“So,” you’re probably thinking to yourself, “I’ve heard a lot of pointless uninformed speculation on the Petraeus affair, but I haven’t yet heard what that PUA douchenozzle who calls himself Heartiste thinks about it all.”
Well, we’re going to rectify this tragic situation right now. Despite not understanding even the most basic facts about the scandal – he refers to “Generals Petraeus and Allen and their Lebanese immigrant, faintly masculine mistresses,” even though the only “mistress” involved in all this seems to be Paula Broadwell, who isn’t of Lebanese descent — Heartiste has produced a 2500-word opus on the subject, with pictures and a graph. So let’s just take a look at the highlights.
A blast from the past. Elliot is (inadvertently) DHV-ing out the wazoo! That’s Demonstrating Higher Value, for those not hep to Pickup Artist lingo.
This isn’t, strictly speaking, “life before feminism.” It’s life just as the second wave of feminism was getting going. Indeed, the rather forward women in the ad are essentially Madison Avenue’s version of liberated women.
And this seems to be how most MRAs continue to see feminism today — as an elaborate plot designed to allow bossy, manipulative, “hypergamous” “empowered females” to better exploit hard-working beta men.
The ad is of course insulting to both men and women, but I imagine any MRA viewers who stop by will only see the misandry.
Men’s Rights a hate group? Pshaw! MRA’s don’t hate women! I mean, really, it’s more like an emotional numbness based on how objectively awful women are. Combined with a deep desire for revenge. That’s not hate, is it?
Apparently a good chunk of Men’s Rights Redditors don’t think it is, I gather from their positive reaction to this lovely quote from Men’s Rights/MGTOW elder Zed:
Not that many people would be proud to admit that they’re basically pickled in the juices of their own resentment, but, hey, this is why brave Zed is a Men’s Rights hero.
EDITED TO ADD: And now this Zed quote has 88 upvotes, which gives me the excuse to use my “dozens of upvotes” tag.
Manosphere dudes are having a little trouble dealing with Obama’s re-election – especially with the fact that women and minorities were behind it. On The Rational Male, the regulars are debating the merits of a post-election manifesto from a fellow named Mark Minter, originally posted as a comment on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog.
Minter, who is basically right about the demographic shift behind Obama’s victory but wrong about everything else, lays out what he sees as the evil forces arrayed against the dudes of America – the white ones in particular — and what he sees as a solution. Naturally, in classic manosphere style, he gets a bit melodramatic about it all.
(In the excerpts that follow, I’m snipping out the demographic details, which everyone here already knows about.)
Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost.
The Bitch vote for Obama was always guaranteed as women are only ever interested in handout and what governments can do for them. This is unfortunately as sad fact of life. Women have always voted for Marxists/Socialist/Liberals as they have always promosed them more and more benefits at the expense of all men. Men just end up paying the bills as usual. Doesn’t that suck!
One has to wonder whether women actually give a damn about anything else besides themselves. Voting for someone who may at least do something about the unprecedented US debt and holding back this Marxist neurotic is apparently not one of them. …
[T]his liar in chief will mouth promises, lie about anything and still get re-elected by a bunch or hopeless and tunnel envisioned females who only consideration is how much money they will get out of it all. This is and has been their ulterior motive. Women and money as synonymous like peas in a pod. Their thinking is always restricted to today and screw the future because they will just get more money then. So it’s not problem.
Meanwhile, suckers like you and me get screwed with ever increasing taxes while our standard of living hits the floor. Charming.
If only the vote were restricted to clear-headed men like Christian!
Damn those “tunnel envisioned females” and their obsession with “handout!”
In a followup post, Christian warns men not to be suckered by women pretending that they all aren’t evil harpies:
Just in case you are still one of those drones who believe that women are just harmless individuals who constantly suffer from something or another. They are helping themselves in the process while you take your time to wake up to the bleeding obvious.
Leave it to the Men’s Rightsers to come up with an even more ingeniously loopy explanation for Romney’s defeat than even Karl Rove has managed to come up with. According to the anonymous blogger behind the Christian Men’s Defense Network blog, on the far-right fringe of the already pretty fringey Men’s Rights movement, the thing that brought Romney down was “the slut vote.”
