For a bunch of guys who love to pretend they don’t care about women, Men Going Their Own Way certainly do love to talk about them. So much so that I’m thinking they may need to update their little acronym to MGTOAW: Men Going Tediously On About Women.
Over on MGTOWforums.com, for example, the regulars are having their tenth billion discussion about how women totally get all ugly as they get older, while men get handsomer and more awesome. Gannicus, himself 40 years YOUNG, starts things off with this:
To me, one of the most obvious things a man should notice is that in the US, most American women have fallen apart or completely without value by 40.
Is it just me, or does that “in the US, most American women” bit remind you of Miss South Carolina and her “US Americans?”
I know some will say it happens earlier, but lets just stick with a round number. And lets forget about virtue, loyalty, honesty, etc for a moment, which we know is not exactly known to be a top export of American women. Just being completely shallow and superficial, based on appearance alone, I find it disgusting and repulsive to view virtually any woman at 40. I just turned 40 and I am proud of my appearance. I expect to continue taking care of my body,etc.
However, I feel that based on looks. weight, hair, facial quality, etc. that 1% or less of Amercian women at 40 are, shall we say,bangable or even tolerable if you had to stare at for 10 minutes. And lets not even mention that wretched term from a bygone era called feminity. That is almost unheard of in the US in any age group. …
Which then leads me to wonder what the hell do young guys think their female partners will look like at 40? I mean, do they think THEIR girl will be different?
I’m just throwing this out as a hypothesis here, but I’m guessing that “most young guys” aren’t angry, bitter, woman-hating assholes who think all women over 40 are hideous hagbeasts.
Back on MGTOWforums.com, Downandout repectfully disagrees with Gannicus thesis. He believes that many women get ugly long before they hit 40.
It’s not so much that American women hit 40, it’s that 40 hits American women. Hard.
Jokes aside, I don’t think you can peg it to one number. A lot of skanks are starting to look awful in their 20s. Take Lindsay Lohan for example. Girls are starting to drink, do drugs, eat shit, and party hard at a very early age. Their small bodies can’t take that kind of abuse, and it’s showing. On top of that, they wear pounds of makeup to cover up the abuse, which only further contributes to the problem.
Deathslayer quotes the expert testimony of a colleague who calls himself RealDealBrotha:
Look at how quickly these chick fall COMPLETELY off, yet they STILL think they can do everything a man does for as long as a man does it…. NOT! …
Look at all the females who whore away their prime years, or go into career mode, or just choose men for silly reasons and NOT try to better themselves enough to be WORTHY of a good man (who is NOT a simp) wifing them up. They have so little regard for men that they think that they can have good men at their beck and call after they’re aged out fat chicks dragging around kids who they had with other men. It REALLY does NOT work that way, yet they don’t ever figure out the obvious until it’s too late.
We see and hear this story all the time. It comes up so often, that it’s really funny to me now. It warms my heart to know how badly these arrogant, misandric, selfish, worthless women are doomed to crash, burn and live the remainder of their wretched lives as bitter old maids whose only value will be as jumpoffs for bottom-feeder men who lack the guts and the nuts to raise the bar.
It’s always nice to see MGTOWers complain about misandry in comments overflowing with angry misogyny.
Toadman, for his part, seems happy to ignore women altogether, celebrating his independence by sitting at home eating canned food that’s way past its expiration date.
I have an unopened can of pork-and-beans in the cupboard that will taste the same as when canned. It’s lasted longer than the 10-15 years of female fertile desireability. Talk about “shelf-life”.
Paul Elam, head ranter at A Voice for Men, has a new video out called “You want privilege? You got it!” The thesis: if women really did have the so-called privileges that men have, they’d hate it and want men to take them all back. Because all of these so-called privileges are really giant burdens. Or, as Elam puts it, somewhat more melodramatically, these privileges have “begun to more resemble an anchor around your neck than the helm of a great ship that everyone tells you that you are captaining.”
Here’s the video.
Well, all right, that’s not really Paul Elam. But that little clip does capture pretty well the tone of his latest post, which is indeed about how male privilege is really a terrible burden.
I mean, this is his opener:
I swear by everything holy that the next time I hear some fembot caterwaul about “male privilege,” I am going to find something to break, turn it into shards, and drag the broken pieces across my chest just to distract me from the pain of their increasing stupidity. Just picture me like Martin Sheen, collapsed in a heap of bloody, tearful insanity on the floor of a cheap hotel in Saigon.
