Categories
antifeminism boner rage consent is hard creepy evil sexy ladies evo psych fairy tales female beep boop grandiosity it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape culture reddit straw feminists virgin shaming

Men’s Rights Redditor explains the mate choice process of the human female, and also why she won’t pay for dinner

Stick-up females waiting for men to bring them dead animals for dinner.
Stuck-up females waiting for men to bring them dead animals for dinner.

So over in the Men’s Rights subreddit, the fellas are doing their best to address the burning Men’s Right issue of “date inequality,” or, as one recent poster put the question,“Hey feminists. How come men are still expected to pay for dates?”

I’m pretty sure that feminists aren’t the ones expecting men to pay for dates, so I’m not sure why feminists should be held to account for something they’re not doing, but in any case, the Men’s Rightsers don’t seem much interested in hearing explanations from feminists. No, they’re rather offer their own theories.

Enter a new convert to Men’s Rightsism called MrKocha, who enlists the aid of SCIENCE to offer his own explanation of this terrible date injustice:

Categories
creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA sexual exploitation

A creepy expat in Southeast Asia explains why money = tits and how this makes exploiting poor women for sex ok

The sexiest man alive?
The sexiest man alive?

Over on Random Xpat Rantings the terrible excuse for a human being who calls himself Xplat sets forth an intriguing proposition: for men in search of sexy times, having money is the equivalent of a woman having tits.

In other words, it’s not absolutely necessary for a man to have big bucks to garner the attention of the opposite sex, just as it’s not absolutely necessary for a woman to have something in the tit department in order to garner the attention of men, but it helps. A lot.

Oh, by the way, the title of the post in which he sets forth this theory is “ALL women are inherently gold diggers down to their pussy juice.”

Let’s let him explain, in his own icky way:

Categories
advocacy of violence antifeminism creepy doubling down douchebaggery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit

How not to get banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit

banad

 

Let’s say you wake up one morning and you decide, for some reason, that you’d like to make it your goal for the day to get yourself banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

If you’re a feminist, it’s not hard. I managed to get myself banned there some time ago and all I had to do was … well, I’m not exactly sure what it was I did. Actually, I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, Reddit-wise, other than argue with the regulars there. It’s possible I may have engaged in some light sarcasm. So maybe try that.

If, on the other hand, you hate women, all you have to do is … well, again, I’m not sure. Because earlier today, as one friend of Man Boobz pointed out on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit, a dislikeable fellow who calls himself sciencegod posted an elaborate, graphic torture fantasy to the Men’s Rights subreddit. I’m posting it below as a thumbnail; click to see it full size, but TRIGGER WARNING because it’s very graphic.

sciencegod -9 points 10 hours ago* (4|13)  Always remember folks, revenge is a dish best served cold.  If you ever think about suicide again OP, you should get revenge on your abuser first- with lots of pomp and ceremony.  However, do it in a way that lets her live.  To start, cut off important body parts like her nose, eyes, tongue, hands, feet, nipples, and clitoris. Be sure to cauterize each wound as you go, so that she doesn't bleed out.  You will want to take a few days to cut all the pieces off, you know, so she doesn't die of shock.  When you're done, post a full account of her crimes, your retribution against her, the Court's abuse of your liberty and injustice, and why you are letting her live.  You might even quote a few choice Supreme Court Justices about how when the Court does not successfully resolve grievances, violence is the natural outcome.  Then let her go, to live and never again see another soul, talk to another person, feel or smell another thing, but she will hear the screams of others.  Yes, let her go through life a disfigured, isolated, and scorned monster for her crimes...  Then kill yourself in a grand fashion; a beacon to the Nation for its crimes against so many of its sons. You might try setting yourself on fire- that's always spectacular.  But more importantly than her justified suffering, the System that violated you will be forced to answer for it's abuses and you will no longer be suffering.  Let the Down Votes Begin Even Though Most OF You Enjoyed And Some Of You Even Loved The Images Of Cruel And Brutal Vengeance!
It got some downvotes, and the mods deleted the comment. But it didn’t occur to any of the mods, evidently, to actually ban this user from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

Because obviously anything he might ever have to say on the subject of Men’s Rights is much more worthwhile than anything I might ever have to say on the subject.

I asked the mods why they felt it necessary to ban me when they wouldn’t ban someone like sciencegod, and here’s the response I got back:

sillymod [M] via /r/MensRights/ sent 51 minutes ago  We don't answer to you. You have zero influence through which to get a discussion out of us. Goodbye.
This is pretty much the answer I get whenever I ask them anything. I could ask them if they thought the sky was blue and they’d send me the same response and probably put something in the sidebar saying the sky was red.

Ironically, elsewhere in the Men’s Rights subreddit today I learned this:

nigglereddit 6 points 1 day ago (19|13)  They don't actually think we hate women - if they did then they'd be happy for us to prove it every time we spoke in public.  No, the problem is the opposite. They know we don't hate women. They know we're right. And the only way they can stop people from hearing and agreeing is to censor us.
Huh. Where on earth might I have gotten the impression that there are MRAs who hate women?

Oops. There’s that sarcasm again. When will I ever learn?

Categories
creepy dawgies empathy deficit evil sexy ladies evil women evo psych fairy tales hypergamy irony alert mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

“Rex Patriarch” explains why women, like dogs, are incapable of love

Is it love — or do they both just like spaghetti?

The charming Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Rex Patriarch has written up a short treatise entitled “Women Are Incapable of Love.” (He’s also posted a video by another MGTOWer  making the same point, but we’ll just ignore that for now, because I didn’t bother to watch it.)

Anyway, here’s Rex’s argument, such as it is:

Look guys, women are like pets.

Do pets love you?

No, of course not but they do feel the warmth which is the love you may have for them. At a minimum you are their meal ticket. That in of itself is why they stick around.

Same same with women. As long as you are their meal ticket they “love” you but the very moment you can’t provide for them. The very moment they find a better deal, find some higher status.

Watch how fast that “love” goes out the window.

The reason being is it never was there to begin with. It was just something they were telling you to keep the goodies coming. Up until they could find something better. If they can.

The thing is men can love women all they want or none at all but don’t expect them to love you back in the same measure. They simply do not have the ability.

What’s interesting about this argument, insofar as anything about it is interesting, is that he’s not just, you know, wrong about women. He’s also wrong about pets.

Now, anyone who’s bonded with a pet certainly feels that their pet loves them back. (Or at least some pets do; I’m pretty sure the turtle my brother had as a kid didn’t really love anything other than worms.) Still, some skeptics insist that we’re just anthropomorphizing when we look at our pets and see love in their eyes.

But researchers are increasingly seeing harder-to-dismiss signs that animals may have emotions remarkably like our own — and that they can indeed feel love. By scanning the brains of dogs, Emory University neuroeconomics professor Gregory Berns has found that dogs and humans are alike in some key ways:

All in all, dogs and humans show striking similarities in the activity of an important brain region called the caudate nucleus. So, do dogs love us and miss us when we’re gone? The data strongly suggest they do. And, those data can further move humanity away from simplistic, reductionist, behaviorist explanations of animal behavior and animal emotions and also be used to protect dogs and other animals from being abused.

You can read more about his research, and what he sees as its implications, here.

More on animal emotions here and here.

You can also learn a lot about how animals — including the animals called humans — think and feel by just fucking paying attention to them and having a tiny bit of empathy. This is apparently a bit too much for some people to manage.

Categories
are these guys 12 years old? creep-shaming creepy evil sexy ladies evil women friend zoning I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA music nice guys reddit video YouTube

Videos to get you PUMPED. Also, a creepshaming manifesto from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

Today I feel an irresistible urge to post music videos. Above, an awesome interpretation of a rock classic that is sure to get you PUMPED for the weekend.

Below, enjoy the silky voice of Phil Collins.

Categories
alpha males are these guys 12 years old? bad boys citation needed creepy dozens of upvotes drama kings emotional abuse entitled babies I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA red pill reddit the enigma that is ladies

Red Piller: “Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. “

How to totally score with the babes.
How to totally score with the babes.

