Marlene Dietrich oppressing man with her trousers.
Demetri Marchessini is a retired Greek business tycoon, living in London, and has been a major donor to the right-wing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP). He also has some, let’s say, eccentric views about gay people, black people, women, and trousers, views so, er, eccentric that the folks in UKIP are a little embarrassed to be associated with him. Given that UKIP is filled with bigots in all varieties, that’s quite something.
In an interview last week with Britain’s Channel 4, Marchessini expounded at length on some of his more colorful views. He told interviewer Michael Crick that marital rape was impossible, because “you can’t have rape if you make love on Friday and make love on Sunday, you can’t say Saturday is rape. Once the woman accepts, she accepts.”
He argued that there is no such thing as homosexual love, only lust, because “they go out at nights and they pick up 5, 10, 15 different partners in one night.” Even gays in committed relationships are basically just roommates who still cruise for anonymous sex partners.
And he suggested that black slaves were better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in Africa, because if they survived the passage they lived longer.
But let’s just talk about the trouser thing. Marchessini thinks women should be banned from wearing trousers, because otherwise they just might bring about the end of western civilization.
On April 2, Army Specialist Ivan Lopez shot and killed three people on the Fort Hood military base in Texas, before turning his gun on himself; 16 others were injured. It’s not clear what caused Lopez’ killing spree, though the incident seems to have been triggered by the difficulties he encountered trying to get a 24-hour pass to attend his mother’s funeral.
But a writer for A Voice for Men, Michael Conzachi, has a novel explanation for the tragedy: the military’s excessive niceness towards lesbians and gays.
In a post entitled “What role has feminism played in the shooting at Fort Hood and its aftermath?” Conzachi sets forth his thesis:
Numerous directives from the Pentagon and the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), of which some in the military refer to the group as the “Super-Feminists” or jokingly, the “Lesbo Circle of Doom,” allow for and promote an immediate leave period of five days for same sex military couples to marry. …
How is it that a large contingent of feminist dominated military and Pentagon leadership enacts policies that favor, prioritize, and give expanded benefits for same sex couples; yet Specialist Lopez apparently was only allowed two days to bury his mother?
If that was you, and you could only get two days to attend to your mother’s death, and you see same sex military couples being allowed five days immediate leave to marry; wouldn’t that bother you a little, regardless of what your opinions are of gay and same sex couples? Where is the equality?
Yep. An unhinged man murders his fellow soldiers in cold blood. Let’s blame it on same-sex marriage and the “Lesbo Circle of Doom.”
At least Conzachi admits that his theory is only a theory, and that “whether or not we will ever learn [the shooter’s] true motives is unknown.”
Coznachi spends the rest of his post tearing down the female officer who confronted Lopez and brought an end to his killing spree.
He ends with this question — a question that he seems to have already answered to his own satisfaction:
Are the military’s priorities of same sex couple, gay, and women in combat issues harmful to males in general?
A number of those who are associated with A Voice for Men — most notably “managing editor ” Dean Esmay and “contributing editor” Karen Straughan — profess to be great Friends of the Gays; indeed Straughan describes herself as a “genderqueer, bisexual … woman”).
I can only wonder why they would want to associate themselves with a site that publishes articles suggesting that supporting the rights of same sex couples in the military to marry is “harmful to males in general.”
Today, just a recommendation: if you’d like to learn more about the wrongheaded and often quite bewildering opinions of Men’s Rights grandpappy Warren Farrell, take a look at the excellent Farrell’s Follies series now being posted on the AgainstMensRights subreddit. The Redditor known as feminista_throwaway has been systematically going through Farrell’s Myth of Male Power and looking in detail at Farrell’s positions on such issues as “Date Fraud,” why it’s supposedly easier to be a gay man than a straight man, why patriarchy is women’s fault, and how men and women don’t really love each other. There’s a guide to the whole series here.
Today, some cutting edge POLITICAL SCIENCE from the fellows over at Roosh Valizadeh’s Return of Kings blog. Specifically, one fellow named Samson Lamont who offers up some warnings about a dire threat to western civilization that most people have probably forgotten about: COMMUNISM.
