Category: evil women

Categories
$MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism creepy evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles rape rapey reddit the spearhead Tom Martin whores

Tom Martin, leading UK Men’s Rights Activist: “Pedophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child … understand[s] the nature of the contract.”

Tom Martin, child rape apologist

[TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion of child rape]

Tom Martin is one of the most prominent Men’s Rights Activists in the UK. He’s best known for a failed lawsuit he launched against the London School of Economics, charging the school’s gender studies program with, you guessed it, misandry. The case was thrown out of court this March, and Martin celebrated his defeat by calling a lot of people whores on Twitter and, I am proud to say, in the comments here at Man Boobz.

While Martin, known perhaps ironically as @sexismbusters on Twitter, is clearly more famous in the UK than he is here in the states, this peculiar crusader against what he sees as sexism has been celebrated (and his defeat in court mourned) by numerous Men’s Rights sites on this side of the pond. He’s been discussed many times on the Men’s Rights subreddit, where one supporter declared:

And he’s gotten write-ups on an assortment of other MR sites from The Spearhead to MensActivism.org to one Man Boobz favorite, the now-defunct What Men Are Saying About Women. On the website of the National Coalition for Men, one enthusiastic commenter gushed:

Finaly a real man with balls !!! Not like the rest of us . Tom is my hero .

But the Men’s Rights site that has given Martin the most support has been A Voice for Men, which featured Martin on one of its “radio” shows, reposted an article on Martin’s crusade from his website that seems to have been written by Martin himself (in the third person), offered updates on his lawsuit, and even publicized a recent public debate of his in England. The site has also encouraged people to donate to Martin’s legal fund.

One wonders what these supporters will make of some of the strange and awful things Martin has been saying in the comments here on Man Boobz in recent days. (There is no question that it is really him; he confirmed his identity earlier by emailing me from the account associated with his website Sexismbusters.org, and anyone skeptical of any of this is invited to contact him directly through his website.)

Most of the comments he posted here during his first commenting binge were rather risibly misogynist, frequently punctuated with his favorite epithet “whore,” a designation he feels is an appropriate one for 97% of all women and (he had recently added) for 98% of Man Boobzers of either gender. You can see here or here for numerous examples of Martin’s wit and wisdom – including his argument that hard chairs are discriminatory towards men and his now famous declaration that “female penguins are whores.”

His more recent comments, though, haven’t been funny in the slightest. Martin’s new obsession? Child prostitutes – and why they aren’t victims so much as victimizers, willing participants in an activity that makes them big money. Let me put another TRIGGER WARNING here. This is some of the most repellant material I have ever featured on man Boobz.

Here’s Martin’s opening statement on the subject:

The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.

In a followup, he elaborated on this logic:

“Yeah, she offered me a job as a prostitute abroad, which would involve me receiving lots of money for taking cock, so I accepted, became a prostitute, and therefor, according to the official fem definition, this makes me a sex slave”.

Grow up!

Even a 10 year old knows, if someone is paying you for sex, that makes you a whore.

And when he talks about ten year olds here, he means this literally; in his mind, trafficked ten year old children aren’t really victims, but economic actors making an economic choice:

I stand by my statement, that child prostitutes know what they are doing, and therefore deserve to be called prostitutes, not victims.

A progressive European country (either Holland or one of the Scandinavian countries, I remember hearing), introduced in the late 90s, the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent, rather, the legal requirement to ascertain whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish whether the child or young person ‘understands the meaning of consent’ …

Now, if a ten year old is for instance [specific sexual act redacted] for money up front, then there is very much less question whether that whore understands the meaning of consent or not.

In another comment, Martin suggests that ten-year-olds who have been the victims of what some people insist on calling “real rape” would be offended by anyone thinking that ten-year-old prostitutes suffer from rape – when, after all, the child prostitutes have “agreed” to it.

From the perspective of a child who has actually been raped by an adult, how must it seem, to hear the victim-feminist establishment conflate child rape with child prostitution? The raped child remembers having no choice about participating in the sexual activity, of being forced, and then is asked to consider his or her fate or level of agency as similar or the same as that of a child who marketed them self for sex to an adult, took payment, then performed the act.

I don’t think the average 10 year old genuine rape victim would buy the manboobz style analysis that all child prostitution is rape … .

Questions of genuine agency are complicated, but not complicated enough to pass a 10 year old genuine rape victim’s bullshitometer I posit.

Oh, Martin doesn’t actually think ten year olds should be prostitutes. He thinks they should wait a few years, until they’re at least 14.

Should child prostitution from the ages of 13 up be legal?

Nope. I think that prostitution is a potentially dangerous profession for which a basic qualification in health and safety be required, like an NVQ – and that kind of course would not be attainable until after the minimum of secondary school years are completed, so aged 14, 15, 16, 17 or even 18 or more depending on the country.

The real problem, in his mind, is that young girls try to enter into the business when they should be in school:

States with child prostitution problems should be forced to get these children back into schools to complete their education, and child prostitutes who persist should be treated as school truants, a misdemeanor, and given the carrot and stick approach to get them back on the straight and narrow or go to young offenders institutions. If they want to be prostitutes when they’re old enough, then they can go to the careers advise officer, where the pros and cons of the profession can be laid out, and an application for the training course and license can be given.

Martin mocks the very notion that child prostitutes are being exploited:

Imagine you caught your underage 15 year old daughter on the game, what would you say to her?

“Okay darling, obviously you played no part whatsoever in choosing to be a prostitute yourself, so mummy’s going to help catch the nasty pimp who put you up to this, because what you need to learn is when 15 year old girls accidentally suck cocks for money, they should be compensated, with a bit of victims of crime compensation, and, not forgetting, the original £12 cock-sucking bonanza from the punter. That’s right sweety. Double bubble time. Pass me the phone. Now how does this thing work?”

Or… would you ground the whore for 6 months until she passes all her GCSEs?

Well, given that approximately 98% of manboobzers are whores themselves, I’m guessing you’re probably going to want to blame it all on MRAs.

So prostitution should be legal. But since prostitutes are very bad, they should pay high taxes for the privilege of plying their trade, to keep them poor and in order to repay society for the damage they do:

Prostitutes need to be taxed and licensed so heavily, rendering the profession a relatively poor way of making money.

Anyone who practices as a prostitute without the necessary qualification and license, can go to young offenders institute/jail – just like any other persistent illegal unlicensed trader would.

Anyone working on the sly as an escort, should be hunted down by the taxwoman, and if caught, given a huge bill for tax evasion, as well as a fine, and prison for not having a license. Unlicensed tax-evading prostitutes should be hunted down (which would be easy enough).

Anyone choosing prostitution should pay the highest taxes, and know why those taxes are so high – because of the damage prostitution does to the prostitutes and their customers and their environment and the society.

In a followup comment, Martin sees a silver lining in the form of all the tax revenues that prostitution will bring in:

If licensed hookers pay for a massive license fee and heavy taxes, then some of that money can be ring-fenced to research how best to get women (and girls) to renounce prostitution in all its forms, because let’s face it, a lot of housewhores and princess wannabes could do with a little economic activity-inducing work ethic therapy themselves.

Meanwhile, the customers of underage prostitutes – in other words, the child rapists – should be treated gingerly:

[M]en who pay money to have sex with child prostitutes should not be criminalized – but taken out of circulation and treated compassionately for their condition. I’ve heard that most criminal activity peaks with testosterone levels, in the late teens, but paedophillia is the only crime that increases in frequency as these men get older, indicating a growing pathology for them rather than just a typical immature criminal act.

He offers this final summing up of his twisted argument:

[P]edophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child consents, then performs the act, indicating they understand the nature of the contract. The elder is still a pedophiles, but the child prostitute is still a prostitute.

If the child is enslaved – it’s rape, or too young or stupid to know what he or she’s doing – rape. But poor, and in need of food? Not rape. A choice. Unwilling to do other hard labour paying 9 times less than the prostitution route? Not rape. A choice.

He then extends his argument to the rest of the alleged 97% of women who, in his mind, are whores:

Whatever your age, follow the golden rule, of never taking money for sex, then prostitution will be eradicated. Only the prostitute can stop charging for sex.

And of course, that means rejecting courtship gifts, engagement gifts, marriage gifts, divorce gifts, and government largess also.

I don’t think many of you are ready to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …

I know a whore when I see one.

He even returns momentarily to his earlier assertion that female penguins are whores:

Someone or other here said I was anthropomorphising human behaviour onto penguin behaviour by calling penguins whores or something.

But the point is, being a whore, is an animalistic trait, that human females should not need to resort to, given they’re at the top of the fucking food chain already. Google “nuptial gifts” and you can read studies about various animals granting sex to those males who provide the most food, or even the most glittery non-edible trinkets etc, or in the case of penguins, rocks to build nests and shelter with.

I’m saying women are better than penguins, or at least would be if they renounced prostitution in all its forms.

I’m sure the women of the world will be happy to hear that Mr. Martin thinks they are potentially better than penguins.

I doubt many of Mr. Martin’s American supporters are familiar with his elaborate apologia for child rape. I would like to invite Man Boobz readers to show this post, or at least some of the more repellant quotations from it, to the proprietors of the various MRA blogs and MRA forums I have mentioned above.

I wonder if any of his supporters will be willing to renounce him publicly once they know what he has said here – and apparently in some recent public debates as well. Surely no legitimate “human rights movement” would want to be associated with anyone who spouts filth like this.

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery disgusting women evil women girl germs man boobz fun time videos manginas men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA Muvizu videos oppressed men shit that never happened the spearhead western women suck white knights YouTube

You’ve Gotta Keep ‘Em Separated (Except for Strippers)

All this, plus strippers too!

Fellas!  Have you ever fantasized about a world in which men and women live totally segregated lives, but gotten hung up on what we might call “the stripper problem?”  Over on The Spearhead, walking in hell2 has come up with a solution to this dilemma.

