Over on Reddit, an MRA named AryoBarzan sets the feminist slut ladies straight on the BIOTRUTH about their ever-growing and FAR less pleasurable vaginas. (Ignore the rude person replying to his message; clearly Aryo is the real penis and vagina expert here.)
Wait, you say to yourself, how is it that this bold truth-teller is being downvoted, on Reddit? He posted in the antimensrights subreddit, that’s why. In the Men’s Rights subreddit he normally gets the upvotes he so richly deserves.
I‘m not feeling the whole “reading blogs by assholes and making a post about it” thing at the moment (because it involves more “reading blogs by assholes” than I care to at present), so let’s kick it old school and new school with (respectively) Roxanne Shante …
Female kitties! Your long reign of gynofelininofascist matrioterror has ended! Over on A Voice for Male Cats Men, JinnBottle has figured out a purr-fect way to put lady cats in their place! (Hint: That place is not on his lap, being gently stroked.) Oh, and this goes for all you human ladies too, or else — POW!
Are you?
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this comment.)
Reading this blog, you might get the impression that Men’s Rights activists lack a sense of humor. Not so! Some of them even make their own hilarious comics! I’d like to celebrate three of the finest MRA cartoons I’ve seen thus far in the first edition of what I’d like to call the MRA Comics Cavalcade. Click the thumbnails to go to the (full-sized) comics themselves.
In this edition of the popular The Pigman Cometh, the aforementioned Pigman, who has apparently killed a woman, dances with her corpse while spouting humorous remarks about how women and marriage suck. This comic is written by one dude, and drawn by another. Yes, it takes two people to produce masterpieces like this.Two separate people.
.
In this NSFW cartoon found on the blog Wimminz, two evil feminists talk evilly about divorce and park in a handicapped parking space. Just like real feminists would! And then a guy has sex with, apparently, some sex dolls?
.
And, finally, in this edition of plasticBrickAutomaton, an evil feminist door-to-door saleswoman tries to sell some dude a weird and incorrect caricature of postmodernism. The guy cleverly parries her attempts to indoctrinate him by attaching a baby to a balloon and letting it float away, to ultimately meet its demise. (One imagines.) This got more than 100 upvotes when it was posted to the Men’s Rights subreddit.
From The Spearhead, where feminists dying is HILARIOUS.
Most of the coverage of the Costa Concordia disaster at the moment seems to be focusing on the Italian cruise ship’s captain and his douchey behavior, which involved not only running the ship aground but also abandoning ship prestissimo while passengers remained trapped on board.
MRAs, by contrast, are using the tragedy as an excuse to rail against the notion of “women and children first” and, of course, to make jokes about women drowning.
Now, the Titanic aside, “women and children first” isn’t now, and hasn’t ever really been, the standard way to evacuate those on a sinking ship, though many in the public — including some of those who were on board the Costa Concordia – seem to believe that it is. (See here for more details on how evacuations are typically handled these days; generally only those with mobility problems are given special treatment.)
In the case of this particular evacuation, some on board apparently tried to enforce an informal “women and children” policy, but many men weren’t willing to wait.
What’s got some MRAs in a snit is that some people, in the media and online, are calling these dudes cowards. In The Daily Mail, a right-wing British tabloid, A N Wilson wrote:
[I]n our day, with the advent of feminism and the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned.
As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.
But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing.
And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.
This is not what you’d call a feminist argument; it’s a traditionalist argument, published in a tabloid rag that’s generally quite hostile to feminism.
Nonetheless, some MRAs are using the Costa Concordia disaster as an opportunity to deliver a big “told you so!” to the … imaginary feminists who live in their head.
The MRM is getting more vocal, and a lot of guys are now saying, “You wanted equality. This is what it looks like.” And they are saying it aloud and in public. Even a few women chimed in, saying that men have no obligation to die for women if women want equality. (Somehow I suspect there wasn’t much, “I am woman, hear me roar, watch me drown” on the Costa Concordia itself, but hey, it’s a start.)
MRAs: Always up-to-the-minute with their pop culture references!
This post was helpfully illustrated with a stock photo of a woman drowning.
Commenters got in their digs as well.
Keyster riffed on Lyn87’s incredibly au courant Helen Reddy reference:
I am woman hear me…blurp….rah…gurgle…raha…ffftt…orr…roar…gurgle…help me…somebody…fffft…please…blurp…help…help me please!
Anyone who attempts to keep me on a sinking ship because of the genitals with which I was born is attempting to murder me. I have the right to respond accordingly.
And Thomas Tell-truth kicked chivalry – not to mention basic human decency — to the ocean floor:
Equality means that when the ship is going down and you are a woman, you had better get out of my way or you are going to drown with my footprints on your back.
Apparently Thomas Tell-truth is actually George Costanza:
As far as I’ve heard, the one and only sport in which women naturally out-do men is endurance swimming. Women are also more bouyant, and as survivalists will explain, women float easiest on their backs (making it easy to breathe while expending minimal energy) whereas men float easiest in “the dead man’s float” (ie. face down, head in the water) and must expend more energy to stay alive. Furthermore, women have more body-fat than men which insulates them better against aquatic dangers such as hypothermia.
Given all these factors it is quite rational for men to pick women up by the seat of their pants and toss them overboard to make way for men and children to safely be rowed ashore on the lifeboats.
It’s all about doing the right thing and saving lives, after all.
MRA humor is very sophisticated indeed.
EDITED TO ADD: The Spearhead has put up a followup post, once again taking aim at imaginary “lifeboat feminists,” though the only person the post cites lamenting the end of “women and children” is Rich Lowry from the National Review (not a feminist publication).
Does anyone still doubt that we live in a gynofascist lady-tatorship? Some guy who calls himself Davd – because there’s no “I” in Davd! – has posted a sharp analysis of one of the most insidious tools of the matriarchy: those flashing lights they put on school buses to try to stop people from running over kids getting on and off the buses.
And no, I am not making this up. Here’s Davd, explaining it all to you:
Anyone who thinks that the women of North America were subjugated by some kind of patriarchy back between 50 and 100 years ago, need only look at the traffic on rural roads in the morning, to know better. …
Those school buses have been running mornings and afternoons for as long as i can remember—and i’ll soon be 70. They are a symbol of women dominating men and boys [and perhaps girls as well, though girls seem more able to wheedle adult women than we are]. …
[W]hy do Canadian and US school buses have big bright flashing lights fore and aft, and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side? I don’t remember the children who rode on them, including four of my sons, being all that grateful for the fuss; and i don’t remember them being all that frightened of the traffic. … It was obvious enough to me and my sons, that the School Buses were babying the children.
So who babies children—Mommies or Daddies? …
The School Buses with big bright flashing lights fore and aft and STOP signs that stick out from the driver’s side, are the spoils of political victory for babying Mommies, well over half a century ago, not anything remotely patriarchal.
So Davd suggest we go whole-hog and just paint the things pink, to remind us of who really runs the world:
Pink school buses will be truth in packaging: School biases against boys are more important than the babying bus lights and STOP signs, and a larger reason to paint school buses (and school doors) pink.
Naturally, most of the commenters on The Spearhead found Davd’s concerns to be completely reasonable and in no way exaggerated. Firepower, in the very first comment, one of the most heavily upvoted in the thread, Godwinned it out of the park with these observations:
Tolerating pink gear on NFL players gets you pink buses. Accepting pink buses gets you pink uniforms in the future concentration camps.
Babying and coddling American kids/boys – gets you the youth you see today.
Meanwhile, Keyster suggested that the fact that school buses are painted yellow was itself evidence of an insidious conspiracy. For, you see, that color was set as the standard for school buses after a conference in 1939 that was funded in part by a grant from – cue dramatic chipmunk! – the Rockefeller Foundation.
And yes, that’s the same Rockefeller Foundation that funded and continues to fund feminism. No surprize that they’d fund a centralized government standard for the color of a gasoline consuming conveyence meant to transport our future proles. It’s important they identify school with safety as part of the indocrination process.
Much of the rest of the thread was given over to guys gloating that the girls they used to have such crushes on when they were in grade school had now all become old and fat. Nugganu —who recently informed me that he’d like to see me “anally raped by ten well endowed black men” — got the most upvotes of any commenter in the thread with this observation:
For whatever reason I still see alot of the girls I grew up with in the 80′s fairly often. They’re all serious boner-killers now. I suppose it doesn’t help that they’re all varying degrees of fat, uglier and have the look of having had 100+ dicks stuck in them over the years. All of them are single too, surprise surprise.
Naturally, aging Spearhead dudes remain just as handsome and appealing as they were in their salad days. Everyone knows that ladies age like mayonnaise in an tuna sandwich, while Spearheaders age like fine whine wine.
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Some in the manosphere have been quick to label mass murderer Anders Breivik a “madman,” trying their best to pretend that his noxious misogynist ideology bears no resemblance to their own. Others, while endorsing at least some of his ideas, have distanced themselves from his actions.
As for MRA loose cannon Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), well, I’ll just let him explain himself. In a comment on The Spearhead, which naturally earned him multiple upvotes from the assembled mob, the man with the strangely punctuated name offered this take [LINK FIXED] on the killer:
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country. Women and leftists then make him out to be “insane” and are looking for “who is to blame”. Well they might start looking in the mirror. The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. I know. I used to be a father and a husband. I have never experienced hatred in my life as vehement as by women in divorce.
And then the justifications began:
It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization. Men often see that some things are worth fighting for. Men often then take action to fight for what they believe in.
Anders Breivik is not crazy. He’s as rational as the next man. He sees that his country is being destroyed. He sees that the people responsible for that destruction are the left of politics. And he would be correct. He took action to stop what he believes is the destruction of his country.
Followed by a smug told-you-so:
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.
Of course, when Nolan refers to “telling women” that angry men will erupt in violence, what he means is “offering guys on The Spearhead specific tips on how exactly to kill innocent people.”
I’m not going to repost the vile suggestions he set forth in a now notorious Spearhead comment some months back, but I will note that they included handy tips on how to efficiently kill police officers, as well as specific advice on the best ways to take out large numbers of people in “malls … girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.” He ended the comment with a not-terribly-convincing attempt at plausible deniability:
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things? I am not recommending them or even condining them. But if a man got into the frame of mind of Sodini and was actually SMART about it. There are PLENTY of ways he could attack women and manginas and their cop protectors with NO CHANCE AT ALL OF BEING CAUGHT as long as he kept his mouth shut.
Naturally, this comment got dozens of upvotes from the Spearhead regulars.
Those who were killed were not “innocent victims” in the main. Anders Breivik is as sane as the next man. …
This was an act of war and he considers himself a soldier. In different times, as in WW II, he would be called a hero.
The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians. I would put forward the opinion that the political leaders are responsible for the war on men and the destruction of the families of men. What could be more “an eye for an eye” than to kill the children of those who were so willing to destroy mens families and destroy the homeland of men?
In killing children of those who are betraying men? He is sending a very clear message.
“You may think you are protected by your police and your security…..but we can find your children…and you can not protect them except by locking them into a secure area.”
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters; I won’t repeat it here.
Then back to the “innocent children” remark:
These “innocent victims” of whom you speak are the children of those who are criminals. And since Anders Breivik could not get to the REAL criminals he went after the children. Is that such a bad idea? Are they not legitimate targets if the primary targets can not be reached?
This also received multiple upvotes from The Spearhead crowd, and a much smaller number of downvotes. [UPDATE: The post has now started attracting downvotes, but the upvotes still outnumber them considerably.]
Yes, it is truly strange that anyone could possibly associate the MRM with violence in any way.
Soon you too will be able to snub women LIKE A BOSS
You may remember our friend Christopher in Oregon, a proud woman-hating virgin (from Oregon, presumably) with some interesting theories on what women think about while having sex. He’s back with some thoughts on how to live the good life, MGTOW-style. Truly an inspirational post, offering words of encouragement for all those young MGTOWers out there who still can’t help getting boners whenever they stop thinking about how much they hate women long enough to start picturing these same women naked. (Ah, the MGTOW Paradox in action again!) CinO, as I’ll call him for short, tells these poor young men to hang in there – because eventually these dastardly boners will cease.
Women, even the truly attractive ones, somehow just aren’t that attractive once your sex drive starts to disappear. The fog lifts, and you start noticing the annoying and down-right rotten things about women that you never noticed when you were blinded by your sex drive.
You start seeing the physical imperfections that even the prettiest women have. The blemishes. The overuse of cosmetics. Things caught in their teeth. Plaque build-up. Hair on the lip. Less than perfect hair dye. Bad hair cut. Bushy eye brows. Bad breath. The stupid laugh that grates on your nerves. Her lack of knowledge in current affairs. Shit. The list grows ever longer as you grow older, and your patience grows shorter.
Women simply start to annoy by their mere presence after a point in life.
For MGTOWers, CinO explains, life really does begin at forty:
When you hit forty, the situation becomes laughable. If you listen to nothing else I say, boys, trust me on this one:
The satisfaction you get from snubbing or cancelling out on a date at the last minute with a 35+ attractive woman makes the misery you suffered at the hands of women all worth while.
Granted; I never really suffered, as I avoided them, but what the heck, I might as well enjoy it as long as it’s being throw in my face.
Yeah, there’s nothing quite so satisfying as getting back at women for causing suffering that didn’t happen by being really rude to an individual woman who had nothing to do with the original suffering (which never happened)! (Also, I’m guessing this aborted date is fictional as well.) That’ll show ’em!
Today, CinO, is free, white (I think), and fortysomething, and living an enviable life riding motorcycles, watching ancient Nazi-based sitcoms, and posting endlessly online about how vile and horrible women are:
I took the last few days off work, and rode my Harley Beasties around. Just because I bloody-well wanted to. Today, I rode all around the snow covered mountains surrounding Mt. St. Helens. An absolute blast. … It sure beat the hell out of spending the day perusing the aisles of K-Mart with a fat bitch of a wife.
I came home, watched movies, a few episodes of Hogan’s Heroes, and it’s off to bed.
Oh, wait, there is still one tiny little trouble in paradise:
Tomorrow, I stop by the doctor because I’ve been riding my bikes so much, it’s re-activated a long dormant ‘roid. Hope he can cure it. lol. Ah, the penalties of being a care-free bachelor. Oops. I meant joys.
