Categories
a woman is always to blame antifeminism entitled babies girl germs men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men red pill reddit

“Women don’t need good chord progressions,” and other ways the ladies are destroying culture by being ladies

Chord choices have consequences!
Chord choices have consequences!

This just in! According to some random dude on the Red Pill subreddit, our culture is going to hell in a little pink handbasket and it’s all the fault of you women.

Consider:

Television is all crappy reality shows and Kardashian type gossip magazine rubbish.

Every single movie has a romantic subplot forced into it, even movies “Made for men”.

ESPN spends more time on human interest pieces, Breast Cancer Awareness, and if Lamar Odom is staying with Khloe than actual sports.

Music gets more shallow, filthy(seriously, eat the booty like groceries?), and repetitive every day.

The problem? The entertainment biz is

simply giving women exactly what they want. This is the invasion of women into male spaces these liberal minded progressives clamored for.

Don’t try to deny it, ladies! You know it’s true. Because women want our entertainment to be crap. Also, entertainment consists entirely of TV, movies, sports, and music. Books do not count! They are only for women and manginas! And don’t even think about, you know, paintings and all that shit.

Women don’t care about the actual athletics behind sports. They could care less about the hardwork and dedication that goes into progress, they like the excitement and the player’s lives.

Women don’t need a “good movie”, they need a movie that makes them feel good. They need some romantic subplot that makes them feel special and hopeful and not alone.

And it gets worse:

Women don’t need good chord progression, lyrics that exalt a virtue or dig deep into the cultural zeitgiest, they just want a fun beat that makes them feel good.

Screw you ladies, and your terrible chord progressions! I mean, I’ve seen it a million times. Some dude comes up and he’s all

E – B – C#m – A

And the lady is all, nuh-uh!

C – B – F

And you’re like, what the hell is this bullshit!

Now, I know what you’re gonna say: I’M A WOMAN(OR I KNOW A WOMAN) WHO LIKES GOOD MOVIES AND SPORTS AND MUSIC AND YOU’RE FUCKING WRONG!

Guess what? I know an Asian that’s tall and has a big dick, are we gonna just assume that’s the average? Grow up.

YEAH! You tell ’em wait what?

I don’t remember learning about that argument in debate club.

This is the inevitability of women in male spaces, and more importantly the economy catering to women: Women waste more disposable income on entertainment and luxury than men. Women work to buy things that make them feel good.

Of course these industries are going to cater to women because there’s just so much fucking money in it.

But what can we men do?

we’re not going to stop listening to music or watching movies. We’re not going to turn sports off. These industries know this and thus can pocket from both sides.

BUT NO MORE! WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE.

The truth is things will never change until men are more united, until we are unified in one voice that says “We’re not paying for this shit anymore.”

YOU TELL ‘EM! No more movies with romantic subplots! We only want to see people blowing shit up! NO KISSING.

And no more music with fun beats! WE DEMAND HIGH QUALITY CHORD PROGRESSIONS ONLY! And would it kill you to throw in a Dsus4 chord every once in a while? NO. No it wouldn’t.

Unfortunately, the betas would rather shoot up schools because they’re not getting pussy.

Yeah, fuck those fucking betas, with their inability to score pussy and their tolerance of weak-ass chord progressions.

And that shooting up schools thing, that sucks too.

H/T — r/TheBluePill

 

 

320 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fibinachi
9 years ago

Can anyone who knows about commerce answer this for me?

Is there a shift towards catering more for women in entertainment and media?

And, if so, is that an additional market or a shift in the existing market?

By which I mean, let’s say there were 100 films or video games that catered for men last year but this year there are 10 films/games aimed at women. Is the market 110 films or do the women’s share eat into the bloke’s share so the guys have to make do with 90 films/games.

In other words are we divvying up a finite pie differently or just making more pie?

The answer is “yes”.

Isn’t commerce fun? Seriously though the answer is both maybe yes perhaps no not quite. It depends a bit on how you define market segments; 100 films purely blokes obviously drops to 90 if 10 of those next year are turned into films purely for women, but that implis that the market out-put is stable, ie, the product is non-fungible and there are no substitutes, it’s one or the other. But this isn’t ever actually the case in cutural products; and more, if you have an expanding market segment and you can finance 10 films for “women” you can get that extra revenue in while still producing those 100 films ” for blokes” – becaus the market segment that used to allow you to produce just 100 films each year for “blokes” hasn’t magically disappeared; so it must still exist – the likely end result is actually 110 films total because the “discovery” (not really, but the word works) of another market segment you can sell films to and get money from bumps up your output capacity.

Of course you’re limited by costs and crews and time to produce, so the actual real result is a larger expansion of the entire film industry into a more mixed milleiu where people can get to see the kinds of films they enjoy across a very wide spectrum of possible experiences because the opening up of sectors from “for this group only” to “can support lots of different kinds of movies” gets you very varied stuff. It’s not a fixed zero sum game [but it might be if there is a hard limit on how many movies you could possibly produce in a year, and so each A traded in for a B would be one less A out of the pile of possible As. But we’re nowehere near that point and never will be ]

@Wildman

David – could you create a “reply feature” for individual comments? If this was available it would be more conducive to the more direct exchange that some of the commenters are suggesting.

For those that have responded to my earlier posts:

– yes, I am using personal experience to make my case. But it is just so obvious. Like how can you miss it? You do talk to a variety of people right? Discourse from women is generally different than that of men. You seriously cannot disagree with this? If you don’t think there are any differences then I guess there is no point in discussing it any further. To further the discussion I am expecting you to draw from your own personal experience as well.

– for those of you that do agree that there are differences in the qualities/tone/style/mindset (call it what you will) of discourse for men vs women (and of course between men and women within mixed groups vs. non-mixed groups), then do you not have to ask yourself why?

– if you are willing to ask yourself why, then could you not consider my premise? If you don’t think the way I have put it is an accurate description of the source of the discourse differences, then please further the conversation by providing your alternate viewpoint. I note that some of you have gone part way to doing this. There has been suggestions that many men will start focusing on their feelings, like their feelings are of the primary importance, in the circumstance of an ongoing exchange. This is true. This happens alot. Yet their are still differences, median of one gender vs the median of the other – no? Or if “feelings” is a misguided term for the difference, what would be the quality of the gradient I (or hopefully it is now we) are pointing to? Is egoism a better term (now perhaps pointing to what is emphasized in the masculine)? Or would it be more accurate to say it is a gradient along egoism/narcissism co-factors? Or maybe it is yet another human quality for which there is gendered differences gradient-wise that I haven’t thought of yet, that causes the differences in gender discourse we can all sense, median vs. median-wise (look I’m just going to continue using the word “normatively”, it is shorter) and I am wide off the mark with it having anything to do with valuation of emotions, narcissism, or ego-formation differences.

– I find this stuff fascinating. I’m not sure if posting here constitutes trolling or not (I guess it depends on your definition of “troll”). This site is rather new for me so I might be a bit dense about what you ladies and gentlemen want to discuss here. Look I have been trying out my thoughts on the fascinating subject of the man/woman dynamic all over the place the last 2 – 3 months, because I want to understand this. I thought I might obtain some insights by posting here. If you don’t want me here, or don’t want to engage, I will go away and continue searching for my answers elsewhere.

Thank-you for your attention.

You amuse me.

“If you’ll agree to all my premises, you’ll find my argument is correct”
is a really curious kind of argument.

Also “Oh and of course many men will start to think their feelings are of primary important, I agree, but women still do it more! on a median level”– wait a minute, median? That’s… that’s not what that means, Wild Man. Did you go from mis-using normative to mis-using median?

It’s pretty cool you can start by going “I’m using only my own subjective experience to prove my points, this is anecdotes I know” to “women are more egotistic primarily and will only see their own experiences as important” in an argment about how… women are more prone to asserting the primary of their own feelings. It amuses me. It’s wrong but it amuses me.

median vs median wise? You mean average versus average, the median is the 50 % point marker of a given group; it doesn’t mean what you’re trying to make it mean. Statistically the median is the point at which you’ve accounted for 50% of your group in total – but that still doesn’t mean the remaining 50 % doesn’t stretch from 1 to infinity if the first 50 % landed between 0.1 and 1. You’re mis-using the term in this forary, mate.

