Category: evil women

Categories
antifeminism beta males crackpottery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men sex Uncategorized

>Pee-ple Power

>

Future revolutionaries?

On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks!  — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.

To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble”  is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was

a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife …  As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.

I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.

But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:

We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.  However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly.  Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.

So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”

This solution?

Urinal flyers. 

Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss  … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”

I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)

Here’s his explanation:

Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals.  When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level.  Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time.  …

If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come.  Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal.  The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted.  Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day. 

Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.

All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:

And another one, perhaps my favorite:

Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:

The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?

Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It

Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.

Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere

All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,

plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.

Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.

Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.

Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:

Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation.  Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .

Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for

that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted.  They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women.  But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.

So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.

Categories
antifeminism beta males creepy evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny violence against men/women

>Murder and male resentment

>Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here. 

One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I’ve seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here — an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my “Enemies List” in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile “humor” pieces — deliberately crude, and festooned with “wacky” pictures — directed at feminists and the like: here’s one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled “Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women’s Rights!”

But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post’s title a “Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who ‘Puts Out’ for Physically Abusive Men” — and who “is Missing and Probably Dead.” Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.

This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it’s essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of “skanks” generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because

she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men … when being approached. You know – the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn – but not at me of course.

Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.

Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:

Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus – a murderer too!

He ends the piece with the phrase “live and let SKANKS die” in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.

There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he’d shown the post to that he’d gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:

I was raised to have respect for all life. … Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart – but – I have seen crap like this way too often in my life – and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions  …

I have met too many women like this – and – yes – been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course – I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.

Do I still care?

NOPE.

From Men-Factor, Scarecrow’s blog.

For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.

Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez  and other so-called “skanks.”

The first link recounts what he rightly calls a “whale of a tale.” In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the “incredibly beautiful … busty brunette” in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you’ll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.

All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been “arguing” with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case.  Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn’t the real suspect — her boyfriend was — and moved on.

Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:

Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this – and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid – lord only knows how many times – or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? …

This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these “mega-hottie” women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. …

Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!

That’s the conclusion he draws from all this?

The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against “skanks” are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison.  Though the “accuser” here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a “f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any ‘nice-guys.'” He also manages to work in a shot at the “heavy-set women” he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:

Funny – since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?

Oh wait – that’s right – silly me. There’s an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course – lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!

The other story involves — long story short — two Nazi skinheads he’d never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they’d committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:

The thing that pissed me off:

They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. … I wondered: Why do … losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and “square” do not get the time of day from such women?

Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn’t know — for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.

To restate an obvious point I’ve made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who’ve rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that’s life. Life’s unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over “nice guys.” That’s their business, not yours.

But let’s pause for a moment on the issue of the “nice guy” — as in, for example, the “nice guys” who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How “nice,” exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of “skanks,” here’s the thing, and I shouldn’t really need to say this: you are not actually “nice.” You’re a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.

NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone — male or female, MRA or feminist — who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.

Categories
crackpottery evil women hypergamy MGTOW precious bodily fluids PUA sluts vaginas

>On Herpes and Hypergamy

>

Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap.

Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.

An extraordinary number of men in the “manosphere” — whether they’re wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way — have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn’t go on) behind the closed doors of America’s bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there — at least the straight ones —  are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.

So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called “hypergamy.”

The term refers to the practice of “marrying up”in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren’t merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They’ve combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap — variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.

And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide — by which I mean fuck anything that moves — these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.

Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this  (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.

This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven’t seen any yet.

But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some “21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.” (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC’s press release on the survey can be found here.)

Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling,  he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women — you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing — it’s simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I’ve put the key parts in bold):

Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. …

Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:

* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.

You’d think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn’t you?

Categories
evil women misogyny sluts Uncategorized vaginas western women suck

>Boycott? Make that a MANcott!

>

Judy Chicago brings vagina to the table. Via lolvantgarde

Careful readers may have noticed a new blog in my Enemies List, a promising up-and-comer in the world of nutbag misogyny. Yes, I’m talking about BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN, a blog whose purpose is clearly stated in its name. So why should we fellows boycott — sorry, BOYCOTT — AMERICAN WOMEN? Oh, our blog proprietor has got himself a little list:

American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children. …

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

So yeah, it’s pretty much the standard-issue anti-American woman crap. And for the most part the posts so far — little missives (allegedly) from different guys explaining why they hate American gals — haven’t been terribly imaginative.