I think the next step of the men’s awareness movement should be something like this: a s separation of the sexes.

I would like to see a contractor or developer challenge the system and create a living community for men only: shopping mall, apartments, gym, etc. The legal precedent could be something like the desire for male patrons to avoid any type of legal hassles or the negative perceptions and harassment that are thrown on them by women, white knights, and manginas. I for one would live in such a community just to avoid the disgusting sight, smell, sound, and evil motives of Westernized females. The community could have men’s entertainment, where strippers, etc could come to work, but could not live in the community.

What do we want? Gender Segregation! (Except for Strippers)

When do we want it? Now!

I would also like to see the work place separated into male and female sections, where it would be impossible to hear or see any female coworker during the day.

Once I shared a small office with two women around 15 years older than me. One day one of the women was out of the office. I was talking to the other one and I received a phone call so I had to take it. The women with who I was talking, got angry that I took the call cutting off our conversation. About one minute later she accused me of “coming at her.” I just turned and ignored her. If she wanted, she could have made that accusation to my boss and got me into big trouble. The sick thing is, the woman was so old and ugly, no romantic thought had ever entered my head about her. This was going to be my defense had she pushed her sick agenda.

This is pretty much a textbook example of the concept of the “unreliable narrator” you may recall from English class.

Separate “male only” communities and job spaces are an organized and commercial form of MGTOW. I think it is the next logical step. Western women are just too toxic to mix and live with and not worth the risk of being harassed and falsely accused and sent to prison.

18 upvotes and 2 downvotes, last I checked.

Imma let you finish, walking in hell2, but Anthony Zarat had one of the best male-female segregation videos of all time!

 

Categories
$MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism disgusting women evil women grandiosity matriarchy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men worst writing in the history of the universe

MGTOWer: most women are “shined, shaven social-succubi … desirous of everything and deserving of nothing.”

Shined, shaved and delivered

Oh, joy! A Voice for Men has now published what is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever written by a human being. Here, from an article titled MGTOW re-understood, is what some dude named Russ Lindquist calls his “ode of MGTOW.”

When in the course of widespread misandrist tyranny, it becomes necessary for men to dissolve the social solder, and reverse the spiritual mutilation which has stuck and imperiled them, so inequitably, to the whines and whims of women. These men must, perhaps, reinvent the wheel of free-association.

Oh MRA dudes, don’t even try to write fancy. Clearly, you can’t handle fancy.

Let it be clear that a man has a right to go his on way. Therefore, let modern men acknowledge and accept – as tearfully as they might – that far too many women, for far too long, have far too well assumed the role of nothing but shined, shaven social-succubi who reflect all of mens vices yet none of mens virtue. Further, these succubi (desirous of everything and deserving of nothing) can offer men nothing but the role of a masochistic self-indentured-servant: he is to work a job he hates; he is to earn money that she spends; he is to live far less comfortably; he is to die far sooner.

A big shout-out to all the “shined, shaven social-succubi” reading this now!

Let each man reject this poisonously pink proposition; let each man end, in whatever way he sees fit, the misandrist fem-anesthetization that is, now, generations old; let each man choose, instead, to live a life of self-direction, self-control, self-reliance and personal responsibility–even if such self-respect means that he must wholly abandon such soul-striping social roles as, for example, womyn’s unpaid bodyguard, womyn’s unpaid moving-company, womyn’s unpaid therapist, womyn’s unpaid accountant, womyn’s financial-lust-object.

I’m sorry, I only made it about a third of the way  through this paragraph. I’m sort of stuck on “misandrist fem-anesthetization.”

Men deserve better than these “womyn” are offering. Men have a right to go their own way.

Please, please, please just GO already. Don’t tantalize us like this, you Men Going Their Own Way! JUST GO.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys evil women I'm totally being sarcastic matriarchy misogyny oppressed men reddit whaaaaa?

“Sometimes I wonder if they’d have us living in a wasteland fighting over scraps while occasionally taking one of us hostage for breeding.”

The feminist utopia. (Franz von Stuck, “The Battle over Woman,” 1905)

So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit the resident dudes (and small but statistically significant population of dudettes) were getting all worked up at the notion of men standing up for women, and getting into fisticuffs over them, and all that sort of thing.

And then SuicideBanana said this:

You know that’s the feminist ideal. You see it blatantly in radfemhub, but I’ve seen more moderate feminists swoon over the idea. Sometimes I wonder if they’d have us living in some wasteland fighting on another over the scraps to survive while occasionally taking one of us, the strongest, hostage for breeding. …

That’s why when some drunk asshole or something comes over to me and tries to start a fight while there are other people around I try to avoid it. I do so because I know somewhere there could be a feminist watching who would be rubbing her hands together over it and getting wet panties of seeing two men duking it out blow for blow while daydreaming about her utopia.

Upvoted!

Oh, Men’s Rights subreddit, don’t ever change.

Categories
antifeminism evil women hypocrisy irony alert johntheother men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA neckbeard rights oppressed men racism

MRAs to women: You make us hate you! (Also, don’t call JohnTheOther a neckbeard. He’s clean-shaven!)

