Categories
a woman is always to blame alpha asshole cock carousel citation needed crackpottery creepy don draper says what empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape rape culture red pill rhymes with roosh sluts that's completely wrong

Pickup guru Roosh V: Unmarried women who don't live with their parents are sluts

Evil slut in her den of depravity
Evil slut in her den of depravity

I‘ve been trying to avoid reading, much less writing about, the human stain and pickup guru who calls himself Roosh V. But I couldn’t keep myself away from his most recent post, an appalling little exercise called The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut,which turns out to be even more appalling than its title.

Roosh, you see, has figured out a simple one-question test to determine the sluttiness of any woman. Let’s let him explain:

Many girls go to great lengths to hide their slutty past, knowing deep down the low value it conveys for being a suitable long-term partner, but there is one easy indicator that should tell you beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is a slut or not.

Has she lived on her own?

I believe my response to this is best illustrated by the following video of Don Draper saying “what?”

Let me just add:

HAS SHE LIVED ON HER OWN?

Are you exclusively dating high school girls?

If she’s an adult, or at least an adult somewhere in the vicinity of your own age, OF COURSE SHE’S LIVED ON HER OWN.

Yes, yes, I know, given this economy it’s true that some young people – mostly young men – are living at home a little longer these days than in the past, but the overwhelming majority have moved out by their mid-twenties. You’re 35 years old, dude.

Roosh continues:

If she has lived away from her parents for more than a year, she has—at the minimum—slept with many men whose last names she did not know, including one-night stands that did not involve condoms.

Dude, do you even know the first names of the women you sleep with? And haven’t you bragged endlessly about how you “raw dog it” with women? Weren’t you “raw dogging it” even when you were afraid you had AIDS? (Those are rhetorical questions; I already know that the answers are yes, and yes.)

An “independent” girl, removed from the constraints of a nuclear family home and its rules, curfew, and the concern of good parents, will allow the slutty dick gobbler within her to be released.

Women engaging in consensual sex that they enjoy … with someone else? THE END OF THE WORLD. Raping women who are too drunk to consent? According to Roosh himself, it’s “what I do.”

In other words, a natural-born slut who lives on her own will have far more sexual partners than if she lives with parents of average skill who require their daughter to be home by midnight.

Amazing deduction, Sherlock. And if she’s a nun, she’ll probably be having even less sex. The question is: why are you, as 35 year old man, regularly pursuing women young enough to live with their parents?

Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.

Really? Here are some young men who have recently started living on their own; I’m not sure that what they are doing could really be described as a “great thing.” (Content Warning: Drunk dudes hitting each other in the head with boards.)

If you want to estimate a girl’s notch count, simply multiple the number of years she has lived on her own by the number 3. If she has lived on campus in college for four years and then moved to a large city for two more, you can rest assured she’s had over 15 cocks in her vagina, and god knows how many more in her mouth.

Not that anyone’s worth is determined by how many penises they’ve had in their vagina, or anywhere else, but I feel I should note that these figures, clearly pulled from the  Journal of Roosh’s Own Ass, are completely wrong.

According to people who’ve actually studied human sexuality, his number is just a teensy bit high. And by “teensy” I mean they’re off by an order of magnitude. According to one 2005 study, women in their 30s and early 40s report that they’ve had only 4 male sexual partners, on average, not the 36 to 78 that Roosh’s formula would predict for women who move out on their own at the age of 18 to go to college.

There are definite exceptions for girls who are relationship minded and had boyfriends of more than one year in length, but unless she mentions this, you’re interacting with a slut and should proceed accordingly by escorting her home and asking if you can use her bathroom. Then you must fornicate with her like so many other men.

Yeah, that’s really … creepy. You lie to get into her home, then proceed as if, as a slut, she’s already consented to sex?

You may be thinking the following: “Many Western girls live alone, at least 50%. Does that mean that over 50% of American girls are sluts?” That’s exactly what it means. Independence in women drives them to disempowering sexual behaviors that oppose motherly or wife behaviors. You must be skeptical of girls who have lived alone if you want a serious relationship.

At least if you want a relationship with a creepy, judgmental asshole who thinks like Roosh.

[T]here is absolutely no need for a girl to be independent by living alone without a husband unless you want her holes to be used as a real-life enactment of 50 Shades Of Grey by many strange men.

Well, that is, if you assume that 1) all women can magically find men, whether their father or a husband, who will pay all their bills and  2) Roosh’s opinions about any given woman’s sexual life matter more than the opinions of the woman herself.

If you end up having a daughter of your own, I highly recommend you limit her financial independence before she finds a husband. Refrain from giving her Think & Grow Rich advice that would be better suited for your son. Otherwise, she’ll become a slut who gives it up to any man who dances a good clown jig.

So: prepare your daughter to be dependent for her very existence on dudes who think like Roosh.

That may be the worst parenting advice I’ve ever heard. Then again, it’s from Roosh.

Categories
$MONEY$ a new woman to hate a voice for men a woman is always to blame citation needed conspiracy theory drama drama kings misogyny MRA paul elam threats

AVFM's Paul Elam posts attack on the Doubletree Fort Shelby Hotel, suggests that the alleged threats to the hotel were phony

The fur and accusations are flying!
The fur and accusations are flying!

A Voice for Men’s grandly titled First International Conference on Men’s Issues wound down a week ago. But the drama continues.

Today, in a post on AVFM, maximum leader Paul Elam set forth a series of accusations against the Doubletree Fort Shelby Hotel (where the conference was originally going to be held); against an unnamed security contracting company in Houston; and even against some hypothetical “privileged little college girls” who might have had the conference booted from the Doubletree by simply making a couple of irate phone calls, because, at least in Elam’s imagination, “privileged little college girls” have that power.

But the bulk of Elam’s complaints lie with the Doubletree, as the typically understated title of his post makes clear:

Categories
a woman is always to blame antifeminism big daddy government birth control citation needed evil single moms evil women misogyny MRA only men pay taxes apparently warren farrell

Fox News host Jessie Watters channels Warren Farrell (and NWOslave) with inane comments on the government as a substitute husband

Fox News host Jessie Watters: seemed to be channeling Warren Farrell with some particularly obtuse remarks he made recently on the Fox show “Outnumbered” on the “single ladies” vote.

Hillary Clinton needs the single ladies vote. I call them ‘The Beyoncé Voters’ — the single ladies. Obama won single ladies by 76% last time, and made up about a quarter of the electorate. They depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands. They need contraception, health care, and they love to talk about equal pay.

If we ignore the implicit racism of his castigating “Beyonce voters” for being welfare “takers,” Watters is more or less rehashing an old, bad argument that Farrell made in The Myth of Male Power. In a section of the book called “Government as Substitute Husband,” Farrell wrote that “when divorces left women without husband-as-savior, many women looked for substitute saviors … .”

Categories
antifeminism citation needed crackpottery entitled babies evil sexy ladies imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA pig ignorance playing the victim rape culture reddit sexual harassment

The Top 5 Worst Comments by DavidByron2 in the Men’s Rights Subreddit … This Week!

Unlike women, men have REAL issues to deal with. Like giant otters!
Unlike women, men have REAL issues to deal with. Like giant otters.

Anyone who reads the Men’s Rights subreddit on a regular basis knows that when you see the username DavidByron2 you are in for a treat. Well, a “treat” in the sense that discovering a flaming bag of dog poop on your doorstop is a “treat.” Like many Men’s Rightsers, he’s both smug and ignorant, a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

But somehow he manages to be more than just another insufferable mansplaining rage-baby who spends all of his spare time ranting about a subject — feminism — he knows less than nothing about. No, there’s a kind of daft genius to his comments; I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

And so I thought I’d wind up this week with a small collection of the best –that is, worst — comments he left in the Men’s Rights subreddit this week. In choosing the top 5, I have confined myself mostly to those that got more upvotes than downvotes, because, seriously, the thought that there are actual human beings out there upvoting this crap is almost as amazing as the fact that there’s an actual human being posting it. And thinking himself quite clever and righteous for doing so.

