Category: antifeminst women

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy rapey sexual harassment sluts

Immodesty Daze: The Thinking Housewife thinks “immodest dress” is a form of violence towards men

From Liberty University’s dress code for women (and, evidently, mannikins). Click on the picture for more details.

We’ve heard before from numerous MRAs and MGTOWers and other backwards dudes that women who dress like “sluts” deserve to be raped. You may remember my post about the patriarchy-loving MGTOWer who calls himself Drealm, who thinks that immodest dress is an assault on men, because it excites them without giving them the opportunity to, well, rape the women who so cruelly give them boners. In Drealm’s mind, almost any form of clothing on a woman that in any way shows her shape is suspect – as does uncovered female hair.

Obviously, I think all of us will agree that certain kinds of clothes are inappropriate in certain settings – no one of any gender should be teaching kindergarteners wearing nothing but a thong – but invariably those who complain the most about women wearing “immodest clothing” have a much broader notion of “immodesty,” which includes things that most of us just consider “clothing” – shorts, short skirts, any top that shows even the tiniest amount of cleavage. (Click on the picture above to see more about Liberty University’s dress code for women.)

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not confined to religious fundamentalists and weird dudes lurking in the dark corners of internet. Recently, Laura Wood, the self-identified Thinking Housewife behind the blog of the same name, has declared that “immodest dress is a form of aggression.” The heart of her post is a reposted comment from a reader posting under the name of Arete, arguing that immodest dress is a form of violence towards men similar to and in some ways even worse than actual violence from men towards women.

Immodest dress is analogous to male violence. Men who flaunt their muscles and crush beer can’s with their fists (not that I have seen much of that lately) are telling the weaker world around them, “I could crush you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.We’ll see. Depends how much you annoy me.” Women are stronger than men in this one way – the sight of their women’s bodies is overpowering to men. Immodest women are saying to men, “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.”

Both behaviors are flaunting the power that one has over another weaker being and both behaviors used to be considered uncouth.

But as the myth goes: only men have ever been violent towards women not the other way around (women have no power over men whatsoever – don’t you know!) and so now that we have entered the great age of woman – when she will get her revenge for all the injustices against her by men through the ages – both real and imagined — she has decided to take her “pound of flesh.” But instead of a swift cut right above the heart like Shylock she wants to get men where it really hurts– tease and taunt with the sight of her own body, forever reminding men of their weakness before female power.

So apparently a woman giving a man a boner by wearing an outfit less modest than a nun’s is worse than a dude literally punching a woman.

Laura’s comments make clear she agrees with this basic assessment, though (in a moment of generosity towards her own gender) she acknowledges that some women may not be conscious of the enormous power they wield over men every time they put on a tank top.

In the comments, Fitgerald expresses his enthusiasm for Arete’s thesis:

This is sooooo true… as a male I can ABSOLUTELY attest to this. …

As a celibate male I must actively work at constraining sexual response to females flaunting their wares.. “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.”.. yeah right. If I was an alpha male – strong, thin, tall, tanned.. definitely — I’ll also have to be honest and say it does piss me off, but suppressing ordinary human responses is part and parcel of not only being a civilized human being, but a Christian which constrains me further. …

Women are the sexual power brokers. They can and do decide with whom they pair and mate with. Men are essentially powerless save those few well endowed “alphas” (rich, physical specimens, powerful) who are like kryptonite to many women. Any male that is half-aware knows the look: “Yes.. look at me.. I’m sexually desirable. See my power. Feel my power..” Oh, then the look away: “But you aren’t worthy of me.” Happens EVERY day.

Yep, another misogynist furious that women get to choose who they have sex with. Dude, SO DO GUYS. If two people are having sex, both of them have to agree to it. Otherwise it is rape. Everyone is their own “sexual gatekeeper.”

Robin offers a mild dissent, noting that some of the “immodest” dressers may be victims of sexual abuse. But they still deserve “righteous judgement,” at least when this judgement is ostensibly tempered by “love.”

I was once one of these women: a female friend was loving enough to take me bra shopping as a thirty-three year old adult and teach me about covering my body so as not to invite further abuse. Other people waited patiently and said nothing; this was a disservice to me as I could have transformed more quickly if people would have had the confidence to open their mouths and teach me the truth. Others condemned me without knowing my story, and I withdrew in offense.

While it is true that immodest dress is a form of aggression in feminist women, I want to bring to light that sexual abuse of young girls has become so prevalent that many women we see walking around today dressed as prostitutes may still be ensnared and imprisoned by their victim mentality brought about through no fault of their own due to horrendous acts of abuse against their bodies as children. I believe it is important that these women do not experience condemnation, but rather righteous judgment in love so as to bring about repentance from this behavior so that they may be healed and be examples to others.

Laura feels the need to reiterate that some women and girls really have no excuse for being slutty sluts:

I know teenage girls who are sweet and innocent, and have never been abused, who dress like tarts. It’s everywhere. They see it and they imitate it.

I’m interested how Laura knows that these girls haven’t been abused. Does she know the intimate details of all of these girls’ lives? Or does she just have powerful Abuse-dar?

Mary, meanwhile, argues that the real villains here aren’t women – but evil feministy feminists.

I have too many female friends who have had their hopes dashed/hearts broken/been humiliated at the hands of average-looking, low status guys to buy that women have all the power. These average young women were doing what they thought they were supposed to do, what they were told everyone was doing – having premarital sex, that is. They were told by feminists that it was as fun for them as it was for the men if only they would get into the spirit of it, that it would lead to ultimate happiness, that it would benefit them. Many girls of average attractiveness are giving themselves away, sometimes over and over again, to unworthy men and to their own heartbreak, while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background. I don’t call that sexual power. That men are more vulnerable to visual cues doesn’t make all men innocent, just as some women’s extreme immodesty doesn’t make all women sexual power brokers. …

That’s what’s so diabolical about today’s extreme immodesty: many of these women are just trying to be relevant.

Apparently the readers of The Thinking Housewife, like many MRAs and other manosphere dudes, seem to have forgotten almost entirely the old stereotype of the hairy-legged, man-hating feminist; these days, they seem to assume that any woman who wears skirts above the knee and doesn’t hate sex is a feminist.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of the “sexy clothes are an assault on men” argument generally, I can’t help but wonder how many men out there – beyond Drealm and Franklin and assorted religious fundamentalists  – actually, honestly feel “assaulted” when they see a woman they find attractive wearing something that shows off her figure. Somehow I suspect that most straight guys who are interested in sex  – including most of those railing endlessly about evil sluts online — actually find this sort of thing … pleasant. Most of those guys complaining about immodest dress would, I think, feel rather disappointed if women actually decided to cover up – and not just because it would rob them of yet another excuse to demonize the ladies.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism antifeminst women evil women marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men

First comes feminism, then comes marriage

Every feminist girl’s fondest dream.

What do feminists want? Equal work for equal pay? An end to sexual violence? A new album from Le Tigre? Nope. According to the dude behind the still-awkwardly named Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, what they really want is to GET THE RING and get hitched up to some nice man they can happily exploit. Yep, feminists love marriage more than almost anything. Why? Because getting married is the necessary first step towards getting a nice, profitable divorce. Mr. PMAFT explains:

Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong.  Feminism is dependent on marriage and family.  Without it, feminism would collapse.  When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.

But …

Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?”  … [T]his represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is.  A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism.  The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women. 

Um, I’m pretty sure that the traditionalists are not eating in the same cafeteria as the “cafeteria feminists.” But PMAFT is on a roll:

The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such.  They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want.  If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce.  Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men.  …  Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.

Huh, because most of the feminists I know, oh, never mind.

This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism.  Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.

I’m pretty sure most feminist women will get along just fine even if they can’t marry you.

 

Categories
alpha males antifeminism antifeminst women MGTOW misogyny MRA PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts whores

Susan “Chartbuster” Walsh does it again

Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.

Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”

The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t  automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.

So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.

Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.

Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness  — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:

I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.

Sassy6519 agreed:

That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.

And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!

As Walsh put it in a comment:

The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.

Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.

Ian Ironwood agreed with her analysis, more or less, but urged his fellow dudes to exploit the situation for their own advantage:

Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.

Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.

Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.

Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:

[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:

“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”

And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.

You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …

If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)

You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.

Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.

EDITED TO ADD: I added a quote from Walsh.

Categories
antifeminst women douchebaggery FemRAs harassment it's science! misogyny MRA rapey sexual harassment the c-word vaginas

A little gender experiment confirms that Reddit is full of douchebags

Now that's what I call a bridegroom.

So someone on Reddit did a little experiment that confirmed what we already know: that Reddit is overflowing with misogynist douchebags. Here’s the experimenter explaining her somewhat casual experimental protocol:

I noticed after two months as my female username I was constantly having to defend my opinions. I mean constantly. I would post something lighthearted, and have people commenting taking my comment literally and telling me I was dumb or I didn’t understand xyz. People were so eager to talk incredibly rudely and condescendingly to me. People were downright hateful and it made me consider leaving.

Then I decided to experiment with usernames and came up with an obviously male name. While people still disagreed with me which is to be expected, I had more people come to my defense when I had a different opinion and absolutely no hateful or condescending comments. I am completely shocked at how different I am treated since having a male username. I am not saying Reddit is sexist, well kind of yes, but I think it’s really interesting and thought that some other girls on here would want to get male usernames and see the difference for themselves.

She posted this in TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit devoted to women and women’s issues that is regularly overrun with angry MRA dudes and an assortment of FemRAs. This time the MRA squad didn’t take over the discussion, and numerous 2XCers reported experiences similar to that of the OP.

earthpeesfire noted:

I had a feminine user name years ago. Fuck that. It was like having a target on my back.

cantstopthe tried to duplicate the experiment on a smaller scale:

Just wanted to say that I made an alt yesterday with a female name, and continue to post the kind of things I normally post under this account. And today I was told I should be raped.

That has NEVER happened in all my 4 years of being on this site with various neutral names.

misscastaway also tried posting with a clearly female name:

I just tried posting on an discussion from this account. Immediately an insult including the word cunt and remarks on how I’m making a fool out of myself.

Might be a coincidence but when posting from my regular account (which is very gender neutral) that I use for discussions related to science, fitness, books etc I have never received this kind of behaviour. Not even when it turned out someone knew more about the subject and I was wrong/short in my knowledge. Then I was given another point of view, with a source – that was it.

I guess I’ll keep using those accounts in parallel now just to see if this was just by chance or if it really makes such a difference.

fatchick400 reported on the results of a similar experiment:

I created this account a few days ago to comment on some fat-hate, and have actually found it really interesting to see reddit from a different point of view.

The biggest surprise for me is the difference in how fat women are treated vs fat men. There is so much more hatred towards the fat women. A lot of people even refer to these women as “it”, completely negating their gender all together.

Meanwhile in the posts about fat men there are a few hateful comments, but they’re mostly full of light hearted jokes. In a few posts where the guys were obviously morbidly obese, barely anyone commented on the guys’ weight at all. Yet in posts with woman who are maybe 200lbs , mocking her weight always seems to be the main focus of conversation.

twofish added her experience to the pile of anecdotal evidence:

Most people on reddit assume I am male until I make it a point to say otherwise. More often than not, once it’s discovered that I own a vagina I’m no longer taken seriously, my opinions are belittled, and a slough of sexist and misogynist jokes/accusations get thrown my way.

I love Reddit for many reasons but it is one of THE most hostile places on the internet to be a woman.

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, meanwhile, the locals largely dismissed the experiment as unscientific and biased. As DavidByron put it:

Just seems like someone who set out to “prove” her own biases. She was biased to begin with, she ran the “experiment” in a biased way, interpreted the results in a biased way and then presented them to support her initial assumptions.

