Categories
evil women I'm totally being sarcastic kitties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MRA oppressed men

>Drama Queen for a Day

>

MRAs: Bigger Drama Queens than Batman
Drama queens: so annoying, but so, so entertaining. Tammy Wynette, singing about failing marriages with that little choked-up quiver in her voice. Chris Crocker, begging us to “leave Britney alone!”  Emo kids whining about whatever it is they’re always whining about. Cats, being cats. 
And, of course, Men’s Rights activists, seriously in the running for  biggest drama queens of all. 
  
Over on A Voice For Men, guest blogger “Tom Snark” recently wrote about a little incident in his life in which he heard the woman who lived next door to him yell at her husband because she didn’t like the way he was trimming some branches.

Not much of a story, you’d think. But Snark, showing considerable ingenuity, stretched it out into a 1200 word post. The woman didn’t just yell; she “yapp[ed] at him like a menopausal Chihuahua.” The man wasn’t just embarrassed to have a neighbor overhear the exchange; he
know[s] that their facade of marital bliss was now forever shattered in my mind. … Is this his terrible secret, hidden from the world: that he is continually disrespected behind closed doors, by the very woman who said to him “I do”? 
Needless to say, Snark answered this question with a resounding “yes.” And then decided that all marriages are like this — ultimately concluding that the women of the world are quite literally nagging their hubbies to death: 
One needlessly stressful incident after another is sure to raise the blood pressure. But actually living with a person who does this, combined with the stress of full-time work five days a week? The origin of the life expectancy gap [between men and women] becomes clear. 
Never mind that married men actually live longer than unmarried men, as approximately two seconds of Googling will show. Snark was just getting going:


marriage has no benefit at all for men. It is not even a stretch to say that, in this day and age, marriage is systematically abusive for men. While women can up and leave at any time they like, with minimal resistance from the law, family courts, or society as a whole (we continue to suffer from Eat, Prey, Love syndrome) – men cannot leave women without paying the price. 
Yes, he did say “prey,” not “pray.” But wait, there’s more: 
Married men are literally trapped, stuck supporting the poisonous predators that will eventually kill them. Plenty of women know this; perhaps this is why they are so keen on the idea. A little legal tweaking was all it took for feminists to remake marriage in their own image: men are now the dehumanised tools for women’s personal use. Sex roles have not simply been reversed, because men continue to do most of the work. What has changed is that the paycheque is now handed directly over to the wife, and his time at home will be spent completing endless ‘honey-do’ lists. 
Oh, the terrible tyranny of the “honey-do” list! Hitler had nothing on these foul shrews and their endless branch-trimming demands!
Now, I don’t mean to make light of verbal abuse. It happens, and it’s real abuse. I once had a neighbor, an elderly Italian man, who was continually yelling at his wife. Most of it was in Italian, so I don’t know exactly what he was saying, but every sentence or two was punctuated by what was evidently his favorite English word, “asshole,” a word he delivered with so much contempt it was chilling. In between these verbal barrages, I could hear his wife softly responding, trying to placate him. I don’t think he physically abused her – he was in a wheelchair – but this verbal abuse was constant. I doubt there was a single day I didn’t hear it. Had I known then what I know now, I would have called the police.
But not every overheard argument is a sign of abuse. Snark has heard one nasty exchange in the ten years he’s lived next to this couple – and he’s concluded from this one data point not only that his neighbor is being abused but that virtually all married men are prisoners to “poisonous predators [who] will eventually kill them.” 
Naturally, the regular commenters on A Voice For Men found this conclusion eminently reasonable. Indeed, in one heavily upvoted comment, Barbarossaaa managed to out-queen Snark’s already impressive drama queenery:

All one has to do is to observe these married men, i mean really look at them… dont let them catch you looking, observe the married man is his natural habitat, and if you look close you can see the dulled eyes of a man simply waiting to die. 

