antifeminism discussion of the day misogyny oppressed men violence against men/women

>Justifying Marc Lepine’s Murderous Rampage


One of Lepine’s victims.

The 21st anniversary of the Montreal Massacre this Monday naturally inspired some discussion anongst Men’s Rightsers and Men Going Their Own Way. And so it was only a matter of time until someone posted something essentially justifying Marc Lepine’s murderous rampage. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forums, Kargan3033’s only real objection to Lepines’ actions was that he picked the wrong targets — women who weren’t actually feminists. Here are the key parts of what is his own Lepine-style manifesto. It’s badly written, and full of typos, but it’s worth slogging through simply because it is so utterly vile. I’ve bolded the creepiest parts.

Was ML right in doing what he did?, in my opinion yes and no, yes that he had the right idea and no that he picked the wrong targets.

If I was ever to pull an ML, I would go to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and start handing out some FMJ [Full Metal Jacket] love notes to them, not some innocet person in the streets that I would run into, why you might ask, that simple to make it clear to the femanazis and their goverment whore misters that “You keep pushing and abusing men you will pay for it with your live’s blood personaly” and by taking out the femanazis and the evil scum sucking traitors who sold out their fellow men for a wiff of pussy and more power you would be sending a clear message to the public that one you are not some crazed gun man who walked into the local walmart and capped off a bunch of random strangers and second of all that the reason why you went postal was because of the shit and abuse that you suffered because you are a man thanks to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and you settled the issue with them Personaly which would give you more respect in the eyes of men and most of socity at large because you delt with the ones who pushed you to far instead of gunning down innocent men, ladies and child who happened to be in the worng place at the worng time.

Also by taking out the femanazis and their goverment puppet masters you will inspire other men who are to the snaping point to got after their True Abusers and not innocent people.

All in all we are going to see more and more MLs as the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies keep puting the screws to men which in turn will cause them to tighten the screws to the men and boys which will inspire more revenge and the spilling of their blood untill western socitey tears it’self apart. 

Kargan3033 was so proud of this comment he posted it to He was quick to add that it was “not a call to violance” [sic]. Really?  Then what on earth is it?

People like this aren’t just wrong. They’re dangerous.

misogyny oppressed men sex Uncategorized women are...

>Faking it


Should this be the MGTOW logo?

So some researchers at the University of Kansas asked a couple of hundred college students some very personal questions, and as a result we now know that lots of guys fake orgasms. 25% of the guys reported that they’d faked an orgasm at least once, often as a quick way to bring sex to an end. Roughly half the women were orgasm-fakers.

One college newspaper reporting on the study quoted a sex counselor who suggested a couple of possible reasons for guys to fake it: kinky internet porn, which allegedly makes “vanilla” sex seem boring, and antidepressants. The first explanation I don’t really buy, but the second makes perfect sense. Antidepressants are prescribed more than ever these days, and many of the most widely-used have relatively common sexual side effects — one of them being increased difficulty reaching orgasm.

That explanation doesn’t fly with W.F. Price over at The Spearhead. His theory, set forth in a recent post on the study: men can’t come because so many women are ugly, boring, smelly creatures who make strange noises. Forget Paxil and porn. Instead, just remember that (emphasis added):

some women are lousy in bed, just plain unattractive or boring. One sexuality counselor suggests that men are becoming “harder to please,” yet doesn’t seem to consider the fact that young women are possibly harder to look at and listen to than ever.

The simple presence of a female – even a naked one – is not sufficient to arouse a man, but today’s women may not have internalized that fact. There are a number of things that can turn a guy off during sex, including unpleasant odors, unpleasant sights, loose flesh, annoying or ridiculous noises, a woman’s lack of interest or enthusiasm or even a woman’s overenthusiasm/dominant behavior.

I’m not going to try to unpack every last bit of he-man woman-hating in those two paragraphs, but … “annoying and ridiculous noises?” Huh? Are women making fart sounds with their mouths? Practicing bird calls? Shouting out instructions in Klingon? Honking bicycle horns like Harpo Marx? I have no idea what sort of women Price is going out with, but I’m pretty sure most guys like the sounds women make during sex.

The other culprit in Orgasm-gate? Our “obsession with the female orgasm.” Apparently men these days are forced by unfair social norms to … actually care if the woman they’re having sex with enjoys herself. Even if she’s, you know, ugly.

Lots of young men feel pressured to have sex with women they are not all that attracted to, and today they are pressured to perform due to the obsession with the female orgasm, which sometimes results in men exhausting themselves by drilling away for unnaturally long periods of time. This can have a desensitizing effect and lead a man to want to simply end it in one way or another. And if she can fake it to get it over with, why can’t he? … Actually, when sex becomes a chore for men and all about pleasing a demanding woman, it should be expected that some of them will look for excuses to cut it short.

Somehow I suspect that sex with guys who think like this is always a chore, for everyone involved.

antifeminism discussion of the day manginas misogyny oppressed men sex western women suck

>Not-So-Beautiful Losers


Guys, they’re hiring!

I’m beginning to suspect that the Happy Bachelors who populate the Happy Bachelors Forum are not quite as happy as they let on. Why is this? Well, when anyone suggests that their single status might in any way be undesirable, they don’t brush the comment off like most of us reasonably well-adjusted unmarried guys do. No, they get mad. Really mad. And they start talking about “femhags,” “fem-nags,” bitches and hoes (not the garden implement).

Here’s the thread in question. “analyzing” starts off the festivities by pointing to an email from a lovelorn 42-year old lass to an online relationship advice column:

Maybe I shouldn’t have waited [to get married], because it seems like every unmarried guy in the age range I’m looking for (40 to about 50) is a loser of one sort or another. If the guy has never been married, he’s either got commitment issues, or he’s lacking in social skills, or he drinks too much or has some other unattractive qualities. If he’s divorced, he’s either angry at women or so desperate to find a new one that he wants to hook up before he even knows you.

This comment is like a red flag to the Happy Bachelor bulls, who release a torrent of abuse that inadvertently reinforces every negative stereotype in the woman’s email. After a few comments lauding the superiority of young Thai and Filipina women over fortysomething American gals, spocksdisciple gets the woman-hating orgy underway. (I’ve bolded some of the best — as in worst — bits in his comment and some of the others.)

Women like this lack an essential quality to even begin to comprehend why they are such total failures in their relationships.

That essential quality is that of introspection and reflection, instead of asking what bad choices she’s made and her role in making these choices, she goes on the typical female tirade about how it’s the fault of all the men around her. …

I see lots and lots of cats in her future and nothing else, I will enjoy the upcoming decades as more and more of these useless bitches end up alone and going stir crazy. I’m betting that many of them will end up abusing drugs or alcohol to make their pain bearable. I will laugh at them because even then they will not look inwards to see if they were in part responsible for ending up alone.

Marcus Aurelius commends what he sees as an excellent analysis, and adds his own thoughts:

[W]omen are not capable of introspection, its always someone else’s fault. They don’t realize that their being cum dumpsters, going for Alphas, and their hypergamy destroys their chance at landing a mangina. They don’t have a beta male mangina…because…they overlooked them…and still are. I think you are right, these aging women that are alone will be screwed up mentally. …

Women just don’t know what to do with themselves. … Coming home to a quiet and empty home for them…is like descending into hell because they don’t know what to do once they get there. Men get hobbies. For them Its get drunk, or watch So You Think You Can Dance or the Bachelor…hahaha…..nothing goes on inside those heads of theirs.

I’m assuming he’s not the real Marcus Aurelius — I’m pretty sure the original Marcus Aurelius never used the term “cum dumpster.”

Others contribute their own insights about women. In the process, Curiepoint explains why he never became a firefighter:

I find it an honor to be so offensive to the likes of women. After a lifetime of looking after everyone else, bowing and scraping for a meagre paycheck, and kissing the ass of a woman who voraciously consumed everything I had (two of them, actually) I am more than proud to stand in defiance of any woman’s shitty personality.

I wouldn’t piss on a woman if she were on fire. Chances are, that would amount to one huge, spitting grease fire, given how “hot” women are comprised mostly of blubber and cheap rayon clothing. …

Women aren’t worth the effort to work up enough spit to hurl at them. And, any man who would actually cave in to her demands deserves to burn right along side them. They are not men. Both barely qualify as being vaguely humanoid.

Lavastorm suggests that perhaps being a winner isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, based on the following (apparently typical) scenario:

So a “winner” is a “man” who follows society’s pre-programmed path to self-destruction (gets married, becomes the wife’s tool to keep up with the neighbors, works in a soul-destroying job, is destroyed by wife when she gets “bored,” gets blamed for “destroying the marriage,” is thrown to the gauntlet of dread judges, retarded pit bulls, and menopausing succubi who commence sucking his blood.

In case you’re wondering: No, he never closes the parenthesis. He’s Going His Own Way, grammatically.

discussion of the day feminism homophobia MRA oppressed men reddit violence against men/women

>Straight talk on homophobia … on the Men’s Rights subreddit??


Oh Reddit. Sometimes you make me so sad. Case in point: the 5,415 upvotes Redditors gave to this old dog of a story, a blatantly misogynist, and blatantly made-up, revenge-vasectomy tale from the “Best of Craigslist.” Mitigating factors: the fact that some commenters correctly labeled the story a hateful fake; the 4,582 downvotes the story got (resulting in “only” 833 net upvotes).

But sometimes I’m pleasantly surprised. Even as I was contemplating the idiotic reaction to this idiotic vasectomy story, I ran across another headline: “Does homophobia affect straight males too?” Good question. Weirdly, the post was from the Men’s Rights subreddit. Hoping for the best but fearing the worst, I took a look. Lo and behold, the post had actually inspired a real, honest discussion of the issues.

The OP set the stage with a few specific questions:

Have you ever hesitated to become close to another male for fear that it might be misinterpreted by someone else? Was there ever a time you resisted getting close to another male emotionally because you were afraid it might be seen as sexual? Does the fear of being called gay or a faggot ever change the way you behave in front of other males?

Among the answers there were of course a few jokes, including one that was actually sort of funny:

dontputsaltinyoureye 9 points

it has had a tremendous effect on my life. i am unable to wear my avril lavigne [shirt] in public due to the fear. WHY CAN I NOT WEAR MY AVRIL LAVIGNE SHIRT?!

And there was the requisite reference to Glee:

AGenericGoon 44 points

I am heterosexual, and watch/enjoy glee.

I will take this secret to the grave.

But there were also a number of bracingly honest comments, comments that would not be out of place on a feminist or LGBT message board. Some commenters talked about being gay-bashed — even though they aren’t gay. Others talked about how hetero-normative gender roles force men to keep quiet about their feelings:

TheBananaKing 27 points

Absolutely. all -normative behaviours box people in.

Straight guy here. … there’s an awful lot of restriction and anxiety in inter-male behaviour. You can’t ever be sad or hurt – only angry. You can’t extend comfort or affection towards another guy, except via humorous taunting / rivalry / aggression (eg play-fighting), unless you’re very, very drunk. You have to do this kind of… reverse double-entendre the entire time, translating everything into John Wayne before you speak or act it, and back again to understand others. It’s a pain in the ass.

Others offered more personal takes on what it’s like to be a straight guy who’s frequently taken to be gay:

ecartes 9 points

I talk with a lisp and dress really well. I’m also heterosexual.

Almost everyone I initially meet believes, nay, KNOWS, that I’m, ACTUALLY homosexual. It’s weird, living with the thought that everyone I meet thinks I’m gay. Although I will never know fully the oppression that some gay people face, I feel like I’ve felt a lot of it just from being perceived as gay. …

And perhaps the most unexpected of all:

soylentcoleslaw 33 points

If I acted on my normal impulses, I’d be extremely effeminate. I love cute things and cute clothes, I have subconscious feminine mannerisms, and I’d love a strong partner who makes me feel safe and who would take charge. I’ve never had a gay fantasy in my life. The thought of being with another man just doesn’t do it for me, but given what I want and who I naturally am, I’m said on numerous occasions how much easier my love life would be if it did. As it is, if I want to attract someone new, I have to tamp all that down and put on my reasonably masculine face, and maybe if I’m lucky, I can reveal some of that side of myself gradually. But I can’t be totally myself. Never. … So I go on pretending to be manly sometimes and hopefully don’t screw up.

Oh, sure, there were some answers that were bluntly homophobic — redwood9 states plainly that “I just hate fags … I hate all cocksuckers and those who bend over and take it in the ass” — but they made up a tiny minority of the comments, and were generally downvoted.

So what’s going on here? Has the Men’s Rights Subreddit suddenly become a beacon of open-mindedness? Not exactly. Most of those commenting in the topic don’t appear to be Men’s Rights regulars, but Redditors who were drawn to the topic when it appeared on Reddit’s main page. Here’s what someone who is a MR regular had to say:

aetheralloy 0 points

“Bro’s” and “bromance” is the term often used to shame men … Women (feminists) in particular love to use it. …

The really interesting question here isn’t if it affects males, but why women are both extremely homophobic towards gay males while also willing to use them as emotional buddies.

Yeah, damn those feminist women and their hatred of gay men!

So, no group hug just yet. But it’s good to see an outburst of good sense in a discussion forum that’s often pretty backwards.

It’s just a pity that the moderator of Men’s Rights remains convinced “that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy,” as he puts it in the sidebar, and that the subreddit’s slogan remains “Earning scorn from feminists since March 19, 2008.”

Because, you know what? If you’re a guy feeling boxed in by normative gender roles, some of the best people in the world to talk to about it are, you know, feminists.

men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men pussy cartel quote of the day woman's suffrage

QuoteOTD: Whatever terrible crap men do, it’s all women’s fault. Their sexy fault.


The quote of the day today is a long and rambling one, so buckle up. It’s from a comment on The Spearhead, by a fellow named Snark, which was enthusiastically highlighted by the Schopenhauer-loving, Age-of-Consent-Law-hating theantifeminist on his creepy blog. The theme of the post? Whatever nasty, violent, bad shit men do is all the fault of hot young women, who control men through the power of their evil sexiness.

Before settling into his argument proper, Snark gets one little point out of the way: he’s not talking about feminists, who are, he says, generally too old, or, if young, too “neurotic and/or ugly” to control men with the promise of sexy sex. No, Snark is talking about hot young women, who control men without having to resort to feminism. Oh, feminism is evil. But pretty girls are evil squared. So let’s begin:

There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.

Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.

Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. …

Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.

Hmm. So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins. And just imagine how much worse World War II would have been if he’d actually had two balls, instead of just the one! Let’s continue:

The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.

Poor men are stuck between their rock-hard dicks and a hard place:

The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.

Oh, and the way those ladies dress!

[T]oday we are subject to the new phenomena [of] ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. …

The pink wurlitzer? Do you mean … this? Never mind. Onward:

Our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.

How Women Rule the Universe

And what set all this in motion? The bikini? The Wonderbra? Nope:

[T]his was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote.

The vote! That sexy, sexy right to vote.

Not that this argument, such as it is, deserves a rebuttal, but if men are naturally nonviolent, and women are the cause of their violence, why do gay men get into fights?

idiocy MRA oppressed men reddit

>Help, Help I’m being oppressed! Manicures and Matriarchy Edition


Ok, I take back everything I’ve said on this blog. Men truly are oppressed. Take a look at the second and third hottest posts on the Men’s Rights subreddit at the moment: