Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.
Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.
[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. … Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.
Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.
Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.
Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?
Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.
More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.
A lot of MRAs maintain that they’re not anti-woman, just antifeminist. Heck, one new contributor to Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit has put that claim in the name he chooses to identify himself by: ProWomanAntiFeminist.
Alas, his comments don’t quite live up his moniker. PRAF (for short) launched his Reddit career a couple of days ago with a series of comments, all of them upvoted by the regulars, arguing that prostitution should be legalized — because he thinks that would be bad for women. “[L]egal prostitution reduces women’s economic advantage over men,” he argued in his second comment. Why? According to PRAF, because prostitutes offer men a better deal on sex:
[P]rostitutes give men no strings attached sexual satisfaction reasonably and anonymously for a set price. Without the man having to jump through arbitrary hoops to “impress” the girl, risking an “oops” pregnancy, or (god forbid) getting married.
When sex and female companionship is a man’s objective, prostitution is an efficient and cost-effective option that many women don’t want to have to compete with.
In other words, prostitutes break the back of the dreaded Pussy Cartel — or, as PWAF would call it, the “sexual trade union.” Not only are wives and girlfriends more costly in the long run for men, but they’re also not actually obligated to have sex:
Married women get unfettered access and control over male resources, and they don’t even have to put out. Girlfriends get some access to male resources, dependent on how attractive she is and how desperate he is.
Simply paying up front for sex is so much more convenient:
Prostitutes offer a dependable, no strings attached experience for men.
And so we come to what PWAF sees as the big payoff here:
Legal prostitution reduces the desperation of men, mandating that non-prostitute women have to bring more to the table to secure male resources.
I suggest you read that last sentence over again, because it’s a doozy.
Even by his own daffy logic, PWAF is advocating something that he clearly sees as anti-woman — or at least anti “non-prostitute women,” as he so charmingly puts it.
Might want to rethink that name.
Of course, given PWAF’s familiarity with MR lingo and logic, I suspect that this “new” commenter is actually a very old commenter under a new name.
Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
Note to angry dudes: Women not wanting to date you is not the equivalent of this.
There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.
Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:
The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields. Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man. This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields. Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence. That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses. If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.
He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.
So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.
WAN continues:
[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar. The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now. Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”. As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt. She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world. …
Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:
Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.
This type of thinking is widespread among women. …
[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things. While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking. Anything has got to be better than this.
So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.
You’ve got to give the Spearhead men credit for one thing: vivid imagination. Browsing through the comments on a recent W.F. Price post on marriage in Asia, I ran across a whole host of little gems, all of them eagerly upvoted by the assembled mob.
Asian style whoring here in the U.S., which is inevitable anyway as the world “flattens out” and we become more third-world as China becomes more first-world.
In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.
You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.
Makes you wonder if the primarily Female university attendees aren’t intentionally being sold a “bill of goods” regarding the value of their university “education”.
So young women are being convinced to go to college, even though college education for women is useless (because, you know, they’re women), so that in a bad economy they’ll all start giving handjobs in barber shops to pay off their student loans?
Who exactly is doing this convincing? The American Association of University Women? The Illuminati? Uncle Elmer?
Lets be blunt here for a mo. How many men do you think would even bother talking to todays women if she did not have tits and a pussy ? How many women do you know that you could spend many hours or days with engaged in interesting conversation or leisure persuits?
Spearheaders, sparkling converstationalists all. A regular Algonquin Round Table, with the part of Dorothy Parker played by some random internet misogynist who can’t spell the word “pursuits.”
Gem #3: Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), offers up some reflections on his life as an Australian expat alpha dog in Germany. And some thoughts about, um, agriculture?
Because I am alpha with a great track record of being a “father and husband” and I have the ability to earn money I have women lining up to have a chance of marrying me. It is good to be at the top of the tree for a change. Shame the tree is about to fall but I am ok with that too. Those below me will cushion my fall.
As my new business venture fleshes out over the next few years I see the following happening. Men will band together to corner the income generation for many areas and they will insist on the “women as chattel property” marriage contract if any marriage at all…..men will exert their dominance in all things that are useful and productive in a competitive environment where they operate outside “guvment control” and the assets they corner will provide women galore.
I am with Angry Harry on this one “men farm cattle and sheep, why not women?” Women have always been “attracted” to the one they think will pay for them. Since we were living in caves. Women are no different today than they were 10,000 years ago. It’s just that we had a highly dystorionate PR system telling us “sugar and spice and everything nice” for a few generations.
And no, “dystorionate” is not a real word, at least in any language I or anyone else on planet Earth is familiar with. Google it, and see.
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Reading “Anthony Zarat’s” recent comments here fantasizing about a future in which men and women consort with virtual reality lovers rather than one another and “drift into separate and rarely interracting species, each of which will prosper more by the absence of the other,” I began to wonder if there was anyone out there with a more jaundiced view of heterosexual relationships than the typical MRA?
And then it occurred to me: the non-married male-female cartoonist duo behind The Lockhorns.
You’ve seen The Lockhorns, haven’t you? It’s a daily single panel cartoon that runs in about 500 newspapers – who even knew there were 500 newspapers left? – and that, according to the strip’s website “gently spoofs the state of marital bliss, poking fun at the foibles of both partners.”
That’s the nice way of putting it. More accurately, the cartoon depicts a sort of existentialist hell on earth. Locked in a loveless marriage, Leroy and Loretta Lockhorn stare at each other with heavy-lidded eyes and almost perpetual frowns; they pick endlessly at each other’s numerous flaws.
Leroy is a bald, overworked schlub who seems to resent every minute of his pathetic existence; only rarely does a smile grace his face, generally when he’s either ogling a pretty girl or contemplating drowning his sorrows in booze. Loretta is a drab, shrewish housefrau whose only real pleasure seems to be trying on new dresses. They unite only in their shared hatred of all that is new and confusing, like the underwear-baring clothing styles of the youth of today.
Happily, they have no cartoon children.
In any case, after reading through a bunch of recent Lockhorns cartoons I had a little brainstorm. While neither The Lockhorns nor MRA misogyny tastes good in itself, the combination of the two could very well be magically delicious.
So I’d like to introduce to you the latest in interactive cartooning: The MRAhorns. I’ve posted a batch of recent Lockhorns cartoons below, sans captions. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to write up some appropriately MRAish captions for them. Bonus points if you’re able to use the exact words of a prominent MRAer, or even one of this blog’s dedicated trolls. Whoever comes up with the best caption wins one internet.
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Let’s say you’re a young, horny, lonely heterosexual guy. You’re walking to the store to buy some, I dunno, pretzels, and you see the woman of your dreams walking arm in arm with some hideous toad of a man. You say to yourself: how is it that a nice guy like me can’t find any girl who will return my phone calls, while ugly boy here seems to have won the girlfriend jackpot? If you’re Joe Jackson, you write a song about it:
Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street
From my window I’m staring while my coffee grows cold
Look over there! (Where?)
There’s a lady that I used to know
She’s married now or engaged or something so I’m told
Is she really going out with him?
Is she really gonna take him home tonight?
Is she really going out with him?
‘Cause if my eyes don’t deceive me,
There’s something going wrong around here
A lot about the world seems desperately wrong when you’re young, horny and alone. But maybe in this case there is something that you’re missing. Maybe the ugly dude is charming as fuck. Maybe he’s a brilliant thinker. Maybe he’s awesome in bed. Maybe she’s shallow and materialistic, and she likes him just because he’s rich. Or maybe there’s nothing redeeming about the guy – intellectually, sexually or financially — and the woman in question simply has horrendous taste in men. It could be any of these things.
But here’s the thing: no matter how wounded you feel, whom this woman goes out with is really none of your business. She doesn’t have to have a good reason to be going out with him. It’s not your call. The world doesn’t owe you a hot girlfriend, and this particular woman has the inalienable right to go out with whoever she chooses, even if you personally feel ill at the thought of them doing it. Women you find attractive aren’t obliged to date men you think are appropriate for them.
A lot of guys in the manosphere seem to have hung on to this young-man’s anger and sexual jealousy. But instead of somehow turning their resentment into a catchy song, and then moving away from the rock world to a more jazz-inflected sound, these men cultivate their resentments. And talk about them endlessly.
Soon they’ve developed the uncanny ability to demonize any woman who makes any romantic choice – other than picking them. If a “hot” women is dating an ugly dude, well,
He must be rich! All women are filthy golddigging whores! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
If the same woman is dating a conventionally handsome man, the reaction can be just as strong:
She’s a shallow bitch! They always go for the alphas! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
Weirdly, a lot of manosphere dudes also get angry about the sexual and romantic choices of women they aren’t interested in at all. If a woman they don’t think is all that hot is with a conventionally handsome man, it’s still the woman to blame:
Ha! She’s punching above her weight class, looks-wise. I guess any bitch can get laid, while a hard-working beta like me doesn’t even rate a second look. But eventually he’ll dump her and I will laugh and laugh. Live it up now, bitch, because you’re going to end up alone with a bunch of cats!
This is the thing that’s weirdest to me. Getting worked up about a woman you like who’s dating a loser? I can understand that. I did that, a lot, in my twenties. But quite a few manosphere dudes – and women like Susan Walsh who are manosphere-adjacent – seem somehow deeply affronted by the notion that any women could hook up with a man either lower or higher on that universal 10-point hotness scale so beloved by PUAs and other manosphere dudes.
Walsh speaks of “equilibrium” in the “sexual marketplace” (or SMP as she and her fans like to abbreviate it), and seems to consider any deviation from it to be a moral failing – of the women involved. (The slut-shaming is strong with this one.) Her idea of “equilibrium,” as I mentioned in my last post on her, is one in which fives date fives, tens date tens, and female sixes and sevens know better than to try to get the attention of male eights and nines by wearing low-cut dresses and “slutting it up.”
But here’s the thing. If you’re going to try to mix economic terminology into your dating advice, it helps to actually know what the terms mean. Market equilibrium, as Wikipedia handily summarizes it,
refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.
Guess what? Insofar as the dating world is a marketplace, it’s already at equilibrium. Potential daters size up their prospects, and make a guess as to who is and who isn’t “in their league.” Those who are aiming too high (setting their price too high) and not hooking up with anyone (selling themselves) may end up lowering their standards (lowering their price) to make a sale (get laid). Some products (people) appeal to a wide demographic; others to a nice market. Some have better marketing then others. Some products look good at first glance, but turn out to need a lot of repairs. All this is mighty familiar to students of economics. This is how markets work.
Of course, the dating world is even more complicated and messy than economic marketplaces. But in a lot of ways it really does act like one.
The interesting thing here is that Walsh and her followers aren’t thinking like capitalists at all. Essentially, they’ve decided that they know better than the SMP they so love to talk about, that their imaginary 10-point scale should predict who chooses whom better than those who are actually doing the choosing. That’s not capitalism; that’s a Soviet style command economy. It’s not the way marketplaces work, and it’s not the way the dating world works.
Guys: if no one is buying what you’re selling, you could try to change what you’re selling so that it appeals to buyers more. Or if you are confident in your product you can simply wait until a more discerning buyer shows up.
Or you could sit by yourself stewing in your own bitterness and blaming everything on the bitches. Much like the jealous narrator of David Bowie’s classic Queen Bitch, only much less sexually ambiguous. And, frankly, much less appealing. In this song, Bowie manages to make sexual resentment somehow glamorous.
I would like to apologize for talking about this song and bitter manosphere dudes in the same sentence. But I’m still posting the video. This is Bowie, in 1972, performing it live, and fucking killing it:
