Make sure you vote on this crucial ballot initiative.
Election day is here at last! Vote! VOTE!! VOOOTTTTTEEEEE!!!1!!!
Well, if you’re American, anyway.
Americans and non-Americans alike, enjoy these ridiculous thoughts on the Single White Woman Vote from our old pal Heartiste.
[S]ingle women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote.
Men are tired of masturbating with the dead hand of capital!
Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
The dudes of the manosphere are concerned, deeply concerned, about the fate of young women today who won’t have the opportunity to marry dudes richer and better educated than they are, as they are apparently hard-wired by evolution to do. Turns out when women start investing in good educations and getting good jobs, some of them end up making more than most dudes! Clearly, this portends disaster, for these young ladies, and for civilization itself.
On his Alpha Game blog, reactionary racist doucheblogger Vox Day has a puckish solution to the Hypergamy Crisis: we should just eject a good chunk of women from our universities – as 36 of Iran’s universities have recently announced they will do, starting in the coming academic year, by making 77 different fields of study male only.
Vox explains his, er, logic:
[T]he Iranian action presents a potentially effective means of solving the hypergamy problem presently beginning to affect college-educated women in the West. Only one-third of women in college today can reasonably expect to marry a man who is as well-educated as they are. History and present marital trends indicate that most of the remaining two-thirds will not marry rather than marry down. So, by refusing to permit women to pursue higher education, Iran is ensuring that the genes of two-thirds of its most genetically gifted women will survive in its gene pool.
Well, that’s one … way of looking at it.
No doubt the Iranian approach will sound abhorrent to many men and women alike. But consider it from a macro perspective. The USA is in well along the process of removing most of its prime female genetics from its gene pool as surely as if it took those women out and shot them before they reached breeding age. Which society’s future would you bet on, the one that is systematically eliminating the genes of its best and brightest women or the one that is intent upon retaining them?
Let’s just say I’m going to bet on the one that respects and utilizes the talents of all of its people, instead of treating half the population as little more than egg repositories and baby-making machines.
This isn’t the first time dear Vox has addressed the dangers of allowing women into college. See here for some comments from him that are a good deal worse than the ones I quoted here. (TW: Violence against women.)
Well, they’re not really new, or bold, or true, and some of them kind of seem to contradict each other. But they are, indisputably, ideas. And because he’s a dude, they’re automatically good, because dudes are the dynamic, creative force behind all historical progress. So it’s no wonder this comment of his got more than two dozen upvotes.
Rmaxd starts off by addressing the manginas of the world, and every man who might be considering the benefits of manginahood:
Grow some balls, be masculine, & these so called feminists have zero power
Because NATURE.
We always revert to our biology & nature, over idealism, this is why feminism is dead in the water
And NATURE says women should stay home and cook and pop out babies.
Women in our society are so fucked up, precisely because they rejected their biological need to be part of a society, through their children, husbands & a family
It’s time for a little thought experiment.
Imagine if men were no longer engineers & soldiers & scientists, imagine the biological havoc they would cause on society, all that intellectual brilliance channelled on society, on the loss of their biological roles, instead of as engineers, soldiers & scientists
I’m having a little bit of a hard time imagining, because that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Is he suggesting that the world would collapse if more dudes stayed home and tended the kids?
But never mind, because Rmaxd is on to his next point, which is that women are terrible at math and this makes them OBSOLETE!
In a technology based society, women are the first to be discarded, their lack of scientific & mathematical skills are a liability to our technological culture
Also, they’re lazy and don’t invent shit. Even though by keeping them at home and denying them education the men of the world gave them ample opportunity to invent all sorts of shit, they chose instead to sit on their fat asses and eat bon bons.
Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history
& what did women do with that leisure, with all that time & opportunity to progress science?
Women became biological luddites, they became entitled, inbred & backwards & technologically liabilities in our present technologically based age
When women should’ve been developing technologies to makeup for their inability to logic & reason, in the same way men developed music & art in order for men to experience emotions, all they did was call for young men to destroying their own futures, to be used as walking wallets & chattle
You can tell how innovative Rmaxd is, because he’s totally just innovated a new way to spell “chattel.”