Heck, compared to that, Mr. McDuck’s reaction to the news about his “ice cream” was, if anything, rather restrained.
The rest of Elam’s post is, as is typical for him, a rather trite recitation of a number of standard Men’s Rights talking points about male “disposability” written in some of the most ridiculously overblown prose ever seen outside of an Ayn Rand novel.
Elam complains that he hasn’t seen much benefit from his privileges:
Mind you I still don’t know what that privilege is. One time when I was young and very poor I was late on my light bill. I showed the electric company my balls, but they cut my power off anyway. …
Yeah, as someone who’s also had his power cut off, I’m pretty sure they do that with everyone. I’m also pretty sure that no feminist has ever or will ever argue that male privilege means you won’t get your power cut off for nonpayment.
Here’s Elam addressing women as if they’ve traded place with men:
With your privilege comes the right to work on crab boats, drive trucks, work on electric lines, walk into burning buildings and sink into the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other things people find useful.
Apparently having greater occupational choices is scary and bad.
When a ship goes down, or any other life threatening disaster strikes, you have two choices. Be a real woman and die, or treat your life like it has value and have the world shit on you as a coward who refused to perish on cue. There is also the possibility of third option, either die from the disaster so that men can live, or have another woman blow a fucking hole in your face with a pistol because you tried to save yourself.
Like noticing the emperor has no clothes, it may hit you one day when you decide not to offer your seat to a man; when the stares at you from all around seem to come down people’s noses. …
You must learn not to say a word. Not to anyone else, not even to yourself. You must learn to see flames, coal dust, icy saltwater, death and sacrifice for the trappings of power that the world around you thinks them to be.
Says a dude typing out his manifestos on an expensive laptop he conned nagged his followers into buying for him.
And you must be willing to hang your head in shame over that power, even as the world chews you up, spits you out, and gets ready to take its turn with your daughter.
Elam’s rousing conclusion:
So, that is it, ladies. You want my privilege, it is yours. I will gladly hand it over to you this very minute. I am just waiting for you to meet the pre-requisites of disposibilty and an utter lack of self-value. I am waiting for you to woman up to the job, take off your fucking make up and be ready to bleed, blah blah blah look at me I’m mad!
I paraphrased a little at the end there. But, yes, the world champion at seeing male “disposability” everywhere did in fact misspell the word “disposability.” That was all him. And so, believe it or not, is the following:
I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen.
Personally, I have had about all the privilege I can stand.
Yep. He went there.
Also, I don’t know if you all knew this, but when women serve in the military these days it’s “like a day care camp for them.”
Also, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but my headline is much better than his. Maybe he should get me to write all the headlines on A Voice for Angry Duck Plutocrats Men.
So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.
This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.
Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.
But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:
Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.
Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:
Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.
So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.
No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.
For example, you can just call them sluts:
Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.
Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:
Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.
You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:
Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …
Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.
What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:
Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.
Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,
I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.
Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.
Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?
Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!
I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!
NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
The regulars over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit are currently getting amused and/or outraged by the existence of a book titled “Girl, Get That Child Support,” a guide to help single mothers track down deadbeat dads and get the child support they are owed. A few of them were apparently so overstimulated by the book’s title, and a reference to “Baby Mamas” in the subtitle, that this little conversation ensued:
Note the upvotes and the (scarcity of) downvotes. And the complete lack of anyone saying “hey, you’re being racist assholes.”
I wanted to reveal just how twisted these men can be in the pursuit of their agenda so I came up with a story they could not resist. …
The spermjacker trope is irresistible to “men’s rights” activists because they believe they are perfect Darwinian examples of masculinity and as a result are irresistible to the hormonally irrational schemers that make up womankind. Narcissism and misogyny collide to make a toxic brew.
Oh, and I added the twist that this man punched his girlfriend so hard in the stomach that she bruised. Surely such fierce proponents of “gender equality” would not support violence against women. Right?
Well, we all know how that turned out. Ineedhelpnow1234/the blogger Eschatology continued:
The “men’s rights” movement is morally bankrupt. It is made up of people who support hitting women. It is made up of people who refuse to say it is wrong to hit women. It is made up of people who are so paranoid of women that they think people actually talk like this:
You fucking bastard, how dare you punch me for what I’m entitled to! Call me the minute you get this god damn message or I’ll call the fucking police and end your future. CALL MEEEE.
Attention MRA’s: You have all exposed yourselves as rotten human beings and you have discredited your movement (again). …
I wrote this story by stitching together nearly every cliche I have ever come across in the “men’s rights” movement. I tried to see if the MRAs had any line they would not cross. Apparently they do not. Looks like the SPLC made a good call.
He panicked and hit her. Sure he should have just have restrained her and took the condom out of her hands but we’re human and its not like he continually beat her into a pulp.
Yep, no big deal, “its not like he continually beat her into a pulp.”
The comment containing that line got 11 upvotes, and zero downvotes.
The Men’s Rights Movement, beyond the pale — but also beyond parody.
EDITED TO ADD: The Men’s Rights regulars respond to the big reveal here. They are apparently determined to learn absolutely nothing from the whole episode. At the moment this is the most highly upvoted comment:
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: Ineedhelpnow1234/Eschatology posted about this in the TwoXChromosomes subreddit, Naturally, a small horde of r/mensrightsers invaded the thread and pooped all over it.
Earlier in the day, he wrote, he and his girlfriend
had sex and I got up to go the bathroom and throw the condom out and then went back to bed. She got dressed and also went to the bathroom. I could see when she stepped out that she had something in her hand. I asked her what it was and she started yelling how she had the used condom and she was “finally going to get the baby I deserve” and then started running for [the] door.
Apparently that’s how women talk in MRA-land.
And then ineedhelpnow1234 added a rather important detail he somehow neglected to include in the headline:
I freaked out and ran after her and caught her at the door. My mind was racing, and she was about to get out. I panicked and hit her in the stomach and then took the condom forcibly from her hands.
Emphasis mine. He continued:
I’m not proud of what I did, but I was FREAKED out in the moment and she was about to escape and I just did what I thought I needed to do.
She caught her breath and left and now she’s been calling (I haven’t answered) and texting me saying she’s going to call the police and have me arrested unless I have sex with her without a condom.
Later, she allegedly left him this alleged voicemail message:
You fucking bastard, how dare you punch me for what I’m entitled to! Call me the minute you get this god damn message or I’ll call the fucking police and end your future. CALL MEEEE
Naturally, there were more than a few readers who looked at this tale – filled with credibility-straining details that seemed tailor-made to arouse MRA indignation — with a skeptical eye, and called “troll” on the whole thing. But quite a few of the locals took the story seriously, and offered serious advice.
Some simply repeated the standard dude advice “don’t stick your dick in crazy” and others, with a little more imagination, suggested that in the future he carry around hot sauce to squirt into his used condoms lest another lass try the same dastardly sperm-stealing trick.
But quite a few of the advice-givers recommended that he simply lie about his assault, and pretend it never happened. DisRuptive1 thought that simple denial would be enough to get him off the hook:
NotC – presumably also not a lawyer – suggested that the impending threat of spermjack-blackmail would allow him to get a pass on the whole punching-her-in-the-stomach thing. But that he should lie about the incident that never took place anyway, wink wink.
Luciansolaris was one of the few who suggested the OP fess up to the assault – and defend it in court both as a logical and justifiable reaction to the situation, and as a case of temporary insanity.
I may have missed it, but I don’t think there was a single comment suggesting that, even under the circumstances, punching a girl in the stomach so hard it leaves a bruise was a terrible thing for this probably fictitious spermjackee to do.
I took a look at the always reprehensible In Mala Fide today, and ran across a very strange post indeed, written by someone calling himself Finndistan. Entitled “The Unfuckables,” the post started off by recounting a conversation that allegedly took place in the real world — the same real world, dear reader, that you and I live in.
Three guys sitting, good looking girl passes by, easily a nine.
“She’s beautiful man,” says one.
“Who?”
“That one. But she likes enriching vibrants.”
“I’d rather fuck an orc as now that looks more attractive to me.”
WHAT. THE. FUCK. is an “enriching vibrant?”
I look through the rest of the post. The strangeness continues:
It seems that fucking and enriching vibrants is becoming a fashion. Fine.
The only thing is this, I am an immigrant. Neither do I enrich, nor do I vibrate;
For me, and for many other men, Finnish, Western, non-Western, these women are undateable.
For me, and for many other men, these women are…
Unfuckable.
Once you let your pussy be enriched by a vibrating man’s rod, you radiate that. You shine in the dark.
You are an enriched vibrant-fucker.
You are unfuckable.
I look through the comments and find at least one reader as perplexed as me. Ferdinand Bardamu, the terrible human being behind In Mala Fide, steps in and clarifies that “vibrants = immigrants.”
That doesn’t really clarify very much, as Finndistan says he’s an immigrant, too. Nor does it explain all the “vibrating” nonsense. I return to the post, and find Finndistan working through a labored comparison with a Japanese nuclear disaster:
Fukushima was enriched. It was full of enriched plutonium. Then the earth vibrated.
My utmost respects go out to the men who sacrificed themselves to keep the disaster in check. Their debts will never be repaid. Not by a society that has alienated its men to the point of men dropping out of society in the millions.
What I am talking about is Fuckushima.
Fuckushima was enriched. It was full of enriched spermanium. Then the bed vibrated.
Fuck me if I sacrifice myself for that.
Ok then.
Setting aside Finndistan’s bizarre visions of nuclear spermageddon, I’m still perplexed as to why some immigrants – sorry, vibrants – are evil and “enriched” and “vibrating” while others – like Finndistan – aren’t?
We foreign men have a problem with The Unfuckables.
The women who got vibrated by enriching cock.
The women who got enriched by vibrating cock.
The women who got enriched by a vibrant.
The women who got vibrated by an enricher.
That’s no help. I go to another post in which Finndistan purports to explain his strange terminology. Entitled “The Unfuckables – A sensible explanation,” the post offers anything but that.
An Unfuckable is a woman who has gotten fucked by an enriching vibrant. Out of love, passion, of fashion, it does not matter.
Intimate contact, any kin[d] of penetration, and any kind of fluid exchange suffices.
Ok, then, I ask again: WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. AN. ENRICHING. VIBRANT?
If I go into so much detail into The Unfuckables, I should go into some detail about enriching vibrants, enriching vibrating cock, vibrating enrichers etc.
I will call them vibrating enrichers, as this is the term I like most.
Being a vibrating enricher is a choice, so it is not something you are born with (cough cough), or something you cannot grow out of (cough cough)…
Before we go into choices, let’s go into what is not Vibrating, or what is not Enriching, thus what is also not supported by the state, the humanists, the multicultists, the diversity lovers.
Finndistan then lists a bunch of “acceptable” immigrant types, including:
The indian looking kid dressed in a smart business suit apparently having an after meeting beer with his Finnish colleague also dressed in a business suit. …
The middle eastern kid married to the same woman since I met him, who sired two kids, and is an honest working man.
The black dude who speaks perfect BBC english sitting on the table with two clearly high class Finnish girls. It is highly possible his clothing is tailored.
And then, on to those dastardly “vibrating enrichers.” Another list, including:
African kid coming over and immediately adopting to the American Gangbanger style.
The kid who’s wearing the saggin’ jeans with golden “Thug Life” embroidered throughout his ass
The middle easterner with the fake Armani shirt, pluched eyebrows, designer shapes shaved into his hair and make up on his face. …
The guy who’s choosing the gangbanger, the apaci style, over having any decent style, even including the Jersey Shore Douchebaggery. …
Basically anybody who is enriching the culture with their radioactiveness, and vibrating the culture with the vibration that made their homeland a place worthy escaping from.
So any woman who, er, exchanges fluid with any “enriching vibrant” man thus makes herself, in Finndistan’s eyes, an unfuckable.
Amazingly, the regulars back on In Mala Fide are able to get the gist of Finndistan’s rants without going to all the trouble I did. Ryu, the dude behind a blog titled White Nationalist Think Tank, comments:
Ah. So you’re talking about mixers – women who sleep with blacks, mexicans or muslims.
It’s just a step above beastiallity in my book. Her race and people are on the ropes. Enemies everywhere. Demographic crisis in the waiting. Then to show off how hip and tolerant she is or worse, to satisfy her own libido, she beds down with a protected group.
They are traitors, some of the worst offenders. The most beautiful woman in the world loses her charm after mixing. She’ll sleep with anything. Included are Heidi Klum, Nicole Kidman, and many of the people adapting negro babies.
I’m not a racist, except in the sense that anyone who recognizes reality in the USA is branded as a racist. And besides, I’m married.
But I have a very pragmatic reason for not wanting to bed a woman who “enriches vibrants.” African-Americans have 20 times the rate of Gonorrhea infection compared to whites, and 9 times the rate of syphilis and chlamydia. Blacks are 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of new HIV infections in 2009.
The phrase “I wouldn’t fuck her with your dick” comes to mind.
PA, easily adapting himself to Finndistan’s odd lingo, adds
I find white women who slept with well-tanned enriching vibrants viscerally repulsive. Even if she’s a 9, I wouldn’t fuck her. There is something vile and unclean about her aura.
This is no offense to enriching vibrants — I wouldn’t feel that way about a non-white woman who is otherwise attractive, but who presumably has previously slept with her own kind.
I would love to enrich some Japanese, Korean or Chinese chicks myself. I could pass on my White genes for independence, individualism and creativity, while they would contribute a high IQ mean for the future generations to revert to, as well as a better predisposition for working hard. Maybe such hybrids would be the new master race. After all, marvels like Hong Kong and Singapore have emerged from the combined efforts of Asians and Whites.
Sadly, I live in a Eastern European country where the main vibrant minority are low-avg-IQ Gypsies, and Asians are close to none.
Marcus Marcellus helps to clarify what is implied when Manosphere dudes talk semi-euphemistically about the evils of women who choose “thugs” over “nice guys” like them:
To me, any white girl who kneels before a black American and puts his cock in her mouth is completely tainted trash. There’s a level of submissive degeneracy that I cannot cross. It’s a very dark, quasi-rape issue actually. …
Today, a good 10% of these Millennial sluts are actively chasing their negro a la Hollywood star, except instead of adopting one they sleep with one…until he murders them – or just beats them badly.
A whole treatise could be written on the psychology behind the current phenomenon, one that would not please feminist women as it would reveal the masochistic element in women’s sexuality. Personally, I’m only dating girls who don’t complain when I occasionally use the “n-word.” It’s a way to vet them without doing some creepy background checks. I do not hate blacks; I just don’t want to breed with them.
I would think almost any woman would be overjoyed to discover that men like these consider her “unfuckable.”
Do NOT catch this fever. Symptoms include: Being a girl. Shooting people with arrows. Catching on fire.
Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
UPDATE: I have no reason to believe that the harassment alleged by Kyle Lovett — which I discuss below — involved anyone even tangentially connected to this site, or indeed that it ever happened. The “evidence” he provided only showed that he got traffic from a link on this site. He never provided any evidence that the alleged harassment occurred or that, if if did, it was perpetrated by anyone who found his site through my site.The rest of my piece still stands.
The other day, a commenter here linked to the blog published by one of the moderators of the Men’s Rights subreddit. Kyle Lovett, the mod in question, says that not long afterwards, someone contacted his workplace saying that he was a member of a “hate group.” Claiming to be concerned about his safety, he temporarily hid his blog. And stepped down as mod.
Lovett says he suspects that this person who he says contacted his work is a Man Boobz reader, and has now provided evidence that seems to back up this suspicion. If Kyle is indeed telling the truth about the harassment, it was a Man Boobz reader who contacted his workplace. (There is no evidence it was one of the regulars here, merely someone who was reading the comments in that one thread. Nor am I completely convinced that the alleged harassment happened; Lovett has lied about things in the past.)
But if the harassment happened let me be blunt: That’s not cool. I don’t like that sort of harassment when it’s directed at feminists, and I don’t like it when it’s directed at MRAs. As Rebecca Watson once said, in a different context, “guys, don’t do that.” Seriously, DON’T DO THAT.
All this said, Lovett and other MRAs are acting as if the link to his blog here was in some way equivalent to “doxing” – that is, tracking down the personal information of someone posting anonymously, and posting it online, for purposes of harassment..
It isn’t. Kyle publishes his blog under his own name, and he regularly posted links to it on Reddit. It was no secret that he posted on Reddit as Qanan, just as my real name Is no secret.
I’m not sure why it’s necessary to point this out, but I will anyway: If you publish things on the internet under your own name, people will indeed connect your name to these things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting a link to someone’s blog. No one here advocated harassment in any way.
Needless to say, the indignation on the Men’s Rights about this is hypocritical, to say the least. MRAs harass feminists all the time.
A Voice for Men, the worst offender in this regard, has published the personal information of feminists, and once put out a thousand dollar bounty in an attempt to find out the identity of one feminist who had been posting anonymously online. AVFM head Paul Elam talks about “stalking” feminists and on his radio show gleefully discussed the prospect of not only revealing the names and addresses of women he considers evil, but also their routes home from work. He orchestrated a harassment campaign against one commenter here, which led to people contacting her workplace in an attempt to get her fired. There are many more examples.
Meanwhile, today on the Men’s Rights subreddit, one commenter’s call to harass a woman got two dozen upvotes from the regulars:
Guys, don’t do that.
EDIT: I have added a few comments in the post above to highlight my concerns that the alleged harassment may be a fabrication; I will remove these comments of Lovett provides proof, publicly or privately, that the harassment occurred.
