. Love it.
“It’s pretty transparent and I don’t know how these dudes can argue they’re not misogynists with straight faces.”
You do know that people on Stormfront and such don’t call themselves racists anymore right? I figure you do but just pointing it out. Usually stuff like “race realists” and shit. Demonize a word, they’ll drop the word but not the concept.
Thats… wrong. Because telling your daughter not to be part of the 80% does a lot less than telling your son not to be part of the 20%. If you remove buyers from the market, the sellers will have a much harder time. In your twisted view of relationships, the only reasonable conclusion is to try to make everyone you can monogamous.