he is the fly caught in the spider web, that has accepted its fate and stopped struggling. he now waits for the black widow to climb down and consume him slowly but surely… 
this is not freedom it’s subtle servitude … you are dancing her dance, she is the initiator you are the reactor, and SHE decides whether you pass or fail she is in complete control. 
Yes, married men are all dead-eyed puppets in the hands of their evil wives. When I read this last bit, I couldn’t help but think of this little scene in Ed Wood’s perplexing bad-movie masterpiece Glen or Glenda, in which Bela Lugosi, himself a drama queen of considerable ability, shouts out “pull the string!” for no apparent reason:

— 
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Categories
armageddon atlas shrugged evil women kitties MGTOW misogyny MRA sex sluts

>On Strike. Also: kitties.

>

It’s not hard to find misogyny on manosphere sites. Hell, on some sites, like The Spearhead or MGTOWforums.com, it’s hard to find a discussion that’s not overflowing with misogyny. 
What is hard to find, sometimes, is misogyny that is interesting. As I poked around on the regular sites today the misogyny all blurred together into one giant mass of “I’ve heard it all before.” Here, it’s: women are all dirty whores. There, it’s: those damn bitches will get their comeuppance when we Go Our Own Way. Yeah, yeah. Tell me something I don’t know. 


So I’m going on strike today for better misogyny. 
In the meantime, I present: a cat trying to jump onto a dresser. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that cats can also do this.)


Maybe I’m just being cranky. There may well be some genuinely interesting misogyny I missed in either or both of the threads I linked to above. If you find some, feel free to post it in the comments.
— 
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Categories
antifeminism kitties men who should not ever be with women ever oppressed men sex vaginas

>Non-haters gonna non-hate: NiceGuy Edition

>

From NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum.
Once upon a time one of the guys over at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum set up a little poll asking his fellow “nice guys” whether or not they actually consider themselves to be misogynists; it’s been up there for years, and the site’s resident MGTOWers have been adding votes and comments all along.  The wording of the poll is sufficiently, ah, flexible enough to give respondents a lot of ways to wiggle out of saying explicitly that they really were misogynists:

* I despise the entire female sex. Period.
* I hate only “western” women.
* I only hate feminists and women who take advantage of sexism.
* I just blame feminists.
* I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.
* I have no animosity towards women of any group. I’m only here to learn more about MRAs.

Still, given the amount of angry and explicit and completely straightforward misogyny you can find in the forms there, which after all are an outgrowth of a site devoted to the notion that “American women suck,” I’m a little bit surprised by how many of the regulars claim not to hate women – as you can see from the graphic above, the most popular answer is the one about “feminists and women who take advantage of sexism,” whatever that means. 
Conveniently, though, many of those who voted in the poll also posted comments explaining their, er, reasoning. And it’s pretty clear that they have a radically different definition of hate than, you know, the dictionary, and/or what everyone else in the world means when they use the word hate. 

Here are some of the comments from guys there who say that they aren’t misogynist. Again, just to make myself clear: these are entirely NON-HATEFUL comments from those who say they DON’T hate women.
Let’s start with the completely non-hateful non-hater who calls himself Alpha:

  
I’m not one who hates … I find that I don’t enjoy the company of women very much, as they tend to talk about things I really don’t give a crap about. Besides, they really wouldn’t like to hear what comes out of my mouth since, if I were to really say what I thought around them without restraint, they would go into knee-jerk, defensive mode. They’ve been so conditioned to fight and argue with what is simply, to me, a male point of view on things. It’s like being around children. ..
I will say this, I love ladies, the female equivalent of a gentleman, a gentlewoman. Unfortunately, that’s a rare breed these days. What we have are a bunch of emotionally immature, emotionally unrestrained, emotionally violent, toxic, unappreciative, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-serving, unempathetic, exploitive, arrested adolescents with vaginas, bad attitudes, and an incredible amount of contempt.

Now, I don’t mind holding my tongue around ladies. But the moment women declared themselves equal to men, they opened the door to being talked to as men.