Anyway, QED, fuck women.
Women are liabilities, we no longer need women to maintain our social networks, we have everything from mobile phones to the internet
Huh. Declaring half of humanity expendable. I was under the impression that MRA dudes considered that sort of thinking to be the equivalent of committing GENOCIDE. Seems some of them were making a big stink about that the other day, when a couple of ladies made some similar remarks about men.
Weird. Because MRA dudes are upvoting this, instead of gathering together in angry mobs on the internet to EXPOSE this dude’s personal information and talk about Fucking His Shit Up.
Never mind, though, because Rmaxd isn’t done with his case against ladies.
We no longer need them to maintain morality, as theyre incapable of morality, a womans ability to destroy herself, in the same fat women destroy their own bodies, is unprecedented, give a woman enough leisure & freetime, & all she’s capable of is how to enslave all of society, to ensure society does the same for women everywhere, irrespective of the results
Damn. So women getting fat is part of a sinister plot to enslave mankind?
This all sounds pretty dire for us civilization-creating dudes.
Happily, as Rmaxd explains in another comment, the ladies are so crazily self-destructive that they will fail in their evil designs, despite “being bankrolled by the rich upper class.” Just like the evil radical blacks back in the 1970s:
[W]omen are following the black activism handbook of the 70′s. …
[N]ear the end of the black movement, as the more mainstream, publicly accepted part of black militancy was rejected & debunked, the more radical components of the movement, began attacking its own supporters, in particular the white supporters of black rights, & they also started attacking blacks who were sympathetic to white males
We see the exact same thing happening with feminism, as the more popular & acceptable parts of feminism have now been rejected by popular culture, ie the colossal failure of stayathome dads
Because nothing is more evil and against NATURE than stay-at-home dads! It’s like sodomy squared.
Anyway, the evil ladies are doomed.
They now start becoming more radical, their antagonism & alienation of men, especially manginas & feminists will inevitably destroy them
As we all know women & especially special rights movements, are always self destructive, as the solutions are never radical enough.
So back to the homes, ladies, where you can return to fulfilling NATURE’s role for the females of the species: sitting on your fat asses and eating bon bons and being terrible at math. Because that is nature’s way.
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
From "Hooking Up Smart."
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Betty Drapers of the world, unite!
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends will end later this week. The Man Boobz Summer Video Fest continues with “SELL YOUR CAR OR ELSE!” Apparently this is how women are.
It’s not just girls who go wild these days. Now even some of the older ladies – decrepit ancient crones in their 30s and 40s desperate to somehow capture the attention of men and their $MONEY$. On the Spearhead, demirogue explains what’s up with these wild old women:
What’s really eye opening to me is how these bimbos start going all out when they realize they are aging out of the marriage market. Funny how they go from being monogamous and marriage minded to polygamy, lesbianism, and whatever else they think gets them attention. And by attention, I mean the attention they crave that they no longer receive while having to become even racier in their perversions … .
That’s right, fellas – polygamy. Trust me, you don’t even want to know what happens when a gaggle of desperate wannabe sister-wives head out on the town, all skanked up in their temple garments and their longest maxi-skirts, hoping to ensnare themselves a patriarch. It’s enough to make a fella want to just stay home at the compound with the half-dozen wives he’s already unfortunate enough to be married to.
Donald Duck was evidently a Duck Going His Own Way. This Disney cartoon from 1954 pretty much sums up, in 7 short minutes, every single discussion on every MGTOW message board ever, right down to the little jokes about Daisy riding what we might call the “bad boy duck cock carousel.”
This is quite literally how MGTOWer’s see the world, except for the part about everyone being a duck. (Oh, and that Donald doesn’t blame modern feminism for Daisy’s behavior, as it didn’t actually exist in 1954.)
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.
