Category: idiocy

Categories
idiocy misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit shaming tactics the spearhead

>Scott Adams to Men’s Rights Activists: You’ll never win an argument with a woman

>

Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert’s boss.

So Scott Adams — the Dilbert guy — has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men’s Rights. And so he did.

What they got from him wasn’t quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn’t what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten “a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.”

Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small  — from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system.  Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.

We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don’t know how to ask for raises.

So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others — mangina anyone? — but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.

But here’s where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men’s Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards.  It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, read it for yourself.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead.  But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Apparently In Scott Adams’ world, chess players don’t get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine. 

After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don’t make any more sense than what I’ve quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn’t have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.

As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you’ll never win this argument with a women — you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe … you’ll get to fuck the queen? 

No wonder he deleted the post. 

Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let’s see if I can get it stuck in your head:

—

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 armageddon evil women I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy manginas MGTOW misogyny patriarchy thug-lovers

>Armageddon me some quality wives, widows and virgins!

>

If you don’t have one of these, you’re screwed.

The good fellows at the Happy Bachelors forum have gone all survivalist on us. Well, a bunch of them have. Some are posting tips on gracious postapocalyptic living: did you know that you can only safely drink your own urine once or twice in an emergency, because it gets more concentrated with nasty bad stuff as you get more dehydrated? The More You Know.

Others are speculating on what it all means for men like them, and the ladies they think are filthy whores.

Like a lot of those who’ve convinced themselves that the end is of civilization is near, our Happy Bachelors seemed kind of stoked at the notion of everything going to shit. Because, you see, clear-sighted, no-nonsense dudes like them will obviously thrive in the tough new environment, while wimpy females and those who love them will be forced to beg for scraps from their new MGTOW overlords.

The perhaps appropriately named recluse sees some hope in the economic collapse of towns like Flint Michigan:

[E]xtreme social poverty … will end frivolous bullshit like catering to the feminists or princess mentality ball busting bitches.

Apparently when mens jobs get harder they begin to get more efficient and genuinely self protective.

This is how manginas can be transformed on a wholesale basis.

Wholesale transformation? Uh oh. I don’t know exactly what recluse is getting at here, but it doesn’t sound good for the manginas of the world.

Still,  there is hope for you, ladies.! Well, for some of you. Not many, I’d guess. To be perfectly honest, ladies, if you’re reading this blog here, you’re probably not on the list.

As boogyman explains, after the shit hits the fan,

Quality wives, widows, and virgins will be looked after by good men just like in the Biblical days. Thug lovers, welfare mothers, and feminists will have to fend for themselves (Daddy government will be MIA). The laws of the jungle will sort everything out in short order.

So get that last bit of thug-loving in, gals, while you still have a chance.

—

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
I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy misogyny sex

>Humorless dudes: Women aren’t funny!

>

What a hideous beast!

It’s weird the lengths that the dudes of the manosphere will go to try to prove things that simply aren’t true. Like the idea that women aren’t funny. (Seriously, if you can’t immediately reel off the names of ten women who are fucking hilarious, you just might be — to paraphrase one famously hackneyed male comedian — a misogynist. If you get stuck, maybe this will help.)

The standard misogynist line on the alleged unfunniness of women is rooted, as are so many misogynist ideas, in sexual insecurity and resentment: Men are funny, the argument goes, because, unless they’re George Clooney or Ghengis Khan, it’s the only way to get women to have sex with them. Meanwhile, all that most women have to do to get men to have sex with them is to exist.

In an old post on Gucci Little Piggy which I just ran across today, our friend Chuck (who sometimes posts comments here), offers his version of this argument.

Humor and oppression are strongly correlated. Oppression leads to a sense of irony and keen insight about human nature and life in general. …  And nobody is less at the bottom of the social heap than women.