Yes, it seems that the wily Communists are still trying to take over the United States. Only this time they’re not threatening us with missiles and stealing our atomic secrets and recruiting our young people into Maoist sects. (Well, a few of them are doing the latter.) Nope, they’re trying to sneak it past us in the form of FEMINISM. Let’s let Mr. Lamont explain:
It is a mistake to look at dealing with the effects of feminism as just putting up with spoiled, entitled bitches and learning how to deal with their endless shit tests so you can get in their pants. It is not some phase or fad that will eventually fade away. You must recognize feminism for what it truly is: one of the arms of Communism, with its goals being to break up the nuclear family, effectively weaken the country from within, and to eradicate any form of masculinity or aggression, thereby reducing the number of people who can engage in dissent.
But golly, you may say, I know a bunch of feminists, and I’m pretty sure none of them are – what did you call them? – Communists. But that’s where you’re wrong!
Now some of the younger readers might not be too familiar with the term Communism. That’s because you know it as Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, or Social Democracy. Same shit, different bull. I don’t use any of these synonyms because, just as we should engage in fat-shaming and slut-shaming, we should engage in Commie-shaming.
One of the Left’s favorite tricks is rebranding. Communism is still a bad word here in America, especially with the Baby Boomers that grew up during McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the 50’s and 60’s. So the Left refers to them only as “socialists” or “progressives” now, to disguise their true intentions.
Ah! Just like some guys refer to themselves as “pickup artists” rather than “date rapists.”
Anyhoo, so all this Communo-Feminism has pretty much destroyed everything good about the good old U.S. Of A.
[I]n a span of less than 50 years, creeping Communism has eroded all the hard work and sacrifice of our ancestors. … Our populace is lazy, spoiled, arrogant, and fat, while we build nothing of value here anymore.
We all know what happened to our women. Thanks to feminism, the nuclear family is gone and homosexual perversion is not only deemed normal, but is now openly promoted, accepted, and forced on us. Honor and integrity are now quaint remnants of a bygone era, existing only in small pockets of civilization. Workers are basically drones or expendable cannon fodder, known more by their number designations than by their names. If you are a man, the validity of your rights is determined by man-hating feminists and homosexuals and you are now guilty until proven innocent. Long story short, we are inexorably headed towards … hell … .
The only solution? Stop talking about equality and accept that attractive rich people are simply better than you.
This may be hard to swallow for some, but there is no such thing as equality. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Strong/weak, beautiful/ugly, tall/short, smart/dumb, rich/poor—some people are just simply better than others. …
Equality must be earned, and cannot be given.
Wait, what? I think I’m going to stick with the Communo-Feminists and the Homosexual perverts, thank you very much.
NOTE: I don’t like giving Return of Kings traffic, but I feel obligated to link to my sources, so I’ve hidden the link somewhere in the text above, if you feel the need to investigate further.
Roosh Valizadeh has made a career, such as it is, of teaching guys how to talk to women the Rooshy way. And not just how to talk to drunk women in clubs, where you’re lucky if they can even hear your clever negs over all the noise.
In his book Day Bang he sets forth his brilliant strategy for speaking to women in the daytime: start babbling to them about random crap like those slightly dotty elderly people who come up to you sometimes babbling about random crap.
No, really. You’re supposed to “open” with an “Elderly Opener” and segue seamlessly into “Elderly Chat,” taking your cues from the people who are the best at talking forever about nothing at all. “This is something old people excel at,” he writes.
They can have a one-hour chat stemming from an ice cream flavor because their life experience is so deep that they can seamlessly and casually connect it to a dozen other topics.
During the day I want you to think of yourself as a wandering, slightly confused old man who needs to gain information or knowledge. In my sock example, I played up that I was a style retard, incapable of buying a five-dollar pair of socks, when in reality I’m totally capable of making that decision.
And then – shazam! – you’re in like Flynn! Apparently women just melt for men who can’t figure out how to buy socks.
But it turns out that when there’s no possibility that the conversation will end with a bang, Roosh is far less interested in talking to women. Or at least in them talking back.
So much so that he’s not only banned women from commenting on his Return of Kings blog but, as of earlier this week, he’s also banning men who merely reply to women who happen to sneak past his anti-woman defenses and get in a comment or two before they’re banned. (He’s also banned “homos.” His term, not mine.)
Roosh’s announcement generated a good deal of discussion on RoK, mostly from supportive dudes glad that girls and talkers-to-girls are being thrown out of Roosh’s manly clubhouse.
Well, heck, that just means more women for me to talk to.
Excuse me, ladies, but I’m having trouble figuring out how these socks work. Do I put the delicious Pistachio ice cream in them before I put them on, or after?
Note: I really don’t want to give Roosh any traffc, but if you must, the link to his post is hidden somewhere in my post above. Thanks to MARK MINTER for alerting me to Roosh’s new policy.
Misogynists also like to remain anonymous when they make terrible jokes
Time for a little quiz!
Who posted comments online in which he (or she) declared that:
“Sluts are just whores in training.”
“Women look at 2 bulges on a man, one in the front of the pants or second one in the back pocket. Whichever one is bigger, they can do without the other.”
“What’s the most used line in Arkansas: daddy get off me you are crushing my cigarettes.”
Female college students are “sororostutes.”
Women expect special treatment because of their “golden vajay jays”
Let me just preface it with a big TRIGGER WARNING for its violent rape fantasy.
Ten upvotes. No downvotes.
I guess that’s technically a rape metaphor, but it’s the most graphic rape metaphor I’ve run across in a long time.
If you ever find yourself wondering why the so-called Men’s Rights movement has never done, as far as I can tell, a single fucking thing for male victims of rape — other than rant about it online in an attempt to one-up feminists — I think this comment suggests one highly plausible explanation: because many if not most MRAs don’t actually feel empathy for the vast majority of male rape victims, who are, after all, men in prison raped by other men. They see rape as an appropriate punishment for men they don’t like, and many actually relish the thought of certain men being raped.
I mean, it goes without saying that MRAs generally have little or no empathy for women who are raped, and indulge in rape jokes about women all the fucking time, but you’d think they’d do a better job of at least pretending to care about raped men.
If you’re interested in an organization that actually does care about victims of rape and other forms of sexual abuse in prison — regardless of the gender of the victim — you may want to check out Just Detention International.
So I had to re-ban a couple of long-banned trolls today, who had returned with new names and slightly different IP addresses but who gave themselves away with their behavior. And that got me thinking about the people — well, the MRAs and PUAs and other such charming folks — who regularly denounce me as an evil censor of FREE SPEECH.
In fact, when I ban people, I do so for good reasons: one of the two trolls I banned today was a longtime MRAish commenter here who eventually creeped everyone out by boasting about having sex with underage prostitutes; the other was a man of many sockpuppets known for angry, abusive meltdowns full of slurs.
Anyway, so I thought I’d give you all a glimpse into my “trash” folder. Here’s a sampling of comments from would-be first time commenters at Man Boobz that I felt would not add anything to the discourse here. But in the interests of FREE SPEECH I thought I’d give these “ideas” an airing today.
TRIGGER WARNING for violent and offensive language. (Sorry about the quality of the last two; you can click on them to see larger versions.)
Not all of the comments I trash are quite this awful. Some are only mildly violent or abusive. I tend to be a bit picky with people’s first comments, assuming that if someone posts a shitty first comment it’s not likely to get any better after that. There are a few banned commenters who stop by and try to post anyway, including one fellow who leaves endless comments trying to prove, as far as I can tell, that teenage girls are objectively hotter than women in their twenties and older.
And, of course, there are comments targeting individual women, whether these are giant cut-and-pasted rants about Anita Sarkeesian, vaguely threatening remarks aimed at other well-known internet feminists, or bizarre sexual comments about female MRAs from fans of theirs.
Once in a while I will get a comment from a feminist that resorts to violent language; I don’t let those comments through either.
And then there are the pictures people try to post in the comments. Below, one of the ones I actually let through, depicting me in a dress with some extremely tall dude. A quick Google image search reveals that it was originally posted online by regular A Voice for Men contributor Janet Bloomfield, in a blog post of hers from last year on Disney princesses. Stay classy, Men’s “Human Rights” Movement!
I don’t actually own a dress like this.
Anyway, the pictures I don’t let through are worse.
The evidence for the existence of such a plot is a bit on the skimpy side — the Telegraph writer leads off with a reference to a 2012 proposal from a County Council member in Sormland, Sweden that doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere legislatively but that’s been a favorite evil-feminist story on conservative websites ever since.
The very notion that some evil feminist might force them to sit while they spray has Men’s Rights Redditors in an unusually combative mood. Heck, it’s got some of the regulars thinking that it might well be time to start doing some good-old fashioned murdering. No, really.
Yep. In case you’ve been wondering, suggesting “a campaign to assassinate feminist figures” because some local council member in Sweden had a dumb idea will in fact win you upvotes on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
EDIT: The “let’s murder feminists” comment has been taken down by the subreddit mods, though the user hasn’t been banned for it; the “I want to tie a feminist down and pee on her” comment remains up, and still boasts upvotes.
