Category: evil women

Categories
disgusting women evil women funny men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW sex

Man Boobz will haunt your dreams

The Man (Boob) of Your Dreams

So I got this picture from a reader yesterday. And this explanation:

I’ve been lurking your blog for about a month now, and a few weeks ago, after a day of reading a particularly large amount of your posts, I had a strange dream about this guy who sits on a train and describes some STDs he caught in great (and terrifying) detail to whoever is silly enough to listen. His goal is to dissuade other men from making the same mistake he did — having sex with women. Because to “Hamish the Lover” … all women are dirty and evil and should be avoided at all costs.

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it?

The [person] Hamish was talking to in my dream … realized the irony that the sex Hamish had probably [sucked, not] because of the women, but because Hamish is a selfish, inconsiderate, lazy asshole — but he’s so focused on The Evil of Womenz that he will probably never realize the truth for himself.

I thought it was awesome that even my subconscious laughs at these guys.

(And yes, I even had the dream in cartoon style…)

Sometimes you don’t need Freud to interpret your dreams.

Do any of the rest of you have your own MGTOW dream lovers? Or any other signs that the boobz have invaded your subconscious?

Categories
evil women idiocy MRA PUA rape reactionary bullshit violence against men/women

MRAs respond, predictably awfully, to the arrest of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn

There have been some strange, but hardly surprising, reactions in the MRA-verse to the arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn on attempted rape charges.

On The False Rape Society blog, Pierce Harlan seems bothered that the police would arrest such an important man, citing an assortment of articles saying that Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will likely have a big effect on markets and on the global economy.

Harlan titles his piece: “So rape claims aren’t taken seriously? Reuters says the claim against Strauss-Kahn could impact “the well-being of the global economy.”  After quoting from an assortment of news stories that suggest that, yes, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest has already affected markets and could affect the global economy, Harlan ends with this petulant conclusion:

All because of a disputed rape allegation. Right now, that’s all it is. I have no idea if a crime was committed, and neither do you.

But I know one thing: the entire world is taking very seriously — and perhaps way too seriously — the word of an unnamed maid it knows nothing about.

First of all, just as we don’t know whether or not Strauss-Kahn is guilty of this alleged attack, we also don’t know what evidence the police have. What we do know from other media accounts suggests that there is more to go on than the “word of an unnamed maid” – including DNA and other evidence at the scene, footage from the hotel’s security cams, injuries suffered by the maid, who was treated at a local hospital. There may well have been witnesses too; we simply don’t know. (Also, the maid has now been named in the French press. Wonderful.)

Second, and more importantly, why should the fact that the arrest has affected world markets have any bearing whatsoever on the case? By this logic, no important political or financial figure should ever be arrested for anything.

To make myself perfectly clear here:  Harlan does not say explicitly that DSK is too important to be arrested on the word of a lowly maid, but that seems to be the implicit suggestion of his post, the whole reason to quote several articles about the effect this is having on the world economy, all because of  “the word of an unnamed maid [the world] knows nothing about.”  I have asked him to clarify what exactly he did mean, and he has refused. In a followup post he asks rhetorically “Have we handed an unnamed maid too much power to destroy a presumptively innocent man?” and answers himself by saying “The question scarcely survives its statement.” Which I will take as a “yes.” He goes on to say:

We reported yesterday what the world press is saying about the sexual assault claim against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. About how it could impact not only the IMF he heads, and France where is a presidential hopeful, but the global economy itself.  It is widely believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s reputation has been marred beyond repair, regardless of the outcome of this affair.

To say this is morally grotesque does not capture the evil of what is happening to a presumptively innocent man. …

If there is a running theme in this blog, it is this: we have handed anonymous women and children far, far too much power to destroy the lives and reputations of presumptively innocent men before even a scrap of evidence has been introduced to prove their guilt.

If I am reading this correctly — and please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Harlan — he is saying that ALL men are too important to be arrested on sexualk assault charges based on the word of “anonymous women and children.”

Again, let me ask you, Mr. Harlan, is this what you mean? I invite everyone here to read the two posts in question —  the first one here; the second one here — and tell me what you think he is trying to say.

Mr. Harlan, if you want to clarify what you mean here, I will put that clarification up without comment as a post, under a neutral headline (Pierce Harlan clarifies what he meant in his posts on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn arrest”).

