Here are a couple of, well, let’s just call them very intriguing questions asked of me by a Men’s Rights Redditor. Since I can’t respond to them on the Men’s Rights subreddit — I’m banned — I thought I’d respond here:
Mr. Levelate, allow me to answer your serious questions with some equally serious questions of my own:
I’ve wondered for a long time how people like you react to the men’s rights mantra of ‘all women are wombats’, when you see a woman who isn’t a wombat, how do you explain this?
Also, many MRAs advocate turning all squirrels into bologna, what makes you think squirrel bologna would taste better than regular bologna, and what would the world do with all those extra uneaten nuts, were it ever to come to that?
Here’s the thing, Mr. Levelate: those things you think feminists believe? FEMINISTS DON’T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM.
That “all men are rapists” quote from Marilyn French you guys like to pass around? That was from a character in a novel.
The number of radical feminists who seriously want to get rid of men, or a significant number of them, you could probably count on your fingers. I’m not sure how many MRAs want to make squirrel bologna, but the numbers are probably similar. And, fyi, there are actually more than a few MRAs who fantasize about breeding certain types of women out of existence, like this dude on The Spearhead, and a small army of MRAs and MGTOWers who pine for the imaginary future where babies are gestated in artificial wombs and women are all replaced by sexy sexbots.
Listening to MRAs talking about feminism is a bit like sitting in on a book club in which no one has read the book.
What is civilization? There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc. When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women. Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology. Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.
Seriously. If we dudes hadn’t clamped down on your lady behavior, we’d be fucked. Dudes like Mr. Black Pill would be out there trying their best to build up civilization by posting lady-hating screeds on the internet and not having sex with anyone, and you gals would be undermining all their hard work by doing terrible lady things like, say, working in government, doing scientific research, teaching filmmaking, writing books, making interesting jewelry, working as EMTs, being Secretary of State, and writing Supernatural fanfic. Wait, that’s already happening. Uh oh. Civilization is in danger!
And of course evil feminists are at the heart of the Lady Plot Against Civilization.
So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology. Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature. Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women. Civilization was developed by men, not women. Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now). Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women. Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women.
So watch it, ladies. As soon as we work out this whole having babies without ladies thing, your days are numbered! Then all we’ll need to do is to figure out how to get all the dudes in the world who actually like and respect women and think of them as fellow human beings to abandon them for sex robots. Piece of cake.
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:
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.
Over on The Spearhead, a fellow calling himself American offers a fascinating new theory on the death of Jesus: It was the evil ladies who did him in!
Pierce brought up an important event in the life of jesus. He was falselly accused, and the violent masses and the heathen whordes wanted to see blood; so the pilate delivered. Kinda like the American feminist whorde of barbarianism. Maybe womens justice is simply more primitive and barbarian (more heathen-esque) than patriarchal orderly justice. whether its the klu-klux-klan “mob lynchings” of 100 years ago over false rape accusations, or the Duke lacrosse feminist mobs roaming the streats of durham looking for blood, there seems to be a common theme here. feminine matriarchal justice is lies , hysteria, mob/klan barbarism; while patriarchal justice is truth based, orderly, ect. ect. Pontius pilate didn’t want to kill jesus, but the violent matriarchal whorde/klan wanted to see blood and forced his hand.
Happy Easter, if you’re into that sort of thing! Just remember, as you’re enjoying your chocolate eggs and microwaving your Peeps, that woman are all a bunch of lying, bloodthirsty whores.
I took a look at the always reprehensible In Mala Fide today, and ran across a very strange post indeed, written by someone calling himself Finndistan. Entitled “The Unfuckables,” the post started off by recounting a conversation that allegedly took place in the real world — the same real world, dear reader, that you and I live in.
Three guys sitting, good looking girl passes by, easily a nine.
“She’s beautiful man,” says one.
“Who?”
“That one. But she likes enriching vibrants.”
“I’d rather fuck an orc as now that looks more attractive to me.”
WHAT. THE. FUCK. is an “enriching vibrant?”
I look through the rest of the post. The strangeness continues:
It seems that fucking and enriching vibrants is becoming a fashion. Fine.
The only thing is this, I am an immigrant. Neither do I enrich, nor do I vibrate;
For me, and for many other men, Finnish, Western, non-Western, these women are undateable.
For me, and for many other men, these women are…
Unfuckable.
Once you let your pussy be enriched by a vibrating man’s rod, you radiate that. You shine in the dark.
You are an enriched vibrant-fucker.
You are unfuckable.
I look through the comments and find at least one reader as perplexed as me. Ferdinand Bardamu, the terrible human being behind In Mala Fide, steps in and clarifies that “vibrants = immigrants.”
That doesn’t really clarify very much, as Finndistan says he’s an immigrant, too. Nor does it explain all the “vibrating” nonsense. I return to the post, and find Finndistan working through a labored comparison with a Japanese nuclear disaster:
Fukushima was enriched. It was full of enriched plutonium. Then the earth vibrated.
My utmost respects go out to the men who sacrificed themselves to keep the disaster in check. Their debts will never be repaid. Not by a society that has alienated its men to the point of men dropping out of society in the millions.
What I am talking about is Fuckushima.
Fuckushima was enriched. It was full of enriched spermanium. Then the bed vibrated.
Fuck me if I sacrifice myself for that.
Ok then.
Setting aside Finndistan’s bizarre visions of nuclear spermageddon, I’m still perplexed as to why some immigrants – sorry, vibrants – are evil and “enriched” and “vibrating” while others – like Finndistan – aren’t?
We foreign men have a problem with The Unfuckables.
The women who got vibrated by enriching cock.
The women who got enriched by vibrating cock.
The women who got enriched by a vibrant.
The women who got vibrated by an enricher.
That’s no help. I go to another post in which Finndistan purports to explain his strange terminology. Entitled “The Unfuckables – A sensible explanation,” the post offers anything but that.
An Unfuckable is a woman who has gotten fucked by an enriching vibrant. Out of love, passion, of fashion, it does not matter.
Intimate contact, any kin[d] of penetration, and any kind of fluid exchange suffices.
Ok, then, I ask again: WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. AN. ENRICHING. VIBRANT?
If I go into so much detail into The Unfuckables, I should go into some detail about enriching vibrants, enriching vibrating cock, vibrating enrichers etc.
I will call them vibrating enrichers, as this is the term I like most.
Being a vibrating enricher is a choice, so it is not something you are born with (cough cough), or something you cannot grow out of (cough cough)…
Before we go into choices, let’s go into what is not Vibrating, or what is not Enriching, thus what is also not supported by the state, the humanists, the multicultists, the diversity lovers.
Finndistan then lists a bunch of “acceptable” immigrant types, including:
The indian looking kid dressed in a smart business suit apparently having an after meeting beer with his Finnish colleague also dressed in a business suit. …
The middle eastern kid married to the same woman since I met him, who sired two kids, and is an honest working man.
The black dude who speaks perfect BBC english sitting on the table with two clearly high class Finnish girls. It is highly possible his clothing is tailored.
And then, on to those dastardly “vibrating enrichers.” Another list, including:
African kid coming over and immediately adopting to the American Gangbanger style.
The kid who’s wearing the saggin’ jeans with golden “Thug Life” embroidered throughout his ass
The middle easterner with the fake Armani shirt, pluched eyebrows, designer shapes shaved into his hair and make up on his face. …
The guy who’s choosing the gangbanger, the apaci style, over having any decent style, even including the Jersey Shore Douchebaggery. …
Basically anybody who is enriching the culture with their radioactiveness, and vibrating the culture with the vibration that made their homeland a place worthy escaping from.
So any woman who, er, exchanges fluid with any “enriching vibrant” man thus makes herself, in Finndistan’s eyes, an unfuckable.
Amazingly, the regulars back on In Mala Fide are able to get the gist of Finndistan’s rants without going to all the trouble I did. Ryu, the dude behind a blog titled White Nationalist Think Tank, comments:
Ah. So you’re talking about mixers – women who sleep with blacks, mexicans or muslims.
It’s just a step above beastiallity in my book. Her race and people are on the ropes. Enemies everywhere. Demographic crisis in the waiting. Then to show off how hip and tolerant she is or worse, to satisfy her own libido, she beds down with a protected group.
They are traitors, some of the worst offenders. The most beautiful woman in the world loses her charm after mixing. She’ll sleep with anything. Included are Heidi Klum, Nicole Kidman, and many of the people adapting negro babies.
I’m not a racist, except in the sense that anyone who recognizes reality in the USA is branded as a racist. And besides, I’m married.
But I have a very pragmatic reason for not wanting to bed a woman who “enriches vibrants.” African-Americans have 20 times the rate of Gonorrhea infection compared to whites, and 9 times the rate of syphilis and chlamydia. Blacks are 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of new HIV infections in 2009.
The phrase “I wouldn’t fuck her with your dick” comes to mind.
PA, easily adapting himself to Finndistan’s odd lingo, adds
I find white women who slept with well-tanned enriching vibrants viscerally repulsive. Even if she’s a 9, I wouldn’t fuck her. There is something vile and unclean about her aura.
This is no offense to enriching vibrants — I wouldn’t feel that way about a non-white woman who is otherwise attractive, but who presumably has previously slept with her own kind.
I would love to enrich some Japanese, Korean or Chinese chicks myself. I could pass on my White genes for independence, individualism and creativity, while they would contribute a high IQ mean for the future generations to revert to, as well as a better predisposition for working hard. Maybe such hybrids would be the new master race. After all, marvels like Hong Kong and Singapore have emerged from the combined efforts of Asians and Whites.
Sadly, I live in a Eastern European country where the main vibrant minority are low-avg-IQ Gypsies, and Asians are close to none.
Marcus Marcellus helps to clarify what is implied when Manosphere dudes talk semi-euphemistically about the evils of women who choose “thugs” over “nice guys” like them:
To me, any white girl who kneels before a black American and puts his cock in her mouth is completely tainted trash. There’s a level of submissive degeneracy that I cannot cross. It’s a very dark, quasi-rape issue actually. …
Today, a good 10% of these Millennial sluts are actively chasing their negro a la Hollywood star, except instead of adopting one they sleep with one…until he murders them – or just beats them badly.
A whole treatise could be written on the psychology behind the current phenomenon, one that would not please feminist women as it would reveal the masochistic element in women’s sexuality. Personally, I’m only dating girls who don’t complain when I occasionally use the “n-word.” It’s a way to vet them without doing some creepy background checks. I do not hate blacks; I just don’t want to breed with them.
I would think almost any woman would be overjoyed to discover that men like these consider her “unfuckable.”
Apparently Burger King is also a whore. The ultimate one, in fact.
Evidently I posted that last Tom Martin post too soon: the self-professed sexismbuster – who recently had his “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics thrown out of court — wasn’t finished telling us about how women are all a bunch of lying whores. (Sorry: All but 3 percent of women, that is.) So here are few more pearls of wisdom from Tom, all collected from the comments here since the last post a couple of days ago.
As you read these, remember that Mr. Martin has been something of a cause celebre in the Men’s Rights movement, hailed as a fighter for true equality.
Click the titles to see the full quotes in context.
[M]ost women and feminists absolutely hate the idea of compulsory paternity tests.
Even though paternity tests would reduce male paranoia and controlling behaviour, as they’d have automatic verification the child was actually theirs, we can see my these reactions, women would rather perpetuate “the patriarchy” by perpetuating male uncertainty. …
If we tell women to find the father and get him tested and verified pronto – or face a huge fine and a six month spell of National Service – she’ll find the father every time.
Every time a woman has sex, she’ll be thinking I better get this guy’s details, or I’m going to the Gulag. She’ll get the details.
I pointed out in an essay on hard seating in a museum, that the discomfort for men is compunded by not only having smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, but by being heavier than women, so having more weight bearing down onto a smaller area – and that the problem is compounded further still, by people not taking the complaint seriously.
This inhabitants of this website are compounded shite trying their best to block equality wherever it might happen.
A pre-sex contract would … go a long way to eradicating many false rape allegations.
It would also make people think about the consequences of unprotected sex, so reduce unwanted pregnancies and children in the first place.
It would also end the entrapment culture, where a women tries her best to get knocked up by someone rich then hit them up for huge child support payments.
It would also reduce instances of sperm theft – as there would be less incentive to impregnate oneself this way with an unwilling and financially inoculated against entrapment father to be.
It would also reduce women’s motives to lie about being on the pill when not – as less incentive for entrapment – so less unplanned pregnancies for men to deal with.
The pre-sex contract could be a simple, quick, application on a mobile phone which records the man and woman’s voice, or videos it, so eradicating fraud. It does not to be a four page document in triplicate.
It takes one word to establish when sex is not wanted, “No” so it need not take many more to establish whether in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the protagonists agree to the normal financial and caregiving responsibilities and consequences or not.
Currently, because women have all the contraception options and men only one, it should fall on the woman to establish whether effective contraception is being used or not – where as, the current system says men should ‘keep it in their pants’ which fails to acknowledge that the woman equally fails to keep it in her pants, and has effective contraception and abortion and adoption options, where the man doesn’t. So, the woman should be held a bit more accountable than she currently is for unwanted pregnancies. It’s win/win (but whore lose).
[I]f you want to eradicate absolutely all false allegations, and eradicate the chances of acquaintance rapists getting away with it too, then you need an app on your phone which can record the sound and picture whilst people have sex, but which cannot be played back, as it is instantly scrambled, and sent to a central data agency, where it stays scrambled, and can only be unscrambled by a police investigator in the event of a false I mean in the event of a rape allegation.
If people don’t make a rape allegation within a few weeks or whatever, the scrambled data is automatically deleted anyway.
So, I’ve just cut the rate of false rape claims and the rate of rapists getting away with it.
We will only ever know the precise rate of false rape allegations when fMRI lie detector brain scans are administered on everyone who claims they were raped (which I am all for – fuck your civil rights you lying whores).
Seriously, its so demoralizing working on a rape unit, that the cop who processes the rape claim now gets moved onto another case, so they don’t get corrupted by the realization that so many women are lying and then miss the odd real one due to overwhelming skepticism.
Fem whores will always resist anything that holds rape accusers to account.
The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.
After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.
In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.
And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!
The word of the day is: whore.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.
Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.
Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.
1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.
2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.
3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.
4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.
5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.
6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.
7. Prostitutes are boring.
8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.
9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.
10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.
11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.
12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.
13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.
14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.
I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.
I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.
I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.
I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …
From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.
Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.
But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.
But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.
So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?
Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?
My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …
They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,
so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….
[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …
So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.
But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.
In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.
Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).
Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).
Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …
[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.
Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.
Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.
[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.
Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …
I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.
Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.
All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point
“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …
Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.
[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …
The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.
There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”
9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.
Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:
I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history. It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.
Go on.
Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today. Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is: a pirate
Uh, what?
Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.
Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.
Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:
[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.
Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:
her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.
Thanks, Chuck.
Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.
Stickman writes:
forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.
Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.
SOBL1 adds:
As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.
Did he mention he went to CORNELL?
One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:
This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).
Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.
Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.
Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:
When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed
It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.” The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.
All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?
Jenna Jameson on a Harley. (Chuck E. Cheese not pictured.)
Sure, Man Boobz 2011 Troll of the Year NWOslave may live in an alternate reality — but he at least seems well-grounded in that reality. What might happen if he were to suddenly ingest a tab or ten of LSD?
I think I have an answer to that question. Meet blogger and conspiracy theorist Jay Dyer, a self-described “controversialist, writer, comedian, debater, and philosopher/theologian.”
That’s a mouthful, and Jay more or less lives up to it, delivering stream of consciousness rants that range from Aleister Crowley (he’s not a fan) to the evils of women dressing like Hannah Montana. Plus he quotes the Bible from time to time.
Actually, that description doesn’t even begin to capture Jay’s peculiar charms. So, without further ado, I present to you some highlights from an essay titled The United Skanks of Amerika that Jay wrote with the assistance of someone identified only as M.B.
Amerika has become one, big, nasty, black metal mosh pit. Satan said to Adam and Eve “do what thou wilt,” Satanist Aleister Crowley said, “do what thou wilt” and the gospel of Amerika is “do what thou wilt.” … Churches are dominated by fat matriarchal women and homosexuals. Women open their purses and the priests of Ashtoreth bow and tell them whatever they want to hear. … Amerika is a play land – a bigger, gayer Disney world. It’s middle-aged moms on facebook, donning Montana garb. The nation is frozen in perpetual adolescence and arrested development.
After this dramatic opening, Jay offers up the strangest capsule version of American history I’ve ever seen:
Started by a bunch of tee-totaler puritan gnostics, this nation has jumped to the opposite extreme and become a cess pool of flesh. In fact, in the East Coast punk scene, kids are now eating chunks of each others’ flesh. Let that sink in. In the West Coast gay scene, it is now an honor to receive AIDS from trendy gays.
Then Jay gets around to the “skanks” of the essay’s title:
Women of this country, especially young women, are perpetual princesses stuck in a perpetual mirror glance, coated in chemicals and striving for the most unnatural goals – to be a manwoman. For a sensible male to get with one of these creatures is in serious danger. But watch out – before long, they’ve left you for another woman and taken your fake Federal Reserve notes. They get half of your all-seeing eyes. Whores with your Horus. Dressed like complete whores, will they soon be completely naked?
But young men don’t get off any easier in Jay’s critique:
The average twenty-something male is now a fat, gamer, feminized, emo freak, who spits every time he lisps, because he can’t form sentences.
Neither do middle-aged men:
Grown men – baby-boomer dads – collect comics and play Dungeons & Dragons. And if they don’t, they stare at pixelated football and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.
Yes, he really did just say “Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.”
Jay also has some issues with higher education:
The “wise men” of this culture are the Marxist, gay, feminist, druid college professors, who, if they have children, drive them to white horror core rap concerts. Just like the sociology professor mom involved with Pyscho Sam whom her daughter met over Myspace.
And lower education:
That any parent would put their children in public school is a sign of apparent hatred of their kids. Why would anyone put their kids in a government re-education camp? Public schools are prisons where the teachers screw students and students get doped up on pills become homosexual.
When they’re not shooting each other, that is:
[P]arents can’t understand why their children shoot each other at school. The[y] shoot one another at school because they are possessed by the demonic culture. And while you stupidly play golf and make scrapbooks, your kids are worshipping Lucifer, who, according to you, doesn’t exist.
Women working! Men raising kids! It’s all one big air-conditioned nightmare for Jay:
The family is now become stay-at-home dads that care for the 1.3 kids, while moms climb the skyscraper and has sex with the CEO for more fake fed notes. If it’s not this, it’s “my two dads.”
Preach it, Jay!
Amerika is just this – Chuck E. Cheese speeding at you on a Harley, holding Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice,with Jenna Jameson mounted on the back. …
Amerika is krunk. Amerika is funk. Amerika is junk. Amerika is Lil’ Jon having sex with Lady Liberty. …
Rationalism is what birthed this country, but it morphed into utter irrationality. Thomas Paine became Spongebob and Spongebob is Thomas Paine.
I think I’ll just leave it at that. Oh, there’s more — much, much more — in Jay’s little manifesto, but my poor brain can only take in so much in one sitting without exploding.
EDITED TO ADD: Also, if middle-aged women want to wear some sort of “Montana garb,” I’d suggest they go with Patsy, not Hannah. Patsy Montana was awesome!