It’s the usual princess feminism which says men have it easy and women have it hard even while the exact opposite is happening. Why wouldn’t she say which usernames she used in her “test” so others can look at her methodology? Of course it’s not serious but then that’s the point.

Others explained that they weren’t really sexist because they’re such earnest fanboys of GirlWritesWhat, a woman who is able to bypass the usual MRA misogyny by pandering to the misogynists’ fantasy of male martyrdom.

The woman who posted about the experiment in the first place has now popped in to the r/menrights thread, and has (very politely) suggested to Mr. Byron that he try the experiment himself. I guess we’ll see what happens.

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women FemRAs hypocrisy I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA MRA paradox patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:

Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?

As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.

I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.

This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.

Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.

But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:

Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.

Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.

For example, you can just call them sluts:

Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.

You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …

Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.

Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,

I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.

Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.

Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?

Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!

I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!

NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.

—

This post contained some

Categories
alpha males antifeminism antifeminst women chivalry douchebaggery lying liars men's rights women's auxilary misandry misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit reddit

Hey girl, I wish you were a greasy smear on the road: The Men’s Rights subreddit hates on the lady rescued by Ryan Gosling.

Oh, the Men’s Rights subreddit is on a roll! Earlier in the week, as regular readers will already be well aware, a sizeable number of the regulars there were waxing indignant about a spermburgling girlfriend who turned out to be imaginary, and expressing sympathy for the imaginary girlfriend’s imaginary boyfriend, even though he’d admitted to punching her in her imaginary stomach.

Now they’re directing their wrath at a British journalist whom they’ve decided is being insufficiently grateful for being rescued from being hit by a speeding automobile by Ryan Gosling.

The backstory: Earlier in the week, British journalist Laurie Penny was wandering the streets of Manhattan, lost in thought, when she almost stepped off the curb into the path of a taxi. A man standing nearby grabbed her and pulled her to safety. That man happened to be famously hunky young actor Ryan Gosling.

Naturally, Penny tweeted about it, and her tweet aroused something of a Twitterstorm, in part because of the novelty of the situation, and in part because the thought of someone so dashing performing this little act of urban heroism made more than a few ladies (and men) swoon a little. I would probably react the same way if I heard a story about Kate Winslet saving a kitten.

Anyway, Penny was a little bit overwhelmed by all the attention her story was getting, and ended up writing a funny, spiky little essay for Gawker reminding people that while, yes, Ryan Gosling had indeed done a very nice thing for her, for which she was grateful, that it wasn’t really the biggest deal in the world. For one thing, she pointed out, lots of ordinary decent people perform similar acts of “heroism” all the time. For another, there are bigger heroes out there – like those working tirelessly to keep Rick Santorum from becoming our next president.

She ended the piece with this:

I really do object to being framed as the ditzy damsel in distress in this story. I do not mean any disrespect to Ryan Gosling, who is an excellent actor and, by all accounts, a personable and decent chap. …

But as a feminist, a writer, and a gentlewoman of fortune, I refuse to be cast in any sort of boring supporting female role, even though I have occasional trouble crossing the road, and even though I did swoon the teeniest tiniest bit when I realized it was him. I think that’s lazy storytelling, and I’m sure Ryan Gosling would agree with me.

And the thing is, I’m sure he would. I’m sure he’s as embarrassed about the attention as Penny is.

Well, for some people, Penny’s refusal to play the “boring supportive role” was simply unacceptable. Over on The National Review, antifeminist asshole Suzanne Venker wrote a snide and misleading piece portraying Penny as an ungrateful bitch:

If Western women want to know where all the good men have gone, they need only look in the mirror. Not only can men no longer hold the door open for women or pay the check after dinner, they can’t even save a woman’s life and get a simple thank you.

Never mind that Penny wrote explicitly that she was “grateful to the dashing and meme-worthy Mr. Gosling.” We can conclude that Venker either has terrible reading comprehension, or is deliberately lying about Penny. In any case, she continued on in this vein:

Feminists have totally destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Not all women seek the feminized version of the American male. Most women like big, strong, sexy men. They want men who are willing to put out fires, fight in combat, and, yes, even save damsels in distress. But in post-feminist America, Marlboro Man is a rare breed. We can thank women like Penny for that.

Well, actually, the reason the Marlboro Man isn’t around any more is that he died of lung cancer. (Well, to be more specific, two of the actors who portrayed the Marlboro Man did in fact die that way.) But let’s continue:

If Americans don’t wake up to the evils of feminism, the next time a woman walks down the wrong side of the street, the men of America will simply walk right past her and let her get hit.

And we’ll have no one blame but ourselves.

Really? Really? I’m pretty sure that Penny’s Gawker essay isn’t actually going to turn American men into a bunch of woman-hating psychopaths. I think we can all agree that Venker is being a giant turd here.

Well, not all of us, I guess. Someone posted Venker’s little screed to the Men’s Rights subreddit – you were wondering when I’d get back to them, weren’t you? And the regulars responded, well, like you would expect them to. Here are two of the most highly upvoted comments there, from two of the subreddit’s most prolific posters.

Stay classy. Men’s Rights Redditors!

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women men's rights women's auxilary misandry MRA oppressed men reddit violence

TyphonBlue Monday: “All ‘Ending Violence Against Women’ initiatives assume that the appropriate targets for violence are men.”

The title of this blog can sometimes be a tad misleading. Because sometimes the biggest boobz out there are not men at all. A case in point: TyphonBlue, a proud member of the Men’s Rights Movement Women’s Auxiliary who sometimes makes boobish pronouncements like this:

Challenged by a non-MRA somewhat perplexed by her “logic” here, TB elaborates:

Nah. Still doesn’t make any sense. Or, as Peggy Olsen might put it:

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women idiocy misogyny MRA racism

Irony alert: MRA who cannot master simple punctuation attacks black women as “ignorant.”

Do you like your Men’s Rights activism plain, or with a side order of racist bullshit? Regular readers of Man Boobz will remember Christian J, the man behind the blog What Men Are Saying About Women, a self-described “Male Renaissance Agitator” and inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipses. (Heck, I wrote about him just the other day.)

Well, now he’s really outdone himself with a foul racist tirade directed at what he calls ”one of my favourite loathe subjects and that is ‘Black Women’.”

Christian’s excuse for this tirade is a video he found of a white woman complaining about a black woman who was rude to her at a restaurant. According to him, the video addresses the following “issues.”

1. Black women generally suck..

2. Black Women are so full of themselves..

3. Black Women have major issues cause they can’t get no man..

4. Black Women are “strong” in their own mind, make that “stupid” and “Ignorant”. as well..

5. Black Women lack the basic social graces and also basic sanitary habits..

To this he adds:

Black females have wallowed in and adopted the feminist’s hate doctrine as statistics have already demonstrated, single mothers stands at 70% and similar divorce stats. also demonstrates that they are incapable of keeping in a relationship, whatever excuse they justify in their own minds. They are to be avoided at all costs as any black man/dude/bro will testify..

Having read all this, I expected the video to be some sort of White Power rant. It’s nothing of the sort. While the videomaker, a sort of wannabe Pamela Anderson, makes a few problematic and arguably racist comments here and there, she doesn’t actually make any of the sweeping racist generalizations about black women that Christian attributes to her. Nope. That’s all him.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men rape reactionary bullshit sex the enigma that is ladies the spearhead

Your penis, your choice — not your responsibility!

Ladies use these to extract money from helpless men.

When men and women have consensual sex, who is responsible? If you said “both, because they both agreed to and participated in it,” you might be some sort of misandrist feminazi. Because, as W.F. Price explains in a recent Spearhead post, it’s really women who are responsible for consensual heterosexual sex.

If you’re wondering how that could be, well, keep reading. Price starts off by considering what he calls “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”

If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists).

Why yes, Mr. Price, chances are that someone on my street has been raped recently. Indeed, I know numerous women who have been raped. I’m guessing most women don’t share the intensely personal fact that they’ve been raped with you, Mr. Price, because you’re the sort of person who likes to go around talking dismissively about “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”

Let’s continue:

Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

Well, that’s an interesting approach to logic: snidely dismiss the fact that rape is common, then go ahead and assume it’s true for the sake of the rest of your argument:

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

I cannot help but marvel at the twisted logic here. Women want the right to say no to sex they do not want to have. But getting this “no” to be taken seriously is such a problem that some women organize actual protests in the streets to declare that “no means no,” and this means that … they are the ones responsible for sex.

And if women are more responsible for sex than the men they have sex with, just who should bear the responsibility for the pregnancies that sometimes follow? I think you see where Price is going here, but let’s let him spell it out:

Let’s break it down:

    Men have a higher sex drive than women

    Men have less control over their sexual impulses

    Women value the ability to deny sex

    Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Since women sometimes say no to sex, they should bear all the costs of raising children?

It’s the strangest evo-psych argument I’ve seen so far: Since men are hardwired to be horndog sex-havers, they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for the consequences of this sexual activity, at least when it comes to contributing something to support the children that sometimes show up about nine months later. Ladies: think of the poor men, at the mercy of their boners! How dare you expect that they pay their share of the costs of raising a child?

In Price’s mind, child support is not only unfair to poor horndog men, it’s  a cancer destroying civilization as we know it:

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Raising a child as a single mom is apparently the easiest thing in the world. But making men pay for a portion of the costs for this child is tyranny!

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

Despite his own handwringing about the state of The Family, Price doesn’t’ spell out how married men fit into his sex-responsibility equation. Are married men considered as responsible for babies as their wives? Is this responsibility retroactively nullified if they get divorced? It’s all very complicated. Which is, I guess, inevitable, once you arbitrarily decide that two consenting adults who have sex with one another are somehow not equally responsible for this sex.

Naturally, the Spearhead peanut gallery provided many more nuggets of wisdom. WGMOW – apparently a woman herself – gave Price’s bizarre argument a big ditto:

I don’t even see anthing debatable here. It is entirely the females who make the decision when and where to get knocked up, and then get child support from a man with the means to provide her with a bank account and credit cards seemingly for life. It there is no such man available she gets handouts from Big Daddy Government in the form of welfare, Sec 8 housing, free utilities, food stamps, free health care, free college education, and in some states, even a car.

These are the females that feminists say are “strong, powerful, and smart.” Bullshit. They are just as dependant as the females of the Victorian age. Then, they went from the care of their fathers into the care of their husbands. Now, they go from the care of their welfare mothers into the care of the government. All courtesy of our tax dollars.

AfOR put it even more bluntly:

The law fucks men over because they can be made to bleed more than a wimminz, they make better hosts for the parasites of society than wimminz.

Who exactly are the parasites here? The babies?

Hf seemed annoyed that women are allowed any autonomy at all:

Women typically struggle with knowing what exactly it is that they want. The “No Means No” movement is just as much trying to convince themselves and each other as it is trying to convince men. Deception is very much a part of a woman’s autonomy.

Nehalem provided a new slogan for the no-male-responsibility-for-sex-or-babies movement:

To get the point across more easily I suggest we modify a common liberal slogan and say:

Her body, her choice, her responsibility.

This being The Spearhead, it sort of goes without saying that each of these comments got dozens of upvotes.

Apparently, then, the only responsible course of action for unmarried women today is to never ever have sex with men. No sex, no consequences, no responsibilities to share with force upon men! But somehow I suspect that the MRAs of the world wouldn’t be happy with this solution.

 

 

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women bullying creepy evil women misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam rape rapey the enigma that is ladies threats violence against men/women white knights

MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place

Making women cry: Highly ineffective.

Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.

As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk  literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women,  and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.

But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.

So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:

Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …

And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:

Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are

[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.

If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …

Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?

Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:

plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.

And lecturing us about morality too?

I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.

NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund  banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist  devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.