Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
Over on The Spearhead, a fellow calling himself American offers a fascinating new theory on the death of Jesus: It was the evil ladies who did him in!
Pierce brought up an important event in the life of jesus. He was falselly accused, and the violent masses and the heathen whordes wanted to see blood; so the pilate delivered. Kinda like the American feminist whorde of barbarianism. Maybe womens justice is simply more primitive and barbarian (more heathen-esque) than patriarchal orderly justice. whether its the klu-klux-klan “mob lynchings” of 100 years ago over false rape accusations, or the Duke lacrosse feminist mobs roaming the streats of durham looking for blood, there seems to be a common theme here. feminine matriarchal justice is lies , hysteria, mob/klan barbarism; while patriarchal justice is truth based, orderly, ect. ect. Pontius pilate didn’t want to kill jesus, but the violent matriarchal whorde/klan wanted to see blood and forced his hand.
Happy Easter, if you’re into that sort of thing! Just remember, as you’re enjoying your chocolate eggs and microwaving your Peeps, that woman are all a bunch of lying, bloodthirsty whores.
The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.
After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.
In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.
And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!
The word of the day is: whore.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.
One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.
The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.
Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.
Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.
1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.
2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.
3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.
4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.
5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.
6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.
7. Prostitutes are boring.
8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.
9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.
10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.
11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.
12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.
13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.
14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.
I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.
I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.
I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.
I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …
From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.
Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.
But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.
But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.
So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?
Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?
My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …
They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,
so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….
[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …
So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.
But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.
In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.
Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).
Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).
Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …
[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.
Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.
Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.
Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.
[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.
Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …
I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.
Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.
All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point
“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …
Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.
[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.
“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.
“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.
“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.
Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.
Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …
The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.
There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”
9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.
Let’s celebrate this lovely February day with some random stupidity from Alcuin, a brave anti-misandrist intellectual titan who is single handedly bringing about what he calls “the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Mostly by blathering on and on about how much ladies suck.
The history of achievement is, in fact, the history of male achievement to such an extent that, were women absent from human history, we might still be where we are today, but were men absent from history, da wimmin would be in the caves, screeching ‘n hollering at each other. …
Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. Feminists crafted VAWA, the beginning of the end of western freedom.
Shakespeare changed the English language. Sharon Osbourne laughs about the female mutilation of men.
Socrates established a way of thinking and reflection on the virtues that still inspires us. Women falsely accuse men of rape on a weekly or even daily basis.
Feminism is the KKK with tits. The only difference is that western women don’t have any shame, so don’t cover up with white bedsheets. They are openly supremacist. That is why their starting point parallels the KKK, but they tend towards Nazism as well. The Hitlerists were no more ashamed of their supremacism than western women are of theirs. Both bigoted groups, in fact, are quite proud of their prejudicial thinking.
Racial supremacists running around with bedsheets are cockroachy – they run to the darkness whenever light is shed on them. Feminists, like Nazis, prefer the limelight. Will we soon see Nazi-like rallies with tens of thousands of banshees and their manginic self-hating male bozos?
Men are made into buffoons by Hollywood because male buffoonery sells. Women eat it up as greedily as they inhale chocolate cake and buy useless luxury goods. “Everybody Loves Raymond” is Everyman. Why does your mother like that sitcom so much? Because she’s a female supremacist. Why does your girlfriend like that show? Because she’s a female supremacist.
Life is too easy. It’s too easy for a woman to become a tramp, and experiment sexually and socially, so she does. What are the consequences? Our society has so much surplus that we’ve eliminated the consequences of bad or irresponsible behavior, at least for women. We are wealthy enough to reject the concept of shame. Thus, we have shameless hussies.
Perhaps because men are still the most creative movers and shakers of our society, men as a whole class have been pushed into being the responsible ones, the moral adults. Women are let off the hook, able to remain perpetual moral children, responsible for none of their behavior, such as drunken sex. Non-issues such as faulty breast implants or police warnings about slutware enrage these people because they face no real injustices or hardships.
Slutware?