But there are occasional sparks of wonderful nutbaggery. Like the little word-portrait evoked here by John from USA:

So many American woman seem to think that all they need to do is bring their vagina to the table and that I will just give them whatever they want

Vagina? Table? Paging Judy Chicago!

In case you were wondering, ladies, John assures us all that he does “not have a small penis!” But too bad, ladies, he’s taken.

A post from someone named James laments that American women have become

a spoiled, non compassionate sex that I have seen de masculinate their spouses

Mark from the USA, meanwhile, seems to have something of a hair fetish:

Many foreign women have much nicer body shapes, more feminine traits and a lot still have nice long hair, opposed to the boyish low-maintenance short cuts that most American women get by their mid to late teens and never grow back.

Damn those hair-cutting sluts! Also, Mark seems like he’s really not into the whole “communication” thing.

I’m looking for a foreign spouse too, and would NEVER accept an American woman. I don’t even care what country she’s from or if we speak a mutual language. In fact, I’d probably be happier with her if we couldn’t even understand each other, than some American bitch constantly nagging and ragging at me in English.

I don’t think I’ll be boycotting American women any time soon. But I’ll be coming back to this blog for sure.

Categories
antifeminism creepy evil women incel misogyny sex sluts Uncategorized

>Campus creep out

>

Damn you, accursed temptress!

In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:

Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.

Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.

Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.

Back to the comment:

What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.

Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.

On with the rest of the comment:

And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.

Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!

Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.

I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?

Just a guess.

EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here. 

Categories
antifeminism discussion of the day evil women I'm totally being sarcastic MGTOW misogyny Uncategorized

>It’s the end of the world as we know it, but dudes feel fine

>

Serves you right for being a lady, lady!

In a discussion of Britain’s financial troubles on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a dude calling himself rebel managed to tease out some good news in the prospect of complete financial meltdown: the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!

Let’s face it: feminism was possible only through oppulence [sic]. The richer the country the worse it got.

Now the opposite is happening: we may have to suffer not being able to buy that new pair of shoes, but women will become less arrogant when they will have to live on bread crumbs.

I say keep them starved, skinny and obedient. Civilization is harmful to men: it causes women to go haywire.

If the economy tanks, men will be the winners.

“Oppulence?” Apparently, in the brave new post-civilization world, correct spelling will be a luxury we can no longer afford.

EDIT: Screencap for those not registered at Happy B:

Categories
discussion of the day evil women I'm totally being sarcastic MGTOW misogyny oppressed men sex

>All the single mothers

>

It’s the one in the middle that’s the problem.

Fellas, be careful out there, lest you run across the single gravest threat to modern man, and probably civilization itself: the single mom. These money-hungry, baby-hungry monsters will seduce you and abandon you, after extracting from you the magical substance that allows them to pop forth babies that you will have to pay for forever. Young or old, straight or lesbian, they all want your sperm and your money.

At least that’s the argument of a dude calling himself The Fourth Planet on the LoveShack.org message boards. I’ve put some especially good bits in bold.

[T]he time has come to look at male sexuality as a weakness that makes men vulnerable to all kinds of predator. It’s a sexual vulnerability that makes you prey to baby mama or baby-hungry women. …

Your sexuality is tolerated only when it’s necessary to provide young women, long past menopausal women, lesbians, single mothers by choice … with children. In other words, only for as long as it serves women’s needs to satisfy their baby urges. …

Women’s sexuality gives them, and the state, almost unlimited power to control men. As long as women are free to use their power of sex to exploit men, then all the things we resent in women will continue and get worse.

Our weakness for pussy is … being used to destroy us. …

You must reject single mothers because she represents all of the things that destroy men, our children, our families, and our communities. …

Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man’s resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man’s child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That’s because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.

Damn those sneaky, sexy ladies and their sneaky, sexy sexiness! If only there was a way to get rid of all desire altogether.

Categories
crackpottery evil women MGTOW

>Women Are … Part 5: Romance is Dead Edition

>

Earth girls ARE easy!

Part 5 in a ten quadrillion part series. What today’s entries lack in coherence they make up for in vehemence. And general crackpottery. I’ve bolded some of the best bits.

Women are: dumb cowards happy to open their legs to space aliens.

Females do not understand and are unwilling to participate in war or power politics on an international level. The classic female response to war is to lie down and fuck whichever MAN wins. If the Nazi, Arabs, Huns, Romans, Tutsies, English, or space aliens win the next war it won’t matter to the female mind. If they kill her father, brother, and husband it won’t matter to the female mind. She is happy opening her legs and breeding with a winner.