Let’s work our way to the top starting with …

Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism citation needed conspiracy theory drama kings gullibility harassment misogyny MRA paul elam the spearhead threats

Is A Voice for Men using phony death threats as an excuse to smear feminists and raise a quick $25k? Here’s what we DON’T know so far. [UPDATE: Hotel still not talking]

Adjusted for inflation, those 5 cent fears are now worth $25,000
Adjusted for inflation, those 5 cent fears are now worth $25,000

Is A Voice for Men using phony “death threats” allegedly directed at those planning to attend its upcoming “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, as well as upon employees and guests of the hotel where it’s scheduled to be held, as an excuse to smear feminists and raise a quick $25,000 in donations from readers and possibly even from a handful of gullible feminists?

As incredible as that sounds, that’s what some people I respect are saying. Despite AVFM’s history of lying about alleged feminist threats – you may recall John Hembling’s infamous confrontation with an imaginary mob of 20-30 feminists brandishing boxcutters – I’m not willing to go that far.

But there’s a lot about the story that makes no sense, and some big questions that need convincing answers.

1) The Doubletree Fort Shelby hotel has not confirmed that the letter Paul Elam posted on his site several days ago, and which he has now removed, actually came from them. The letter is, so far, the only evidence that there were any threats.

Hotel management needs to confirm whether or not they sent this letter to Elam.

2) Both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press spoke to Detroit Police spokesman Adam Madera, who told them that the police had not received any reports of death threats from the hotel. He told both papers that hotel staff had asked about hiring off-duty officers for security but hadn’t specified why.

Hotel management needs to confirm either that 1) they got death threats and didn’t report them or 2) that they got no such threats. They should also confirm whether their calls about off-duty police officers were related to the “Men’s Issues” conference.

There are a few other clues that support the “hoax” theory, though they’re far from definitive:

Several people who have allegedly contacted the hotel to ask about the threat say that the managers they spoke to knew nothing about the threats. Even if these reports are true, this may not be significant; managers may not have been told about threats related to a conference many weeks off.

The Detroit News also spoke to the owner of the hotel, and he said he was unaware of any threats. That may not be significant either; he may simply be out of the loop.

Essentially, we’re waiting for the Doubletree Fort Shelby management to answer these questions. If you look at the news coverage so far you’ll notice that the hotel staffers who can answer these questions don’t seem to be answering their phones or returning calls. I left a message for them today as well. No reply yet.

The other bits of evidence we’re waiting for? Well, the letter Elam claims he got from hotel management says that he and the other conference organizers need to send the hotel proof that they’ve hired the required number of Detroit police officers to handle security, as well as proof that they have also paid for at least $2 million in liability insurance. They have to have this done by the 6th.

In light of all the questions still swirling around, I think people are going to want to see this proof too.

It may be that the hotel comes forward and confirms that the letter was real, that the threats were real, and that indeed A Voice for Men does have to shell out $25,000 for extra security. It may even be the case that it was a feminist or a group of feminists making the threats. But we don’t know. And right now the people who do know are either not talking — or they have pretty much no credibility. Let’s hope the silence ends soon, because there’s no way the not-so-good folks at AVFM are suddenly going to turn credible overnight.

EDIT: I toned down some of the language, which I think was detracting from my main points, and added a new final paragraph.

EDIT 2:  Removed some speculation. We’ll know some of the answers soon enough; no need to speculate.

UPDATE: DOUBLETREE STATEMENT

So I’ve heard back from Atiya Frederick, the PR Manager for Embassy Suites Hotels & DoubleTree, and she’s made clear that the hotel won’t be answering specific questions about any of this just yet. Here’s what she sent me.

At this time we are confining our comments on this matter to the below statement …

Hilton Worldwide strives to operate meeting places for people from all walks of life, regardless of beliefs, race, color, national origin, religion or sexual orientation. The views of our guests do not reflect the sentiment of Hilton Worldwide. As places of public accommodation, our hotels do not discriminate against any individual or group. Our goal is to provide quality accommodations and a pleasant environment for our guests, employees and members of our community . We would like to emphasize that we strive to be an inclusive company and regret if this policy has unintentionally offended any individual or organization. 

