My recent post featuring some of the lovely “posters” I found on MGTOW.com was just the beginning. Here are nine more bizarrely misogynistic MGTOW posters that will brighten any room.
Seriously, they call them posters. I dare any of you to blow some of these images up to poster size and print them out and put them up on your bedroom wall.
DO IT. DOOO EEEETTTTT.
Anyway, here are the rest of the “posters.” Click on any of them to see them full size on MGTOW.com.
Apparently women are equivalent to dog shit?
This guy was so proud of his work — amazing job with the speech bubbles, dude! — that he PUT HIS NAME ON IT.
Sitting down in the middle of the street and crying works too, at least according to one famous WHTM troll:
Do you like to read? Well, you’re in luck, because this poster has ALL THE WORDS.
Do you really, really, really like to read? I mean like red-text-on-a-black-background like to read?
Wait, so they’re not going to tell her where the bathroom is, too? These guys really don’t think things through, do they?
I thought these guys hated being called dudebros.
If any of you can figure out what the hell this one is trying to say, other than “grandpa is kind of a dick,” let me know.
Huh, wasn’t aware that Jessica Alba had committed a murder and gotten away with it.
@Ben
It was considered inappropriate for citizan women to leave their home. Since most people are not citizens this isn’t really the same thing. And even then many had more rights by being presties, which was not a profession but a public office held in addition to their job.
Is it bad that I kind of love the “I have tits, give me free stuff” one, though? Because these are both statements I would make in real life, and the juxtaposition thereof makes me laugh. (And I, too, developed early and dramatically, to my chagrin and discomfort.)
Feeling the love from poster #6.”Why is it that you evil, selfish, money grubbing bitches, that are primarily valuable for your sex appeal, are incapable of true love, like the love we obviously feel for you dirty, disloyal sluts?”
🙁 I’m so sorry that happened to you. I just want to give you a hug right now. I also had big boobs as a young teenager and went through many years of hating my body. Your body is beautiful! <3
Poster #1 is exceedingly annoying, both because it totally buys the manosphere myth that poor women don’t exist, and because the categories “men” and “women” necessarily include subcategories like “rich women” and “poor men” like is this your first day??
I would actually use the grandpa poster, I think it’s geniunely funny because it’s outright bizzare.
I was thinking about printing one of those “posters” and hanging on my wall ironically… But those aren’t even funny. I’m disappointed.
I think one reason why the “I have tits, give me free stuff” idea has caught on so dramatically is because of online gaming. Dudes who can pass as girls sometimes will, with the intent of trying to get free stuff. And if they keep at it, they’ll find people it works on.
They don’t understand that the reason that works out for them is the very reason that they’re able to pull it off: separation of their projected image from their actual selves. If someone creeps on their female character, they’re not the one being creeped on, so it’s less uncomfortable – and if it does get bad enough to get uncomfortable even for the dude behind the mask, they can log off and it won’t stick, because the majority of the psychological grossness gets left on the mask itself. If someone tries to find out more about them irl, they’re going to hit a brick wall because the female identity is a fake one; so they’re not going to get stalked or fear for their physical safety. And because the female personas are modeled in a way specifically designed to get them stuff, they’re not going to run into the backlash an insufficiently feminine or compliant player can receive in the game (or in real life, for that matter). They have this persona on for the express purpose of attracting male attention, so unwanted male attention can’t exist and can’t become a problem.
Online, no one can get you alone or force you into a corner or intimidate you physically, so they don’t experience the fear or the backlash against resisting. Online, everyone who presents as a woman looks like a model, with no upkeep necessary, so they don’t experience the backlash against any deviation from the feminine ideal. All they see is that when they put on the tit-mask, they get stuff.
I get a sense there’s a whole political manifesto in there, if you can read it between those two lines. Apparently the only way manospherians can avoid massive tl;dr is if they think everyone already knows what they’re going to argue.
Here’s a story you could post about. The two owners of a North Carolina coffee shop were outed as PUA dirtbags who used their business to get sex. The shop is now getting boycotted and is unlikely to survive:
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/22/north_carolina_coffee_shop_on_the_rocks_after_misogynistic_owners_outed_as_podcasting_blogging_red_pill_enthusiasts/
Hopefully there will be more stories like this, so guys like that learn that actions have consequences.
Should we try to answer that hard-hitting question?
