Category: reactionary bullshit

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women FemRAs hypocrisy I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA MRA paradox patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:

Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?

As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.

I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.

This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.

Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.

But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:

Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.

Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:

Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.

So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.

No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.

For example, you can just call them sluts:

Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.

Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:

Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.

You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:

Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …

Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.

What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:

Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.

Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,

I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.

Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.

Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?

Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!

I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!

NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.

—

This post contained some

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism douchebaggery dozens of upvotes evil women girl germs I'm totally being sarcastic kitties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit sex sluts the spearhead whores

All Women Are Whores, Part XIV: Cat on a Roomba Edition

Cats and Roombas unite in service to the forces of whoredom.

Men of America! You face a grave threat today: Evil feminist slutwalkers are working tirelessly to enslave men by conning them into marrying secret porn-star whores! Over on The Spearhead, an unnamed “Featured Guest” explains the whole dastardly scheme in a post with the intriguing title “Whore is just a label.” 

With slutwalkers working hard to remove the stigma of sex for women, you see,

young women in porn face far less stigma than they ever have. So much so that for that young women the leap from wanton behavior at a drunken college party to getting double teamed followed by a full facial in a porn shoot may not be a far leap at all.

Exactly. Because if you’re going to be having sex anyway, why not do it on camera with strangers?

The dollars and cents is that you have a huge growth porn industry demanding a huge number of sex workers who blend invisibly into the population because there is no longer any stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession.

Wait, I thought that prostitution was the world’s oldest profession. I guess porn and prostitution are the same thing now?

Not that it matters, because if you’re a man the evil ladies will keep their sordid whoring from you:

Unlike men women know how to keep a secret. Women don’t brag to their girlfriends, in fact they’ll lie even to themselves. You really have NO IDEA where even that conservative and very virginal girl you’ve proposed to has been until the night she thought she forgot shows up on Youtube.com. Where does that leave an increasing number of American men?

So YouTube is a porn distribution hub now? Or is he suggesting that any woman who has sex is by definition a whore?

Evidently he is, as Mr. Featured Guest then goes on to warn of the dangers of those who are:

Trying to turn a whore into a housewife.

Yes, there are terrific women out there. But single women are angling for a man to pay for their lives, and given that incentive there’s a huge temptation for a woman to present herself falsely, to tell a lot of lies and to make a lot of “stay at home, cook and raise kids” promises she has no intention of keeping. Under US and ESPECIALLY Canadian divorce laws, women are almost never accountable for bad behavior or broken promises. For all the men who thought their betrothed was only slutty the night she met you and who are steaming mad that you’ve been sold a bill of goods, does the marriage contract needs a “false advertisement” clause?

Or do women who have sex with men other than their betrothed – possibly on video, possibly on YouTube — simply need to have the word “whore” tattooed on their foreheads?

The regulars at The Spearhead respond to this sophisticated analysis of contemporary marriage with their usual good sense.

Quentin, in a comment that got 50 upvotes, notes with some alarm that

A lot of women don’t feel bad abut their sexual escapades. In fact, they take pride in them. “Ladies” are an endangered species, and are on the verge of going extinct. All this slutty behavior has really made me lose interest in women. I don’t want to be with a woman who has had sex with a lot of men. If she is easy to get into the sack, then she is a liability in a relationship. I have lost a lot of respect for women over the past several years. Sex, along with marriage, is something most women view as a get-rich-quick scheme. It is disheartening to think I live in a world where being a whore is considered empowering, while being a supportive wife is frowned upon. This world is upside down. …  If you act like a whore, then you are going to get treated like a whore. If women were pleasant to be around and were loyal, more men would probably stick around. You reap what you sow, women.

Napoleon (24 upvotes) urges his fellow men to be cautious when dealing with the wily female:

Women these days are increasingly trying to have the best of both worlds and present themselves as wholesome nice girls to the public while hiding a lot of whoring that goes on behind the scenes. There is really no way to know whether a woman is a part-time prostitute or not but a good rule of thumb is to assume that she is until proven otherwise due to the prevalence of such antics.

Silent warns men to be especially suspicious of any woman who seems to know what she’s doing in bed:

Just be careful about the super-sweet girlfriend who knows a little too much about how to do that thing you like, without you having taught her. She may have had a mouthful. But hey, maybe it’s all “in the past”.

YoungMan shares his tale of woe:

Back in my plugged in days I dated a girl for over a year before I found out she used to play with herself on camera for money. I was incensed I had been taken advantage of like that.

Keyster, a bastion of morality who once boasted about dating a 14-year-old (when he was 25), warns men to stay away with women who don’t keep silent about their sexual pasts:

Any woman who feels compelled to reveal her debaucherous past has no intention of having a serious relationship with you.

It’s not a shit test.

 It’s meant to show a certian amount of disdain and disrespect for you as a man who doesn’t quite measure up to her standards. Don’t ever forget that.

Yes, because if a woman has had sex with anyone other than you, it’s all about disrespecting you.

And then he adds:

If she says she can’t even remember how many guys she’s f*cked in a rather “matter-of-fact” tone, you’ve entered the Futrelle Zone. Go home and video tape your cat on a Roomba and post it on YouTube. It would be time better spent.

I guess I should be flattered? But alas it was not my cat on the Roomba. I wish I had a Roomba. (Also, I wish I had my cat back, but that’s a whole other and much sadder story.)

Alan Vaughn writes an impassioned defense of pedophiles – sorry, “pedophiles,” in scare quotes – that I’m frankly too tired to bother to cut and paste in here. Check it out yourself if you dare.

Eric has a sad about the poor quality of American women:

Women are presumed to ‘have all the power in relationships’. Really, it’s her choices alone that matter. Women choose to be with thugs and idiots when there are numerous better and more responsible options open to them. The fact that women overwhelmingly terminate relationships with good men and pursue worthless ones is proof in itself that the responsibility lies with them and not with us.

Men, on the other hand, are very limited in their field of choices (unless they expat out). The abysmal quality of American women; women’s complete lack of interest in responsible men; and the ever-impending consequences of acting contrary to misandryist legal and social norms considerably constrict men’s options. Most men, if they were honest about it, would admit that their choices are pretty much limited to the least objectionable—not the most desirable—of available women.

Life is apparently very tough for American men who hate the very idea of women ever having sex with anyone but them. And doubly tough for those who don’t see the inherent hilariousness of cats on Roombas.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism dozens of upvotes evil women grandiosity homophobia hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies the spearhead vaginas we hunted the mammoth western women suck

All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.

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.

Revver started things off with this lovely thought:

Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.

 How easily they make themselves look like fools.

Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:

Women judge men by pre-selection.

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)

In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:

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:

Categories
alpha males antifeminism antifeminst women chivalry douchebaggery lying liars men's rights women's auxilary misandry misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit reddit

Hey girl, I wish you were a greasy smear on the road: The Men’s Rights subreddit hates on the lady rescued by Ryan Gosling.

Oh, the Men’s Rights subreddit is on a roll! Earlier in the week, as regular readers will already be well aware, a sizeable number of the regulars there were waxing indignant about a spermburgling girlfriend who turned out to be imaginary, and expressing sympathy for the imaginary girlfriend’s imaginary boyfriend, even though he’d admitted to punching her in her imaginary stomach.

Now they’re directing their wrath at a British journalist whom they’ve decided is being insufficiently grateful for being rescued from being hit by a speeding automobile by Ryan Gosling.

The backstory: Earlier in the week, British journalist Laurie Penny was wandering the streets of Manhattan, lost in thought, when she almost stepped off the curb into the path of a taxi. A man standing nearby grabbed her and pulled her to safety. That man happened to be famously hunky young actor Ryan Gosling.

Naturally, Penny tweeted about it, and her tweet aroused something of a Twitterstorm, in part because of the novelty of the situation, and in part because the thought of someone so dashing performing this little act of urban heroism made more than a few ladies (and men) swoon a little. I would probably react the same way if I heard a story about Kate Winslet saving a kitten.

Anyway, Penny was a little bit overwhelmed by all the attention her story was getting, and ended up writing a funny, spiky little essay for Gawker reminding people that while, yes, Ryan Gosling had indeed done a very nice thing for her, for which she was grateful, that it wasn’t really the biggest deal in the world. For one thing, she pointed out, lots of ordinary decent people perform similar acts of “heroism” all the time. For another, there are bigger heroes out there – like those working tirelessly to keep Rick Santorum from becoming our next president.

She ended the piece with this:

I really do object to being framed as the ditzy damsel in distress in this story. I do not mean any disrespect to Ryan Gosling, who is an excellent actor and, by all accounts, a personable and decent chap. …

But as a feminist, a writer, and a gentlewoman of fortune, I refuse to be cast in any sort of boring supporting female role, even though I have occasional trouble crossing the road, and even though I did swoon the teeniest tiniest bit when I realized it was him. I think that’s lazy storytelling, and I’m sure Ryan Gosling would agree with me.

And the thing is, I’m sure he would. I’m sure he’s as embarrassed about the attention as Penny is.

Well, for some people, Penny’s refusal to play the “boring supportive role” was simply unacceptable. Over on The National Review, antifeminist asshole Suzanne Venker wrote a snide and misleading piece portraying Penny as an ungrateful bitch:

If Western women want to know where all the good men have gone, they need only look in the mirror. Not only can men no longer hold the door open for women or pay the check after dinner, they can’t even save a woman’s life and get a simple thank you.

Never mind that Penny wrote explicitly that she was “grateful to the dashing and meme-worthy Mr. Gosling.” We can conclude that Venker either has terrible reading comprehension, or is deliberately lying about Penny. In any case, she continued on in this vein:

Feminists have totally destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Not all women seek the feminized version of the American male. Most women like big, strong, sexy men. They want men who are willing to put out fires, fight in combat, and, yes, even save damsels in distress. But in post-feminist America, Marlboro Man is a rare breed. We can thank women like Penny for that.

Well, actually, the reason the Marlboro Man isn’t around any more is that he died of lung cancer. (Well, to be more specific, two of the actors who portrayed the Marlboro Man did in fact die that way.) But let’s continue:

If Americans don’t wake up to the evils of feminism, the next time a woman walks down the wrong side of the street, the men of America will simply walk right past her and let her get hit.

And we’ll have no one blame but ourselves.

Really? Really? I’m pretty sure that Penny’s Gawker essay isn’t actually going to turn American men into a bunch of woman-hating psychopaths. I think we can all agree that Venker is being a giant turd here.

Well, not all of us, I guess. Someone posted Venker’s little screed to the Men’s Rights subreddit – you were wondering when I’d get back to them, weren’t you? And the regulars responded, well, like you would expect them to. Here are two of the most highly upvoted comments there, from two of the subreddit’s most prolific posters.

Stay classy. Men’s Rights Redditors!

Categories
antifeminism bunnies I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy misogyny reactionary bullshit

Yahoo! Answers Gender Studies: Zenith of Civilization

Oh, Yahoo Answers! Why do you always raise more questions than you answer? For example, let’s just take this intriguing question, recently posed to Yahoo Answers Gender Studies by a fellow calling himself Tubetruth.

Not sure I quite get you, Tube. Care to elaborate?

I’m still not quite sure I get you, Tube, but no matter! For danilhastings has already provided us with an answer!

I guess that’s all there is to say on the subject, then.

Happily, those whose gender studies appetites have been whetted by this lively exchange will find many other fascinating gender studies questions to contemplate elsewhere on Yahoo Answers.

Categories
antifeminism creepy disgusting women girl germs I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert misogyny oppressed men oppressed white men quiz quote of the day reactionary bullshit vaginas

Quote of the day: “We’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.”

Ladies, please! We don't need to see THAT.

Quiz! Who said the following, in reference to the presence of women on television?

Enough, ladies. I get it. You have periods. … [W]e’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.

Was it?

  1. W.F. Price of The Spearhead
  2. Christopher in Oregon, legendary vagina-hating Man Going His Own Way
  3. Reddit commenter VjayjaysAreIcky69

Trick question! It was actually Two and a Half Men co-creator Lee Aronsohn, complaining to The Hollywood Reporter about the female-centric sticoms that have popped up of late. (There’s plenty to complain about when it comes to shows like Whitney and 2 Broke Girls, but “the main characters have vaginas” ain’t it.)

In a keynote address at the Toronto Screenwriting Conference, Aronsohn also defended his show’s tendency to portray women in a less-than-flattering light:

Screw it. … We’re centering the show on two very damaged men. What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man.

So brave, Aronsohn, so brave, standing up to the Matriarchy like that!

On ThinkProgress, Alyssa Rosenberg lays into Aronsohn:

[H]aving to hear that ladies have menstrual cycles, take birth control pills, and enjoy sex is just unbearable, right? Because even though the number of female characters on television tends to hover in the low 40 percent range, we’re just saturated with vaginas, because god forbid stories about men and their ish don’t absolutely dominate the media? Because even though those shows Aronsohn’s complaining about have actually created more writing and directing jobs for men than women, and resulted in some really awful portrayals as a result, we couldn’t possibly let women come to expect that they’ll have access to stories both about them and by them, could we? Because where would that leave poor, suffering, disadvantaged American men?

And then she takes on the entertainment industry in general, for tolerating his troglodyte views:

[T]hat Aronsohn is dumb and woman-fearing enough not just to believe this, to blithely admit he believes it to a major publication tells you everything about how cosseted Hollywood’s disgusting sexists are. You want to know why we get what we get on movie and television screens? …  Because there are, apparently, no consequences in Hollywood for being perfectly open about how much you despise women’s bodies and the contours of women’s lives.