Racists – victim blamers extraordinaire — like to pretend that their racism isn’t their fault, that they’ve been driven to their racism by the bad behavior of some members of the group they’re bigoted against. Do a search for the phrase “I don’t hate blacks, but” and you will find thousands of examples of this “logic” at its crudest. “I don’t think blacks are ignorant just the NIGGERS,” one YouTube commenter writes, encapsulating the racist “logic” in a phrase.

Misogynists are fond of making similar “arguments” about women. As one commenter on the Scott Adams blog puts it:

I don’t hate women, but I have a pretty low opinion of women overall. I think they have poor priorities, they have poor analytical skills, they tend to be disorganized, they tend to be impulsive, and they think the world revolves around their feelings. I don’t think all women are like that, but it’s the impression I have of the gender in general, and I don’t like those traits.

Naturally, variations of this general argument (such as it is) abound in the “manosphere.” “Misogynists are not born they are made,” writes MRA/MGTOW elder and proud misogynist ZenPriest in an oft-cited rant titled “Hate Bounces.”

“Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul,”ZenPriest (also known as Zed) writes. But then along came feminism, which ruined women so thoroughly that poor ZenPriest found himself more or less forced to become a woman-hater:

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man – then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday’s garbage. In short – as nothing but users. …

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called “misogynist.”

Gosh, why would anyone who “see[s] women as vicious creatures” get called a misogynist?

[A]fter 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it … I caved in and began to really hate women. …

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me.  …

I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can’t stand them, or anything about them.

And of course it is all the fault of women and their alleged incessant man-hatery:

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back – eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different.

As this last bit makes clear, this “she made me do it” logic is the very same logic used by abusers to justify their abuse.

Now our old friend JohnTheOther has offered a similar blame-the-ladies explanation as to why he’s developed what he calls an “indifference to female opinion.” In his telling, the straw that broke the camel’s back was some unnamed feminist who had the temerity to use the word “neckbeard” in an internet posting.

The culture of easy, casual insult by women against average men, creeps, neckbeards, mother’s-basement-dweller and so on, has a effect which might not be recognized by women. Guys generally don’t need to be told they’re held in contempt as a group, our wider culture makes this sparklingly clear. However, individual instances of circumstantial ad-hom have the very real effect of making men not care about women’s opinions.

Yeah, that’s why these guys don’t give a shit about what women say.

Naturally, Mr. TheOther feels the need to tell us that 1) he doesn’t have a neckbeard and 2) he has a (presumably human) girlfriend.

Am I a neck-beard? No, I’m clean shaven, Im not an online gamer, I have a girlfriend, a career, I dress well et-cetera. But whenever I see some casual, throw away comment like creeper, neck-beard or other minor belittling insult used to describe average men, it cements my not giving a shit about the opinions of women.

After being criticized for his blatant misogyny by a commenter in the Men’s Rights subreddit (virtually the only MRA site online where misogyny is ever called out), Mr. TheOther altered that final bit to read “it cements my not giving a shit about the opinions offered.” He evidently thinks that changing the wording of this one sentence, and complaining about “quote-mining” will convince readers that the misogynistic argument set forth in detail in the rest of the post somehow isn’t misogyny. (And, on the Men’s Rights subreddit, that ploy seems to have worked.)

Naturally, like so many misogynists, Mr. TheOther insists he’s really not a woman-hater:

I don’t hate women, I don’t believe in any “back to the kitchen” nonsense, or any other female-targeted belittlement. What I’m talking about is my personal attitude towards women’s opinions, their utterances, their writing, their thoughts, their contribution to society. If you are a woman reading this, that means your thoughts, ideas, speech, writing and so on.

Well, that clears it up. You don’t hate women; you just don’t give a shit what women think or say or do. Obviously there’s no bigotry in that!

Utterly dismissing “female opinion” because some woman called you a neckbeard: Men’s Rights activism at its finest!

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism crackpottery evil women FemRAs frontman fallacy grandiosity johntheother masculinity matriarchy misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy oppressed men patriarchy penises sex

A Voice for Men: Christianity is all about hating on dudes

Tools of the matriarchal feminazarchy?

If you want even more proof that the denizens of A Voice for Men live in Imaginary Backwards Land, let me draw your attention to a recent posting from FeMRA TyphonBlue and JohnTheOther. The post’s bland title, Men, and patriarchy in the church, belies the loopiness of this particular bit of theological argument, the aim of which is to prove that Christianity is and always has been about hating dudes.

Oh, sure, TB and JTO note, it might look like Christianity in its various forms has been a tad dude-centric. I mean, it’s based on the teachings of a dude. And there’s that whole “God the Father” thing. Oh, and Christian religious institutions have been almost always headed up by dudes. There has yet to be a Popette.

But apparently to assume that the people running something actually run that something is to indulge in what MRAs like to call “the frontman fallacy,” by which they mean that even though it looks like men run most things in the world it’s really the sneaky ladies who call the shots, somehow. TB/JTO, citing the aforementioned faux “fallacy,” ask:

Because Christianity has a male priesthood, is headed by a man and uses masculine language to refer to the God and humanity’s savior, does it necessarily follow that Christianity is male favoring?

Bravely, the two decide not to go with the correct answer here, which is of course “yes.” Instead, they say no. And why is this? Because Jesus didn’t go around boning the ladies.

Seriously. That’s their main argument:

[Christ] had no sexual life. This absence leaves no spiritual connection between the masculine body and the divine.

The Christ is sexless; presumptively masculine, but never actually engaging in any activity unique to his masculine body. …

The implicit stricture of making the female body the vessel of Holy Spirit while offering no corresponding connection between the divine and the male body creates a spiritual caste system with women on top and men on the bottom.

Also: Joseph didn’t bone Mary, at least not before she gave birth to Jesus.

The birth of Christ is without sin because, quite simply, it did not involve a penis. The entire mythology around the birth of Christ implicitly indicts male sexuality as the vector of original sin from generation to generation.

Uh, I sort of thought that the notion of Original Sin had something or other to do with Eve and an apple in the Garden of Eden. But apparently not:

Forget Eve. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Serpent. If all human women, tomorrow, conceived and gestated and gave birth without ever coming into contact with a penis, our race would be purged of original sin.

Pretty impressive theological revisionism from a couple of blabby video bloggers who apparently don’t know how to spell “canon.” (ProTip: “Cannon” refers to one of those tubey metal things you shoot “cannonballs” from.)

The two conclude:

Our culture’s war against masculine identity, male sexuality and fatherhood is an old one. That war arguably began as we adopted a faith which marginalizes the role of men in procreation, idolizing a story that removes them completely from the process. The exemplar of male virtue in this theology is a man who had no natural sexual expression, although his character is designated as male. And his primary purpose was to be flogged, literally tortured for the “crimes” of others, and then bound and nailed through his limbs, still alive to an erected cruciform scaffold, to die from shock and exposure on a hilltop. And we somehow manage to claim that this religion elevates men over women?

Well, yeah.

Rather than supremacy, Christianity provides to men the role of asexual stewards of women’s benefit, and sacrificial penitent, preaching the gospel of a female-deifying, male-demonizing faith. It is true that women have not historically been allowed to front this farce, but mostly because that would make the message too obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

While some kinds of Christianity get rather worked up about the evils of premarital sex and/or birth control, I’m pretty sure married and/or procreative sex is a-ok with all Christians this side of the mother in the movie Carrie.  Even — well, especially — if it involves dudes. (I’m pretty sure the church fathers were never big proponents of lesbianism.)

And if women really run the show, despite men “fronting” the church, could you perhaps spell out just who these all-powerful women are? Like, some names perhaps? Who’s the lady puppeteer behind the pope?

They of course don’t offer any real-world evidence for this secret supposed matriarchy. Instead, they ramp up for a sarcastic ending:

But we continue to ignore all of this, and we entertain the farce that our religious institutions constitute a male-elevating, female oppressing patriarchy.

Yeah, tell us another one.

No point in telling you guys anything any more. Clearly you can twist any and all facts about the world to fit your increasingly weird and baroque fictions about men always being the most oppressed, past, present and future.

A Voice for Men is slowly but surely disappearing up its own ass.

Categories
antifeminism disgusting women douchebaggery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic matriarchy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny oppressed men pussy cartel the c-word

“Twats wear heels in order to elongate the appearance of their legs,” and other insights from MGTOWforums.com

Woman oppressing man with evil lying makeup

Some things I learned on MGTOWforums today. (Each headline links to the comment’s source.)

NWOslave, is this you?

women gain a sexual satisfaction from lying. the bigger the lie, the greater the thrill.

Don’t fall for that old “lipstick” ploy. Her lips aren’t really that red!

EVERYTHING relating to female appearance in based on deception. Women put blush on their face and lipstick to suggest that they’re sexually aroused thereby causing men to get stupid and malleable in their presence. Twats wear heels in order to not only appear taller but also to elongate the appearance of their legs. They wear spanx to conceal their flab. They shoot botox into their face to appear to have that last vestige of fertility. They put hideous silicone filled sacs onto their chest to create a more alluring figure (although as any man who’s actually ever felt these knows it’s like playing with a skin wrapped basketball). They paint their nails to create the illusion they’re always clean. They shave and wax and pluck to show off as much bare skin as possible – to conceal the fact that they’re hairy beasts.

Marriage is a Ponzi scheme:

DO NOT fall for it when marriage legislation is once more made rational. It’s simply a trap to lure men back in, and when there’s enough suckers in the Ponzi scheme, those at the top will abscond with it all once more.

Hunting the mammoth prepared men to be CEOs, but women?

most women simply can’t hack it at that high of a professional level. Their minds and bodies are simply not designed for that. Not surprising given how nature has clearly designed them to bear and raise children.

Vaginas are doin’ it for themselves:

They are organized into cunt coalitions. we are fucked.