In theory, who pays the most taxes in proportion to their income would be the wealthiest people. In actuality, at least in the States (and probably here in Canada but I’m not sure), the wealthy are often able to spend some of their wealth hiring professionals who find tax loopholes for them, so it is actually middle class people who pay the most, proportionally.
There are no tax breaks given to women simply for being women. If you support the common MRA position that children are the sole responsibility of women, then you could try to argue that childcare tax breaks help with women’s expenses and not with men’s — but then, you are also assuming that women’s expenses are rightfully much, much higher than men’s, so I’m not sure how that’s unfair.
In terms of who pays more overall in taxes as broken out by gender, typically it’s men. This is because men control more of the wealth, something your headache-inducing graph doesn’t address in the slightest.
…which is expressed in its most extreme form via the positively Cronenbergian bletherings of Christopher in Oregon, as quoted and discussed more than once on this very blog.
@Button
I agree, I think there’s a lot of guys who do that and then go “what’s the big deal? You get lots of attention for being a woman!”. Back when I played MMOs, I switched the gender of my character to female for a while. It wasn’t for free stuff, I wanted to explore my gender identity. In the end I got a lot of unwanted attention, as well as a dude who seemed waaaaaaaaaay too eager to be friends with me in the game. I didn’t think much of it until he asked me to be his girlfriend, to which point I got embarrassed, realizing that the only reason he was trying to be friends was because he wanted a girlfriend, not anything to do with me. It kind of freaked me out, and I switched back to a male character, but the experience taught me a lot.
@SFHC
I, too, would like to use your awesome image. Tis a much better rebuttal than my usual “Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?”
@Chris Harper-Mercer Was A Terrorist
David covered it right here, it was glorious!
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/09/22/coffeeshop-owners-face-boycott-after-theyre-revealed-as-creepy-rapey-pua-scum/
The $500 Trillion poster is kinda bizarre, too. Yes, we’ve got one example going on of a billionaire break-up, with lots of rancor regarding property division. But the decision to go up some 5 orders of magnitude for no reason other than to make your case more extreme is… ugh.
(Of course, it’s also factually incorrect. Some friends divorced a couple of years back; really acrimonious, lots of hostility on both sides. End result: She got the newer of their two cars, but he kept the house, and the only reason she didn’t end up owing him alimony was because the amount would’ve been so small that legal fees would’ve eaten it up, so he cut his losses.)
“Only men are capable of true love.”
Yes, especially men who say they are programmed to pour his seed in all pussies.
Darwinists brainwashing. I see very much love in them…
These guys ever speak of love, see sex as a competition. Feelings do not exist for them.
When it comes to online gaming, the “I have tits; give me free stuff” trope is the bane of my fucking existence. People will come down on you for being a gear wh*re when you’re not, say you suck when you don’t and harass and come down on you the whole time but it’s obviously YOUR fault because hey, you had the audacity to say you had tits!
That last one makes no sense but it’s hilarious.
Aw, did I miss another Apocalypse prediction?! Damn. I like those.
I get the feeling this is because they saw a movie where she killed someone and she got away with it.
Because, after all, even fictionally killing men is the ultimate misandry.
‘British travellers in 19th century Afghanistan recorded that respectable men would have young boys as sex slaves, since sleeping with women for reasons other than reproduction was seen as weak and unmanly.’
Apparently still going strong; it was in the news recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
‘Who knows what women in ancient Greece thought?’
Richard Sennett has some ideas in this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flesh-Stone-Body-Western-Civilization/dp/0393313913
and I recently heard a conversation on the radio about what we haven’t been told about women’s activities in Sappho’s time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqsk4
I’m intrigued by the economics of tits, but it needs more rigour than that fourth poster. Does anyone know of any credible research on boobonomics?
Jessica Alba, OJ Simpson: it’s easy to get those two confused, isn’t it?
Here you go. Favourite quote: “Since it is now 8 October it is now obvious that we were incorrect regarding the world’s ending on the 7th.”
I fully support Demitri Martin’s suggestion: “ATM Achine”
The manosphere is the single best argument for free university education. Imagine if everyone got to go to solid, not for profit university and were required to take a few courses in sociological fields. Stupid people would still be stupid, sure, but at least some of them wouldn’t be nearly as ignorant. These hate movements would be so much smaller than they already are.
Alternatively, they could just pass a law that criminalizes involvement in hate movements, but we all know how shit like that goes (hello NAACP being branded as a hate movement under the Republican-led hate watch bureau). Widespread education would pretty much destroy the Republican party so there’s that too.