This statement seems to be their standard response when they host a conference by a controversial group.

Categories
antifeminism apex fallacy citation needed entitled babies gender swap grandiosity homophobia imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression kitties mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy patronizing as heck pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles pig ignorance playing the victim reddit that's completely wrong TyphonBlue

In MRA-land, women have never been oppressed, but men have been "disenfranchised" by having power over them

Somehow, we doubt that MRAs would appreciate this kind of "protection" for themselves.
Somehow, we doubt that MRAs would appreciate this kind of “protection” for themselves and their fellow men.

One classic bad argument against feminism is the disingenuous claim that “we don’t need it any more.” In the bad old days, proponents of this argument would concede, women may have faced some pesky little obstacles, but now that they can vote, and own property, and briefly work as the executive editor of The New York Times, there’s just no need for feminism any more. Problem solved!

But these days the great minds of the Men’s Rights movement have moved beyond this bad argument to a worse one: feminism was never really necessary in the first place, because women have never been oppressed.

The other day a Redditor by the name of cefarix earned himself a couple of dozen upvotes by posting a version of this argument to the Men’s Rights Subreddit.

Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame all about the menz citation needed domestic violence evil moms imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA women's jobs aren't real

New Men's Rights Issue: Women attacking men while giving birth

Is this man in grave danger?
Is this man putting his life in grave danger?

Is there no end to the ways in which women oppress the men of the world? Over on A Voice for Men, Clint Carpentier reports – and I use that term loosely – on a heretofore overlooked form of anti-male oppression: the abuse of fathers in delivery rooms by women who are at that moment literally in the stirrups giving birth.

Yep, we’re talking about women who use 12 hours of labor as a convenient excuse to yell at, and sometimes scratch and bite, their husbands and boyfriends. Apparently, there’s an epidemic of women in labor cruelly attacking men from the comfort and safety of the delivery table.

Carpentier starts off his post by making clear that giving birth isn’t really the big freaking deal all the ladies think it is, anyway:

Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism citation needed evil women gross incompetence irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA

Men's Rights Poetry Corner: "Feminists Killed Kurt Cobain."

Kurt Cobain, RIP
Kurt Cobain, RIP

Yesterday, several days after the twentieth anniversary of Kurt Cobain’s suicide, A Voice for Men took a moment to honor the brilliant musician who tragically ended his life at the age of only 27.

Well, not exactly. What they actually did was run a terrible poem using the anniversary of Cobain’s death as an excuse to launch an extended attack on the supposed evils of feminism.

Here’s the opening:

Feminists killed Kurt Cobain
Men my age are all the same
They hate themselves & feel ashamed
For what they are & cannot change

It gets worse. The poem, written by a YouTube MRA calling himself Laudanum Byron, continues on for another 104 lines after this. Only 13 refer to Cobain, and five of these are simply repetitions of the opening accusation: “feminists killed Kurt Cobain.”

The rest of the poem consists of an assortment of Men’s Rights talking points sketched out in the most melodramatic manner possible.

Men chastised, demonized,
Healthy males pathologized
A man is just a dirty ape
Longing, lust, desire: all rape
Your body is a loaded gun
And all that it has done is wrong

Like all too many MRAs, Mr. Byron lets his anger at women get the better of his logic. In the following lines, for example, he lashes out at women both for living off of the earnings of men — and for earning money of their own.

Now the girls get told get what you can
After all, he’s just a man
You’re right to think it’s right to take
Yes you go girl, you make him pay
The girls get taught they must get on
Like work empowered anyone:
To sell your life for dollar bills
Taking calls & stacking shelves
In offices & factories
Fulfilment sought in drudgery

Mr. Byron – no relation, one presumes, to the actual Byron – seems to have only a rudimentary notion of what a poem actually is. While most, though not all, of his lines scan, he has persistent troubles with the concept of rhyme, with his aabb and aabbcc rhyme schemes dominated by half-rhymes and quarter-rhymes and, well, the words have some similar sounds in them.

“Bills” and “shelves” don’t rhyme, or half-rhyme, despite both ending in the letter “s.” “Take” and “pay” aren’t even remotely close.

Admittedly, “chivalry” is a tough one to rhyme. But surely one can do better than “steeds.”

White knights, on their hobbled steeds
Still cling to laws of chivalry
Passed over by the queens they save
A joke to all the other slaves

When he pulls off an actual rhyme, it comes a surprise:

All of us the sons of Cain
Feminists killed Kurt Cobain.

But while we’re on the topic, it’s worth pointing out that feminists and/or feminism did not actually kill Kurt Cobain. (Nor did anyone else; the conspiracy theories suggesting he was murdered don’t make a lot of sense.)

Byron’s only “evidence” linking feminism to the suicide?

He screamed onstage & pierced his flesh
Put on make-up, wore a dress

Look, nobody knows for sure the reason or reasons Cobain took his own life, but he was a troubled man with a history of suicide attempts. He suffered from depression and from a painful, persistent stomach ailment. He was addicted to heroin. And as his suicide note made clear, he found the fame he had achieved to be something of an intolerable burden; he felt like a fake. Like a lot of suicides, Cobain’s could be seen as psychologically overdetermined;  it could have been caused by any or all of these things.

Using his suicide to score cheap rhetorical points against feminism is not only dishonest but highly disrespectful to his memory.

To top off this gigantic platter of disrespect, whoever wrote the headline on AVFM didn’t even bother to spell Cobain’s first name correctly. It’s Kurt, with a K.

avfmCurt

Below, “Byron’s” own reading of his poem. If you can’t bear listening to it — I only made it a couple of stanzas in before I had to shut it off — you can make your way to AVFM, or to YouTube, to read the rest. I feel safe in saying that Kurt, who considered himself a feminist, would have hated it, and A Voice for Men as well.

Categories
alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males are these guys 12 years old? beta males boner rage citation needed creepy evil sexy ladies imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny precious bodily fluids taking pleasure in women's pain the c-word

MGTOWer complains: By 18, women are "either dating 30 year old millionaires or (if less attractive) f***ing the football team."

Every Man Going His Own Way's favorite fantasy
Every Man Going His Own Way’s favorite fantasy

In case anyone was wondering, the Men Going Their Own Way movement has managed to survive the implosion of MGTOWforums.com that I wrote about a little while ago. Yep, the regulars from there have moved on to several new forums where they continue to celebrate their independence from the women of the world by happily discussing such manly hobbies as video games, model trains, taxidermy and knitting.

Oh, who am I kidding? They don’t talk about any of that stuff. Basically they continue to nurse their grudges against the women who wouldn’t date them in high school, somehow convincing themselves that the best way to be “free” of women is to obsess about them every minute of every day.

Take the charming fella who calls himself ManWithAPlan, who has managed to win himself nearly 1900 “likes” from his comrades on the MGTOW HQ message boards with comments like the following:

I hate [women] because most of them acted like stuck up cunts when they were young and hot. Then they hit 30+ and decide to settle down, and when there are no men to settle down, they start shaming men. This is where most of my hate/negativity comes from, the fact that these women feel entitled to “good” men after having spent the last 15-20 years telling guys “just because you bought me a drink/dinner doesn’t mean I owe you sex”.

And every woman acts this way. Oh you want to slut it up? Sure go ahead and be a cum rag, but I would never date a cum rag. And how would they react to that? “Oh well that’s your preference and you’re entitled to it”. Yeah right, they’d flip their shit and go into shaming language ahoy.

The reason I derive so much pleasure from this is because for the first time in their lives women are being held accountable for their actions. And they don’t fucking like it. Remember when some girl/woman got you in trouble for just crying while you weren’t in the wrong? This is fucking payback.

(Emphasis mine.)