I would also like to point out, again, that the police seem to be going on a lot more than the “word of an unnamed maid,” including surveillance tapes, statements from those who spoke to the maid immediately after the alleged incident, DNA evidence in the room. There may also be DNA evidence on her clothing; that we don’t know. But it seems fairly clear that there is evidence beyond the maid’s testimony.

Meanwhile, over on In Mala Fide, a guest blogger from Human-Stupidity.com, an MRA site that devotes a lot of its attention to railing against child porn laws, attacks the accuser and dismisses the charges. It’s hard to know what in the post is sarcasm and what is simply astounding stupidity. But as far as I can figure it, Mr. Stupidity is far more distressed by reports that the maid accidentally walked in on a naked Strauss-Kahn than he is by the possibility that he sexually assaulted her:

The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room?  Unforgivable. …

This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment.

Mr. Stupidity then goes on to suggest that such a powerful man would never try to rape anyone because, you know, powerful men don’t do that sort of thing.

A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?

A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?

Never mind that other women are coming forward with stories of assaults by Strauss-Kahn, suggesting that he may not be quite so well-behaved as Mr. Stupidity assumes.

So what does Mr. Stupidity think really happened? After raising the possibility that this is all some political setup, he ends the piece suggesting that the maid – who, he says “committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime” by accidentally walking in on Strauss-Kahn – simply made up the story in order to protect her job. Because maids are instantly fired for accidentally walking in on guests? Because never ever in the history of hotels has a maid walked in on someone naked? (A quick Google search suggests not only that this is relatively common, but also that it’s a sexual fantasy of quite a few men.)

Meanwhile, Ben Stein – not, as far as I know, an MRA, but a neocon and a bit of a dick – has offered his own highly problematic defense of Strauss-Kahn, which boils down to, well, envy:

this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that’s what it’s all about. A man pays $3,000 a night for a hotel room? He’s got to be guilty of something. Bring out the guillotine.

More on this as it develops. And it’s developing fast.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny nice guys rape rapey the spearhead thug-lovers violence against men/women

On The Spearhead, it’s always women’s fault

It wasn't me.

A sex offender in Washington state who has spent most of his life behind bars, convicted of an assortment of different crimes ranging from check kiting to child molestation, is close to his release date. Not surprisingly, given his long history of preying on young girls, prosecutors are pushing for him to be sent instead to a facility for sexual predators, as a recent story on SeattlePI.com notes.

A state psychologist has described Donald “Theo” Holmes as a remorseless psychopath and a pathological liar who has managed to rack up an impressive array of crimes, many involving underage girls, during his stints outside of prison.  As the psychologist observed:

 “He uses women and children to feed his sexual desires, and he uses other members of society to supply him with money, clothes, and cars that make him look important and fuel the grandiosity which is an ingrained part of his personality. …

“He admits to multiple sexual conquests and is proud of the fact that he has 22 children and that he has had mothers and daughters … pregnant at the same time with his child.”

Holmes, for his part, simply describes himself as a “womanizer.” Apparently 12-year-old girls count as “women” in his world.

Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price uses this case as an example of what is wrong with, you guessed it, women.

Fathering 22 children is not easy even without spending so much time incarcerated, so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.

Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.

Perhaps the most important message we can get out there to young men is that there is little connection between what turns women on and what is objectively good for society.

I don’t know any feminists who think that women only go for “good” guys; indeed, the feminists I know spend a lot of time discussing (and trying to help) women who are or were involved with not-so-good-guys. Evidently the imaginary feminists Price hangs out with, though, are reincarnations of Victorians who assume all women are perfect little angels.

Price is bad enough. Do we have to look at the comments too? Yes, yes we do. Let’s start with the very first one, from Opus, who asked:

but is he really so bad [?]… there is nothing to suggest that the minors were anything other than enthusiatic. Whatever views one may have as to the age of consent, the girls were not infants or children but adolescents.

Yep, in Opus’ mind, sex with 12- and 14-year-olds is no problem, so long as we assume (based on nothing) that they were “enthusiastic” about it. Last I checked, this comment had  16 upvotes and only 3 downvotes, so apparently he’s not the only one willing to blame underage girls for being raped. Sorry, having “enthusiastic” sex with a career criminal many decades older than them.

Meanwhile, Anonymous Reader (in another heavily upvoted comment) takes aim at:

the state of Washington. There’s no way this guy could have spawned 22 children if he had to support them on his own. How many are on AFDC, WIC or other welfare programs, paid for by ordinary, working Beta men? Yes, this is a result of liberalism but it also is a result of feminism.

