Category: homophobia

Categories
antifeminism armageddon homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA terrorism threats

More violent talk, more excuses for terrorism, this time from the inaptly named Happy Bachelors Forum

Try pointing the finger at yourself, for once.

On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:

 This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …

If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.

You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.

It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.

Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:

[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.

Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.

Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.

And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:

Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.

Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.

Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?

I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.

Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.

khankrumthebulgar gives his real name

khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).

spocksdisciple comment

khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment

Categories
antifeminism homophobia I am making a joke MRA reddit transphobia

Make me an LGBT sandwich, hold the L. And the T.

Some clubs are TOO exclusive.

“Kloo2yoo,” the moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights Subreddit, is worried that racists in his subreddit will give Men’s Rights a bad name. So he’s put out a call to some of the more artistic readers of the subreddit to come up with a nice new logo for it, to show how broad-minded and all-inclusive Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers really are. Well, not literally all-inclusive. As Kloo put it in his call for artiistic help:

New logo needed, to emphasize racial and lgbt inclusiveness, but not feminism.

Oh, but even that turned out to be a bit too inclusive for some of the commenters there. Specifically, they objected to the “L” portion of LBGT. And some of the Ts. As white_cloud put it:

I don’t think you need to appeal to the L in LGBT. It is well-known that lesbians are the most radical of all feminists. They will never feel welcome here and we should not go out of our way to make them feel welcome. Male to female trans pretty much the same thing. They’ve already renounced their male gender, they don’t care about male rights

Scott2508 concurred:

ok i am in favour of inclusivness and im not sure if i am going to word this right so stick with me , the one thing i am curious about is how we bring ourself in line with the lesbian [angle]  of it all simply due to the hostility that can arise from that community towards men

Kloo replied:

point taken. we can embrace lesbian mras, without embracing lesbian supremacists.

Apparently these are the only types of lesbians in the world.

In any case, despite these design constraints, I have come up with what I think is a very compelling logo that I think will convey just what Kloo would like to convey. What do you think, guys?

Categories
alpha males antifeminism evil women homophobia I'm totally being sarcastic incel misogyny MRA oppressed men penises PUA pussy cartel rapey reactionary bullshit sex vaginas western women suck

Happy Pride Day, non-existent gay men!

Well, you're no lady. But I guess you'll do.

Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)

Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.

Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.

Let’s let him explain this:

Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.

Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?

As Rookh  sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.

[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.

A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:

Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.

Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.

Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.

Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?

No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been  encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:

As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.

And so, in Rookh’s world,

homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.

Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!

[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general.  … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.

Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.

Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:

Court’s free!

Categories
antifeminism creepy homophobia kitties men who should not ever be with women ever

"Allow me to unceremoniously offer my view on 'feminism'" is not a good pick-up line

When douchebags go a-courtin, things don’t always go so well, or so suggests this note from an angry dude that was recently featured on the awesome A(n)nals of Online Dating.  Our would-be charmer started out with a bit of a no-no –  a “but” statement.  Specifically:

Honestly, you seem like a sweet girl, and hold many potentially noble ideals, but …

With a start like that, it’s pretty clear that whatever follows that “but” is going to be pretty icky. And our message-sender does not disappoint, going on to suggest that his would-be date’s announced sexual preference (bi) was … illogical.

Your body is designed in a certain way, that is, to receive a man, and this is something you enjoy, but yet, you entertain the notion of artificially reproducing this amazing effect with some kind of gadget operated by another woman? I fail to see the logic in this.

After requesting an explanation, he moves on to this:

Also, allow me to unceremoniously offer my view on “feminism”, in the form of an example. Let us examine the concept of “women’s sports”.

Or maybe let’s not. If you actually do want to read his detailed analysis of this pressing social issue, head on over to A(n)nals.

Categories
alpha males homophobia MGTOW MRA PUA

Arnold: Alpha male, or … girly man?

Grr. Argh.