Over on the Red Pill Subreddit — where manly ALPHA MALES trade tips on how to totally dominate the ladies with their awesome ALPHATUDE — one enterprising fellow has a suggestion for aspiring lady-dominators: take a tip or two from professional dog trainers and treat your bitch like a bitch!

TRPsubmitter, an official Red Pill Subreddit Endorsed Contributor, explains how you can use the magic of Operant Conditioning to train your gal:

Training a loyal, well-behaved dog isn’t much different than training a loyal, well-behaved girlfriend/plate/FWB. Both substrates (dogs, women) have innate submissive/obedient tendencies that should be emphasized along with unwanted behaviors to be diminished and punished. If you know anything about dogs, you know that many “incidents” are often the fault of the owner failing to provide a proper outlet for a dog’s energy or natural predispositions.

Women have natural predispositions too: Attention-seeking, curious, emotional, irrational, solipsistic, unable to constructively deal with stress/criticism, likes to blame others, etc. Almost all of these can be subjected to a combination of operant conditioning.

Yeah, that pretty much describes all possible predispositions women might have. Because women are terrible!

Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? artistry attention seeking creepy evil single moms evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paul elam shaming tactics taking pleasure in women's pain that's not funny!

At A Voice for Men, dead baby jokes are a form of “men’s human rights activism.”

Just because it's you baby doesn't mean it's your trash. Don't be that girl.
Men’s Rights “humor” at its finest.

The self-described ‘Men’s Human Rights Activists” at A Voice for Men have shown time and time again that they have approximately zero interest in actually promoting human rights, but would rather devote their time (and the more than $100,000 the site collects in donations annually) to attacking feminists and women in general.

The latest bit of evidence? The “meme” above, designed not to actually raise awareness of child abandonment but as a sort of “gotcha” aimed at one of their favorite targets, the “Don’t Be That Guy” anti-rape campaign that has been credited with significantly bringing down the incidence of rape in at least one major Canadian city.

AVFM’s Paul Elam introduces the “meme” with this little bit of vitriol:

Categories
advocacy of violence antifeminism attention seeking bullying citation needed creepy evil fat fatties evil women excusing abuse gender policing harassment homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy PUA reactionary bullshit rhymes with roosh shaming tactics that's not funny! things that aren't satire trigger warning

Attention-seeking manosphere guru Roosh V posts article on “Why You Should Beat Your Kids” [UPDATE: Was it plagiarized?]

attentionseek

So it seems that some Men’s Rightsers and manospherians, reveling in the negative attention they’ve managed to get from the mainstream for some of their more reprehensible postings, have decided to up the ante a bit, posting stuff that’s so deliberately over the top in its despicableness that even some of their readers have been taken aback.

A case in point: A paean to child abuse recently posted on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog. (Let me put a big TRIGGER WARNING on all the quotes from it that follow.)

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism creepy FemRAs men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA patriarchy patronizing as heck

A Voice for Men’s DriverSuz: “Male care and compassion for women is why women don’t live in barns and pens with the cows, pigs and chickens.”

So I’ve been skimming through the mass of comments that the Daily Beast piece on the Men’s Rightsers now has trailing in its wake. So far I think this is my favorite exchange.

AngryHarry 10 hours ago  If the men throughout history had not been concerned about their women, they would have bred them like cattle, (Who could have stopped them?)  But every single ancestor - stretching back to time immemorial - of every feminist on this forum was protected from death by, mostly, men.    Every single one of them.  We are lucky to exist at all.  Worth thinking about. FlagShare 3LikeReply driversuz 9 hours ago  @AngryHarry   Absolutely correct. Male care and compassion for women is why women don't live in barns ans pens with the cows, pigs and chickens. No external entity prevented men from forcing us to live like farm animals and from socializing us to be relatively comfortable with it.

Yep, that’s DriverSuz — aka Suzanne McCarley, “Senior Editor” of A Voice for Men.

And yep, that’s Angry Harry, the fellow that many MRAs call “the father of the men’s rights movement.”

