In a discussion of Britain’s financial troubles on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a dude calling himself rebel managed to tease out some good news in the prospect of complete financial meltdown: the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!
Let’s face it: feminism was possible only through oppulence [sic]. The richer the country the worse it got.
Now the opposite is happening: we may have to suffer not being able to buy that new pair of shoes, but women will become less arrogant when they will have to live on bread crumbs.
I say keep them starved, skinny and obedient. Civilization is harmful to men: it causes women to go haywire.
If the economy tanks, men will be the winners.
“Oppulence?” Apparently, in the brave new post-civilization world, correct spelling will be a luxury we can no longer afford.
EDIT: Screencap for those not registered at Happy B:
Fellas, be careful out there, lest you run across the single gravest threat to modern man, and probably civilization itself: the single mom. These money-hungry, baby-hungry monsters will seduce you and abandon you, after extracting from you the magical substance that allows them to pop forth babies that you will have to pay for forever. Young or old, straight or lesbian, they all want your sperm and your money.
At least that’s the argument of a dude calling himself The Fourth Planet on the LoveShack.org message boards. I’ve put some especially good bits in bold.
[T]he time has come to look at male sexuality as a weakness that makes men vulnerable to all kinds of predator. It’s a sexual vulnerability that makes you prey to baby mama or baby-hungry women. …
Your sexuality is tolerated only when it’s necessary to provide young women, long past menopausal women, lesbians, single mothers by choice … with children. In other words, only for as long as it serves women’s needs to satisfy their baby urges. …
Women’s sexuality gives them, and the state, almost unlimited power to control men. As long as women are free to use their power of sex to exploit men, then all the things we resent in women will continue and get worse.
Our weakness for pussy is … being used to destroy us. …
You must reject single mothers because she represents all of the things that destroy men, our children, our families, and our communities. …
Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man’s resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man’s child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That’s because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.
Fuck those bitches. They didn’t invent air conditioning!
How to win friends and garner dozens of upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit: Bash out a barely coherent stream-of-consciousness rant suggesting that women are ungrateful bitches because they don’t mine coal, and didn’t invent air conditioning or hunt mammoths. Of course, no one posting in the Men’s Rights subreddit has done any of those things either, but apparently everyone with a penis gets automatic credit for them.
Here’s the post, from some dude called TheGrendler:
We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?
Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?
How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.
We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.
Shame on you,
You hedonistic, narcissistic, sociopath metastasizing cancer.
Whatever happened to live together die alone?
Damn you ungrateful sluts for enjoying air conditioning, despite the fact that it was invented by a dude! (Probably. I didn’t check.) Only dudes should enjoy things invented by other dudes! Jonas Salk was a dude! Only dudes should get the polio vaccine! How do you like your polio, you fancy-shoe wearing bitches!!!?? You should have thought of that before you went and didn’t invent the motherfucking polio vaccine!!!
And you can just forget about reading any motherfucking Dostoevsky! Only dudes can read Dostoevsky! You filthy whores stick to Jane Austen!
Sometimes mean people criticize Men’s Rightsers for complaining endlessly on the internet without offering any real solutions to the problems they complain about. Well, the meanies can’t make that criticism any more. Because now we have what is essentially a solution to all the world’s problems, in the form of a five-point “agenda for Nice Guys” set forth by a fellow called genepool on NiceGuy’s MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Forum. It starts off with a bang:
Elimination/reduction of welfare and government’s socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don’t pick you shouldn’t get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children.
You may have to read this one twice to understand all the nuances. Anyone having trouble with the cock-centric economic theory here should get out Adam Smith’s Wealth of Cocks and remind themselves how the Invisible Handjob of the market really works. I quote:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their cocks. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their hard, throbbing dicks, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of our cunts.
Cocks are led by an invisible handjob, or maybe a blow job if she’s drunk, to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, to advance the interest of the society. And possibly to stick it in her butt if she’s a real slut.
Let’s skip point 2 for a moment to quickly cover the last three:
Privatization of marriage. … I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?
Damn you, genepool! You have foiled my plans!
Exactly. Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so.
The remaining two points: Legalization of prostitution, and limits on child support for rich dudes. Both total no brainers.
But it is point 2 that is genepool’s truly visionary notion:
Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You’re rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn’t kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won’t do that out of altruism. You need [incentives]. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it’s consensual, it’s win win and it should be legal.
Win win? Something this brilliant deserves at least four wins. Win win win win. A solution to nice guy loneliness AND the Holocaust! Imagine Anne Frank, sitting quietly up in that attic, scribbling away in that diary of hers. What if she could have gotten on the internet and snagged herself a sweet, shy pedophile in, say, New Jersey? That’s at least slightly preferable to a death camp, right? Problem solved!
Yep. Fellas, apparently we’re nothing but giant sperm repositories to the ladies. So what evidence has the Muslim Patriarch, aka Samvel Arshavir, got for his novel theory? He claims that his wife seems to treat him worst after the two of them have sex, when his “sperm reserves” are largely depleted. (Emphasis added.)
On the days immediately following an ejaculation, my wife loses all love and respect for me. She treats me like garbage. … I used to think that I have done something wrong for her to so suddenly lose all love for me. …
When I finally understood what was going on, when I understood that it all depended on the amount of sperm stored inside of me, I saw the humor in this love that everyone talks about. … Her love is just a way that nature tells me I have a lot of sperm in my reserves.
Arshavir notes that he hasn’t exactly done the scientific experimentation to prove his new theory. But he has made some careful observations:
My idea of ‘sperm reserve’ isn’t related to anything that scientists say. It is something I have found with experience. If you ejaculate twice or more in one day, the next day your reserves will be around 10%. Women have two terms for this level: douche bag and loser. On day 2 your reserves will go up to 25%. Day 3 they will be at 40%. Day 4 at 50%. As your levels pass 50%, women will start respecting you and finding you attractive. At around two to three weeks of abstinence your levels will have gone to 90%. And when you get a wet dream … you can then know that your levels reached 100%. The night before the wet dream you will be at your most irresistible-to-women phase.
As a former horny teenage boy, I respectfully must disagree with some of his calculations here: the male body seems capable of producing almost endless quantities of sperm upon demand.
But this is a question for the scientists amongst us to debate. Arshavir has bigger fish to fry. His revelations about ladies and sperm have led him to question some of the most fundamental tenets of heterosexual love.
When I have 10 days worth of sperm saved inside of me, when my wife wants to make love to me three times a day, it doesn’t any longer make me feel good about myself, because I now see that it is not an accomplishment. It is not because I am an awesome guy. It is just her animal nature responding to my biology.
This knowledge has freed me from the biggest fraud of our age. The fraud that tells us men to seek happiness in a woman’s love. What a joke.
Ah, but there is a complication here. Unlike sperm-loving women, Arshavir argues, men still can feel love for the ladies. True love, not just crude ovary lust. The only trouble is that those sperm-loving creatures don’t really deserve our love.
Ours is the spiritual love for another being. Theirs is the love for our biology. Their love for our sperm reserves could have easily been a love for big muscles. In both cases it is a purely physical love–nothing that deserves our spiritual love.
So where can a poor fellow find true love today? Dudes.
And I now realize why men like W. S. Maugham become homosexual after delving deep into the nature of women. Once you know that romantic love doesn’t make sense to women … the next logical step is to find a man to love.
If you look for true love, you can only find it in another man.
Wait — “another man?” Seriously? That sounds a little — what’s the word I’m looking for here? — gay. Isn’t this blog titled “Muslim Patriarch?” But don’t worry. Our intrepid patriarchal blogger hasn’t gone all gay on us. He is quick to add the obligatory “NO HOMO,” in the parlance of our times. Love other men, but just do it in a totally non-gay way.
The idea of having sex with another man is utterly disgusting to me. The mistake of men like Maugham is that they fail to separate love from sex. …
The correct thing to do as I see it is to save our deep, romantic and spiritual feelings of love for male friends, while maintaining sexual relationships with women. …
Apparently, men are from Mars, women are for penis.
[A] man’s romantic love is completely wasted on women. … Had you used your love on another man, you’d have gotten a loving friend for life. With a woman, no matter how much love you spend on her, her love for you will be no more than your sperm-reserve levels. …
A healthy culture would have taught us men to love other men, and would have taught us not to take women seriously.
Have you ever sat down to write up a little list of pros and cons, only to find that you can’t think of any pros at all? That was the dilemma faced by a number of regulars on the grotesquely misnamed NiceGuy MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forums when the subject of “what women offer” to men came up the other day. Nightstorm introduced the topic thusly:
It just seems women cannot offer a man anything these days. The days of “well.. I have a pussy”, just doesn’t seem to cut it anymore.
Don’t I know it! I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with the ladies that go just like this:
INTERIOR, FANCY RESTAURANT, EVENING
DAVID sits eating a delicious steak while his date, a SEXY LADY, picks nervously at her tiny salad.
So why am I paying attention to you?
Well, I have a pussy.
A pussy, you say?
Yeah. Right down here, in my pants.
That might work with some guys, but that it ain’t gonna work with me! Pussy just doesn’t cut it any more!
(Holding up hand)
Meet Pamela Hand-erson — the only pussy I’ll ever need!
SEXY LADY quietly weeps.
DAVID Oh, by the way, you’re paying for dinner.
And … scene!
Nightstorm, a fair and open-minded fellow, did concede that women had some good points, a few of them anyway, and set out to write up a list of pros and cons. First, the pros. Read this carefully, ladies. These are the only good things you bring to the table:
Pussy Emotional support (if its a decent chick) which can ranged from listening to you, to snuggling, ect. Sammichs Something cute to look at while they are young A cure for lonliness
Yes, “lonliness.” Spell-checking is for bitches and hoes.
Predictably, Nightstorm’s “Cons” list was a lot longer. Some selected highlights:
Bankrupcy. A chick will cause your wealth to go DOWN. One of my cousins knew a guy who would literally be a millionare if his wife didn’t spend. Bitching. Yes, they nag and vex your soul to death when they do not get their little ways. Manipulation and Control. What? You don’t want to do the dishs for me? No sex tonight!!! … Loud. Women have high pitched voices, who’s bright idea was it to use it all the time making screetching noises? Trashy. Once they get what they want (marriage), then they stop working on themselves. Now they let themselves go. Divorce. See Bankrupcy. Once you wake up to these ho’s, they have alittle secret.. their taking HALF of what you own. Cheaters. They will go sleep with other men if things don’t work out with you, you don’t mind.. right? Entitlement. They deserve it all because they have been born with a pussy hole. Dangerous. You can’t be you around women. One false word and it could be jail time for you till the manginas say its enough.
Naturally, others piped up with their own observations. Not many “pros.” Lots of “cons.” Some found it hard to think of a single good thing to say about women. IHateRegistering summed up his feelings with an enigmatic one-liner, declaring women: “Reused and retreaded wares at government-mandated retail prices.” (Uh, what?) Cherishthehate, living up to his name, concluded that women were more or less entirely useless:
I have let this question ruminate for the last couple of hours while doing other stuff. Basically I came up with nothing.
Pussy? Meh. … I once thought of trying gay just to get a decent blowjob. (jk of course 🙂 ) …
Companionship? Again, I have known very few women who you could have a decent conversation with that didn’t focus on clothes, TV or their friends’ love lives. …
Women basically contribute nothing to a relationship, the onus is always on the man to keep them happy. If you ever ask a woman what she brings to the table in a relationship you will be mostly met with blank stares. It is a total non sequitur for them.
True, a couple of commenters did stand up to defend the virtues of women. Well, sort of. Seems like the ladies can be worth keeping around, so long as you keep them in check. As fschmidt put it:
I would like to remind the gentlemen here that most of the cons listed are the result of mistakes made by men, mistakes like giving women the vote. When properly managed, women are an asset.
Ah, giving women the right to vote. I always knew that was a terrible idea.
So I had been assuming that the creepily intrusive new airport screening procedures — you know, the whole “let us look at you naked or we’ll grope you” thing — was the fault of a government willing to trade away our last vestiges of privacy for an illusion of security. But apparently, it’s feminism that’s to blame. And lesbians. “Rex Patriarch,” a blogger who is definitely going his own way, suggests that the new procedures are the “final result” of feminism gone bad:
Look who now runs the TSA, a bull dyke control freak. Look at who works for TSA, bull dyke control freaks and mangina white knights. This army of control freaks was created by feminism. Feminism is not about equality it is about upsetting the natural order creating female superiority through the abuse of men which then mutates into government superiority through the abuse of men and women outside the system.
Mr. Patriarch’s post was, ironically, inspired by a news story about India’s (female) ambassador to the US being groped — er, patted down — by a female Transportation Security Administration screener. I’m not quite sure how that promotes female superiority.
Oh, you foul, filthy women, why must you continue to oppress men with the power of your evil sexiness? I’ve been spending some time recently reading a tiny internet forum with big ambitions. “The CoAlpha Brotherhood,” the site’s Mission Statement notes, “is an attempt to abandon feminist society and collectively create an independent sub-culture based on patriarchal values.” High on the CoAlpha agenda: get women to stop dressing like such sexy, sexy sluts.
The head CoAlpha, a fellow calling himself Drealm, laments the situation he finds himself in as a man living “in a university town that’s overrun with young girls,” a man continually assaulted by the sight of women in clothing more revealing than a Burka:
As you can imagine, my university town, Berkeley California, is one big liberalized hypersexual runway show. I’m forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle.
He is forced — forced, I tells ya! — to stare at these women with lust in his heart, and presumably in his trousers as well. How unfair is that?
[T]he only time it’s enjoyable looking at promiscuously dressed women, is if you can have them on the spot. So if a woman is a hooker or a stripper, then it’s enjoyable to watch them. However, if a woman is completely unattainable, then it’s mentally and physically unpleasant to look at promiscuous women.
So, ladies, if you’re not going to put out, or at least give the poor fellow a free lap dance on the steps of Sproul Plaza, cover up.
Women, out of respect for men, should dress in a way that doesn’t excite men. A woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement is the equivalent of a man dressing in such a way that causes a woman to have a sudden onset period. Simply put dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men’s sexuality.
And if you assault a man like this, he might …
Ok, I’m going to pause for a second here, because at this point Drealm takes his “argument” in a really dark, if unfortunately not unprecedented direction.
Basically, he argues that if women “assault” him with excessively sexy clothing, he might not be able to control his urge to sexually assault them:
I cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. … [t]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. … If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it’s easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. … Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. … A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.
Ladies, really, do you want to bring out the murders and rapists in men? Forget tight t-shirts and skinny jeans. Just say no to halter tops and short skirts. Think: what would I wear if I were Amish?
Seeing as Berkeley is also a multi-cultural haven, I sometimes have the pleasure of being startled by the sight of conservative muslim and Indian women. … The only thing I want to do is help them. Yet the only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. These muslim and Indian women are very beautiful, so it’s not as though I’m not attracted to them. It’s just that dress codes in both sluts and modest women operate as agents for activating different hardwired impulses in my psyche.
And seriously, no man can be expected to actually curb his baser impulses to rape and murder ALL the time. They’re hardwired! So don’t set him off by wantonly exposing your arms and legs and perhaps even some of your even sexier parts. Dress as if the ozone layer has gone poof and every little bit of exposure to the sun will burn your flesh like steak on a grill.
[T]he point of modest clothing is to cover up anything that excites men. … to cut off all triggers that excite men. In my opinion this starts with skin coverage. The more a woman’s skin is covered, the less she excites men. This is why short skirts and low cut tops are antonyms of modesty.
Tight clothing is also very dangerous.
[C]lothing should not exaggerate a female’s body shapes. This is why I still think jeans can be immodest on women, because a tight pair of jeans will accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. High heels meet the same conflict as tight jeans, while they may not show extra skin, they accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks.
And watch out with that evil, sexy hair of yours.
Uncovered hair isn’t as much an immodesty crime, but I still feel raw long hair can excite men. Long hair’s affect on men can be counteracted with a scarf or veil.
So what should a nice modest young gal do? Cover up. Cover everything up. Rent yourself a copy of Witness, and sew yourself some clothes that are really motherfucking Plain.
Or, I suppose, you could always crawl into a garbage bag and hop.