Ok, MRA/MGTOW/PUA dudes, I’m trying my best to understand the whole Alpha-Beta-Omega thing, really I am. But then you guys make comments like this one from Avenger, found recently on The Spearhead:

Arnold is by no means an Alpha (except in the films lol) In real life he was a muscle bound steroid using meathead in a “sport” that was associated with homosexuals until recently. You’ll notice that he always speaks English and never German even when talking to the German speaking press. That’s because his accent is so bad that they laugh at him.I guess he thinks he can hide it in English where people just assume it’s an ordinary German accent) He sounds like some yokel in German. Sort of like a German Gomer Pyle lol

And no Alpha would permit their wife to go on some talkshow.

I’m not sure how exactly someone who uses “lol” in his comments got to be the final arbiter of Alphaness, but what do I know?

So, please, guys, just explain to me what exactly defines alphaness? (Aside from forbidding wives to go on talk shows.) If Arnold — a giant muscular actor dude with lots of money who was only just recently the governor of a pretty big state — isn’t an alpha, then who exactly is.

Here’s a list of dudes that I think most people who believed in the whole “greek system” would define as Alphas. If any of them aren’t alphas, please tell me why.

Brad Pitt

Genghis Kahn

Barack Obama

Charles Atlas

Superman

Bill Clinton

Donald Trump

Mystery (the PUA)

John Wayne

The Situation

Ice-T

Margaret Thatcher

Categories
antifeminism evil women homophobia manginas misogyny the spearhead

>Bond in a Frock

>

Sean Connery would NEVER wear a dress.

The Men’s Rights and MGTOW movements are about as hetero-focused, and simply hetero, as it is possible for any large, almost exclusively male, group to be. Sure, once in a while a stray MGTOWer will joke nervously about going gay, simply as a way to get some sex without having to touch one of those evil, stinky ladymonsters, but the chances of this actually happening are about as remote as one of those “ex-gay” ministries actually making someone “ex-gay.” Still, most MRAs and MGTOWers profess a certain tolerance towards teh gey, at least when it takes the form of gay men; lesbians, not so much.

But once in a while this facade of (partial) tolerance cracks a bit and we can see some of the homophobic nastiness within. Like, for example, when Daniel Craig — the current reigning James Bond — puts on a dress for an International Women’s Day video highlighting the many injustices the women of the world still face.

On The Spearhead, head spearheader W. F. Price introduces the video to the assembled masses with something of a shudder, describing it as “an unfortunate move that could result in career difficulties down the road” for Craig.

A number of Spearhead commenters are similarly horrified about Bond in Drag, but it is the commenter called Firepower who really brings the hatred up to 11, dropping one of the “f-words” and fantasizing about some quite literal gay-bashing.

The deliberate desecration of a cock-swinging MAN icon like Bond is a calculated, deliberate move – like putting lipstick on Javier Bardem in that stupid Haitina AIDS Liberal commercial.

ANY male that subjects himself to this feminizing humiliation by his enemies deserves feminizing.

Craig’s Bond is faggy anyway.
Sean Connery not only would’ve NEVER posed for these drag pics, he would’ve told the gay publicist to “sod off and suck my knob, mate.”
Then punched him.

This sterling analysis earned, at last count, 102 upvotes and only 6 downvotes from The Spearhead commentariate.

Here’s the video in question:

—

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.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
douchebaggery homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sluts Uncategorized

>Call of Rude-y

>Thanks to the good folks at board.crewcial.org, I just discovered a new blog called Fat, Ugly or Slutty, which collects crazy misogyny and other boobery from various gaming sites. A couple of the most inventive examples so far:

Link and link.

NOTE FOR NON GAMERS: “cod” in the first screenshot refers to Call of Duty, not the fish. I think.

—

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.

Categories
antifeminism feminism ghosts homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny racism reactionary bullshit

>Disorganized atheistic rectal sodomizing feminists of the world unite!

>

More from The Ghost Nation, a sort of MGTOW-ish site that hates MGTOW. And “rectal sodomites” and, well, a long list of others.

When novelist-turned-film-critic James Agee saw Bill and Coo, a feature-length 1948 film starring nothing but trained birds, he described it as “by conservative estimate, the God-damndest thing ever seen.” I believe that title may now belong to The Ghost Nation. Here’s a useful list from the site detailing The Personality Traits of Feminists:

If you are a feminist, you do not sincerely believe in God, you endorse Zionism, rectal sodomites, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, unjust, you share private information, are a misandrist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, you hate straight whitey, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, are a sexual deviant, sadistic, violent, manipulative, fake friendships, enthusiastically associate with criminals, Zionists, sociopaths and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-heterosexual, heterophobic, atheist, agnostic, engage in gang-stalking, promote ugliness and scatology, do not respect other’s privacy, and do not believe that all rectal sodomites are homosexuals.

Hmm. I’ll just go through the list item by item: Yes, not exactly, yes, depends, no, no, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, sometimes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, erratic or … erotic?, sometimes, yes, maybe a little, sometimes, not really, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes, no, ugliness not really but scatology sometimes, no, yes.

I hope I didn’t leave out any answers and inadvertently make myself out to be a blackmailing gang-stalking adulterous cybercriminal rather than a humble disorganized agnostic who is friendly towards rectal sodomites and, really, sodomites generally. 

So how many of the personality traits apply to you, dear readers?

Oh, and by the way, if you didn’t believe me about Bill and Coo, here is a clip of this exceedingly WTF film masterpiece:

—

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. *Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism evil women homophobia I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism

>She’s so fine, there’s no tellin’ where the money went

>

The epitome of White Womanhood?

So recently I stumbled across a blog and forum called The Ghost Nation. It’s truly scary. I would describe it as “MGTOW meets lunatic racist right wing conspiracy theory,” except that the people (person?) behind it think that MGTOW are a bunch of “atheists, rectal sodomites, criminals, dirtbags, black supremacists, jewish supremacists, misogynists and zionists.”

The topics on The Ghost Nation forum are a bit more, er, varied than those on your typical MGTOW forum. MGTOW types are generally preoccupied with the topic of what dirty whores women are. The Ghost Nation regulars devote attention to that always important topic, but also manage to find time to discuss such things as evil Zionists, BMX biking, and popular music. For example, the head dude behind The Ghost Nation has some highly original notions about the video for Robert Palmer’s song Simply Irresistible:

Notice all the women are White with no tats and natural boobs. The end of the USA was 1986. MTV was bought by Viacom in 1986 and this video was the last promoting the White race done in 1988. Since then Aw [American women] have turned into fat, nasty, tat plastered fake boobed slobs. Simply Irresistible was such a hit that the Zionists panicked and started something called Yo MTV Raps in 1988. From that point on straight White males were bashed in the media. It’s been many years since I saw the video but I get it now. You see Zionists are so insecure that they have to destroy what is beautiful. They do this on purpose. There is nothing more beautiful then tall White women without tats or fake boobs. Members here know this but younger generations don’t. MTV promotes ugly female midgets these days like on Jersey Shore.

Are Robert Palmer’s dancers a better representation of White Womanhood than Snooki? How much makeup is too much makeup? Was Robert Palmer truly the world’s most debonair man? Watch the video and judge for yourself:

—
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.

Categories
crackpottery homophobia sex vaginas

>You mean coitus?

>

The post-coital Dude and Maude

Let’s take a break from misogyny for a moment to take a look into the wild and wacky world of homophobia. Sexy, sexy homophobia. By which I mean this attempt, by homophobe-con Robert George and two colleagues to explain why only heterosexual penis-in-vagina sex counts as real, proper sex:

In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.

So: No gay sex. No lesbian sex. No blow jobs. No dry humping. No finger-fucking. No pegging. No happy endings. 

If you’re interested,  Alas, a blog’s Barry Deutsch offers a detailed critique of the paper in which this wondrous quote appears over on FamilyScholars.org; George et al reply here.

All this talk of coitus reminds me of one of my many favorite exchanges in The Big Lebowski, between Maude Lebowski and The Dude:

MAUDE: Do you like sex, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Excuse me?

MAUDE: Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus. Do you like it?

DUDE: I was talking about my rug.

MAUDE: You’re not interested in sex?

DUDE: You mean coitus?

MAUDE: I like it too. It’s a male myth about feminists that we hate sex. It can be a natural, zesty enterprise. But unfortunately there are some people–it is called satyriasis in men, nymphomania in women–who engage in it compulsively and without joy.

DUDE: Oh, no.

Talk dirty to me, Maude Lebowski!

(Thanks to Amanda Marcotte’s twitter and alicublog for alerting me to George’s crazy quote.)