AFDC and WIC are, of course, intended to make sure that the children of poor women don’t, you know, starve to death.  Now, I’m pretty sure Holmes wouldn’t have given a shit if his kids all starved. But apparently neither would Anonymous and his numerous upvoters. Why exactly should the children – some of whom may well be the result of the rape of underage girls — have to pay the price for Holmes’ despicable actions?

Yes, you can blame liberalism and feminism for the fact that these children are being fed. That’s not a bad thing. The actions of Holmes weren’t the actions of a liberal or a feminist; they were the actions of a seemingly psychopathic  sexual predator who assumed, like many traditionalist men, that women and girls are put on this earth for men to use as they see fit.

NOTE: I didn’t set out today to write yet another post about The Spearhead. But I read Price’s post and sort of had to say something. My next post will have nothing to do with The Spearhead. I promise.

EDITED TO ADD:  Picture credit: Zampieri, “God reprimanding Adam and Eve,” detail;  photo G. Piolle.

Categories
antifeminism evil women idiocy internal debate manginas marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead western women suck

W.F. Price: A Daisy Picking Mangina?

I'm onto you, all women!

MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.

Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:

We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?

Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,

a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …

If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.

And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:

[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …

Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.

So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.

On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.”  Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:

The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..

 [I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)

Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.

W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.

Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.

Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!

Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead vaginas western women suck

The Royal Scam

Do you like my hat? No, I do not like your hat.

I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over  Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,

but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?

Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:

Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.

Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.

But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:

Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!

Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!

So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that

promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.

Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.

But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:

Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.

The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.

What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.

Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)

While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”

To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:

The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.

Equality in marriage = oppression of men.

I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.

And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .

—

*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.

UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.

Categories
evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA sex sluts thug-lovers video white knights

Smurfette was a stuck-up bitch

Do MGTOWers get their notions of modern romance from old Smurf cartoons? I’m beginning to think they do. As you may remember, the world of the Smurfs was an all-male bastion until evil Gargamel created the creature he called Smurfette from a mixture of

Sugar and spice but nothing nice…A dram of crocodile tears…A peck of bird brain…The tip of an adder’s tongue…Half a pack of lies, white, of course…The slyness of a cat…The vanity of a peacock…The chatter of a magpie…The guile of a vixen and the disposition of a shrew…And of course the hardest stone for her heart…..

Initially an evil, deceitful brunette, Smurfette was transformed by Papa Smurf into a glamorous (and less obviously evil) blonde. At which point Smurfs young and old began falling in love with her, supplicating themselves before her Smurfy beauty. Even Papa Smurf himself had the Smurfs for her, as you can see in the video above – even though, as her co-creator, he was basically her father. Ick. Sometimes Smurfette played her smurfy suitors against one another, inspiring them to even greater depths of supplication.

MGTOWers, and a lot of MRAs, basically see this as the basic paradigm of romance: men jumping through hoops to even get noticed by stuck-up women who need do nothing but exist in order to garner male attention. In the Smurf world, this was because there was only one Smurfette in a village full of lonely Smurfs. In the real world, in which men and women balance out more evenly, well, MGTOWers and MRA recreate the weird Smurfy imbalance by simply declaring most women undateable – too old (if they’re over 25 or 30) or too fat (with BMIs over 25). Hey presto! Now men, much like Smurfs, can compete against one another for the same small number of women, making almost everyone miserable in the process, especially themselves.

In Smurf world, of course, Smurfette is chaste and pure; she may kiss the boys but that’s about it. This hardly comports with the MGTOW notion that women are all slutty sluts, bedding down with every thug-boy and alpha male who makes their ‘ginas tingle, to use the peculiarly offputting parlance of the misogynist set. Natually enough, a few creative internetters have reimagined Smurfette as a Smurfslut. Warning: this video may destroy your image of Smurfette forever. This one’s worse.

Oh, and for an interesting discussion of the misogyny and apparent anti-Semitism of Smurf creator Peyo, see here.

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women feminism men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny precious bodily fluids sex sluts vaginas

Don’t Trust Any Vagina Over Twenty-five

Marilyn Monroe, 8 years past her expiration date.