Maude Lebowski, what do you have to say about all this?

Categories
crackpottery creepy hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism reactionary bullshit whaaaaa?

Meet the Enriching Vibrants (and a bunch of plain old racists).

Then In Mala Fide may be right for you!

I took a look at the always reprehensible In Mala Fide today, and ran across a very strange post indeed, written by someone calling himself Finndistan. Entitled “The Unfuckables,” the post started off by recounting a conversation that allegedly took place in the real world — the same real world, dear reader, that you and I live in.

Three guys sitting, good looking girl passes by, easily a nine.

“She’s beautiful man,” says one.

“Who?”

“That one. But she likes enriching vibrants.”

“I’d rather fuck an orc as now that looks more attractive to me.”

WHAT. THE. FUCK. is an “enriching vibrant?”

I look through the rest of the post. The strangeness continues:

It seems that fucking and enriching vibrants is becoming a fashion. Fine.

The only thing is this, I am an immigrant. Neither do I enrich, nor do I vibrate;

For me, and for many other men, Finnish, Western, non-Western, these women are undateable.

For me, and for many other men, these women are…

Unfuckable.

Once you let your pussy be enriched by a vibrating man’s rod, you radiate that. You shine in the dark.

You are an enriched vibrant-fucker.

You are unfuckable.

I look through the comments and find at least one reader as perplexed as me. Ferdinand Bardamu, the terrible human being behind In Mala Fide, steps in and clarifies that “vibrants = immigrants.”

That doesn’t really clarify very much, as Finndistan says he’s an immigrant, too. Nor does it explain all the “vibrating” nonsense.  I return to the post, and find Finndistan working through a labored comparison with a Japanese nuclear disaster:

Fukushima was enriched. It was full of enriched plutonium. Then the earth vibrated.

My utmost respects go out to the men who sacrificed themselves to keep the disaster in check. Their debts will never be repaid. Not by a society that has alienated its men to the point of men dropping out of society in the millions.

What I am talking about is Fuckushima.

Fuckushima was enriched. It was full of enriched spermanium. Then the bed vibrated.

Fuck me if I sacrifice myself for that.

Ok then.

Setting aside Finndistan’s  bizarre visions of nuclear spermageddon, I’m still perplexed as to why some immigrants – sorry, vibrants – are evil and “enriched” and “vibrating” while others – like Finndistan – aren’t?

 I go to Finndistan’s own blog in an attempt to make some sense out of whatever the fuck he’s on about. I find a post entitled “The Fashion of Fucking an Enriching Vibrant – The Curse of The Unfuckables.” It starts out with this:

Allright,

We foreign men have a problem with The Unfuckables.

The women who got vibrated by enriching cock.

The women who got enriched by vibrating cock.

The women who got enriched by a vibrant.

The women who got vibrated by an enricher.

That’s no help. I go to another post in which Finndistan purports to explain his strange terminology. Entitled “The Unfuckables – A sensible explanation,” the post offers anything but that.

An Unfuckable is a woman who has gotten fucked by an enriching vibrant. Out of love, passion, of fashion, it does not matter.

Intimate contact, any kin[d] of penetration, and any kind of fluid exchange suffices.

Ok, then, I ask again: WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. AN. ENRICHING. VIBRANT?

If I go into so much detail into The Unfuckables, I should go into some detail about enriching vibrants, enriching vibrating cock, vibrating enrichers etc.

I will call them vibrating enrichers, as this is the term I like most.

Being a vibrating enricher is a choice, so it is not something you are born with (cough cough), or something you cannot grow out of (cough cough)…

Before we go into choices, let’s go into what is not Vibrating, or what is not Enriching, thus what is also not supported by the state, the humanists, the multicultists, the diversity lovers.

Finndistan then lists a bunch of “acceptable” immigrant types, including:

The indian looking kid dressed in a smart business suit apparently having an after meeting beer with his Finnish colleague also dressed in a business suit. …

The middle eastern kid married to the same woman since I met him, who sired two kids, and is an honest working man.

The black dude who speaks perfect BBC english sitting on the table with two clearly high class Finnish girls. It is highly possible his clothing is tailored.

And then, on to those dastardly “vibrating enrichers.” Another list, including:

African kid coming over and immediately adopting to the American Gangbanger style.

The kid who’s wearing the saggin’ jeans with golden “Thug Life” embroidered throughout his ass

The middle easterner with the fake Armani shirt, pluched eyebrows, designer shapes shaved into his hair and make up on his face. …

The guy who’s choosing the gangbanger, the apaci style, over having any decent style, even including the Jersey Shore Douchebaggery.  …

Basically anybody who is enriching the culture with their radioactiveness, and vibrating the culture with the vibration that made their homeland a place worthy escaping from.

So any woman who, er, exchanges fluid with any “enriching vibrant” man thus makes herself, in Finndistan’s eyes, an unfuckable.

Amazingly, the regulars back on In Mala Fide are able to get the gist of Finndistan’s rants without going to all the trouble I did. Ryu, the dude behind  a blog titled White Nationalist Think Tank, comments:

Ah. So you’re talking about mixers – women who sleep with blacks, mexicans or muslims.

It’s just a step above beastiallity in my book. Her race and people are on the ropes. Enemies everywhere. Demographic crisis in the waiting. Then to show off how hip and tolerant she is or worse, to satisfy her own libido, she beds down with a protected group.

They are traitors, some of the worst offenders. The most beautiful woman in the world loses her charm after mixing. She’ll sleep with anything. Included are Heidi Klum, Nicole Kidman, and many of the people adapting negro babies.

Aleph Null adds his completely non-racist opinion:

I’m not a racist, except in the sense that anyone who recognizes reality in the USA is branded as a racist. And besides, I’m married.

But I have a very pragmatic reason for not wanting to bed a woman who “enriches vibrants.” African-Americans have 20 times the rate of Gonorrhea infection compared to whites, and 9 times the rate of syphilis and chlamydia. Blacks are 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of new HIV infections in 2009.

The phrase “I wouldn’t fuck her with your dick” comes to mind.

PA, easily adapting himself to Finndistan’s odd lingo, adds

I find white women who slept with well-tanned enriching vibrants viscerally repulsive. Even if she’s a 9, I wouldn’t fuck her. There is something vile and unclean about her aura.

This is no offense to enriching vibrants — I wouldn’t feel that way about a non-white woman who is otherwise attractive, but who presumably has previously slept with her own kind.

A fellow with the oh-so-clever nickname Eugenick shares his racial and sexual fantasies:

I would love to enrich some Japanese, Korean or Chinese chicks myself. I could pass on my White genes for independence, individualism and creativity, while they would contribute a high IQ mean for the future generations to revert to, as well as a better predisposition for working hard. Maybe such hybrids would be the new master race. After all, marvels like Hong Kong and Singapore have emerged from the combined efforts of Asians and Whites.

Sadly, I live in a Eastern European country where the main vibrant minority are low-avg-IQ Gypsies, and Asians are close to none.

Marcus Marcellus helps to clarify what is implied when Manosphere dudes talk semi-euphemistically about the evils of women who choose “thugs” over “nice guys” like them:

To me, any white girl who kneels before a black American and puts his cock in her mouth is completely tainted trash. There’s a level of submissive degeneracy that I cannot cross. It’s a very dark, quasi-rape issue actually. …

 Today, a good 10% of these Millennial sluts are actively chasing their negro a la Hollywood star, except instead of adopting one they sleep with one…until he murders them – or just beats them badly.

A whole treatise could be written on the psychology behind the current phenomenon, one that would not please feminist women as it would reveal the masochistic element in women’s sexuality. Personally, I’m only dating girls who don’t complain when I occasionally use the “n-word.” It’s a way to vet them without doing some creepy background checks. I do not hate blacks; I just don’t want to breed with them.

I would think almost any woman would be overjoyed to discover that men like these consider her “unfuckable.”

Categories
antifeminism evil women hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert MGTOW misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence

Fox News Doctor Dude: The Hunger Games Will Make Teen Girls Violent, Unfeminine

Do NOT catch this fever. Symptoms include: Being a girl. Shooting people with arrows. Catching on fire.

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.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women I'm totally being sarcastic manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men paranoia racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead violence white knights

Skanks, Sharia, and Manginas in Shining Armor: Yet another rant from The Spearhead

ARGLEBARGLEBLLLAGGH

[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.

Categories
$MONEY$ actual activism antifeminism crackpottery evil women grandiosity I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paranoia rape rapey reactionary bullshit Tom Martin whores

F*ck your civil rights you lying whores: Yet more words of wisdom from Tom “Sexismbuster” Martin

Apparently Burger King is also a whore. The ultimate one, in fact.

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.

The Gulag Whoripelago:

[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.

Compounded shite:

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.

Just sign here:

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?