We Hunted The Mammoth
Female kitties! Your long reign of gynofelininofascist matrioterror has ended! Over on A Voice for Male Cats Men, JinnBottle has figured out a purr-fect way to put lady cats in their place! (Hint: That place is not on his lap, being gently stroked.) Oh, and this goes for all you human ladies too, or else — POW!
Are you?
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this comment.)
NOTE: THAT HEADLINE IS A JOKE. IT’S APRIL FOOL’S DAY.
In today’s edition of “Make Shit Up About Man Boobz,” we have this highly upvoted comment from the Men’s Rights subreddit attacking me (us?) for all the evil virgin shaming we supposedly do around here.
The total ridiculousness of this comment is fairly obvious. But I would like to take a moment to clarify a few things.
Being a virgin, or celibate? Not inherently funny.
Being a virgin, or someone who has had literally one sexual encounter with a woman ever, and writing post after post about how evil and icky vaginas are in an attempt to get other men to swear off women forever – that’s pretty funny. That would be a bit like me writing a travel guide to Denmark, or Albania, or any other place I’ve never been to.
Having trouble getting a date? Not inherently funny.
Having trouble getting a date because you’re a loathsome tool who hates women? Funny.
Using a sex toy? Not inherently funny.
Dudes pontificating about how sex toys and sex robots will soon make icky real women obsolete? That shit is fucking hilarious.
Also, sex toys themselves? Yes, they can be funny. I mean, the legendary Fleshlight is a disembodied vagina/mouth/asshole-replacement in the form of a giant clunky flashlight-shaped thing. That’s sort of funny. Attaching this giant clunky thing to an iPad so you can pretend that the iPad (or at least an image on it) is giving you a blowjob? That’s comedy gold!
Here are some other sex toys that are hilarious and/or seriously disturbing, courtesy of Scary Sextoy Friday, perhaps the world’s greatest blog. (All links are NSFW.)
Vibrators shaped like Santa Claus.
A dildo designed to look like poop.
Sorry. I got carried away with the links. That blog is like crack.
Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:
The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.
I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.
Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.
So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.
1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women
or
2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it
What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.
In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.
Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only 8 downvotes.
Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:
The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female. This is not surprising. Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism. I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade. As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me. They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …
By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted. There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism. There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot. There will be more men who are completely fed up with women. Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.
“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.
Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.
Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price explains why feminism appeals to the ladies: it’s all about the Benjamins.
Women still support feminism because it still pays off. But not for long — now that American men are tapped out the party’s just about over. Who knows what they’ll do next? Maybe they’ll all try to prostitute themselves to Chinese bankers like the fed.
Ironically, for the Chinese bankers, it’s also all about the Benjamins. Or at least about one specific Ben – Fed chief Ben Bernanke. In other words, ladies, you’re going to have to compete with this:
Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the locals are pig-biting mad about racism. Are they organizing vigils for murdered black teen Trayvon Martin? Are they challenging the Hunger Games fans who are sending out racist tweets complaining about the character “Rue” being played by a black actress?
Nope. They are doing something much, much braver. They are taking on a white dude for mocking other white dudes who are convinced they are the truly oppressed.
Over on the Boston Magazine web site, blogger Barry Nolan sets forth this truly hateful argument:
I have been a white male all my life and to tell you the truth, I have found it to be a pretty sweet deal. … Wherever you look and by almost any metric, any statistic, it works out to be a pretty sweet deal to start out life as a white male. …
So I cannot, for the life of me, understand why so many white men like me can be found whining about how tough it is to be a white man. It’s a mystery to me how they came to feel so beset on every side by feminists, minorities, and “the system.” When in fact, the system is so stacked in our favor, it’s almost embarrassing.
On the Men’s Rights subreddit a post blasting Nolan as a “racist idiot” now boasts 90 upvotes. In the comments, the brave antiracists set poor Nolan straight on a thing or two. To Ellwood78, it’s just a big coincidence that most of the powerful figures in the US happen to be white dudes:
NoNoJCM, meanwhile, reports on his own bitter experience as one of the oppressed:
Irrel_M is apparently a Stephen Colbert fan who isn’t in on the joke:
To paraphrase Sojourner Truth, “ain’t I a white dude?”
–
Note: This post incorporates some
The title of this blog can sometimes be a tad misleading. Because sometimes the biggest boobz out there are not men at all. A case in point: TyphonBlue, a proud member of the Men’s Rights Movement Women’s Auxiliary who sometimes makes boobish pronouncements like this:
Challenged by a non-MRA somewhat perplexed by her “logic” here, TB elaborates:
Nah. Still doesn’t make any sense. Or, as Peggy Olsen might put it:
[TW for violence, rape apologism.]
On this lazy Sunday (why can’t every day be lazy?), I present to you without comment this lovely little rant I found over on The Spearhead, where it received more than two dozen upvotes for its lively mixture of misogyny, Islamophobia, and rape-as-comedy-fodder. (It got a decent number of downvotes too, I’m guessing less for its views on “femiskanks” or Islam than for its straightforward endorsement of White Nationalism; I’ve edited out some of the Islamophobia for space reasons.) Take it away, Bryan the cracker-loving woman-hater:
Ah, american femiskanks, where would we be without them?
In a nasty way I almost look forward to the rise of Islam in the West/USA because it will be amusing to see feminism crushed under the boot of Sharia. There is no room for feminism, gay rights, etc, in a Sharia land. …
I think that being a man who is disgusted with western women, I’m going to spend a bit of time laughing at the thought of femiskanks being raped by Muslims for taking part in “slut walks” and having acid thrown in their faces for making their typical femiskank claims about how men are worthless. …
I look forward to the day when police stop responding to requests for protection orders, emergency protection orders, etc… If a woman is truly in danger from a man then she should be able to seek protection via her brothers, her male cousins, and stay in her father’s house. If her brothers don’t want anything to do with her that speaks to the sort of woman she is.
Along similar lines, I look forward to the day when police stop responding to domestic “violence” calls unless it has crossed into the realm of disturbing the peace or creating a disturbance for the neighborhood. When some femiskank calls 911 and tells them, “I see a man raising his voice with his wife and telling her it is time to leave the store they’re in, this isn’t right” said femiskank should be told, “why don’t you just drop dead, this line is for serious calls, get off the line or we’ll arrest you.”
There are too many mangina police out there who are all too ready to physically assault and even kill other men, at the behest of crazy power-tripping women, simply because they care more about making $50,000 dollars per year and gaining the approval of random femiskanks in the community, than about doing what is right and what is healthy for the nation.
Women realize the incredible power they have, be it political, social, economic, judicial, or extra-judicial. If a woman makes a false rape claim she can ruin a man financially, socially, politically, legally, and often she can have him attacked, perhaps killed, by an outraged mob of manginas in shining armor. …
A Roman father had the legal authority/power to have any of his daughters PUT TO DEATH, yet … I cannot cite a single example of the law being applied in practice.
Can you imagine how terrible things would be if women had the codified and unquestioned legal power to put a male relative to death merely by word/command? The male population in the USA would easily be less than half of what it presently is. The only reason women might refrain from engaging in mass purges against men is because on some level they realize they need men for economic reasons. Even still, that realization might not stop them as they are incredibly short-sighted to the point of being so hateful and bitter that they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Yes, we have seen it time and time again, they have restraining orders taken out to keep their ex-husband away from his children, thinking, “ha, that will show him who is boss, let him cry about it!” and they give no thought to the fact that their children are almost certain to grow up with tremendous problems. Either they do not realize it or they just do not care. I tend to lean towards the latter being the case, they just don’t care whether or not their own children suffer, as long as they can “make that jerk (ex-husband) suffer” and make him realize “I am woman, hear me roar!” that’s all that matters.
Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason. I’m pretty sure that if I lived in the same town as you, I’d try to get a restraining order against you just for this comment alone.
Evidently I posted that last Tom Martin post too soon: the self-professed sexismbuster – who recently had his “anti-male discrimination” case against the London School of Economics thrown out of court — wasn’t finished telling us about how women are all a bunch of lying whores. (Sorry: All but 3 percent of women, that is.) So here are few more pearls of wisdom from Tom, all collected from the comments here since the last post a couple of days ago.
As you read these, remember that Mr. Martin has been something of a cause celebre in the Men’s Rights movement, hailed as a fighter for true equality.
Click the titles to see the full quotes in context.
[M]ost women and feminists absolutely hate the idea of compulsory paternity tests.
Even though paternity tests would reduce male paranoia and controlling behaviour, as they’d have automatic verification the child was actually theirs, we can see my these reactions, women would rather perpetuate “the patriarchy” by perpetuating male uncertainty. …
If we tell women to find the father and get him tested and verified pronto – or face a huge fine and a six month spell of National Service – she’ll find the father every time.
Every time a woman has sex, she’ll be thinking I better get this guy’s details, or I’m going to the Gulag. She’ll get the details.
I pointed out in an essay on hard seating in a museum, that the discomfort for men is compunded by not only having smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, but by being heavier than women, so having more weight bearing down onto a smaller area – and that the problem is compounded further still, by people not taking the complaint seriously.
This inhabitants of this website are compounded shite trying their best to block equality wherever it might happen.
David Futrelle is a huge winner:
Remember, your leader, David Futrelle is a douche, who cannot or does not want to distinguish between a men’s equality issues and misogyny.
He made a judgment call with this article and got it wrong.
If its his job to get things wrong, then he is a huge winner.
A pre-sex contract would … go a long way to eradicating many false rape allegations.
It would also make people think about the consequences of unprotected sex, so reduce unwanted pregnancies and children in the first place.
It would also end the entrapment culture, where a women tries her best to get knocked up by someone rich then hit them up for huge child support payments.
It would also reduce instances of sperm theft – as there would be less incentive to impregnate oneself this way with an unwilling and financially inoculated against entrapment father to be.
It would also reduce women’s motives to lie about being on the pill when not – as less incentive for entrapment – so less unplanned pregnancies for men to deal with.
The pre-sex contract could be a simple, quick, application on a mobile phone which records the man and woman’s voice, or videos it, so eradicating fraud. It does not to be a four page document in triplicate.
It takes one word to establish when sex is not wanted, “No” so it need not take many more to establish whether in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the protagonists agree to the normal financial and caregiving responsibilities and consequences or not.
Currently, because women have all the contraception options and men only one, it should fall on the woman to establish whether effective contraception is being used or not – where as, the current system says men should ‘keep it in their pants’ which fails to acknowledge that the woman equally fails to keep it in her pants, and has effective contraception and abortion and adoption options, where the man doesn’t. So, the woman should be held a bit more accountable than she currently is for unwanted pregnancies. It’s win/win (but whore lose).
What could possibly go wrong with giving the government video footage of all sexual acts?
[I]f you want to eradicate absolutely all false allegations, and eradicate the chances of acquaintance rapists getting away with it too, then you need an app on your phone which can record the sound and picture whilst people have sex, but which cannot be played back, as it is instantly scrambled, and sent to a central data agency, where it stays scrambled, and can only be unscrambled by a police investigator in the event of a false I mean in the event of a rape allegation.
If people don’t make a rape allegation within a few weeks or whatever, the scrambled data is automatically deleted anyway.
So, I’ve just cut the rate of false rape claims and the rate of rapists getting away with it.
Fuck your civil rights you lying whores:
We will only ever know the precise rate of false rape allegations when fMRI lie detector brain scans are administered on everyone who claims they were raped (which I am all for – fuck your civil rights you lying whores).
Rape’s real victims: the cops who have to listen to all those whores lying about being raped
STOP LYING ABOUT RAPE YOU WHORES!
Seriously, its so demoralizing working on a rape unit, that the cop who processes the rape claim now gets moved onto another case, so they don’t get corrupted by the realization that so many women are lying and then miss the odd real one due to overwhelming skepticism.
Fem whores will always resist anything that holds rape accusers to account.
They know.
The End … or is it?
Hey, you remember that thing the other day, when A Voice for Men’s second banana JohntheOther said some awful things about evil feminist atheist Rebecca Watson because she made a joke at a conference and he didn’t realize it was a joke?
And then he said he didn’t realize it was a joke, even though she explicitly revealed it was a joke in the video of hers he said he watched ? And so then he tried to pretend explain that he hadn’t watched the whole video, even though he had clearly downloaded the whole thing and incorporated parts of it in his video?
Well, now it turns out that some of the parts of her video he used in his video, well, they included the bit where she revealed the joke. Only – OOPS! – John just happened to edit that part out.
Unsophisticated folks might conclude from this that JohntheOther is a lying liar who lies about his lies. And that maybe he should henceforth be known as JohntheLiar.
But no. Apparently, as JoththetotallynotaLiar explains in a new video, he was just so, so convinced that Rebecca was a mean evil sociopath that he just didn’t realize what she was saying! He basically thought she was babbling nonsense, making a complete non-sequitur, so he cut it out of his video.
I mean, a feminist making a joke? Instead of being a mean evil sociopath? Beep Boop does not compute! His complete inability to understand the words that were coming out of her mouth? That was just good old confirmation bias at work, he explains in the video.That’s his actual explanation: he’s not a liar, just someone — to phrase it a bit more bluntly than he is willing to — who is so blinded by his own ideology that he cannot tell that a joke is a joke, even when someone announces that it is a joke.
He goes on to explain that it would be “illogical” to conclude that he is a liar because, come on, who would lie so blatantly, knowing that they would be caught?
And then he eats a baby.
Oops! My bad! I watched the video again, and it turns out he does not in fact eat a baby. Instead, at this point in the video, he apologizes to Watson for calling her a sociopath. I blame confirmation bias for causing me to misinterpret the video at this point. The apology seemed like a total non-sequitur to me, so naturally I saw it as him eating a baby.
In reality, what happens is that he apologizes to Watson, and then he eats a baby.
Here’s the video.
Oops! Mea culpa! Here’s the video, for reals:
EDITED TO ADD: It turns out that after eating the baby apologizing to Watson for calling her a sociopath in the video, John told one of the commenters that he still thinks she’s a sociopath. So his apology wasn’t really much of an apology after all, was it? It wasn’t even a “sorry if you were offended” fauxpology. Since he was apologizing for saying something that he still believes and that he went on to repeat, it’s really more of a liepology.