But hey I guess that’s just your subjective personal non-narcistics opinion speaking about the narcisistic ego of women, right?

You might be interested in the subject of individual differences between people. And there are gendered differences in the human species. But you don’t get to start with your premises based on nothing but your own subjective data and then claim women are more egoistically narcsistic than men and your proof for this is your own subjective data…

that there is a tautology.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
9 years ago

Wild Man wrote:

Discourse from women is generally different than that of men. You seriously cannot disagree with this? If you don’t think there are any differences then I guess there is no point in discussing it any further. To further the discussion I am expecting you to draw from your own personal experience as well.

Yeah, see, this right here is the problem. Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re actually serious (rather than a poe), the level of stereotyping you’re engaged in is ridiculous.

Are you seriously claiming that you’ve never had a substantive, in-depth conversation with a woman about a subject, like, ever? Because if you have and you still think that men and women inherently engage in different “types” of discourse, then I strongly suspect either you didn’t actually listen, you only talk to stupid women, or you don’t actually understand a number of the most important words you’re using in that paragraph.

Your posting history strongly supports option three, but as a man, I’m working to “see the many perspectives.”

[/sarcasm]

Look, dude. All of the women in my immediate family are really smart, most have PhDs in wet science fields, and not a single one of them is incapable of engaging in any type or style of discourse you can think of. (And please don’t embarrass yourself by confusing “discourse” with “subject”…that would just be sad.)

Because here’s the thing: people are capable of engaging in many different types of discourse, depending on audience, context, and purpose. That’s kinda how communication works, dude. And the fact that you’re dead set on reducing the vast complexity of human behavior and interaction into a two-dimensional “bitches be thinking with their v-jays, but men be all logical and shit” cliché says infinitely more about you and your stunning lack of capacity to both “see the many perspectives” and engage in “self-awareness” than I suspect you would be comfortable with.

Assuming, of course, that you’re not just a poe.

P.S. That blockquote above? That’s a useful way to address individuals in a comment thread.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

This is interesting. Germaine Greer facing a ‘no platform’ situation. The reference to Fathers4justice is particularly curious as they’re probably the nearest thing the UK has to an organised MRA movement.

(For those outide the UK, although F4J purport to be campaigning about family law, their rhetoric is the usual anti woman stuff. They’re not to be confused with Families Need Fathers which is a group that actually does seek to address the issue but in a reasonable way)

katz
katz
9 years ago

wait a minute, median? That’s… that’s not what that means, Wild Man. Did you go from mis-using normative to mis-using median?

The median is the message.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
9 years ago

People spend their money the way they want. People are going to have different ideas of what equates to spending money frivolously, and what counts as a worthwhile expenditure.

I think it’s interesting how everybody seems to have super-power level vision because they always see every person in the checkout line paying with food stamps for their cart full of steaks, lobster, sodas, candy, cigarettes and booze. And if there’s a news article someplace about the disability program, food stamps, social security, or how much life sucks for the poor – for every one commenter who shows a hint of compassion they get trampled by a hundred replies where each one of them has neighbors lying to get disability, living the high life on food stamps while they suffer and do without because they don’t want a handout, and all the other ridiculous fabricated tales they trot out for such occasions. Yes yes Sparky, you see those too-many-children-having welfare queens and baby-daddies with lobster and booze, yes yes, and the neighbor isn’t disabled but a lawyer helped him get SSD and nobody took your reporting him for fraud seriously, whatever. And not a one of them stops and sees what an asshat they sound like just reading their own shit-on-people trifle.

Too much free time – if they’ve gotten that nosy and up in peoples business.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

Make more sense with the link

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
9 years ago

katz wrote:

The median is the message.

McLuhan wept, but that’s beautiful wit!

newbie
newbie
9 years ago

@Wild Man:

It would be more positive for all concerned though if you would use you “feels” power to project some kindness into the environment. It is obvious to all that your powers can alternatively be used to create a positive influence. Like I said earlier healthy men very much appreciate the power of the feminine. I prefer the feminine-positivity and am puzzled when this doesn’t occur (however the negative outcome is the norm isn’t it?).

Condescending jerk condescends, and expects good feelz in return. Behold the power of red pill stupidity. Positive influence, hehe.

Hint: healthy men are immune to red pill d-baggery and stay far away from it. I know you’re “puzzled” that the wimminz aren’t smiling back at ya when you put them down, but that’s just Human Nature 101. You should learn it sometime. (Hope that’s positive enough.)

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 years ago

[speculation] Intuition isn’t logical, it’s a shortcut which bypasses logic. Because sometimes, reasoning things out takes too long or isn’t worth the effort or is impossible due to insufficient information. But for some people, it sure does feel logical. In reality it’s partially emotion-driven. I’m speculating that manlogick nonsense comes mostly from men who are so intuition-driven that they couldn’t recognize real logic if it bit them in the ass. And because they can’t tell the difference, they think everything they do is logical. And of course, this makes it an attack on their self-identity when people point out that they’re anything but.

Women can fall prey to this too, but there’s no stereotype of “womens is logickal” because unlike men, they’ve historically been allowed to admit that sometimes what they do isn’t fully reasoned.

witchcat
witchcat
9 years ago

I would appreciate it if you would just try to self-reflect a bit, and consider if anything I am saying here has any merit with respect to yourself personally.

Nope! No merit whatsoever!

could you create a “reply feature” for individual comments? If this was available it would be more conducive to the more direct exchange that some of the commenters are suggesting.

That would be highly dependant upon the chosen theme’s ability to correctly display threaded comments – unless you have access to a high level expertise in CSS customisation. Even then, there is every possibility that a custom PHP function might need to be added to… Oh, I’m sorry. Do you even STEM?

yes, I am using personal experience to make my case. But it is just so obvious

May I suggest that you immediately take your woefully inerudite self to the nearest lexicon and avail yourself of the definitions of “anecdotal” and “factual”. Some general instruction in the comparative differences between “hypothetical” and “theoretical” would also not come amiss.

Discourse from women is generally different than that of men.

Cite?

To further the discussion I am expecting you to draw from your own personal experience as well

Hmm… On second thoughts, you should also investigate the following: conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption.

Once you are able to adequately differentiate between the above terms, we might… just might… be interested in what you have to say. Until then, please don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Bina
Bina
9 years ago

Ladies (not all of you but most of you), I get the sense that you are filtering your responses through you v-jays, for some “feels” before looping back to your brains, for final output.

Idiot (all one of you), I get the sense that you are using standard sexist insult techniques to patronize us and spin idiotic theories about us. FYI, our vaginas (not “v-jays”) are not used for “filtering” anything. They’re used for menstruation, and occasionally masturbation or intercourse. And, for some, less commonly, for giving birth. And that’s ALL they’re used for. We don’t let them do our thinking for us. That’s what we use our BRAINS for.

Sex education: get some, you hopeless moron.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants

use you “feels” power to project some kindness into the environment

Thanks, Obi Wan.

I’m struggling to understand how positive “feels” by themselves can be described as a power, in the same sense as reasoning power or math power or legislative power. If the city is threatening to raze my house, will baking cookies and putting on a big super-duper smile fix everything? If a mugger threatens me, can I hug my way out of the situation? Maybe that cat-calling bully just needs a little maternal tenderness?

Seems like maaaybe it’s a distraction technique to get women to be content with being a little ray of sunshine, so they don’t aspire to real sociopolitical power.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
9 years ago

“Ladies (not all of you but most of you), I get the sense that you are filtering your responses through you v-jays, for some “feels” before looping back to your brains, for final output.”

Of course! There’s a direct line from the genitals up through the spine to the pineal gland, amygdala, etc. Ancients have known this for thousands of years and developed methods to harness this sexual-cognitive energy. Kundalini anyone? Prana? Chi/Qi?

Don’t shame human sexuality!

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
9 years ago

Buttercup Q. Skullpants wrote:

Seems like maaaybe it’s a distraction technique to get women to be content with being a little ray of sunshine, so they don’t aspire to real sociopolitical power.

Wait, are you suggesting that misogynistic behavior acts to perpetuate and enforce patriarchal norms in society?

Good heavens! That’s a very unladylike thing to say, little missy!

Bina
Bina
9 years ago

@Bina: Re: the Foreigner cover. Oh my glob, she’s wiping her phone number off the stall, isn’t she? Gahh.