Back in the day – way, way back in the day – dudes opposed to women’s suffrage loved to depict suffragettes as ugly spinsters (that is, when they weren’t depicting them as sexy young women using their feminine wiles to manipulate men into supporting suffrage). We looked at some examples of this yesterday and noted that, when it comes to dismissing feminists as uggos, some things never change.
But why, oh why, are feminists so (allegedly) ugly? Or, to turn the question around, why are so many (allegedly) ugly women (allegedly) drawn to feminism?
Well, we’re in luck, because some manosphere dickwads have stepped forward to provide us with possible explanations.
Damn these evil women and their diabolical preference for hunky dudes!
Everyone knows that choosy mothers choose Jif. But when it comes to men rather than peanut butter, apparently choosy women are choosing THE END OF CIVILIZATION by not choosing to date the sorts of nice fellows who later become bitter misogynistic Men Going Their Own Way. In a post over on MGTOWforums.com, Todd1968 spells out the dire “societal cost of women’s pickiness.” (And, yes, we’ve heard this complaint before.)
“[N]one of us came out of the womb as MGTOWs,” he writes.
Over on the A Voice for Men forums – yes, they have forums – one Man Going His Own Way spells out exactly what he means by His Own Way. Here’s misterbill:
For me, MGTOW has three major components:
1. Refusal to cohabitate with a woman
2. Avoidance of fatherhood like the plague
3. Avoidance of being alone in a room with a strange woman (for fear of false accusations)
These are the core elements, IMO.
I’m not celibate, I get sexual satisfaction from several call-girls that I’ve built good rapport with over a few years. I’ll visit one of these women whenever I feel like it, usually once a month or so.
I have what I would describe as a female companion who others would describe as my girlfriend. We don’t have sex, not because I’m not attracted to her, but because my fear of possibly getting her pregnant petrifies me beyond belief. So we hang out 2 days a week and have very nice times together, going on about 5 years. She understands my beliefs and that we will never live together and that I don’t believe in the myth of love.
So I’m MGHOW, but not without women.
I’m 41 and fairly wealthy. In my 20s and through to of my early 30s ( although I wasn’t a PUA) I studied game theory and in combination with other aspects of my life, I had no trouble getting laid. Then a woman made a false accusation against me (and was further slandered by another), and I began to wake up to the perils of having sex with (and interacting with) strange women. The risks outweighed the benefits, and I turned to going my own way.
I travel on business frequently and the one exception to my rule with being alone with strange women is the easy pickings while traveling. There is a rule amongst many women that if you’re 500 miles away from home, it’s not cheating. I see this a lot with many married women. Gents, her vows mean NOTHING once she gets on a plane without you. Although I wouldn’t allow any of these women into my home, I accept the risk when I’m traveling. And there is always a risk of running into a psycho who is ready to explode.
I don’t really have any jokes here. But I will note that his story doesn’t make a lick of sense; I find it literally unbelievable.
He’s so paranoid about women because of a “false accusation” leveled against him back when he pursued women using “game theory” that he literally refuses to be in the same room with “strange women” – or even interact with them. Yet when he’s traveling he suggests he routinely has sex with “strange” married women. Huh? These women could still get pregnant; these women could still make accusations, false or otherwise, against him. Does he feel safe because he can skip town in a hurry to avoid the possible consequences of his actions?
He’s (allegedly) been involved in a 2-day-a-week relationship, for five years, with a woman he’s sexually attracted to. But he refuses to have sex with her because he’s terrified of getting her pregnant. If he’s that worried about getting her pregnant, and generally wants to “avoid … fatherhood like the plague,” why doesn’t he get a vasectomy? If, after he sleeps with a married woman in a strange city, she gets pregnant with his child, does he simply assume she’ll never be able to track him down?
I’m going to assume that most if not all of what misterbill is saying here is bullshit. But if he does indeed live his life in way that even vaguely resembles how he says he does, it’s a rather sad and strange and paranoid way to live.
Men are tired of masturbating with the dead hand of capital!
Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
