We Hunted The Mammoth
In Slate, writer Andy Hinds has provided us all with one of the most cringe-inducing “unsolicited penis updates” since our old friend Paul Elam filled us in on which “fuckmuffin” body parts make his Little Elam happiest.
Hinds starts off by assuring us he’s one of the feminist Good Guys, a stay-at-home-dad who respects the heck out of the ladies:
So the manosphere blogger who calls himself The Red Pill Theorist has managed to work himself into a tizzy over a Wall Street Journal piece by a woman who — gasp! — froze some of her eggs in her 30s in order to give her more time in which to find the right guy with whom to have kids.
After yesterday’s horribleness, here’s a bit of MRA pontificating that’s mostly just absurd. In the Men’s Rights subreddit, our dear old friend OuiCrudites spells out the Seven Step Plan that is destroying men today. He doesn’t explain 1) who exactly is taking these steps, or 2) why exactly they want to destroy men, but, you know, I think we can just assume 1) the evil feminist gynomatriarchy/women in general and 2) EEEEEEVIL.
Interesting that two whole steps out of the seven here involve complaints about “females” dating thuggy alpha bad boys instead of decent, hard-working nice guys like those you might find posting thoughtful comments on gender relations in helpful list form on Reddit.
So I spent a little time reading through The Red Pill subreddit yesterday and if there’s one thing that Red Pill Redditors aren’t, it’s fucking betas. No fucking way. They’re like the total fucking opposite of betas. And by that I mean they are ALPHA DOGS 4 LIFE.
Case in point: The totally rad insults they use to put the bitches in their place, as collected together in the recent thread “What Is The Most Cutting Insult You Have Said To A Woman Infield?” I mean, even the fact that they HAVE such a thread is totally ALPHA DOG but just listen to this ALPHA DOG shit they totally really say to women in real life totally for real:
So the Men’s Rightsers over on Reddit are getting worked up over the evils of women “friend zoning” men, and one especially angry fellow by the name of andreipmbcn has a warning for the ladies: if they don’t watch themselves, the men’s rights movement might just rise up and make friend zoning illegal:
What this means is not exactly clear to me. Would women actually be required to have sex with all men who are aggressively “nice” towards them? Who knows. But judging from the dozens of upvotes andre’s comment got, Reddit MRAs like the sound of it.
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely comment.)
So The Spearhead has weighed in on the Cleveland abduction cases, and has not failed to disappoint.
Spearhead head boy WF Price uses the terrible unfolding drama as an opportunity to attack the notion of patriarchy. His logic: the alleged abductors weren’t rich dudes, so therefore patriarchy is a lie. No, really, that’s his argument:
Leave it to Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to publish the most reprehensible thing I’ve yet seen related to the Boston Marathon bombing.
In a post with the lovely title “The American Woman Has Hit An All-Time Low,” guest blogger Samseau offers some thoughts – that is to say, wild, unsupported speculation – about the widow of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and uses that as evidence in a case against American women as a whole, declaring her “a profound marker in the decline of the American woman.”
Blog posts by the New Misogynists I write about here often seem to be little more than combinations and recombinations of a relatively small number of very bad ideas. Today, let’s look at a blog post from a “conservative libertarian” and creepy Nice Guy ™ who identifies himself only as TIC, which combines a bit of “consent is hard” and “women only like bad boys” with some muddled notions from Evo Psych to conclude that women are such mysterious creatures that no one could possibly know what they really want — and so therefore it’s women who are the ones who are really responsible when they get raped.
Gather ‘round the fire for yet another retelling of what may be the Manosphere’s favorite fairy tale. You know, the one about the evil ladies who have lots of sex with “bad boys” in their early twenties, only to panic a few years later and desperately try to attach themselves to hardworking beta schlubs once they realize that their looks are fading. You know, like that lady riding the rooster that alternates with the mammoth in the Man Boobz header graphic.
Sometimes my job here is too easy. Usually I have to leave the confines of my own blog to find examples of misogyny to share on the blog. Today, the misogyny came right to me, in the form of a cartoon-villain-esque monologue deposited directly into the comments here by a proud woman-hater named Mark Minter.
Oh, but don’t call him a misogynist. Because Mr. Minter has declared war not only on women (and on me) but on language itself. Rejecting the dictionary definition of “misogynist” as “one who hates women,” Minter declares himself to be a “woman hater” but somehow not a misogynist. I don’t get it either. Here’s his, er, argument:
