Category: evil women

Categories
evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA patriarchy reactionary bullshit reddit thug-lovers vaginas

AntiFeministMedia: “Do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ women for no reason?”

Shouldn't they all be?

My favorite Redditor these days is an angry little fella named AntiFeministMedia. How much of a douche is he? So much of one that sometimes he actually manages to get downvoted in the Men’s Rights subreddit for his excessive douchebaggery.

You may recall him as the author of the “the female gravy train of victimhood” quote I highlighted the other day. But I’ve been going through his comment history and have unearthed a number of other wonders.

It’s going to take more than one post to truly convey his charms. We’ll start today with some of his comments on women, and their vaginas, and why both need to be kept in check.

Women, you see, just aren’t made for freedom:

what happnes when you give women economic and sexual freedom, is that you get major social problems.

It simply doesnt work, because women are incapable of behaving themselves, men see their society disintegrating, their children suffering, and then decide to ‘put women in their place’.

If women wernt so irresponsible when they got their freedom, men would not have to step in and take it away from them. Seriously, do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ (read: restrained) women for no reason?

It’s almost as if these ladies aren’t even human:

people are scared of women. Thats the truth about it. Women can be such nasty pieces of work that no one wants to get on their bad side for fear of them becoming hysterical … The female world is an animal world which a lot of men, being human, simply dont understand).

True, they do have vaginas, but that isn’t enough to make up for that whole not-being-human thing:

You may or may not believe this, but I am quite happy alone.

The only thing I’d want you from is a vagina, the rest of the time I’d despise you. You see I dont like who you are. I am a human being, while women are from the animal world. They think like animals, and that is not something I would want to pair with. While women are thinking about survival, Im thinking about god.

And, at least some of the time, about vaginas.

Speaking of which: Since ladies are such herd animals, they clearly shouldn’t be allowed to be in charge of anything, including the things that come out of their vaginas. You know, babies:

You seem to think in groups, not as individuals. Thats why I believe women shouldnt be given a choice. Children should automatically be the property of the male (again). If women cannot understand simple situations like those I’ve outlined, or even the fact that men should be consulted first before a child is created … then they are not the best people to be in control of reproduction.

After all, contrary to all that nonsense you might have heard in your high school sex ed classes,  it only takes one person to get pregnant:

It takes two to tango, and one to get pregnant. The one that gets pregnant bears the ultimate responsibilty, particularly since she has full control over reproduction in the modern west. …

It is up to women to screen out bad men, and to choose a man capable of being a good father. That is the responsibilty of women. If a woman opens her legs to any sob, without spending the time and energy to assess wether he would make a good father, and then he runs off, then thats the womans fault. But again, we go back to women not being able to take personal responsibilty.

Exactly. When a man deserts his children, it is obviously the woman, not him, who is being irresponsible.

Given how badly women are doing at this whole reproduction thing, wouldn’t it be great if we could just remove women from the equation entirely?

AntiFeministMedia has some thoughts on this as well, which we will examine in a future post. Stay tuned.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism beta males creepy evil women false accusations men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape rapey reactionary bullshit sex sexual harassment sluts terrorism the spearhead woman's suffrage

Spearheaders on the SlutWalks. Again. It’s bad.

From the Dallas SlutWalk

Oh dear. The Spearheaders are talking about the Slutwalks again. The discussion may be the worst on the subject that I have run across so far. Some of the lowlights:

Keyster seems downright pissed that women actually have the right to say no:

They’re high functioning children with sexual power and they don’t want you to forget it. They’re outraged that just because a young woman dresses and acts in a sexually provocative manner, that she might receive unwanted attention from young men that don’t appeal to her.

She should be able to dress like a street whore and abuse alcohol to the point of delerium and they feel compelled to lecture us on how that doesn’t mean this is an advertisment to be sexually harrassed, sexually assaulted or heaven forbid raped. …

They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …

Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …

 “We’ve got the sexual power, the power of consent, the gate keeper of the holy vaginal crevice. See our bouncing propped up cleavage, our long legs and glorious ass protruding from those heels? You want it don’t you?

    ….ha, ha, ha…you can’t have it because I SAY SO! Because I have THIS power over you, lowly little man. Bow down to me and beg me a little, I might even let the others see me talking to you, without calling the cops.” …

    This isn’t feminism, it’s flaunting female sexual power in the faces of men.

You’re seriously complaining that woman have the “power of consent!?” EVERYONE has the power of consent. No one male or female is obliged to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s, you know, rape. It bothers you that women are the “the gate keeper[s] of the holy vaginal crevice?” Who the fuck else should be the gatekeeper of a person’s vagina other than the person whose vagina it is? The mind reels. But apparently the 50+ upvoters of this piece of abhorrent nonsense aren’t bothered by any of this.

Demirogue, meanwhile, suggests we need to better discipline our women:

While perusing FB last week I came across the newest deviation of this mentality which is going topless. …  And they want to cry about rape? They need to cry but only because people said enough is enough and started to belt them on their asses.

Women need to be controlled and on a very, very short leash. They’ve been given every right, every option, every opportunity to be something and what do they do with it? Abuse and manipulate it with reckless abandonment and incessant demands.

Geography Bee Finalist himself thinks the slutwalkers must be retarded:

I wouldn’t worry too much about these Slutwalk sows.

They have no redeeming features. None.

They cannot figure out that if you dress like a whore, you deserve to be treated in a disrespectful manner. Even conservatively dressed mentally retarded women can figure this out and conduct themselves with more propriety and intelligence than these Slutwalkers … .

Knuckledragger blames it on those damned suffragettes:

…we let ‘em drive, we let ‘em vote, and this is what we get.

Ridiculous to even offer attention to another excuse to dress like a whore, goof off in public, and not bring me a beer.

Any man worth his salt should fire any skank who was “sick” from work to attend this nonsense.

SingleDad seems to think that all accusations of rape are made up:

Rape is now the extra tax women charge men if some how their unsatisfied with whatever arrangement was made before or after any encounter in or outside of marriage.

Other lowlights:

Poiuyt agreeing with Anders Breivik’s  “observations surrounding this femaleist pandemic,” while adding  that he  “is to be rebuked for taking the wrong cureative actions to solve it.”

Demirogue (in a second comment) complaining that “overvalued pussy is all [women today] have to offer and only to certain men.”

Anonymous age 69 explaining that “rape laws were intended to protect women of good character, from being sexually violated,” not “to protect promiscuous sluts .”

And more, much, much more. Many of the worst (including most of those quoted here) have many dozens of upvotes.  Go read the thread yourself, if you think you can stomach it.

There are no arguments to rebut here; I can only repeat the basic message that the slutwalks are trying to convey: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what they are wearing or how much consensual sex they engage in. Even if they show some cleavage or prefer athletes and/or rocks stars to so-called beta males.

Categories
antifeminism evil women misogyny MRA reddit woman's suffrage

I refuse to see dead people

We gave them the vote and they STILL won't shut up about it!

Apparently, all that time I spent studying history in college and grad school was a complete waste of time. Because once people die, nothing about their lives or the events that happened during their lives matters. At least according to merlin34 in Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, who recently set forth this cogent argument as to  “Why feminists should SHUT THE $^%# UP about women’s suffrage in US/UK.”

The 19th Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified in 1920, before that year’s election. At the time, the voting age was 21. Any woman who was denied the right to vote would have had to have been born before Election Day of 1898. Today, she would be 113+ years old. That means dead.

In the UK, it was in 1928 that women were granted equal voting rights to men, again at the age of 21 (although women over 30 were given the vote 10 years earlier). Any woman denied the right to vote based on sex in the UK would be over 105 years old now. There’s still probably some around, but not a lot, and not for much longer, and they weren’t denied the right to vote for long.

What does this have to do with anything? It means that feminists using the “women weren’t allowed to vote, wah” or “black men got the vote before women of any color” canards should SHUT UP, because the list of those actually denied the right to vote based on sex is rapidly diminishing. In another ten years, none will remain.

Naturally, the comments are also a delight. OThompson says:

You can also tell them that Suffragettes were often domestic terrorists.

AntiFeministMedia adds:

It isnt just feminists though is it, its any woman you get into an argument with.

If its not ‘women wernt allowed to vote’, its ‘rapists get off scott-free’. They ignore the context. When did universal sufferage for men go ahead in the UK? 1918?

Most women are ignorant of most of these issues, but they are happy to just parrot all this stuff because that makes them victims, and so they get privileges they arent really entitled to.

They dont care wether what they are saying is out of date, or that most men didnt recieve the vote untill very recently either, they only care that the female gravy train of victimhood keeps rolling on.

Is the Female Gravy Train of Victimhood anything like Soul Train? Because that would be awesome.

Categories
$MONEY$ bad boys beta males evil women hypocrisy misogyny nice guys oppressed men PUA sex sluts

Is she really going out with him?

This is a bit of a rant inspired by some of the discussions of my recent post on Susan Walsh.

Let’s say you’re a young, horny, lonely heterosexual guy. You’re walking to the store to buy some, I dunno, pretzels, and you see the woman of your dreams walking arm in arm with some hideous toad of a man. You say to yourself: how is it that a nice guy like me can’t find any girl who will return my phone calls, while ugly boy here seems to have won the girlfriend jackpot? If you’re Joe Jackson, you write a song about it:

Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street

From my window I’m staring while my coffee grows cold

Look over there! (Where?)

There’s a lady that I used to know

She’s married now or engaged or something so I’m told

Is she really going out with him?

Is she really gonna take him home tonight?

Is she really going out with him?

‘Cause if my eyes don’t deceive me,

There’s something going wrong around here

A lot about the world seems desperately wrong when you’re young, horny and alone. But maybe in this case there is something that you’re missing. Maybe the ugly dude is charming as fuck. Maybe he’s a brilliant thinker. Maybe he’s awesome in bed. Maybe she’s shallow and materialistic, and she likes him just because he’s rich. Or maybe there’s nothing redeeming about the guy – intellectually, sexually or financially — and the woman in question simply has horrendous taste in men. It could be any of these things.

But here’s the thing: no matter how wounded you feel, whom this woman goes out with is really none of your business. She doesn’t have to have a good reason to be going out with him. It’s not your call. The world doesn’t owe you a hot girlfriend, and this particular woman has the inalienable right to go out with whoever she chooses, even if you personally feel ill at the thought of them doing it. Women you find attractive aren’t obliged to date men you think are appropriate for them.

A lot of guys in the manosphere seem to have hung on to this young-man’s anger and sexual jealousy. But instead of somehow turning their resentment into a catchy song, and then moving away from the rock world to a more jazz-inflected sound, these men cultivate their resentments. And talk about them endlessly.

Soon they’ve developed the uncanny ability to demonize any woman who makes any romantic choice – other than picking them. If a “hot” women is dating an ugly dude, well,

He must be rich! All women are filthy golddigging whores! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!

If the same woman is dating  a conventionally handsome man, the reaction can be just as strong:

She’s a shallow bitch!  They always go for the alphas! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!

Weirdly, a lot of manosphere dudes also get angry about the sexual and romantic choices of women they aren’t interested in at all. If a woman they don’t think is all that hot is with a conventionally handsome man, it’s still the woman to blame:

Ha! She’s punching above her weight class, looks-wise. I guess any bitch can get laid, while a hard-working beta like me doesn’t even rate a second look. But eventually he’ll dump her and I will laugh and laugh. Live it up now, bitch, because you’re going to end up alone with a bunch of cats!

This is the thing that’s weirdest to me. Getting worked up about a woman you like who’s dating a loser? I can understand that. I did that, a lot, in my twenties. But quite a few manosphere dudes – and women like Susan Walsh who are manosphere-adjacent – seem somehow deeply affronted by the notion that any women could hook up with a man either lower or higher on that universal 10-point hotness scale so beloved by PUAs and other manosphere dudes.

Walsh speaks of “equilibrium” in the “sexual marketplace” (or SMP as she and her fans like to abbreviate it), and seems to consider any deviation from it to be a moral failing – of the women involved. (The slut-shaming is strong with this one.) Her idea of “equilibrium,” as I mentioned in my last post on her, is one in which fives date fives, tens date tens, and female sixes and sevens know better than to try to get the attention of male eights and nines by wearing low-cut dresses and “slutting it up.”

But here’s the thing. If you’re going to try to mix economic terminology into your dating advice, it helps to actually know what the terms mean. Market equilibrium, as Wikipedia handily summarizes it,

refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.

Guess what? Insofar as the dating world is a marketplace, it’s already at equilibrium. Potential daters size up their prospects, and make a guess as to who is and who isn’t “in their league.” Those who are aiming too high (setting their price too high) and not hooking up with anyone (selling themselves) may end up lowering their standards (lowering their price) to make a sale (get laid).  Some products (people) appeal to a wide demographic; others to a nice market. Some have better marketing then others. Some products look good at first glance, but turn out to need a lot of repairs. All this is mighty familiar to students of economics. This is how markets work.

Of course, the dating world is even more complicated and messy than economic marketplaces. But in a lot of ways it really does act like one.

The interesting thing here is that Walsh and her followers aren’t thinking like capitalists at all. Essentially, they’ve decided that they know better than the SMP they so love to talk about, that their imaginary 10-point scale should predict who chooses whom better than those who are actually doing the choosing. That’s not capitalism; that’s a Soviet style command economy. It’s not the way marketplaces work, and it’s not the way the dating world works.

Guys: if no one is buying what you’re selling, you could try to change what you’re selling so that it appeals to buyers more. Or if you are confident in your product you can simply wait until a more discerning buyer shows up.

Or you could sit by yourself stewing  in your own bitterness and blaming everything on the bitches. Much like the jealous narrator of David Bowie’s classic Queen Bitch, only much less sexually ambiguous. And, frankly, much less appealing. In this song, Bowie manages to make sexual resentment somehow glamorous.

I would like to apologize for talking about this song and bitter manosphere dudes in the same sentence. But I’m still posting the video. This is Bowie, in 1972, performing it live, and fucking killing it:

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism beta males crackpottery evil women hypergamy misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts

Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2

Happy day!  Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.

This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at  Freedom Twenty-Five.

Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:

This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).

Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.

Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.

Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:

From "Hooking Up Smart."

Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,

the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.

Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.

Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!

But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.

So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.

Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.

Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.

But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:

What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …

Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.

Frost concludes:

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Betty Drapers of the world, unite!

Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.

Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:

It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia,  he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.

If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.

Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:

The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.

What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:

For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.

In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:

These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.

(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)

Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.

And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.

NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.

EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery evil women man boobz fun time videos men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny oppressed men precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit

Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 4: If They Are Not Restrained

In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, Tiny Bunny and Small Dog make an excursion to NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, and consider the view of one fellow there who feels women should be restrained so that they don’t all become sadists and sluts. Also, there is a discussion of ice cream.

Here’s the original comment from the forum. (I edited it a bit for length and clarity in the video.)

All women are instinctively sadists and sluts if they are not restrained by the society.

Present feminism has given complete freedom for women and has completely restrained and shunned all men.This present feminism invokes and encourages the very basic instinct of a woman – It encourages her how to be a slut & how to be a sadist.

One better e.g. that I can give is – If a woman beats her lover/husband with a machete and fills his body with oozing blood whole mob(which includes all men) cheers her with claps & encourages her to give the more brunt of it(click here).Or even if a woman kills a man in public she is seen as if she has done a heroic act in media,courtrooms & in public.Even if she is guilty of that serious offence she is acquitted.Like this there are many e.g. which I don’t even need to give.

Present feminism is a failed ideology,just look what it has given – there are single mothers,prostitutes,drug addicts(teenage girls & boys brought up by single mothers),recession for men,disjoint families ,higher divorce rates,depression,increasing violence among teenagers due to lack of care during their crucial childhood years,immoral porn culture which also encourages homosexuality,oppression of men,etc…

If soceity puts some restrain on women then definitely women can be beneficial to the soceity with their feminine touch.Restraining women is necessary to teach them discipline & such disciplined women are really good to soceity.In fact this should be the principle of feminism & we men would had undoubtedly embraced such kind of feminism.But what I said above is seen as offence in present feminism which preaches every woman to oppress men & treat them as slaves.

There was actually one more paragraph of this. Just more of the same.

Time for some ice cream, I think.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism evil women manginas masculinity men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit sexual harassment western women suck

America: Land of Soulless Hamster Wusses

Street harassment: The engine of civilization

Here’s a little screed, originally from happierabroad.com, that’s been making the rounds of the manosphere lately. The author, anonymous, describes himself as “an Arab, who has lived and travelled all over the world and is a keen observer of society and people.” The aim of his writing? To let those of us in the West know just how disappointed he is with all of us.  Especially the wussies and bitches.

Meeting Westerners, one of the things I noticed was how insecure and de-masculinized they seemed to me; compared to myself and the male-dominated, testosterone-driven culture of my land.

Using my own keen sense of observation, I have noticed just an eensy weensy bit of misogyny in his writings.  You may notice it as well.

On the internet, most Americans seemed to act like little bitches, little girls brought up in a Feminist perversion of nature.

Well, I don’t know about that whole “perversion of nature” thing, but I have to say the first half of that sentence is pretty spot-on.

It was only after coming to the U.S. and studying here that all the pieces came together – a fascinating look at a dysfunctional man-hating civilization that is the polar opposite of my own culture, and will eventually lead to the collapse of Western civilization.

Uh oh.

Where I come from, men walk proud and rule the streets and testosterone runs in the air; and strong patriarchal foundations of family and the father as ruler of the household. Men harass and aggressively follow women – it is unapologetically a man’s world.

That’s what makes a civilization great: the harassment of women.

Just remember this, men, when you lean out of your car window to yell “Nice ass………WHORE!!!!!!!!!” at passing joggers of the female persuasion, you’re doing your bit to uphold our most noble traditions and help to fend off the forces of darkness.

In the U.S., Feminism has so corrupted the society to it’s core, damaged the very concept of family and the family unit and the father’s role, that society as a whole is like some bizarre alien planet – where men are bland, lack personality, are anti-social, gossipy, soul-less. Men are weak and insecure deep inside … women have all the power and American men seem clueless as to how bizarre the male-female dynamic has become.

How bizzare?

In the workplace, Americans are Automatons, like soul-less hamsters on a wheel. Fake conversations, no intellectualism, no interest in other countries, peoples, or history.

Do soul-less hamsters act differently than soulful ones? How can you tell the difference? Do the ones without souls poop more?

Also, terrible social and people skills – at least in California. Most people communicate via twitter and Facebook, even though most of the people on their Facebook live in the same city and a phone call away.

Really? You’re complaining about Facebook? Sorry, that’s just lazy and trite. You’re like the Dane Cook of reactionary misogynist cultural critics.

People are vacuous, shallow, superficial, suggestible. Men raised here are fake, insecure, lack personality, they seem to have “issues.” Women are confused and messed up ..

Wait, what’s that? Is that the dreaded MRA two-period punctuation mark? NOT AGAIN!

Oops. He’s still talking:

You let your women take control, and your society will unravel- it will make your men weak, and destroy your society to it’s core. The patriarchy is a male conceived and enforced institution that was imposed on females, because men, and only men understand well the long-term impacts of civilization and harnessing male energies into productive family units and a stable society …. civilization itself is a result of patriarchy.

You know, if you’re really into harnessing your male energies, you can buy the necessary equipment right here!

To sum if up, it seems to be that the whole country is phitzoprhenic [sic], like a Jekyll and Hyde monstrosity. There is no community, no camaredie, no soul, men and women are willing servants to their corporate masters and slaves to materialism and superficiality; and incredibly conformist, reserved, and politically correct to the point of totalitinarism.

“Conformist?” So now he’s turned into a high school goth?

Come on, dude, if you want to be a social critic, you’re going to need to work a little harder than that. Take a tip or two from this, er, duck:

Categories
cock blockade evil women man boobz fun time videos MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny penises western women suck

Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 3: In God’s Hand

It’s time once again for another episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Party Time Video. Today, the tiny bunny and small dog present a little something taken from the blog Traditionalist Christianity. It’s taken from a discussion of how hard it is to find a good woman in this world, since all women are whores. (I’m paraphrasing.) You will find the full quote below.

The whole thing is just an excuse for a masturbation joke. (Or is it a joke?)

Also, I’m aware of the typo in the video. It would cost a couple of bucks to re-edit and fix this. I would rather have that money for myself.

The quote (from here):

There aren’t enough quality women to go around, even outside of this country.

When I was seeking a wife, I’d already decided that if I didn’t find a decent woman, I’d just live a celibate life, and put it in God’s hand.

Sometimes this shit just writes itself.

Categories
evil women I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA reddit

All the Spinster Ladies

How spinster ladies try to distract themselves from their deep loneliness

Oh, you ladies. Getting jobs! Hiring other ladies! Demanding to be paid the same as men! You don’t realize just how short-sighted these strategies really are.

Luckily, you’ve got Sgt_Sweetness on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit to explain just where you went wrong.

[W]omen are slowly but surely becoming in charge of the work place. They dominate the HR Department of almost all companies. Especially large corporations. I’ve have never met a male HR person before and I am no young person anymore. This allows for women to decide who gets hired and fired. Do you know what pattern I see though? More and more women being chosen over men simply because women like to hire women over men. …

So this creates a shift in society towards women having more jobs than men. Better paying jobs too.

Ladies! With jobs! Oh noes! Damn those HR ladies, who totally and completely run the workplace, and never, say, just handle the paperwork when some dude higher up on the corporate ladder decides to hire someone!

But these ladies will get their comeuppance, for sure. For, you see:

Women while keeping their thin veneer of Feminist ideals, still want the ideal American family. They yearn to quit their jobs and marry a man who is handsome, funny, and makes more money than she does. …

So what we have hear is a situation: Women are taking more jobs than men and are starting to make more than men. But they want to have a partner who earns more than they do.

Uh oh.

What we have hear is a ticking time bomb. I’ve seen its effects first hand too. I know of 10 different women who are college graduates and have decent jobs. They are also desperately single. Like talks to their cats lonely.

Huh. I’m not sure where he’s going with this whole “talks to cats” thing. I mean, I talk to my cat. I think it’s only when the cat starts talking back to you you’ve got to worry, because then either you’ve just swallowed a handful of peyote buttons, or cats, who could speak all along, have just launched their secret plans to take over the world.

That aside, back to that ticking timebomb and those lonely, lonely women:

Nothing wrong with them: they are in shape, look good, nice personality, and make good money. But they won’t date down, as it were. I tried to set them up on some dates, but they would rather die inside from loneliness than date someone who they view is beneath them.

Just wait until this little problem becomes widespread. Because this is going to cause a lot of spinsters.

Bad news for the ladies, I guess. Good news for cats, though. Their supply of spinsters is going to go through the roof!

Categories
antifeminism evil women marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men racism reactionary bullshit the spearhead violence against men/women western women suck

Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals him to be a rabid antifeminist with views strikingly similar to many MRAs

Anders Breivik Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed more than 90 people in attacks on Friday, was motivated by a toxic mélange of far-right ideology largely revolving around his intense hatred of Islam. The 1500 page “manifesto” he posted to the internet – what appears to be a grab-bag of his own writing and material cut and pasted from assorted right-wing sites and even the Unabomber’s manifesto  – crackles with denunciations of Muslims, “Marxists” and the assorted other bogeymen that haunt right-wing dreams.

And it’s also filled with denunciations of feminism  that could easily have come from the posts and comments of Men’s Rights and misogynist “manosphere” blogs like The Spearhead, In Mala Fide, and, well, quite a few other sites I write about regularly on this blog. (Not to mention a few of this blog’s misogynist trolls.)  In passage after passage, the ideology is the same, the language is the same, even the specific obsessions are the same – from no-fault divorce to the evils of “Sex and the City.”  (Download the entire thing from the links here.)

I haven’t had time to go through the manifesto in great detail yet, but I wanted to share with you some selections from it that I think will strike most readers of this blog as strangely familiar.

The following selections, denouncing, among other things, the “’Sex and the City’ lifestyle,”appear to have been written by Breivik himself:

It’s the destructive and suicidal “Sex and the City” lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) which we are taught to revere as the truth. In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess. The perfect matriarchy has now been fulfilled and complete equality has finally been achieved. The fact that mankind will seize to exist within three generations with this type of regime is irrelevant. Long live cultural Marxism! …

Isolated, “sex and the city lifestyle” is relatively harmless, but if you glorify it and ram it down the throat of mainstream society like we see today it becomes a lethal and destructive societal force as we are witnessing which eventually leads to a complete breakdown of moral/ethics, the nuclear family model and a sustainable fertility rate which again is leading us to the extinction of Europeans.

Breivik goes on to rant about STDs and no-fault divorce, before moving on to another favorite obsession of manosphere misogynists, the supposed sexual “capital” of manipulative women:

Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. …

He also blames women for the spread of what he considers evil “cultural Marxism” and multiculturalism:

Fact: 60-70% of all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists are women. This partly explains why the gradual feminist revolution is directly linked to the implementation of multiculturalist doctrines. These feminist cultural Marxists do not only want more benefits and rights for themselves. They want it all, and have more or less been awarded with everything they could ever dream of achieving. They now have complete matriarchal supremacy domestically and exercise substantial influence in politics. …

Obsessed with the purported danger that Islam will outbreed the West, Breivik offers an assortment of creepy solutions to increase the fertility of Western whites. (It’s not altogether clear to me if these are all his own views, but they certainly are consistent with what he says elsewhere in the manifesto.)  After suggesting limiting contraception and banning abortion, Breivik offers this “solution”:

Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.

Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor’s degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD. …

And then he’s back on his “Sex and the City” hobbyhorse:

Discourage women in general to strive for “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles. The mass media are currently actively glorifying/encouraging “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles which involves the glorification of casual sex, multiple sex partners and generally an extremely liberal individualistic lifestyle hostile to the traditional nuclear family values. As such, the non-restrictions of the mass media is the main cause for our unsustainable fertility rate of 1,5. 

The indirect media/government glorification campaigns through individual artists, various series, movies and media coverage in general should reflect this new shift (no more glorification of “sex and the city lifestyles” or equivalent portrayals. No longer should women be pressured to have equal success regarding their career as males.

Womens “new role” should be actively illustrated and glorified through series, movies and commercials. This will involve significant restrictions in media freedoms and rights. These restrictions and reforms will result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,2-0,3 points.

The end result for implementing the above reforms would be an increase in the fertility rate up from 1,5 to approximately 2,1-2,4 which would be sustainable.

However, this will also involve significant restrictions in women’s rights and media rights.

And, like many in the manosphere, he also holds out hope for “artificial wombs,” which would of course reduce the inconvenience of relying on women to cooperate with his plans.

Large chunks of the manifesto consist of cut-and-pasted blog posts from an anonymous far-right Norwegian blogger known as Fjordman, whose now defunct blog can be found here. (According to Andrew Brown in the Guardian article linked to above, Breivik and Fjordman are not the same person.)

Here are some selections from the Fjordman posts that Breivik includes in his manifesto. Again, much of this will seem very familiar to many of you, I am sure.

For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. ….

The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilisation as whole. …

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow? …

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.

If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell. ….

Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. ….

it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. … At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon? …..

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands. ….

Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalisation is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries. …

radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilisation, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims. …

Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by… Islam. And feminists still aren’t satisfied. ….

Feminists claim that women have been victims of men, that men have oppressed women for centuries and that the sexes are equal. Denying this will result in the smears “misogynist” and “male chauvinist pig”. But equalising the sexes has led to a crippling feminisation of Western society … portraying women as oppressed victims and the equals of males is one example of how the pursuit of equality is being used to destroy our society and undermine – and therefore be in conflict with – Mother nature. ….

I’ll continue going through the manifesto to see what else I can find. If any of you decide to do the same thing, and find other selections in it that you find telling, please post them in the comments below.

I would also like to find specific writings on manosphere blogs – posts or comments – that directly parallel these selections from Breivik’s manifesto. If any of you are willing to help, again,  please post your findings in the comments below, along with URLs to the sources of the manosphere quotes.

Ideas have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences.

For more on Breivik’s misogyny, see this post on Red Light Politics.

PZ Myers has more on Breivik’s noxious ideology, including his hatred of atheists, here.