Yup. And no doubt, “For a good time call…”, too.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
9 years ago

use you “feels” power to project some kindness into the environment

“Ladies, ladies! I’m trying to teach you about yourselves here, but your insistence on questioning me is not providing me with the ego-stroking I’m entitled to whenever I mansplain at females. Why don’t you nice gals use your vaginas to radiate some positive energy into the room and make me feel better? That’s how this stuff works, right?”

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
9 years ago

…sarcasm tag implied, just in case that’s necessary.

Emmy Rae
Emmy Rae
9 years ago

Personally I’m willing to let Wild Man stay if he makes an accurate drawing to explain the vagina-brain loop.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
9 years ago

Emmy Rae wrote:

Personally I’m willing to let Wild Man stay if he makes an accurate drawing to explain the vagina-brain loop.

And now I’m picturing one of those old phrenology busts connected to a Georgia O’Keeffe painting by a couple of wires….

Wild Man
Wild Man
9 years ago

OK – I’m going away now. Don’t bother posting any more comments about my earlier posts if it is for my sake. I haven’t heard anything constructive (except for Buttercup Q. Skullpants who alluded to a willingness to commence discussion but mentioned that would not be wise because of suspicion around my motivations). Buttercup Q. Skullpants – thank-you for being honest and open-minded.

Pretty much everybody else: Your responses are very acidic and not very conducive to instilling a willingness to further communicate on my part. But I’m just stating the obvious because that is clearly your intention. I’m not really sure what you all talk about here, but I can’t really see how you can increase your sphere of discourse with the over-the-top confrontational style. I can see there are some smart people here so I know you can understand what I said in my earlier posts. But you pretend you can’t. If you do want to increase your sphere of discourse you will have to change that (for any others that may happen along to this site in the future). But if I had to venture a guess it would be that you don’t want to talk about anything new. So be it.

My past personal experiences about the man/woman dynamic has been reinforced by this communication attempt of mine (and I am surprised by the comments from the men – not sure what is going on there, and I guess that will have to remain a mystery for now, but you do have me wondering…, maybe this is more about an ideology…. which would give credence to Buttercup Q. Skullpants’ comment). But I will look elsewhere for more on that idea as well.

Thank-you for your attention (though it be mostly malignant at least you took the time to read what I said and I thank-you for that).

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 years ago

Well, technically, hormonal feedback signals between the pituitary gland (located in the brain) and the ovaries (not located in the vagina) does have a minor influence on one’s emotional state. But men also have a similar feedback between their pituitary and testes. If you’re going to be idiotic about it, it’s more accurate to say that men think with their balls than it is to say that women think with their vajayjays. And neither is even remotely accurate. That would be like saying that because money influences people’s decisions, people think with their money rather than their brains.

Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
9 years ago

How could anyone come on a misogyny-mocking blog written by a man and be “surprised by the comments from the men” when they mock misogyny?

katz
katz
9 years ago

Don’t bother posting any more comments about my earlier posts if it is for my sake.

You’re adorable.

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
9 years ago

Your responses are very acidic and not very conducive to instilling a willingness to further communicate on my part.

From the moment you stepped in here you were never willing to actually communicate. Communication involves listening to those you’re talking with, taking their points into consideration. Which you didn’t do. At all. Instead you came down like a ton of bricks trying to dictate to women your theories ABOUT women (and men, granted), and then blamed it on us when we didn’t respond with sweetness and spice. You didn’t address anything anyone said, you just blathered on and tried to sound smart by using big words that you failed to use properly anyway.

I can’t really see how you can increase your sphere of discourse with the over-the-top confrontational style. I can see there are some smart people here so I know you can understand what I said in my earlier posts. But you pretend you can’t. If you do want to increase your sphere of discourse you will have to change that (for any others that may happen along to this site in the future). But if I had to venture a guess it would be that you don’t want to talk about anything new. So be it.

Case in point. This is so fucking condescending and arrogant and yet you keep on telling us that we should just agree you’re right. Why? You sound like an absolute ass and you’ve only spewed out delusional crap anyway. You’re not right. I don’t care that I sound acidic, I’ve had enough of you. Piss off and don’t come back.

1 7 8 9 10 11 13