We Hunted The Mammoth
Yesterday we looked at far-right manospheran clod/philosopher Vox Day’s melodramatic response to a Canadian sexbot ban that’s completely imaginary (but that Vox, natch, believed was real). Today, let’s look at an almost 3000-word post by one “Ian Ironwood” of the Red Pill Room, spelling out the dire implications of this imaginary legislation.
ProTip: Before writing 3000-word screeds denouncing something, spend 5 minutes with Teh Google to see if what you’re denouncing is in fact real.
So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that
provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?
The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?
Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.
If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)
Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the
This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …
One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.
Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.
NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.
I ran across this remarkable painting, titled “The Irritating Gentleman,” on Sheltered and Safe From Sorrow, a blog devoted to Victorian mourning rituals and other creepiness from that period. The gentleman in question seems to be a Victorian era Pickup Artist in action. He’s even peacocking, Mystery style, with that bow tie and stupid hat and even a non-ironic handlebar moustache. Probably the only thing keeping him from wearing aviator goggles is the fact that airplanes haven’t yet been invented.
What makes it all the worse is that the PUA’s target is clearly in mourning. As the blogger behind rawr I’m a tumblr notes:
She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.
Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.
What an insufferable dick.
Yep.
You might think that Pickup Artists, dudes obsessed with sexing up the young fertile lasses, would be huge fans of contraceptives – which, after all, are what makes their particular lifestyle possible. But some prominent PUAs are about as enthusiastic about contraception as a Pope.
In the case of the charming fellow who calls himself Heartiste, I mean this literally. In a recent posting, he quotes approvingly from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 Humanae Vitae dissing contraceptives for allegedly demeaning the women that use them. Paul suggested that contraception may cause men to
lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.
I’m no Pope, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.
On his newish blog Return of Kings, pickup-guru-turned-philosopher Roosh V has come up with yet another way to justify his creepy obsession with women a lot younger than his hairy self: he compares them with loaves of bread.
When a loaf comes out of the oven (puberty), it’s warm and delicious. You can’t help but stuff yourself. (18-24 years old)
When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)
If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)
If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)
The lesson in this? Live next to the bakery.
Well, that was creepy as fuck.
Also, he seems a bit confused about when puberty actually happens. Or he just doesn’t want to state outright that he’d really rather be “dating” 15 year olds.
Eww.
“So,” you’re probably thinking to yourself, “I’ve heard a lot of pointless uninformed speculation on the Petraeus affair, but I haven’t yet heard what that PUA douchenozzle who calls himself Heartiste thinks about it all.”
Well, we’re going to rectify this tragic situation right now. Despite not understanding even the most basic facts about the scandal – he refers to “Generals Petraeus and Allen and their Lebanese immigrant, faintly masculine mistresses,” even though the only “mistress” involved in all this seems to be Paula Broadwell, who isn’t of Lebanese descent — Heartiste has produced a 2500-word opus on the subject, with pictures and a graph. So let’s just take a look at the highlights.
A blast from the past. Elliot is (inadvertently) DHV-ing out the wazoo! That’s Demonstrating Higher Value, for those not hep to Pickup Artist lingo.
This isn’t, strictly speaking, “life before feminism.” It’s life just as the second wave of feminism was getting going. Indeed, the rather forward women in the ad are essentially Madison Avenue’s version of liberated women.
And this seems to be how most MRAs continue to see feminism today — as an elaborate plot designed to allow bossy, manipulative, “hypergamous” “empowered females” to better exploit hard-working beta men.
The ad is of course insulting to both men and women, but I imagine any MRA viewers who stop by will only see the misandry.
But, hey, it is a pretty cool car.
There’s a new blog out there that I think a lot of you will appreciate. I would say “enjoy,” but your enjoyment of it will no doubt alternate with despair over the future of the human race. Which makes it sort of like this blog!
Anyway, the blog is called PUA.txt, and, as the name suggests, it features horrible quotes taken from forums and other websites where would-be pickup artists like to congregate.
Manosphere dudes are having a little trouble dealing with Obama’s re-election – especially with the fact that women and minorities were behind it. On The Rational Male, the regulars are debating the merits of a post-election manifesto from a fellow named Mark Minter, originally posted as a comment on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog.
Minter, who is basically right about the demographic shift behind Obama’s victory but wrong about everything else, lays out what he sees as the evil forces arrayed against the dudes of America – the white ones in particular — and what he sees as a solution. Naturally, in classic manosphere style, he gets a bit melodramatic about it all.
(In the excerpts that follow, I’m snipping out the demographic details, which everyone here already knows about.)
Women are winning. Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The reason Obama won this election and why the Republicans were not able to gain any ground in the legislature was women. Pure and Simply. This election was about women. And the men lost.
Election day is here at last! Vote! VOTE!! VOOOTTTTTEEEEE!!!1!!!
Well, if you’re American, anyway.
Americans and non-Americans alike, enjoy these ridiculous thoughts on the Single White Woman Vote from our old pal Heartiste.
[S]ingle women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote.