Actually, maybe men are inherently more funny than women, because so far Chuck’s explanation is hilarious. His proof for this: there aren’t a ton of gorgeous white women comedians. Listing a a small batch of female comedians — among them Ellen Degeneres, Joan Rivers, Wanda Sykes, and Chelsea Handler — he remarks:

Take a look at the list of famous female comedians and notice that none fit the “prototypical” (average) woman. In other words, they aren’t white, beautiful, and straight. … They weren’t handed a golden ticket, like many of their straight-and-narrow sisters. In the same way that Jerry Seinfeld, Milton Berle, and the Marx Brothers inherited a legacy of humor from their Jewish ancestors, lesbians, fat broads, and ethnic women have used the same tool: humor. … female comedians are almost universally unattractive or lesbian or ethnic.

You may have noticed a few problems with this argument. Aside from the fact that there have been plenty of completely hilarious women who were also utterly gorgeous — uh, Marilyn Fucking Monroe? — that several of the women on his list are actually quite conventionally hot, and that most of them are white, all Chuck has done is to show that many female comedians, like many male comedians, tend to be outcasts and misfits with less than model-quality looks. Not that “women aren’t funny” or even that women are inherently less funny than men.

The fact that Paris Hilton is not what you’d call a brilliant wit — she’s his example of a beautiful unfunny lady — doesn’t mean that “women” collectively are unfunny, any more than the fact of Tom Cruise’s humorlessness means all men, or even all Scientologists, are unfunny. (Well, maybe the bit about the Scientologists.)

But the funniest part of the whole thing comes in the comments section, where one bravely anonymous commenter offers his own — utterly sincere, unintentionally hilarious — explanation of the “women aren’t funny” meme:

Well, you’re speaking of a culture/society that’s been decimated by Cultural Marxism. The comedians you mention are using the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory to criticize and breakdown (criticize/critique) what remains of White Western Civilization. There were plenty of excellent white comedians, both male and female, before the open immigration act of 1965 turned the USA into a third world shit hole. There’s a reason they’re not white.

Yeah, that’s gotta be it. Joan Rivers is staying up nights reading her dog-eared copies of the treatises of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, perfecting her dialectical critique of ugly Oscar dresses.

—

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 idiocy MGTOW MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit Uncategorized

>Memo to angry dudes: Not all the women who hate you are feminists

>

Disdainful women: Not always feminists.

Given how much of their time they spend attacking feminism and feminists, manosphere dudes can be surprisingly incompetent at telling just who is and who isn’t an actual, bona-fide feminist; they’ve got terrible fem-dar.

Case in point: Last Saturday, annoying social conservative polemicist Kay Hymowitz published a piece in the Wall Street Journal taken from her new book “Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys,” in which she argues that young men today have degenerated into puerile pre-adults, led astray by an assortment of villains including, but not limited to, Maxim magazine, Comedy Central, Seth Rogan and, if the subtitle of her book is any indication, rising women. You may vaguely remember her first rehearsing this general argument in a similarly annoying City Journal piece a couple of years ago called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.”

To point out a simple fact that should be evident to all but the most hardened manosphere misogynists: not everyone who says critical things about men is therefore a feminist. Indeed, many of those who say the worst things about men aren’t feminist at all.

And in fact, as should be very clear to anyone who actually sits down to read her work, Hymowitz is no feminist. If the reference to “the rise of women” as a villain in her book’s subtitle isn’t enough of a clue, let me point you to several of the many articles she’s written attacking feminism — for example, accusing feminists of ignoring the precious wisdom of Evolutionary Psychology, going “AWOL on Islam,” and just generally being “obsolete.”

But the basic fact of Hymowitz’ antifeminism seems not to have penetrated the consciousness of many of her critics in the manosphere, where her latest WSJ has produced a flurry of angry denunciations from dudes who take her stale tranditionalist bromides as the latest in evil feminazi-ism.

On Happy Bachelors she’s derided as a “typical second-wave hag feminazi.” On The Spearhead, one commenter dismisses her as “yet another smug, AA-promoted female token who can’t grasp what she and her feminist sisters have done to men.” On MGTOWforums.com, yet another misguided commenter snidely asserts that  “Jewish feminists do not age well.”