In the spring, a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. And, at least if he’s straight, vaginas. Even if this young man happens to be a not-so-young man, and one who is defiantly Going His Own Way and thus theoretically immune to the vagina’s siren song. At least that’s the case with one regular over on the Happy Bachelors forum who recently set forth some intriguing theories on vaginas. Specifically, vaginas older than 25. What “Superbad” calls his “Golden Vagina Rule” is pretty simple: “Don’t trust any vagina over 25.” As he explained in a recent thread:

Social commentary written (or spoken) by a woman whose vagina is over 25 years old can be considered mostly bullshit. Null and void. And here is why. You cannot expect a woman, whose primary function is to make babies (aka attract men), to be anything but bitter or dishonest after her eggs and looks start to go. …

And why is this? According to Superbad,

when a woman’s sexuality declines (whored out, dried up vagina, menopause, postpartum depression, psychologically-induced frigidity, insanity, etc.) that she starts blaming men and talking a lot of hate and nonsense.

Just a few quick notes here: Female sexuality is not a finite resource; you cannot use it up by having sex on a regular basis. Nor do vaginas dry up like dead flowers when a woman passes the age of 25. Generally speaking, when a woman is interested in having sex with you, and you don’t just shove your dick in her without so much as a “how do you do,” lubrication is not a problem. If it is, for whatever reason, you can purchase bottles of lubricant at the local drug store. (This is also, FYI, how people are able to have butt sex.) Also, the average age of menopause is 51, not 25; though many believe menopause kills libido and “dries up” the vagina, this is probably a myth.

Oh, and also: mocking women for aging and/or suffering postpartum depression is not just a douchey thing to do, it’s practically psychopathic. Yes, physical beauty fades – eventually – for women and men alike. But having a complete and utter lack of empathy for your fellow human beings is an unattractive quality at any age. Speaking of unattractive beliefs, let’s continue:

The down side of people living longer, is that most women are going to be ugly for vast majority of their lives. That is obviously going to breed resentment and animosity. A woman’s time in the sun is brief. A man becomes more powerful with age. But a woman never gets any prettier. … Feminism has become a way for the uglier, older, less-fertile women to CONTROL young, virile girl’s orgasms and their sexuality.

At this point I feel I should remind Mr. Bad that the word “virile” actually means “manly,” in a general sense; more specifically, it means “capable of functioning as a male in copulation.” If you are interested in women with such capability — hey, let your kink flag fly! – there are several options available to you. (One of them may involve the purchase of equipment; they will all involve the lube I spoke of earlier.)  If this isn’t what you want, you may wish to reword your post, and perhaps any dating profiles you may have put up on DoucheMatch.com or PlentyOfCompleteFuckingAssholes or wherever the fuck you may have put them up, so as to ward off any possible confusion on this point.

Superbad continues:

If you think women hate men; trust me, they’d just assume [sic] claw each others eyes out. And here is where a happy bachelor differs. Older men don’t feel the need to compete with younger men. Older men feel a bond with younger men. It is our duty to teach them and pass down any knowledge. We live in a world where the enemy is no longer a bear or tribal war. The enemy is packaged as pretty as a peacock: MARRIAGE. It is a way to sell the old vagina.

Yuck! Send that old hag to Carrousel!

Let’s try to work out the logic here. According to Superbad, marriage is a dastardly plot by evil feminists to bind men to vaginas over the age of 25, and presumably the women hosting them as well, who by definition are dried-up, whored-out ugly monsters (both the women and the vaginas, presumably).

Feminists are also trying to “CONTROL” the sexuality of young, fertile (yet also virile) women/vaginas, presumably by keeping them from having sex with … Superbad, who, as a Man Going His Own Way, doesn’t even want to be with women in the first place?

The ideal world, evidently, is one in which men of all ages get to have sex with under-25 vaginas (and their women), and are free to reject outright all women/vaginas older than that. In order to accommodate men of all ages, of course, these young women/vaginas will have to have sex with lots of different men. This will, of course, make them, by Superbad’s reckoning, “whores.”

Forget the old virgin-whore dichotomy; in Superbad’s sexual utopia all women/vaginas will pass through three stages: starting out virgins, they will, for a brief period in their late teens and early twenties, be whores; then, after the age of 25, they will be consigned to the whore-heap of history and become hags.

Superbad has it all figured out.  And, as he explains in another comment, these poor gals will have no one but the feminists to blame:

[N]on-fertile women (read: ugly, old, bitchy) are always mad when they see young girls worshiping our cocks… old habits die hard. women are lazy. feminism requires women to get off their fat asses, work, and compete with smarter/stronger beings. most get a taste of “feminism”: working retail and getting fvcked/chucked monthly… and then end up online, looking for a “real man”. but, unfortunately, all the boys that the last generation of femi-turds raised are wimps. so, ladies, here is the game plan. get on your knees when young (so we can rent your mouth and vagina) and THEN, later, wise up, get angry, and MAN UP… and live alone with your cats. Feel free to get online as an old bat and “school” us men. LOL

Yes, Superbad has appended a “LOL” to the tail end of his comment, as if it were some sort of Internet-age equivalent to the more traditional Q.E.D. (Pro-tip: It’s not.) Still, his comments did make me LOL a little, or at least chuckle quietly to myself. Not with you, Superbad. At you.

NOTE: If you didn’t get that reference to “carrousel” earlier, perhaps this scene from Logan’s Run will jog your memory:

Categories
douchebaggery evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny western women suck

Desperately Seeking Übermenschen

Hey ladies!

The general line amongst manosphere misogynists is that American women are a bunch of stuck-up princesses whose “ginas” – that is, vaginas – tingle only in the presence of “thugs” and “alpha males.” But one YouTube ranter calling himself LogicJunkie has a somewhat different theory, as he recently explained in a note to the moderator of the Happier Abroad forums. American women, it turns out, are basically all Nazis at heart, “preoccupied with … eugenic perfection in males.” Let’s follow LogicJunkie’s, er, logic:

American females regard as a “creep” any guy who isn’t at least six feet tall, with a pronounced chin, a jock physique, and, in general, Ken doll good Aryan looks. And money is important, too, but not nearly as important as the physiological eugenics. So, in good Germanic fashion, I think what they’re mainly concerned about, is somehow being contaminated by the mere presence of the inferior. …

America is, now more than ever, a Germano-eugenicist death camp, wrapped in the facade of “capitalism” and “corporatism” and “pop culture” and blah, blah, blah. But it’s all about covertly advancing the genetic omnipresence of the Teutonic physiological ideal.

I hate to poop on LogicJunkie’s logic here but, dude, if all the women you’re meeting turn out to be eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis, it does not therefore follow that all American women are eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis. It may just mean you should stop cruising for chicks at Klan meetings.

Categories
douchebaggery evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA sex violence against men/women

Lara Logan Redux: More victim blaming, rape denial and rape apologetics from In Mala Fide

Screenshot of In Mala Fide

TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic descriptions of sexual assault; rape apologetics.

Journalist Lara Logan recently appeared on 60 Minutes, giving the harrowing details of the brutal sexual and physical assault she sustained at the hands of a mob while covering the protests for (60 Minutes) in Cairo this past February.

When news of the assault first hit the internet, you may recall, it seemed to open the floodgates of misogyny and racism. Looking at one Yahoo News story on the attack, I found hundreds of vile comments – some blaming Logan for her victimization, or doubting it ever happened; others using the assault as an excuse to spout hateful filth about Arabs and Muslims in general.  In the “manosphere” itself, the reaction was predictably appalling, with many MRAs not only mocking and belittling the victim but using the case to push their own retrograde agenda. (See my post here for more details.)

Even within this context, the reaction of blogger Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide stood out for its sheer nastiness; I wrote about it here. In his first post on the subject, Bardamu mocked the victim, declared that “she had it coming,” then suggested that she probably hadn’t been raped at all. Based on no evidence whatsoever, he speculated that she may have just  “made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. “

Bardamu has now used the occasion of Logan’s new CBS interview as an excuse to mock the victim again — calling her, among other things, an “idiot,” a “moron,” a “strumpet” and a “fake-breasted tart” — and to repeat his contention that she wasn’t “really” raped at all. Indeed, he says, the interview has “vindicated” his skepticism about the rape. Why? Because in her interview of 60 Minutes, Logan had spoken about being penetrated by the hands of her attackers. Bardamu evidently finds this highly risable, and somehow manages to convince himself that Logan was merely groped:

But seriously, “they raped [you] with their hands”?

Look, I’m no scholar, but even with feminists’ constant re-defining of rape, I know for a fact that rape has to involve a penis. Specifically, an penis entering an orifice without invitation. If you didn’t get a dick forced into your mouth, vagina or asshole, you didn’t get raped.

Logan and CBS’ deliberate vagueness about the “sexual assault” back in February was no doubt calculated to make people imagine the worst possible scenario that could happen. A line of hairy, creepy men pulling a train on her. Triple penetration at all times, the hairy sleazy monkey-men shooting jizz in every hole in her body, donkey punching her every time she tried to resist. In reality, she probably got spit on a few times, had her butt slapped, and had her silicone tits felt up. That’s not rape, you strumpet, that’s Spring Break in Cancun!

It’s hard to even know where to start with something this appalling. First of all, as a few dissenters pointed out in the comments on Bardamu’s post, it is still rape – “real” rape – when you are penetrated with fingers, bottles, or any other foreign object. When Abner Louima was brutally sodomized with the handle a bathroom plunger by New York city cops, that was rape, real rape. And what Logan says happened to her was real rape too.

As for the rest, I think the only thing to do is to contrast Bardamu’s words with Logan’s account of what happened to her, taken from a transcript of the interview.

As Logan tells the story of the assault, she and her crew were caught in the midst of a mob. Men grabbed her, groped her, and literally tore the clothes from her body. As she describes it:

I feel them tearing at my clothing. I think my shirt, my sweater was torn off completely. My shirt was around my neck. I felt the moment that my bra tore. They tore the metal clips of my bra. They tore those open. … [T]hey literally just tore my pants to shreds. And then I felt my underwear go.

Some men began beating her with sticks and others, with their hands, penetrated her. In this and the following passages I’ve bolded the statements dealing specifically with the sexual aspect of the assault. Logan again:

I didn’t even know that they were beating me with flagpoles and sticks and things, because I couldn’t even feel that. Because I think of the sexual assault, was all I could feel, was their hands raping me over and over and over again. …

They were tearing my body in every direction at this point, tearing my muscles. And they were trying to tear off chunks of my scalp … not trying to pull out my hair, holding big wads of it, literally trying to tear my scalp off my skull. And I thought, …  I am going to die here.

This assault lasted 25 minutes. Logan says:

[T]hat’s when I said, “Okay, it’s about staying alive now. I have to just surrender to the sexual assault. What more can they do now? They’re inside you everywhere.” So the only thing to fight for, left to fight for, was my life.

Ultimately, Logan was rescued and rushed to the hospital. Logan continues:

I stayed there for four days, which was hard. My muscles were so unbelievably sore, because they were literally stretched from the mob trying to tear my limbs off my body. My joints, every joint in my body was distended. And then they, the more intimate injuries, the injuries, the tearing inside. And the mark of their hands, their fingers all over my body, cuts and everything you could imagine. But no broken bones.

This horrific account bears very little resemblance, it hardly needs to be said, to Spring Break in Cancun.

Naturally, a number of the commenters on Bardamu’s  site manage if anything to be even more vile than Bardamu himself.

McGlothin suggests that Logan probably enjoyed the experience:

It’s not impossible that she went all the way to orgasm when the testosterone filled raging men fingered and groped her. That would explain the vagueness of her description: she was way enjoying it so much that she could not remember precisely what happened except that they molested her manually.

Attila concurs:

This gynbot just wants attention, and is playing the “Arabs are animals” routine for brownie points. She probably got groped a little, in a way that she has never been groped before, and she may be reacting to the fact that she may have gotten a thrill out of it.

Commander Shepard throws some racism and “slut”-shaming into the mix:

She was raped by their hands? LOL. A pretty blond like Logan probably spent her youth getting gang banged by alphas. In this case the men were beneath her (dirty sand niggers) but even they didn’t penetrate. She’s probably more upset about her bruised ego than her bruised body.

Bardamu wrote his post, I should note,  before the interview aired, and before anything beyond a few quotes from it had been published. But it is telling that he has not bothered to go back and watch or read the full account. Not that it would matter; he made up his mind on the case a long time ago, and I doubt that anything could change it. Like many in the “manosphere,” Bardamu and his fans see only what they want to see, and use their imagination – and their prejudices — to fill in the rest.

Categories
evil women marriage strike men behaving worse MGTOW MRA oppressed men Uncategorized

Angels and Insects

 

Manosphere dudes devote a fuckwad of time to denouncing the evils of modern marriage. But if anything they drastically understate their case. A recent post on io9 took a look at an old Superman comic that faced the issue no one wants to talk about: What if your lovely bride turns into a giant bug and stings you to death!!?? 

 

Also, Happy Easter! 

 

As for me, I celebrate Easter a day late. Well, it’s not so much Easter that I celebrate as Leftover Easter Candy for 50% Off Day.  

—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.