Women are: Feminizazis?

These socialist, feminizazi, ball breaking c@#ts can go jump off their lesbionic herstory produced bridge and hopefully the goddess will welcome them into feminazi distopia where they will get 70 virgin boys, 14 year old (that’s the way those teachers like em) and 70 slutty girls, so they can lap each others worn out slut produced disease pouches.

Women are: Sexified diseased blobs of flesh

American women were whores 40 years ago, they became sluts 30 years ago, 20 years ago they were free prostitutes, 10 years ago, they became walking Sperm banks / Mobile Sperm Units, and today they are a sexified diseased blob of flesh waiting to infect their next encounter with their contagious excretions. They are a grotesque form with female organs without any spirit of femininity – a polluted and decayed creature! They are totally ruined by their own hands… minds!

Romance is dead and whores killed it!!

Categories
crackpottery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men reactionary bullshit Uncategorized

>All the problems in the world — solved!

>

Adam Smith: Legendary Cockonomist

Sometimes mean people criticize Men’s Rightsers for complaining endlessly on the internet without offering any real solutions to the problems they complain about. Well, the meanies can’t make that criticism any more. Because now we have what is essentially a solution to all the world’s problems, in the form of a five-point “agenda for Nice Guys” set forth by a fellow called genepool on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Forum. It starts off with a bang:

Elimination/reduction of welfare and government’s socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don’t pick you shouldn’t get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children.

You may have to read this one twice to understand all the nuances. Anyone having trouble with the cock-centric economic theory here should get out Adam Smith’s Wealth of Cocks and remind themselves how the Invisible Handjob of the market really works. I quote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their cocks. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their hard, throbbing dicks, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of our cunts.

Cocks are led by an invisible handjob, or maybe a blow job if she’s drunk, to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, to advance the interest of the society. And possibly to stick it in her butt if she’s a real slut.

Let’s skip point 2 for a moment to quickly cover the last three: 

Privatization of marriage. …  I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?

Damn you, genepool! You have foiled my plans!

Exactly. Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so.

The remaining two points: Legalization of prostitution, and limits on child support for rich dudes. Both total no brainers.

But it is point 2 that is genepool’s truly visionary notion:

Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You’re rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn’t kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won’t do that out of altruism. You need [incentives]. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it’s consensual, it’s win win and it should be legal.

Win win? Something this brilliant deserves at least four wins. Win win win win. A solution to nice guy loneliness AND the Holocaust! Imagine Anne Frank, sitting quietly up in that attic, scribbling away in that diary of hers. What if she could have gotten on the internet and snagged herself a sweet, shy pedophile in, say, New Jersey? That’s at least slightly preferable to a death camp, right? Problem solved!

Genepool, you are a genius.

Categories
discussion of the day evil women masculinity MGTOW precious bodily fluids Uncategorized

>Johnny’s Turn to Cry

>

Boo fucking hoo.

As many of you have no doubt noticed — what with the literally dozens of news stories and op-ed pieces on the subject that have appeared in the media in the last week or so — incoming Speaker of the House John Boenher is a bit of a weeper. While some have scoffed at his public crying jags, quite a few people, including some who don’t like his politics at all, have stepped forward to defend his right to cry.

Women have been especially quick to jump to his defense, at least when it comes to the crying thing. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus announced that she wanted “to celebrate the lachrymose speaker-to-be and hope that he helps make the world safe for public crying.” Rachel Maddow devoted a whole segment of her show to a defense of his shows of emotion — while pointing out that while Boehner has been moved to tears by the plight of American schoolchildren, his policies will inevitably result in massive budget cuts for education.

But the most, er, original interpretation of the whole crying thing comes from one commenter on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum, who sees this female defense of Boehner’s  right to cry  as … an evil female plot to make him look bad. As Phloridian put it in a recent posting:

By now many of us have become aware of the crying episodes of John Boehner who is soon to become the next Speaker of the House.

Women all over the media have been insisting that it is alright, but snickering about it covertly. The piece on 60 Minutes has virtually doomed any chance of becoming President and he is beginning to become a laughing stock.

This is why women are not to be trusted. They will encourage men to cry, and expose their vulnerabilities all in an effort to weaken the man. That’s what’s being done here and it sickens me.

Women are devious creatures indeed! It makes me want to cry.

submit to reddit