Some critics of this blog complain whenever I quote some crackpot commenter rather than one of the “big names” in the Men’s Rights movement. Sometimes, it turns out, the crackpot commenters ARE the “big names” in the Men’s Rights movement.

Categories
antifeminism creepy evil fat fatties evil single moms evil women feminism gloating ladies against women men created civilization men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny not-quite-explicit threats only men pay taxes apparently oppressed men patriarchy patronizing as heck sunshine mary taking pleasure in women's pain women's jobs aren't real your time will come

Amanda Marcotte takes down Sunshine Mary; Mary digs her hole deeper

sunshine

So Amanda Marcotte has some thoughts on Sunshine Mary’s post about feminism allegedly reducing women to nothing more than sex objects:

Why should women want the attention of men who see them as nothing more than unpaid servants and semen toilets? …

The alternative to having a hateful misogynist around who expects you to clean up after him, accept his ranting about how women are a repulsive subhuman class whose only purpose is service to men, and to masturbate him without any hope of sexual pleasure yourself is simple: Not being with such a man. As many feminists can tell you, there’s a really pleasant alternative: Men who like women and like to hang out with us and aren’t just tolerating us in exchange for sex and housework.

But what if, as manosphere men (and antifeminist women like Sunshine Mary) like to gloat, you can’t find a man?

Being alone is better than being with a man who thinks you’re part of a degraded class put here to serve him. No matter how much misogynists may rant, they can’t get around this inherent problem in their philosophy, which is that “alone” is always a superior alternative to their company.

Sunshine Mary has responded with a post that basically argues, well, but men don’t like you, you fat slutty feminists — take that!

One of the core pillars of feminism seems to be trying to control how men think about women.  We want to be seen as smart, so by fiat order we’ll command men to see us as equally intelligent.  We want to be seen as having the ability to be sexually promiscuous, so we’ll command men to hold a positive opinion of sluttery.  We want to be seen as beautiful at 200 pounds, so we’ll command men to find us hot despite our obesity.

But it doesn’t work.  Men don’t like slutty women for anything other than sex, as the last comment thread here rather conclusively proved.  Men don’t find fat women attractive.  Men don’t like bitchy, loud-mouthed mannish feminists.  Men don’t care about women’s supposed careers.  All the commands in the world will only cause men to keep their opinions quiet, but it does not change those opinions.  All the attempts in the world at resocializing men to like what feminism has turned women into will always fail because it works against the natural order of things.

Now this is just nonsensical and, you know, not true for all but a backwards and rather assholish subset of men. But it’s what follows that’s really chilling — not chilling because it reflects reality, but chilling because it suggests how punitive and self-hating Sunshine Mary’s philosophy really is.

She argues that feminists find the Manosphere “scary” because manosphere misogynists won’t do what feminists want them to do.

It is scary to imagine that men will stop doing what they are told by women to do.  It is scary to feminists in particular because, instead of being dependent on one man like I am, they are dependent on men as a group to fund them.

Men pay the majority of taxes in the United States.  Without men’s taxes, student financial aid for Women’s Studies degrees will dry up.  Without men’s taxes, baby mamas will starve.  Without men financing it, women who are being placed into corporate leadership simply as a response to affirmative action and who then quit these jobs after a year to write tear-filled articles in the Atlantic about work-life balance, demanding even more subsidies from men to ensure that women never need to suffer the consequences for their stupid choices, will cease.  I only have to manage my husband’s opinion of me in order to secure his provisioning; feminists have to control all men’s opinions of them in order to secure their provisioning.

Yep, that’s right. Sunshine Mary believes that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and so must depend, essentially, on appeasing men in order to survive. She thinks she’s lucky because she only has to appease one man, while women who actually, you know, earn a living have to appease all men. Because they’re not really earning a living. They’re just playing at earning a living because the men of the world are nice enough to humor them.

But don’t make the men mad, Sunshine Mary warns, because then you’re screwed!

And she seems rather pleased that she can make this threat from what she percieves as her position of relative security.

How fucked up is that?