And here is committed non-misogynist Zaku:

I voted: “I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.”

Mostly because they have nothing to offer other than whining usually. …

When women talk they make me “ZZZ”.


Tiny kitties are honest about their hatreds.
In a followup comment Zaku offered this, well, revealing take on sex with women: 

Maybe it’s because I’ve only done american chicks but to be blunt having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn’t join in and you can hardly tell the difference.


There is something I would dearly like to tell young Zaku at this point but I really can’t think of a delicate way to put it. Hmm. I’ll do it the Dear Abby way. 
  
CONFIDENTIAL TO Z— on N—G—‘sM—- F—- : You may be doing it wrong. 
 

Our friend MarkyMark popped in to offer his two cents: 
I don’t hate women, but, after working with a bunch of them and seeing their true colors, I don’t care to be around them. I don’t hate sewers, either; I just don’t care to spend time in them..

Now if this were anyone but our friend MarkyMark making this comment, I would assume he was making a little joke here. But as far as I have been able to determine, MarkyMark does not actually have a sense of humor. This is, after all, a guy who once devoted a blog post to rebutting, point by point, an article in The Onion. Joke or no, I think we can all agree it’s 1) not actually, you know, funny and 2) kind of a douchey thing to say.
Djc added this utterly non-misogynistic comment to the pile: 

I can’t stand to be around them for too long. It’s not hatred. I just can’t stand stupid people. Male, or female. And there is no question most American females are dripping with delusions, which in my book makes them stupid. And I’m at a point where women have nothing I really need. So it’s a complete waste of my time to even talk to one


And then there is this, from strigoi:

i merely hate feminists, those women who latch onto sexism and how it has infected most of society. I aim for the cancer at the heart of the problem, they are the ones that need to be hanged.


I guess technically, that’s not misogyny. But I don’t think I’ll be inviting this guy over for dinner any time soon.

— 
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
bullying feminism idiocy kitties Uncategorized

>I’m going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!

>

Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.”  That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.
I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there.  I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.
In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!
— 
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. 
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Categories
douchebaggery idiocy kitties MRA

>Scott Adams: I meant to do that!

>

Easier to believe than Scott Adams.

There’s a classic scene in Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure in which our hero falls off his bike in a spectacular fashion in front of a bunch of kids. Instead of lying there in misery and shame, he quickly gets up, dusts himself off, and says, somewhat less than convincingly, “I meant to do that.” If you’ve never seen the movie, or simply want to relive the moment, here it is

It’s perhaps the oldest, crudest, and most utterly transparent strategy ever invented to recover from an embarrassing mishap: we either pretend that nothing happened, or that whatever did happen was all part of our super seekret master plan all along. We’re not the only animals that do this. Cats do it. Birds do it. Even drunk squirrels do it.


Now we can add Scott Adams to the list. Recently, as regular readers of this blog will be aware, the Dilbert mastermind caused a bit of a contretemps on the internets by posting a blog entry so astoundingly idiotic, and so patronizingly misogynistic, that it managed to offend Men’s Rights Activists and feminists alike. Adams managed to make himself look like an even bigger idiot by pulling the blog post down in what seems to have been a futile attempt to make the controversy go away, only to find it reposted on an assortment of sites; some have begun to wonder if he actually understands how the internet works. (Things posted generally cannot be unposted.)

I wrote about the whole embarrassing spectacle here, and when I posted a version of that piece up on Feministe, Adams showed up to defend himself– badly – by insisting that his critics were too dumb and/or emotional to understand his oh-so-subtle argument. He then insisted, puzzlingly, that we actually weren’t his critics at all: “You’re angry,” he wrote, “but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.” Naturally, this did not advance his cause.“Mr. Adams,” wrote Feministe commenter Sheelzebub, speaking for many, “thank you so much for coming back here and entertaining us with your special brand of epic fail.”