Too many women spoil the everything:

It has already been said in several posts in this thread but it bears repeating since it is the simple quintessential truth: Women. Ruin. Everything.

Ha, ha, you’ll get yours, pretty lady who some day won’t be so pretty:

Mother nature is the ultimate bitch to all aging females. Most women don’t have her slim body type(easier to trap a man), so what’s a girl to do? What’s the ‘moral of the story’ for the average LADY with ‘high’ expectations but not much to really give a man in return??? Easy, find a clueless blue pill sucker(who has never been to this site)….er husband material as soon as possible before your looks really start to take a dive. You ladies can call me an asshole all you want but I’m only speaking the truth.

Let’s spread some racism on this misogyny sandwich:

How about you get your expanding ass off your chair and go visit the ghettos where there are no men. Hey, at least they are ‘matriarchies’ where women are ‘free,’ boys grow up to be feral animals, and emotions run high without logic!

Also, I learned that the new go-to derogatory term for women is “ankle.” Why? Because, according to the Online Slang Dictionary, “[a]n ankle is two feet beneath a cunt.” Here’s an example of the term in use, courtesy of MGTOWforums:

Dealing with an ankle that don’t understand the phrase “Not my child not my problem, ‘ya ankle bitch”?

It pays to increase your word power!

EDITED TO ADD: If you have trouble visualizing the “twats wearing shoes” mentioned in the second quote, regular Man Boobz commenter Polliwog has helpfully provided this [NSFW] picture.

 

Categories
antifeminism evil women matriarchy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead

Spearheader: Women get jobs out of spite

Evil women oppressing men and destroying the economy.

JeremiahMRA’s call for lady murder wasn’t the only highlight (by which I mean lowlight) of that Fathers’ Day thread on The Spearhead. Towgunner also posted a rambling wall-of-text in which he offered some most intriguing thoughts on Fathers’ Day, economics, feminism, and ladies in general. Here’s are some excerpts, which I have taken the liberty of breaking into separate paragraphs:

Happy Oppressor’s day. I really like passive aggressive ruse by feminists who claim that housework is beneath them and thus oppressive. And yet, in honor of men and fathers, we have posts and articles discussing how fatherhood has “evolved”? …  

Like everything from feminism it contradicts itself. If equality is to “liberate” women (from staying at home, oh the humanity!) and that staying at home is something pathetic, then why doesn’t that apply to all people? Under this new understanding, no one should be subjected to the indignity of staying at home. So why are women throwing temper tantrums yet nothing is said of men?

Uh, maybe the issue is that men and women should be able to decide if they want to stay at home, rather than being compelled to either work or stay home based on their gender. Not that this choice is really a choice for most people, as most mothers, like most fathers, have to work.

Worse, if there is a trend of men staying at home, then it is a disturbing trend indicative of the major structural perversions created by government intervention.

Watch out, you’re spilling conspiracy theory all over your misogyny.

Today, thanks to our “smarter” and “faster” women, we’re to believe that fulfillment is an internship at goldman sachs…and, oh by the way, all these longer hours “they” are paying you less…and less and less.

Because … feminists are responsible for long hours and stagnating wages?

And then women write books on how their disadvantaged from “asking for more money”, because they were brought up with dolls? Never once do they acknowledge that everyone is being paid less because since the government gave them “their chance” it created incredible amounts of malinvestment, which effectively bankrupted the US and the West.

Ah yes, “allowing” women to enter into the workforce – never mind that they’ve always been in the workforce in large numbers – somehow caused the financial crisis that led to our current malaise? Towgunner, please show your work here.

This is all to show that women can be a part of human progress. It pains them to no end when they flip through a history book and its one man after the next. I say that they did have their chance and look at the results – we will go through another crisis, likely a huge global reset and the US is, right now, a vastly different country (not for the better)…look at our culture we celebrate death and killing people…we hold the most decadent and immoral on high.

You do realize that men still basically run the economy, right? That as of 2011 there were only 12 female CEOs in the Fortune 500? That the overwhelming majority of economic movers and shakers, in governments and in the private sector, are men?

The women’s world is here, they do things not out of practical necessity but out of spite, Mother’s Day comes and they bemoan house wives, Father’s day comes and they point out that some men are staying home. There is nothing practical here, there is spite, there is insult, and there is hubris.

Women get jobs out of spite?

I don’t admire women, I don’t ever want to be one either, there is nothing noble about them. In fact I find it an insult to be called “equal” to them at all.

And a happy belated Fathers’ Day to you too, Towgunner!

This comment got me thinking about the old Martha and the Muffins song “Women Around the World at Work.” So here it is:

Categories
a voice for men actual activism antifeminism cock blockade dawgies drama kings evil women I'm totally being sarcastic incoherent rage internal debate johntheother MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA narcissism oppressed men paul elam penises

BREAKING: Paul Elam of A Voice for Men is pig-biting mad at a dude who doesn’t hate Katherine Heigl

Over on A Voice for Men, noted human rights advocate Paul Elam has responded to criticism from a fellow antifeminist internet warrior in his typically logical, understated manner. Some highlights:

He’s whining, about jack shit, on behalf of a misandric cunt. …

Matt Forney just jerked off all over his bed sheets. And now it appears he is standing there like a virtual ‘tard, grinning about it and drooling.

At issue? Mr. Forney wrote a post some months back critical of the faux “offenders registry” called Register-Her, a pet project of A Voice for Men’s JohnTheOther in which female “bigots” – that is, feminists – are “registered” as “offenders” alongside female criminals. (Forney’s post originally appeared on the thankfully now-defunct blog In Mala Fide, but Elam only discovered it after Forney posted it on his own blog.)

In particular, Forney disagreed with Elam’s decision to “register” actress Katherine Heigl as a “bigot” after she made a Funny or Die PSA about spaying dogs and cats. The problem, for Elam and crew? That in the video she pretended to be a crazed testicle-hater obsessed with cutting off all balls, including those of human males. The AVFM crowd whipped themselves into a frenzy over this one, with Elam’s Number One Stooge JohnTheOther writing, in all seriousness:

Katherine Heigl’s supposedly humorous claim; that her advocacy of neutering pets is an outlet for her desire to chop human male’s balls off shouldn’t be taken out of context. The context being that she’s a creature of hollywood who lives in california – the same state which earlier this year saw Katherine Becker cut her husband’s penis off for the “offense” of wanting a divorce. …

We know it’s a joke. That’s the point. It’s both shocking, and plausibly deniable. It also wouldn’t be funny to most people if there was not an element of truth in it. Heigl’s “joke” included the word “yet”. This is an obvious nod to her awareness of increasing cultural acceptance of male-targeted violence and mutilation.

No, I have no fucking clue what on earth he means by that bit about the word “yet.” He goes on:

Male targeting violence persists and escalates because in the unconscious reptile corner of men’s minds, they think nodding along with whatever vile , violent, murderous shit the nearest vacuous barbie utters in her you-go-girl bubble of social enablement might get him approved for access to the magic vagina.

Like Elam, JohnTheOther apparently writes all his posts for AVFM with steam literally coming out of his ears.

Here’s the video in question. (Sorry, it won’t embed.) As you can see, the real butt of the joke is Heigl herself, and more generally narcissistic celebs who glom onto fashionable causes for all the wrong reasons. It’s not really a castration joke; it’s an actress making fun of her own reputation for narcissism. (And the video is also a serious attempt to raise awareness about the need to spay and neuter pets.)

Katherine Heigl, attempting to lull a dog into a false sense of security so she can remove its balls.

Forney, in the blog post that roused Elam’s incredibly easy-to-rouse fury, suggested that AVFM’s claimed outrage about Heigl’s video was both silly and a bit unconvincing:

Were you honestly offended? Did that video get you mad? It didn’t get me mad. I thought it was stupid and unfunny, but aside from that, I don’t care about it. After watching it, I just shrugged my shoulders and closed the tab.

Forney went on to suggest that any MRAs who were offended by the video were, well, basically a bunch of “phony pussies,” a virtual mirror-image of the Politically Correct:

In trying to gin up indignation over Heigl’s ball-cutting comments, Register-Her.com and the MRM are seeking to perpetuate our politically correct regime, not burn it to the ground and piss on its ashes. …

The men’s rights movement wants men to keep picking at their scabs, to wallow in self-pity for all eternity. That’s not a satisfying goal for me, or countless other men who want to rise out of the mud. Until MRAs address this issue, their movement will be stuck in  neutral, regardless of their occasional victories.

Yes, that’s right. A dude posting on In Mala Fide — which was known for its blatant misogyny and its proud racism, among other terrible things —  is the closest we’ve got to a “voice of reason” in this particular debate.

Elam, an MRA scab-picker extraordinaire, lashed out in barely coherent rage to Forney’s charges:

[T]his kind of chicken-shit nit picking by a supposed sympathizer is far more pathetic that the Heigl video could have ever hoped to be.

Why would the Heigl video hope to be pathetic? Also, how exactly can a video hope?

I write people like you off all the time. But then you have the gumption to parrot a bunch of keyboard courage about crushing your enemies? And you make fun of guys who get fucked over by the system? What a laugh. I don’t mean what you said, but you, personally.

You may be every bit as brave as your words. I doubt it, but I don’t know. What I do know is that your article is a misandric piece of shit. Based on your rhetoric, though, I would lay dollars to doughnuts you have never crushed so much as a Dixie Cup at a water cooler. Your kind of man never does.

Says the man whose entire life is devoted to bashing out angry internet screeds, and whose only known attempt at real-world organizing collapsed before it really even began.

You just shit on those out there taking the hits and doing the work, likely because you lack the conviction to stick your neck out for anything really important to anyone but yourself.

Personally, I would not talk to MRA’s about picking scabs until you quit being one.

I’m not sure if Elam is calling Forney a “scab” as a sort of random insult referring back to his mention of scabs, or if Elam thinks that Forney is a “scab” violating some imaginary MRA “sex strike” – or “cock blockade” – by not hating on the ladies every second of every day. I’m guessing it’s the latter, because Elam really is that delusional.

—

EDITED TO ADD: Matt Forney has responded to Elam’s little tantrum here. At the end, he says this:

And since I can’t end this post without mentioning that David Futrelle has (reluctantly) defended me on this issue, mainly because Elam’s neckbeard fans are going to brandish Futrelle’s article as proof that I’m an evil crypto-feminist racist mangina, let me just say that Futrelle is an even more pathetic bitch than Elam, and I don’t want his support.

Don’t worry, lil dude. I don’t actually support you. I simply agree with you on a couple of points: that Elam is a total drama king, and that anyone who believes (or purports to believe) that Heigl’s video is something to get ENRAGED about is a twit.

Categories
antifeminism armageddon evil women grandiosity melodrama men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny oppressed men oppressed white men racism threats your time will come

It’s a Tsunami! It’s a Coiled Spring! It’s a Mixed Metaphor MGTOW MANPOCALYPSE!

The Apocalypse: Zombies Going Their Own Way

It’s time for another mixed-metaphor MANPOCALYPSE over on MGTOWforums.com! This time the Nostradamus Going His Own Way is a fellow calling himself Swetnam. Here are his dire predictions:

I like to talk of men’s rights as a tsunami crashing against the shore..but men’s rights are just the cresting wave. Just behind that are a vast array of other things generated by the cultural earthquake that hit the western world in the late half of the twentieth century.

Huh. So everything since the 1950s sucks? No television, no internet, no video games, no microwaved Hot Pockets? Do you really want to go back to listening to Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters? (Actually, the Andrews Sisters sort of kick ass, but never mind.)

If I may coin another metaphor…the anglosphere is like a coiled spring. That spring is coiling ever more tightly, and someday it’s going to break. When it does, all hell will break loose. It wont be pretty. In fact, I think there is going to be terrible violence ahead, as decades of suppressed anger and frustration finally break free. Blood and Iron. And some of us now will be around to see it. What will emerge from the other side? I honestly cannot say I know.

Ah, he’s dancing that old dance, the dance called “you ladies better shut up or angry dudes will beat the shit out of you. Oh, but not me. I’m not threatening anything. I’m just predicting.  I don’t not-so-secretly relish these violent fantasies.”

Speaking of dancing:

I have a good somali friend. He used to say to me that his worst nightmare would be the day that white men learn to dance. I asked him why? He said that if white men are learning to dance, that means they cannot find other ways to attract women or show status. if that happens, then white males will become the new gangsters, but vastly more numerous, organised and with an institutional memory of happier times. They will look at the people who now stand above them, and see them in alliance with the people who once stood below them but are now equal to them, and hate them both with a rage that can scarcely be imagined. And they will act on that rage.

I can’t say i disagree.

Of course you can’t.

Elsewhere in the same thread, Womanhater offered some equally dire “predictions,” with a side order of blatant racism.

In my opinion, the veneer of mystery and respect that once adorned womanhood is gone forever. Some men will engage with them long enough to fuck them. Some men may find a tolerable one or two of them to procreate with – on his terms when the laws are changes (and they will eventually be changed). Many men will simply not see any point to it.

But I am speaking of the generations of men who have yet to date or perhaps to even have been born.

Those of us in the 15-45 age bracket who’ve had to grow up and endure the bullshit of the past 2 or 3 generations of twats will either ghost or pump n’ dump. Only those men born after the gender war is concluded will even consider something more.

The women aged 35 and up are irrelevant since they’re past the biological point of no return anyway.

Well, hey, at least Womanhater grants women ten more years of non-irrelevance than does W.F. Price on The Spearhead.

Those 35 and under will likely be the ones who will bear the brunt of what I’ll call the Male Awakening. They’re most likely to end up single and childless in mind numbing drone jobs.

Those women under the age of 20 who actually pay attention and see how this lifestyle will leave them a few decades down the line however, they’re the ones who have a chance at some form of successful relationship and children, but a LOT will have to change between now and then.

Translation: You ladies better date me OR ELSE!

Most likely, truth be told, the West and its founding race will simply die off due to the advanced stage of the feminist cancer. Who and what replaces it I guess will be unveiled as the decades pass.

“Its founding RACE!?” Did we just take a detour into Klanland?

Oh, but there’s more. Legacy – possibly a Brony? — offers this awkward metaphor:

Like air, society doesn’t notice male slavery until the workhorses start missing from the stables.

TheManWithThePlan offers this sort-of plan:

If by swing the pendulum violently back you mean men having their own gender roles revolution (which could very likely fuck women over big time without taking away any of their rights), then yes that’s probably going to happen. I don’t see anyone “forgiving” people for the BS that’s been happening. Hell half of men out there have been fucked over by their wives, I doubt they’ll just say “it’s okay women 100+ years ago had it bad as well, so I deserved it” and move on.

It’s the end of the world as we know it, and these guys can’t wait.

EDITED TO ADD: The fellows at MGTOWforums have offered a rebuttal, of sorts, to this post.