This may sound a little harsh, but you need to remember that for most young women, life is just an endless VIP party:

Women are born with their so called value. By 15 or whatever they have the looks and power to attract most men. By 18, depending on how attractive they are, they’re either dating 30 year old millionaires or (if less attractive) fucking the football team. And they retain this value until at some point into their 30’s, sometimes 40’s. Men get nothing. We are born invisible. We have to claw, work and suffer for 2-3 decades before we get any recognition. And by that point, we no longer have the energy or fast metabolism we had in our youth. So that means double time for us.

Women are handed the world on a silver platter, men have to fight for it.

Is the MGTOW movement the least successful “independence” movement ever? They’re like someone who breaks up with you, angrily marches out the front door, slams it behind them — and then spends the next five years on your front porch peering in the window.

Categories
antifeminism armageddon citation needed evil women homophobia imaginary oppression mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men PUA red pill rhymes with roosh

Return of Kings: “You must recognize feminism for what it truly is: one of the arms of Communism.”

From cosmarxpolitan.tumblr.com
From cosmarxpolitan.tumblr.com

Today, some cutting edge POLITICAL SCIENCE from the fellows over at Roosh Valizadeh’s Return of Kings blog. Specifically, one fellow named Samson Lamont who offers up some warnings about a dire threat to western civilization that most people have probably forgotten about: COMMUNISM.

Yes, it seems that the wily Communists are still trying to take over the United States. Only this time they’re not threatening us with missiles and stealing our atomic secrets and recruiting our young people into Maoist sects. (Well, a few of them are doing the latter.) Nope, they’re trying to sneak it past us in the form of FEMINISM. Let’s let Mr. Lamont explain:

It is a mistake to look at dealing with the effects of feminism as just putting up with spoiled, entitled bitches and learning how to deal with their endless shit tests so you can get in their pants.  It is not some phase or fad that will eventually fade away.  You must recognize feminism for what it truly is: one of the arms of Communism, with its goals being to break up the nuclear family, effectively weaken the country from within, and to eradicate any form of masculinity or aggression, thereby reducing the number of people who can engage in dissent.

But golly, you may say, I know a bunch of feminists, and I’m pretty sure none of them are – what did you call them? – Communists. But that’s where you’re wrong!

Now some of the younger readers might not be too familiar with the term Communism.  That’s because you know it as Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, or Social Democracy.  Same shit, different bull.   I don’t use any of these synonyms because, just as we should engage in fat-shaming and slut-shaming, we should engage in Commie-shaming.

One of the Left’s favorite tricks is rebranding.  Communism is still a bad word here in America, especially with the Baby Boomers that grew up during McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the 50’s and 60’s.  So the Left refers to them only as “socialists” or “progressives” now, to disguise their true intentions.

Ah! Just like some guys refer to themselves as “pickup artists” rather than “date rapists.”

Anyhoo, so all this Communo-Feminism has pretty much destroyed everything good about the good old U.S. Of A.

[I]n a span of less than 50 years, creeping Communism has eroded all the hard work and sacrifice of our ancestors.  … Our populace is lazy, spoiled, arrogant, and fat, while we build nothing of value here anymore.

We all know what happened to our women.  Thanks to feminism, the nuclear family is gone and homosexual perversion is not only deemed normal, but is now openly promoted, accepted, and forced on us.  Honor and integrity are now quaint remnants of a bygone era, existing only in small pockets of civilization.  Workers are basically drones or expendable cannon fodder, known more by their number designations than by their names.  If you are a man, the validity of your rights is determined by man-hating feminists and homosexuals and you are now guilty until proven innocent.  Long story short, we are inexorably headed towards … hell … .

The only solution? Stop talking about equality and accept that attractive rich people are simply better than you.

This may be hard to swallow for some, but there is no such thing as equality.  Life isn’t fair.  Deal with it.  Strong/weak, beautiful/ugly, tall/short, smart/dumb, rich/poor—some people are just simply better than others. …

Equality must be earned, and cannot be given.

Wait, what? I think I’m going to stick with the Communo-Feminists and the Homosexual perverts, thank you very much.

NOTE: I don’t like giving Return of Kings traffic, but I feel obligated to link to my sources, so I’ve hidden the link somewhere in the text above, if you feel the need to investigate further.