But rather than letting this whole thing die, Adams has come back with even more detailed, and even more transparently ludicrous and contradictory, explanations as to why he wrote the post in the first place, why he subsequently deleted it, and why he decided to defend himself in such an obtuse manner on Feministe and (apparently) elsewhere. The whole embarrassing spectacle wasn’t an embarrassing spectacle at all: He totally MEANT TO DO IT.  As Feministe commenter Laurie sarcastically summed up his new claims, the whole thing was apparently “a form of sophisticated performance art,” and the controversy it generated was all “part of Adams’s master plan in the first place. He’s pulling all the strings. BWAHAHAHAHA!”

Yeah, right. 

So let’s go through his new explanations. Prepare for a bumpy ride.

Adams wrote the original post, he says, in a deliberate attempt to send the Men’s Rightsers into a frenzy:

I thought it would be funny to embrace the Men’s Rights viewpoint in the beginning of the piece and get those guys all lathered up before dismissing their entire membership as a “bunch of pussies.”

This part of Adams’ explanation actually rings true. Originally, you may recall, Adams decided to let his readers pick the topic of his next blog post for him. When he saw “men’s rights” jump to the top of the poll results, he knew, as he put it, that “the fix was in. Activists had mobilized their minions to trick me into giving their cause some free publicity.”

This is in fact true; MRAs on Reddit, and perhaps elsewhere, did indeed flood his site to vote for their pet issue.

And so, even though he agrees with some of the Men’s Rights agenda, Adams says he’s been suffering from a “wicked case of ‘whiner fatigue.’” In a world full of  “financial meltdowns, tsunamis, nuclear radiation, and bloody revolutions,” complaining about men having to open doors doesn’t seem like such a big damn deal.

So far, so good. But it’s about here, as he gets into his decision to take the post down, that Adams’ explanations go completely off the rails. Indeed, he’s got two distinct, and almost completely contradictory, explanations for why he took the post down.

First, he says he deleted the post, even though he knew people would repost it, as a sort of “meta joke” apparently designed to rile up feminists and garner even more attention. As he explains, somewhat less-than-lucidly:

A few people appreciated the meta-joke of removing the post.  If you didn’t get it, read the deleted post, consider the feminist backlash, then think about the fact that I took down my post and ran away.

And to those of you who triumphantly scrounged up a copy of the deleted piece from Google’s cache, republished it, and crowed that I don’t understand how the Internet worked, I would politely suggest that perhaps I do.

Adams goes on to suggest that the seemingly obtuse and arrogant comments he left on Feministe (and, apparently, elsewhere), were part of the same Puckish strategy of provocation:

I was enjoying all of the negative attention on Twitter and wondered how I could keep it going. So I left some comments on several Feminist blogs, mostly questioning the reading comprehension of people who believed I had insulted them. That kept things frothy for about a day.

But, he says, this wasn’t the whole story. And so he sets forth his second explanation for why he took down the original post:

I didn’t take down the piece just because I thought doing so would be funny, or because I wanted attention. Those were bonuses. The main reason is that when a lot of drive-by readers saw the piece, and they didn’t know the context of this blog, it changed the message of the post to something unintended. As a writer, unintended messages are unbearable.

You might notice that this new explanation does not so much complement but completely contract his earlier explanation: in the first scenario, Adams portrays himself as a “meta joker,” a deliberate provocateur, trying to rile up readers outside of his normal audience with a puckish prank.

In the second scenario he portrays himself as a writer deeply concerned about being misunderstood, and troubled that his words were being misinterpreted by “drive-by readers” outside of his normal audience, a situation he describes as “unbearable.”

In other words, after telling us that he pulled down the post in an effort to rile people up and garner even more attention, he tells us he that he really didn’t like the extra attention his words were getting, and that he pulled down the post in an attempt to cut the discussion off. As he puts:

Men thought I was attacking men, and women thought I was attacking women. The message changed when the context changed. I saw that developing, so I took down the post.

There is, of course, a simple way for us to cut through this confusion: to recognize that Adams’ talk about “meta-jokes” is almost certainly utter bullshit.

My theory as to what actually happened is much more straightforward, and fairly similar to Adams’ second explanation: Adams wrote a post designed to rile up MRAs, and it did. But once the discussion spilled over beyond the relatively safe confines of his own blog, with its sympathetic – or is that sycophantic? – audience, he had second thoughts, and in a moment of peevishness he took the post down, hoping the whole thing would just go away. It didn’t.

Then the whole debate got a second wind after feminists, myself included, noticed his post, and noticed that it happened to be crammed full of patronizingly misogynistic bullshit. Unable to simply wish away the criticism, Adams waded into the fray. Unwilling to, or simply incapable of either justifying his original post or apologizing for it in front of an audience of non-adoring non-fans, Adams simply asserted that none of his detractors understood what he *really* meant. So far, he has not given us any explanation as to what this might be.

Instead, in his post as in the discussion on Feministe, he simply repeats his assertion that those who have criticized his post are too emotional or invested in the issues to truly “get it.” The culmination of this line of, er, “reasoning” is this bit of passive-aggressive fuckery at the end of his post:

To the best of my knowledge, no one who understood the original post and its context was offended by it. But to the women who were offended by their own or someone else’s interpretation of what I wrote, I apologize.

This sounds like it might be his last word on the subject. No such luck. Like a terrier worrying a bone, Adams still hasn’t quite let this one go. Today, Salon ran a couple of articles on the controversy, including an interesting interview with Men’s Studies doyen Michael Kimmel; Adams urged his minions readers to rush over and defend him in the comments against the “the poorly informed [who] are in full unibation mode over their shared hallucinations of my Men’s Rights post.”

“Unibation?” Apparently they speak a different kind of English up Scott Adams’ ass.

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
kitties off topic

>Off-topic: Hand Cat

>

I may or may not get around to a real post today, but in the meantime, here’s what Winston Churchill would look like if he were a cat being held aloft by someone in a red sweater.

Categories
douchebaggery evil women kitties MGTOW misogyny oppressed men

>Video Games: No girlz allowed!

>

Cats: Not hardcore gamers.
When the oft-discussed topic of women and video games pops up on most internet forums, the discussion tends to be fairly predictable: Someone will wonder why women prefer Farmville to Halo. Someone else will point out that they are, in fact, a woman, and that they fucking hate Farmville and love to while away their evenings pwning newbs on Halo Reach. And a third someone will point out that the culture of “hardcore” gaming is still overwhelmingly dude-dominated. And so it goes.   

On MGTOWforums.com, the central questions about women and gaming aren’t “what do women want, game-wise” or “is there something about certain types of games that repels women, or do they stay away because it gets really tiresome really quickly to have to listen to 14-year-old boys calling them “cunts” on XboxLive?” No, to the MGTOWers the big question is simpler: Why are women allowed to play video games at all?

Or, as MGTOWforums.com regular AC101202 put in a recent discussion:

Why can’t men have their own space? …

Women, back the fuck off. You stole our TV. You stole our movies. You stole our malls. You stole our clothe shops. You stole our supermarkets Meanwhile the gays are stealing our gyms, our theater, our dance, our music. Video-games is all we have left.

Reacting with horror to the very notion of his favorite shoot-em-up games being somehow made more appealing to women, AC1010202 demands equal attention from the makers of “casual games”:  

I don’t hear this bitch [note: a commenter on CNET] complaining about the lack of inclusiveness of games like bejeweled to men (I’ve played bejeweled maybe 10 minutes in my life, fun for about that length of time or when you are sitting on the bus). …

Companies like Zynga want to make casual games to target the hundreds of millions of girls on facebook. Fine! … Why not push to make casual games more “male-friendly”, you bitch? Farm-ville and City-ville could use some thought. Those games suck. They are clearly designed for the modern day brainless airhead bimbo with too much time on her hands.