Blogger Rex Patriarch, meanwhile, proclaims her op-ed to be a “a typical feminist rant about how wonderful women are and what disappointment men have become,” and accuses her of sour grapes:

That’s right ladies do us men a favor, go away and keep telling yourselves you don’t need any sour grapes.

You ladies are the ones that need to grow up and face reality. Wanting both the full benefits of feminism and marriage without any responsibilities is understandable. I would take that deal if I could get it too but since I can’t I exercise my natural right to not participate in the stacked deck you have to offer. That deal means jumping through the endless and ever increasing hoops of expectations it’s going to take to just get to the break even point in a sham marriage with an entitlement princess that western women have become.

Thanks but find some other sucker to be your jumping poodle, I will take video games instead.

As a fellow video gamer and something of an overgrown child-man myself,  I’ve got nothing against anyone offering a good sensible critique of Hymowitz’ basic thesis; unfortunately, so far all I’ve seen on the topic from MRAs and MGTOWers have been little more than crude misogynist (and sometimes anti-Semitic) insults, most far cruder than the remarks I’ve quoted here. 

But here’s a hint: you can’t really offer much of a critique if you start off assuming that she’s driven by an ideology she actually hates.

EDITED TO ADD: Speaking of good sensible critiques of Hymowitz, here are a couple from actual feminists. ECHIDNE of the snakes takes on Hymowitz’ “extreme definition of masculinity,” which seems to suggest that “Men can only be men if women remain girls.” Meanwhile, Jill at Feministe notes that life is not really much like Judd Apatow movies and makes the point that what Hymowitz derides as “extended adolescence” is in fact “an intelligent and fair reaction to a new economy and new gender models.”

—

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
idiocy misogyny

>Oh, Yahoo Answers, must you be so …

>… Yahoo Answers-ish? (Link.)

(This is what you get when you idly type “all women are whores” into Google to see what turns up.)

— 

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
crackpottery I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MRA Uncategorized

>Wasn’t that an Adam Sandler movie?

>

Ladies, watch out! Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do. All it requires is a little bit of fake-gay marriage on his part.

Imagine if two straight men got legally hitched (emphasis on straight). No expensive ceremony, no grueling engagement process, just signing the contract. Then, they go on and live their separate lives as bachelors. Because of their legally married status they … Cannot get remarried legally. This means if they get married with a women, come divorce time she will be unable to legally claim any of his property as they are not legally married. Bigamy and polygamy is illegal so all marriage contracts signed after the first are not recognized as valid by a court of law.

Oh, you sly dog you. Such a clever idea. And so original!

Categories
antifeminism feminism idiocy MRA quiz rape reddit sex

>Quiz: Jezebel … or Andrea Dworkin?

>Here’s one easy way to tell if someone is from another planet. Specifically, Planet I’m-So-Crazed-by-My-Hatred-of-Feminism-That-My-Brain-Has-Imploded. They post comments on Reddit containing this sentence:

Hmm. I’m not what you’d call a big fan of Andrea Dworkin, but I have read her work, and unless my memory is faulty, I don’t recall her writing much about Ryan Gosling, lip stain, or baby giraffes.

So here’s a little quiz to see if you can tell the difference between Jezebel and Andrea Dworkin. Some of the quotes below come from recent Jezebel articles; some come from Dworkin. I also threw in a quote from Ryan Gosling as well, just for the hell of it. So who said what? (Answers below.)

a) Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality.
b) I freely admit that I watch some shitty, shitty television, and if it weren’t for my sense of shame, I’d probably watch a lot more of it. I can’t get enough of The Bachelor, which combines the most terrible aspects of dating, the weirdest aspects of arranged marriages, and sociopaths.
c) The sexual colonialization of women’s bodies is a material reality: men control the sexual and reproductive uses of women’s bodies. In this system of male power, rape is the paradigmatic sexual act.
d) Women’s bodies are possessed by men. Women are forced into involuntary childbearing because men, not women, control women’s reproductive functions. Women are an enslaved population–the crop we harvest is children, the fields we work are houses.
e) Pie is just fine as a partner for the weak coffee of church basements, for Thanksgiving, for dessert at a roadside cafe in Harmony, Minneosta, but for high falutin’ snacking, you cannot beat the elegant convenience of the cupcake.
f) If I eat a huge meal and I can get the girl to rub my belly, I think that’s about as romantic as I can think of.

ANSWER KEY: What, are you a fucking idiot? Oh, ok, the last one is the Ryan Gosling quote. I really, really, really hope you can figure out the rest on your own.

Categories
hypergamy idiocy

>All out of context

>As the herpes and hypergamy discussion (which also erupted here) reminded (almost) everyone, statistics can be wildly misleading unless you know at least a little bit about the context. I got another reminder of that recently while poking around on a site called NationMaster, a site that aggregates stats about the world found in the (very useful) CIA Factbook and other sources and makes them a little more user-friendly.

Which isn’t always a good thing. As we learn from this contextless factoid I  found festooned at the top of one page:

Yeah. I think if you really do like kids, you might want to think a little about why half the population in Uganda is under 15 before planning your move there.

Categories
funny hypergamy idiocy kitties pics sluts

>Feminist cat ponders how idiotic the herpes and hypergamy discussion has gotten

>

(Note: In cats, tail-lashing is not a good sign.)
Categories
idiocy misandry MRA rape reddit Uncategorized

>Rapists are apparently being oppressed by the term “rapist.”

>

Well, here’s a new one. Apparently rapists are being oppressed by the evil misandrist term … rapist. Or so says a poster calling himself ReluctantNihilist in the upstart MENSRIGHTSMOVEMENT subreddit on Reddit, a tiny little discussion forum (with 12 subscribers) for those who think the regular Men’s Rights subreddit has become a hotbed of radical feminism. Here’s his argument:

The prefix “-ist” means “one who believes in”. …  It is a belief system. A misandrist demonstrates a pattern of behaviors that exemplify misandry.

Does a person who commits a rape necessarily believe and engage in a pattern of behavior of rape?

No.

There are a couple of problems with this analysis, starting with the fact that “ist” is, uh, not actually a prefix but a suffix. And that it can simply mean “one that performs a specified action.” Believing may not have anything to do with it: a “typist,” for example, types; he or she doesn’t believe in an ideology of typing. Nor does an “ist” have to do something repeatedly: an “arsonist” is someone who burns shit up, whether that’s once or a hundred times. Our ReluctantlNihilist is evidently not much of a linguist. But let’s set aside these little qualms and continue with his post:

The proper term for someone who commits a rape, or even several, is a raper. “-er” means “one who takes part in”. Determination of whether that person would qualify as a rapist is another matter.

The use of the word “rapist” rather than “raper” is misandrist doublespeak, because even though women rape, too, we know that the term “rapist” is only applied to males. 

Uh, I think the term is used for female rapists also. There just aren’t that many of them.

This misandrist doublespeak is subtle but effective. Calling someone a rapist insinuates they have committed multiple rapes and, if set free, they’ll do it again and again. This only fuels rape hysteria.

The more accurate and less emotionally-charged term is:

Raper.

Actually, it’s a fair bet that someone who rapes once will rape again; one study of “undetected rapists” — that is, rapists who hadn’t been caught, which is to say the overwhelming majority of rapists — found that they admitted to having assaulted, on average, roughly 6 victims each.

But let’s set this aside and ask the big question: why exactly should we give a fuck about hurting the feelings of people who rape other people? If “ist” is good enough for Stalinists, philanthropists, proctologists, and, yes, even nihilists, it’s certainly good enough for rapists.

ReluctantNihilist, I am demoting you to a ReluctantNihiler.