Also, here are The Undertones, with “Life’s Too Easy.”
Today in Did That Really Get 196 Upvotes on Reddit: A Redditor claiming to be the owner of a brothel in Thailand explains how what he euphemistically calls the “problems in the sex industry” are mostly the fault of evil, lazy whores. Literally.
A little further on in the discussion he makes this charming claim:
According to him, sex trafficking isn’t really a big issue, but when it does occur it “is more likely to victimize men” than women. (The main victims in his mind being trafficked men (by which I assume he means transwomen) … and male sex tourists.)
Those poor, poor Western sex tourists, suffering so at the hands of women and girls who’ve been kidnapped and sold into sex slavery!
While ChaChaKrahp seems quite sincere in his beliefs, this is the Internet, and so there’s a chance that this “brothel owner” is not actually a brothel owner at all, just some dude making this all up for Reddit karma points and lulz.
Even if that’s the case, we still have all those hundreds of Redditors who read his comments and happily upvoted them, either because they thought what he said was sensible or true, or because the thought of owning a brothel in Thailand gave them boners.
The question remains: does Reddit attract the worst representatives of those in its heavily young, male, geek demographic, or is this how most of these (mostly) guys really think — even if they don’t usually say so out loud?
Reactionary and “traditionalist” Men’s Rightsers tend to share a lot of the anti-Islam prejudices of the American right in general. When they talk about Islam it’s usually in vaguely apocalyptic terms, and usually with a side of anti-feminist conspiratorialism thrown in for good measure: Feminists are destroying Western Civilization and making the Muslim takeover inevitable!
But I’ve run across a few highly upvoted comments on the Spearhead recently which suggest that the generally less than warm feelings about Islam found in the Manospehre may be tinged with a certain amount of envy and even admiration.
It is high time papa (patriarchy) take some harsh measures to discipline her little naughty girls (feminists). Papa has yielded too much to their tantrum and whining. Spare the rod and spoil the child. Western papa has to toughen up a bit and tell them that their stupid whims would not be met. These little girls are really not that tough as they show and still need papa to provide and protect them. See how Saudi papa deals with his girls and still his girls are not complaining.
I think there are many American women that American men would prefer to burqad up for their obese figures and even more obese whining mouths. Perhaps we can customize the burqad in America to include a dog muzzle. …
Feminism along with its allies has been very effective the past 45+ years in decimating the nuclear family along with traditional American values and ethics, and loyalty to church and synagogue. Most religious institutions are failing men in America. … Men leave liberal places of worship because they can’t relate to the female-value emphasis. …
American men have been living – for generations – in a post Judeo-Christian modern American misandrist society that for the most part sold men out. Islam comes along and teaches Sharia Law will not discriminate against men, and that men are respected in Islam, etc. Bingo. … I can see American men in the future becoming increasingly interested in Islam.
He adds this bit of speculation at the end:
I can also see new pro Men’s religions being created and taking hold. I see them mostly as manly without the provider/protector/chivalry crap, and not mangina metro-sexual in their beliefs and values.
30 upvotes, 1 downvote.
Apparently any religion is okey dokey with this crowd – even one made up on the spot – so long as it’s butch enough.
I’m just going to come out and say it: I will never knowingly enter into a romantic relationship with a feminist. I do have some female relatives and acquaintances who are feminists … and it’s not like they all wear signs that proclaim I’M A FEMINIST. (Some do.)
Aside from obvious telltales (feminist bumper stickers, etc.) or outright asking them “Are you a feminist?”, what are some discreet ways to ferret out a woman’s views on gender activism without creating an awkward situation? Feminism is a minefield topic, and I certainly wouldn’t broach the subject directly with a woman I’ve just started dating.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, he received much helpful advice. Celda broke it down for him:
You don’t really care whether she identifies as a feminist or not – you care what her views are.
For instance, does she feel women have the right to force men into parental obligations against their will?
Does she feel women are oppressed in Western society?
Does she think that women make less money than men for the same work?
If yes to these questions or similar, then you probably want to avoid her.
Exactly. Always avoid those with a basic grasp on reality. They’re the worst!
Naive1000 suggested looking for more subtle clues.
Ask their thoughts on “benevolent sexism” if they know what your talking about you likely have a feminist. Just to make sure go into male privilege, it’s the feminists’ most popular talking point. Let her talk about it then you can see what she’s really like. But, there are some women who call themselves feminists, but are really egalitarian: they just don’t know the term.
Memymineown also suggests a subtle approach, and holds out hope that some of the younger feminist girls can be won back to the path of righteousness:
Bring Men’s Rights issues into the conversation subtly. I was talking with my family about Justin Beiber and brought up the paternity charge and no rape charges filed against the woman.
That led into a discussion about how women aren’t punished for rape.
Just do things like that.
But you shouldn’t exclude all feminists. I would say that the vast majority are just girls(I do use that word on purpose) who have been lied to. Once you show them the real facts they will probably come around.
Why do you need to be discrete about it? Just ask her. If she is a member of the cult she will start screaming about the patriarchy, then her head will explode.
It’s true. Pretty much every conversation involving feminists quickly devolves into screaming about patriarchy. Heck, a feminist friend and I once screamed about patriarchy for five hours straight. We probably could have gone longer, but the manager at Applebee’s, evidently not a feminist, threw us out. Sometimes I start screaming about patriarchy when no one else is around, just to keep in practice.
Conversations with feminists pretty much all go like the conversation in the video below, only instead of a cat you need to picture a feminist, and instead of the word “no,” the word “patriarchy.” You can see how annoying that might get, and not just to Hitler.
Click on the pic to see it in its full-sized glory!
So I linked the other day to Kate Beaton’s awesome comic about the obstreperous velocipedrix (inspired by the cartoon I used to illustrate this post). But since then I’ve had bicycle-riding-ladies on the brain and I thought it was worth another post. Besides, it gives me an excuse to use the cartoon above, which Beaton linked to in her Hark, A Vagrant post.
The notion that bicycle- (or velocipede-) riding women are inherently hilarious (or inherently evil) may seem a tad quaint now, but back in the late 19thcentury, when bicycling really took off, these cartoons were every-fucking-where.
The independent mobility of cyclists raised genuine alarm for their physical, if not moral, safety; simply put, the bicycle could easily take women to unsavoury places where they might be endangered physically (for example, by being attacked), or morally (for example, by being seduced into imprudent conduct with intemperate company). . . . Drawing on previous knowledge of the kinds of women who deliberately made themselves conspicuous in public, that is, prostitutes, there would be a strong tendency to conclude that cycling women were far from respectable: not exactly prostitutes, perhaps, but possibly women of loose morals or with an undeveloped sense of propriety.
What actions? Going outside dressed in something more revealing than a nun’s habit. Going outside at night. Not reacting with gratitude when dudes patronizingly lecture them on the perils of being a woman in public. It’s the same old shit: the “independent mobility” of women is pissing off a lot of men even today.
That’s why so many MRAs got so angry about the case of Lara Logan, the CBS news correspondent who was sexually assaulted while covering the protests in Egypt last year — many in the MRA camp weren’t so much angry at those who assaulted Logan as they were at Logan herself, for daring to cover political unrest in another country … while being a woman.
That’s why it always strikes me as a little odd that MRAs routinely describe their movement, such as it is, as a new one. It’s not. Theirs is a reactive movement, and a reactionary one – and not just because some of them literally think women should be denied the right to vote. It’s because so much of what they obsess about is the same old shit that pops up whenever women have stepped up and challenged their traditional roles.
Of course, these guys aren’t simply angry at women doing traditionally masculine things – from going where they like, on bikes or foot, to covering world politics. They’re worried that newly “masculinized” women will turn men into a bunch of emasculated pussies.
While poking around to find more cartoons to illustrate this post with, I happened across several that show just how persistent this worry is. Take a look. The first couple are from the turn-of-the-twentieth century; the third is from the 1970s. Notice a theme here?
This same old theme is handled a bit more subtly today, as this bit of clip art shows. Note the pink apron, in case you didn’t get the point: a man washing dishes is an emasculated wussy.
Of course, in the Manosphere, things are not quite so subtle. It’s telling that amongst MRAs and other modern misogynists the insult of choice for feminist men is “mangina.”
Here’s how one little manifesto defines the term. (I’ve edited out a lot; it’s pretty fucking repetitive, though students of misogynist psychology may wish to read the whole thing here.)
Manginas are pseudo-men who fixate their lives on getting a sniff of the female genitalia (figure of speech) at the expensive of others and by betraying real men.
Manginas see women as an ultimate being, places them on a huge pedestal, mind focuses only on sex or the satisfaction of women all the while not giving two bits a damn about his fellow man. …
A mangina is not a man, and we wouldn’t dare honor them by gracing them with the title. …
A Mangina seeks continuous approval from females thereby becoming their servant.
Manginas support women’s issues which are against his fellow men. Someone who espouses feminism but is really being suckered into a form of chivalry in which women’s interests take precedence over men’s. Unaware that they are merely “useful idiots”, doing what women want in the vain/hope of getting laid. When his usefulness is over she tosses him out with the rest of the rubbish. …
A Mangina is a self-depreciating man who subconsciously hates himself and blindly believes women are superior to him. He has been raised to think masculinity is inherently wrong – perhaps even a genetic/evolutionary/social flaw – and must be corrected by embracing his “feminine side” to the point of losing the very qualities that make him male.
Women acting like men; men acting like women. These were the bugbears of the velocipedrix-hating, women’s-suffrage-opposing assholes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; they were the bugbears of the protoypical woman’s-lib-hating chauvinist pigs of the seventies; and they remain the bugbears of an astonishingly large number of those in the Men’s Rights movement today.
And that’s why it, too, will end as a joke, remembered as a quaint holdover from earlier times rather than the progressive civil rights movement it sometimes pretends to be.
In the meantime: Kate Beaton, fucking hilarious, right?
NOTE: I found a whole bunch of awesomely retrograde cartoons from bygone days while looking for the illustrations for this post. I’ll be posting some of my favorites soon.
Uh oh! I just discovered this, currently the top story over on the Men’s Rights subreddit:
Yes, my sisters (and honorary mangina man-sisters), Russell Brand has dealt a severe blow to Operation Alimony, which (as you well know, at least if you’ve been attending the meetings) is our dastardly Feminazi plot to destroy the patriarchy by getting pretty ladies to marry and divorce rich dudes and take all their money.
You may remember our wild revelry when we heard that comrade-ess Heather Mills had walked off (no jokes please) with £24.3 million of Paul McCartney’s man money. And the joyful tears we shed when we heard that Mel Gibson’s ex-wife had (reportedly) scored a cool $425 million in her divorce settlement.
Russell Brand has just spotted a large pile of Katy Perry's money
But today, we shed only the bitterest of tears. We have not only been thwarted, but we’ve also been exposed! Damn those Men’s Rights Redditors and their evil allies at the Daily Mail!
The comments in the r/mensrights thread show that they understand our evil plans all too well. How can we respond to Aetheralloy’s withering critique?
Feminists see the absurdity of their own pushed polices?
LOL no. No they won’t. I’d sooner expect scientologists to ask their psychiatrist if they are in a cult.
But ladies! Do not despair! Russell Brand may have set back our efforts, but he, and his Reddit allies, shall not defeat us!
Ladies, you know what to do. Get yourself all prettied up, hit the town, and snag yourself some rich dudes! Let’s see how many of these guys we can have married off by the end of the year.
Marrying (and divorcing) rich dudes: it’s the feminist way!
Silly woman! You probably don't even know how to work that computer.
Well, here’s a new twist. We all know, from reading the endless tirades on the subject scattered all over the manosphere, that women are evil, selfish and ungrateful creatures whose primary goal in life is to leech off of men and make them miserable.
In a recent post titled Playing Career Woman, manosphere blogger Dalrock takes on some of the most evil and selfish ladies of the whole lot of them: upper middle class ladies who insist on going to college and getting jobs, then later leave the workforce to raise their children.
You might think that these ladies would deserve some props from traditional-minded manosphere dudes for supporting themselves instead of leeching off of men during their twenties, then settling into a more traditional housewifely role once they have children.
Oh, but you don’t realize just how evil and disruptive and oppressive their phony careers are to the men of the world. After all, these aren’t women who need to work to support themselves. No, according to Dalrock, these are “women who use their education and career as a way to check off the box to prove their feminist credentials before settling down into an entirely traditional role.”
According to Escoffier, a commenter on Dalrock’s site whom he quotes with approval, in the good old pre-feminist days:
Women who pursued careers (apart from traditional female roles such as teaching … ) were considered at best sort of harmlessly odd … but we know that family life is superior and more important.
Then came feminism:
Now it’s “You MUST do this for own sake, not to do it is to not realize your potential.” …
The way the [upper middle class] has “solved” this problem is to send girls to college, let them launch their careers–whether in soggy girly stuff like PR or crunchy stuff like business and law–and then they marry late (~30), have kids a few years later and drop out of working at least until the kids are grown.
This answers a couple of needs, not least the need for two incomes to accumulate assets so that the couple can eventually buy into a UMC school district.
Oh, but these women aren’t really earning money because they need it to, you know, pay bills and shit:
[T]he real importance of this solution is to her psyche. Getting the education and career are a way of telegraphing “I am a complete person, not some drone like June Cleaver. I am just as smart and capable as any man. In my altruistic concern for my children, I choose not to use my talent in the marketplace but to devote myself to them.” In other words, she needs that education and early career to mark her as better than a mere housewife, even though she will eventually choose to become a housewife.
According to Dalrock, such women are far more evil than the feminist women who get jobs and stick with them. (Emphasis added.)
Men and women who work hard to support themselves understand that they are in it for the duration. There is a determined realism to them. … These aren’t the women we are talking about. The women Escoffier described see having a career as a badge of status to be collected on their way to their ultimate goal of stay at home housewife. They aren’t really career women, they are playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.
When men get a degree or go through a vocational program and then land a job, they’ve normally got 40+ years to contribute to increasing the wealth of society. Women “playing” career damage society:
1. They displace men for positions in college or vocational school.
2. Upon landing a job, they displace other men for the job position.
3. The increase in the labor pool drives down wages (supply & demand).
4. While in the labor pool, women are less effective and less productive than men.
5. Because they are in the labor pool and cannot compete with men, women support labor laws to enforce “equality” which burden businesses and can cause men to get fired due to some infringement or just to meet quotas.
6. When they leave the labor pool after becoming bored, there is now a hole than can be difficult to fill because the men who would normally fill it have been displaced for all the reasons above.
Carnivore places part of the blame on the feminism-infected parents who taught these women the wrong things:
Women do NOT know what they want. They have to be guided. Most parents have so bought into feminism that they don’t see any other way. It’s a riot – or sad – talking to parents when they go into all the detail about choosing a college, going on campus visits, making sure she gets into the best school, etc., etc. You would think these parents would spend their time and energy on prepping their daughters for the most important life decision – choosing a man for marriage, how to make a husband happy and how to raise healthy children.
i was in the workplaces during feminism 1.0, and it had nothing to do with fairness, equity, egalitarianism, or any other positive attribute
in fact, it was a slaughter, resulting in the vast disenfranchisement and destruction of millions of american men — there were dozens of ways men could be hassled, RIFd, and forced from employment, and they were (all to chants of Equality and Empowerment)
this resulted in the massive unemployment of the very men needed to create, invent, and revitalize the culture. and to be fathers to sons . …
no female should be employed, or educated, if it means a qualified male must be excluded
Women, stop leeching off men by paying your own way!
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