Of course it turns out that even the hunk of manly manhood that is AC101202 has played some of those girly little smart-phone games himself. But, he hastens to add, he was totally l33t about it:

The only casual game I’ve ever sucked dry was Plants Vs. Zombies. And if you aim to finish everything it becomes really hardcore in the survival levels.

AC101202 then sets forth his theories as to why women and hardcore games don’t mix. Some of them are fairly predictable: men like guns, women don’t; women “lack imagination and creativity, and the drive to complete real challenges.”

 

Others are a bit more peculiar:

1) Women identify with their gender too much. It seems that taking control of a male avatar is a problem for most of them. They cannot identify. I can identify with almost all avatars today. Male, female, adult, child, alien etc…

2) Females have less interesting personalities in real life, and therefore in fiction. There is a reason fiction involves men going through challenges and being transformed by them. In video games the two female archetypes are: the princess and the “you go grrl”. Women in real life have less dimension. They aren’t interesting. They bitch or they submit. That’s it. And I don’t care to hear some loud mouthed bitch barking orders at me through an ear piece. It’s unpleasant. If I’m in a war simulator I like hearing men talk. They usually have unique personalities, accents, character traits etc… When female characters do this they come off as pretending to be men and it doesn’t work.

He ends with an odd, angry paean to the free market:

Bitches like the one above form groups funded by donations to artificially fuck with the market. Men’s money today goes overwhelmingly towards good video-games. Let the market decide what women get. Bitch!

And with that final outburst AC101202 confirms that he conforms to every single last negative stereotype of the angry, sexist male gamer – and then some.

You go, boy!

(Also, he’s totally wrong about Bejeweled. I have played the fuck out of that shit for hours.)

— 
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
kitties men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rhymes with roosh sex

Educated women: Boner killers?

Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:

Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.

The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:

A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.

Amongst RooshV’s “boner inducing” job titles for women: Sexy waitress, sexy teacher, sexy librarian, sexy flight attendant. Amongst the “boner softening” job titles: Sexy IT specialist, sexy anesthesiologist, sexy tort attorney, sexy financial analyst.

There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).

Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?

Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.

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
evil women hypergamy kitties misogyny Uncategorized

>Pay no attention to the man behind the turntables

>

He’s up to his neck in pussy, no doubt.

So the fellows over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum are discussing why women seem to like DJs — sorry, “why a womyn so crazy about DJs?” Because that’s what Men Going Their Own Way like to do: spend all their time speculating about the details of the dating lives of the women that they totally don’t want to have anything to do with.

I can’t answer for the, er, womyn, but last year I had a date with a woman who did a bit of DJing, and considering that I’m sort of a music obsessive her DJing seemed maybe just a tiny bit, you know, cool?

But  apparently for the womyn it’s all about status. Also, women are apparently extremely stupid. According to the going-his-own-way-dude Iron John:

Womyn are focused always on two things 1) The immediate situation, as they lack foresight and hindsight, 2) Immediate foodchain. So when they find themselves in a night club they are looking for immediate indications of status. What do they see? A single individual who gets to control the music, lights, etc. They don’t see the artists that created this stuff ahead of time, the business men who owns the establishment, or the bankers who collect the profits. The see just one man who appears to be running everything. They can’t see anything else so to them it does not exist. Since that one man is in control of their immediate environment he MUST be the, “alpha male”. And we all know what girls think of him.

Yeah, that must be it. That’s why, whenever they get on a bus, women immediately start throwing themselves at the bus driver. He’s driving the thing! Obvious Alpha!  Or why when they go to a convenience store, they throw themselves at the clerk. He controls access to the shriveled hot dogs and lottery tickets! Obvious Alpha! Or why, whenever they get into elevators, they throw themselves at the elevator buttons. They control where the elevator goes! Obvious Alpha.

I just wish I understood women as well as these guys.

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
kitties pics

>Kitten break

>

Too many depressing posts in a row. So here’s a kitten: