Category: reactionary bullshit

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women homophobia misandry misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead

BREAKING: Dudes on The Spearhead aren’t big fans of Glee

Other people have also noticed a lot of gayness on Glee

So W. F. Price of The Spearhead has made a momentous discovery: there is a television show called Glee. In a recent post, he shared some of his findings with the regular crowd:

I’ve only recently heard of the teen drama Glee, which is evidently a big hit with the teenybopper crowd. The other day, I came across it while flicking through channels and forced myself to watch some of the show.

Apparently, it is really, really gay.

First, I have to say that I now do believe the conservative Christians are correct in saying that the media is pushing a gay agenda. Of course, I don’t really care (one can always change the channel), but it was so blatant on Glee that I couldn’t help but laugh. The show revolved around a “glee club” (an insipid American high school institution for you Brits), cheerleaders, football players, gay football players, football players in drag, football players with cheerleaders, with gay cheerleaders, etc. There was even Broadway-style singing and dancing.

The horror!

Glee is about the gayest show I’ve ever seen on TV. Even the name is gay.

So, you’re saying it’s gay.

Still, Price did have one little complaint about the show:

The gay issue aside, there was one thing about the show that, although unsurprising, was still obnoxious: it features the same old negative stereotypes about normal males. The teen sluts (both gay and straight) are the heros, while the villains are generally straight or straight-acting males … .

It’s true. No one in American society is more oppressed than “normal” dudes. How dare Glee add to this bigotry!

Shockingly, it turns out that there aren’t any Glee fans amongst the Spearhead set – at least none willing to speak up.

In the comments, Meistergedanken explained that Glee was just a part – a loud, singing part — of a devious queer conspiracy:

It’s all part of the plan. Just like “Desperate Housewives”, “American Horror Story” or “Dawson’s Creek”, or any of those other shows created by the queers, straight couples – particularly married ones – are inevitably shown to be the most hypocrital, intolerant, ignorant, mentally unbalanced and emotionally dysfunctional characters. In this way normality is portrayed as a sorry sham. …

It’s so strange to see the progressives insist on marriage for gays, while at the same time showing married couples (and the husbands/fathers especially) as the worst people out there. They want to tear down marriage so they can scrounge the tattered remains for themselves, I guess.

Towgunner, for his part, delivered up a long, rambling manifesto of sorts on the subject of the gays. Some highlights:

Is it a tragedy that gay people suffer? I honestly used to think so, but I don’t really think they suffer all that much. They seem pretty happy at their parades. Matter of fact, I’d say that a balding women (regardless of her sexuality) or a poor black family or an orphan in Africa suffer thousands of times more than some sappy fruit.

In that light homosexuals have proven to be one of the most selfish groups in all of history, right up there with women – after all they want to be women anyway. …

Furthermore, it says something about our culture that gives only homosexuals and other sluts special treatment. …  All this to facilitate a small group’s ego so they feel only slightly less guilty at themselves when they orgasm. That’s where your taxpayer money goes to…to make a pervert feel good about itself.

So, apparently, the government is giving out gay orgasm grants, or something?

Andybob, meanwhile, spoke up for the gays. Or, at least, the gays who hate Glee. And women.

The first time I saw “Glee” I wanted to punch my flatscreen through the wall. Here again, gay men/teens are being shown as shallow, trite, superficial, dismissable, malleable, silly, flippant cretins with nothing to offer the world except fashion advice and sloping shoulders for whiny bitches to cry on. …

Those of us [gay men] who live far from Hollywood and have no connection whatsoever to Broadway musicals are very likely to be very aware of issues confronting men. Some of us are even vocal MRA’s. …  [We’re] not handicapped by the need for sex from women. We can recognise their manipulative BS from miles away. The female psyche laid bare is an ugly thing.

Gay men like men, identify with men, actually are men. We watch men we care about like our brothers (I have a straight twin brother), fathers, and mates get ground down by a system created and maintained by feminists and their pussy-begging lackeys – and yes, some poodle-carrying flamers along for the ride. Women are always shocked to learn that most gays side with men. That’s not what they see on the telly. …

The bitchy gays who discriminate against straight men … are the manginas of the gay world. …

Women don’t like gays and straights to collaborate because they don’t want us to compare notes. I have seen women try to shame my straight friends out of hanging out with me. They are threatened by our mutual support. Together, we are able to construct a composite picture of women that would peel paint for sheer gruesomeness.

Gay men and straight men – together, united in hatred of whiny bitches!

Categories
antifeminism evil women manginas misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit the spearhead

Spearheader: Put American women in Burqas “for their obese figures and even more obese whining mouths.”

Religion needs more of this dude.

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.

Take this Rapses fellow here:

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.

51 upvotes, 10 downvotes, last I checked.

And then there’s Aharon :

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.

Categories
antifeminism evil women homophobia life before feminism manginas misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts vaginas white knights

Bicycle-riding ladies and other threats to manly order

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.

And what was so unsettling – even scary – about the specter of women on bicycles? As historian Clare S. Simpson explains:

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.

Now why does this sound oh-so-familiar? Because it is so scarily similar to many of the arguments I run across amongst Men’s Rightsers and Manospherians today. Change a few words here and there, and we could be talking about the Slutwalks, and the ludicrously overblown “criticism” of them we’ve seen from MRAs and misogynists generally, who insist again and again that women must be “held responsible” for their actions.

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.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women hypergamy I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit the spearhead white knights

Misogyny to the Maxd: Women are “liabilities in our technological culture.” Also, they’re fat.

Eeerything started going to hell when we let them wear bloomers and ride bicycles.

Oh boy. Over on The Spearhead, the good old trusty Spearhead, a fella called Rmaxd has some bold new ideas to share with the world.

Well, they’re not really new, or bold, or true, and some of them kind of seem to contradict each other. But they are, indisputably, ideas. And because he’s a dude, they’re automatically good, because dudes are the dynamic, creative force behind all historical progress. So it’s no wonder this comment of his got more than two dozen upvotes.

Rmaxd starts off by addressing the manginas of the world, and every man who might be considering the benefits of manginahood:

Grow some balls, be masculine, & these so called feminists have zero power

Because NATURE.

We always revert to our biology & nature, over idealism, this is why feminism is dead in the water

And NATURE says women should stay home and cook and pop out babies.

Women in our society are so fucked up, precisely because they rejected their biological need to be part of a society, through their children, husbands & a family

It’s time for a little thought experiment.

Imagine if men were no longer engineers & soldiers & scientists, imagine the biological havoc they would cause on society, all that intellectual brilliance channelled on society, on the loss of their biological roles, instead of as engineers, soldiers & scientists

I’m having a little bit of a hard time imagining, because that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Is he suggesting that the world would collapse if more dudes stayed home and tended the kids?

But never mind, because Rmaxd is on to his next point, which is that women are terrible at math and this makes them OBSOLETE!

In a technology based society, women are the first to be discarded, their lack of scientific & mathematical skills are a liability to our technological culture

Also, they’re lazy and don’t invent shit. Even though by keeping them at home and denying them education the men of the world gave them ample opportunity to invent all sorts of shit, they chose instead to sit on their fat asses and eat bon bons.

Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history

& what did women do with that leisure, with all that time & opportunity to progress science?

 Women became biological luddites, they became entitled, inbred & backwards & technologically liabilities in our present technologically based age

When women should’ve been developing technologies to makeup for their inability to logic & reason, in the same way men developed music & art in order for men to experience emotions, all they did was call for young men to destroying their own futures, to be used as walking wallets & chattle

You can tell how innovative Rmaxd is, because he’s totally just innovated a new way to spell “chattel.”

Anyway, QED, fuck women.

Women are liabilities, we no longer need women to maintain our social networks, we have everything from mobile phones to the internet

Huh. Declaring half of humanity expendable. I was under the impression that MRA dudes considered that sort of thinking to be the equivalent of committing GENOCIDE. Seems some of them were making a big stink about that the other day, when a couple of ladies made some similar remarks about men.

Weird. Because MRA dudes are upvoting this, instead of gathering together in angry mobs on the internet to EXPOSE this dude’s personal information and talk about Fucking His Shit Up.

Never mind, though, because Rmaxd isn’t done with his case against ladies.

We no longer need them to maintain morality, as theyre incapable of morality, a womans ability to destroy herself, in the same fat women destroy their own bodies, is unprecedented, give a woman enough leisure & freetime, & all she’s capable of is how to enslave all of society, to ensure society does the same for women everywhere, irrespective of the results

Damn. So women getting fat is part of a sinister plot to enslave mankind?

This all sounds pretty dire for us civilization-creating dudes.

Happily, as Rmaxd explains in another comment, the ladies are so crazily self-destructive that they will fail in their evil designs, despite “being bankrolled by the rich upper class.” Just like the evil radical blacks back in the 1970s:

[W]omen are following the black activism handbook of the 70′s. …

[N]ear the end of the black movement, as the more mainstream, publicly accepted part of black militancy was rejected & debunked, the more radical components of the movement, began attacking its own supporters, in particular the white supporters of black rights, & they also started attacking blacks who were sympathetic to white males

We see the exact same thing happening with feminism, as the more popular & acceptable parts of feminism have now been rejected by popular culture, ie the colossal failure of stayathome dads

Because nothing is more evil and against NATURE than stay-at-home dads! It’s like sodomy squared.

Anyway, the evil ladies are doomed.

They now start becoming more radical, their antagonism & alienation of men, especially manginas & feminists will inevitably destroy them

As we all know women & especially special rights movements, are always self destructive, as the solutions are never radical enough.

So back to the homes, ladies, where you can return to fulfilling NATURE’s role for the females of the species: sitting on your fat asses and eating bon bons and being terrible at math. Because that is nature’s way.

I had a

Categories
antifeminism creepy disgusting women douchebaggery evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA nice guys oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles penises racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit reddit that's not funny! thug-lovers

Is Reddit nothing more than a collection of rape jokes and pedophilia apologias?

Nope! As the totally scientific chart above shows, it also contains: generalized misogyny, racism, atheist dickbaggery, and last but not least: lots of pics hosted on imgur!

Here, some recent data, most of which I have borrowed from ShitRedditSays. I’ve put the number of upvotes for each post in brackets, when relevant.

Rape jokes:

Guys, you’re not making enough rape jokes! [+856]

“I’d fuck her until the neighbours complained about the smell.” [+250] [Bonus points: Also a murder and necrophilia joke!]

Rape clock [+36]

Redditors mock a rape victim! [Assorted upvoted posts]

Pedophilia apologia:

Admitted pedo and child porn fancier compares himself with Gandhi [+83]

More goodness (by which I mean badness) from that thread, courtesy of SRS.

Oh noes! Evil anti-pedos threaten free pedo speech! [+25]

He’s been shamed into deleting it by you. Are you happy now? For the record, mattperrin said “Why does she have to be 18? So she can be in porn? Very very few girls enter porn, and if you’re just talking about being sexually aroused by her, that’s okay for anyone 13+”.

Pedo joke … perfection! [+100]

General Misogyny (and creepiness):

Ha Ha! Girls can’t work cameras! [+636]

Girls only like thugs and they’re all dumb and why oh why won’t they go out with a nice guy like me? Did I mention I hate women?  [+assorted massive upvotes]

Help me prove to this guy feminism is no longer needed. (Please do not use profanity and words like “cunt” though.) [This whole discussion is sort of delicious; our pal ThingsAreBad, aka JeremiahMRA, pops in to argue that feminism was never needed because everything was peachy back when women couldn’t vote.]

I’d fuck her right into a broken hip. [+588] [Referencing Helen Mirren.]

“She has very large holes in her earlobes. About the circumference of an erect penis. She is also very attractive. Myself and many other redditors, immediately upon viewing the picture, imagined putting our penises through those holes.” [+10]

Bonus! More random misogyny.

Racism:

“I just had sex with my first black guy, and believe me it’s true what they say…he stole my t.v.” [+477]

“No no no, that will just attract more rapists.” [+70] [BONUS POINT: Is also a rape joke!]

Atheist douchebags:

Reddit Makes Me Hate Atheists, by Rebecca Watson. As you’ll notice, her examples from r/atheism contain many massively upvoted rape and pedophilia jokes, not to mention lots more generalized misogynistic douchebaggery. The circle is complete!

But generally speaking you can pick almost any random highly upvoted post here for endless more examples of what makes even atheist activists hate Reddit atheists.

Which have helped to inspire this meme.

Pics on Imgur:

Top posts on (my) Reddit at the moment:

Then again, random pics of cute dogs and squirrel-riding frogs are certainly preferable to more angry racist rapey hatey pedo-justifying crap. So, yay imgur, I guess? (At least when it’s not being used to post still more angry racist rapey hatey pedo-justifying crap.)

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism beta males disgusting women douchebaggery I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit

“Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood,” and other observations on love and life from Chateau Heartiste

I mean, my shoes are totally better than his!

Today, a GUEST POST from Catherine! Thanks, Catherine! And the rest of you, enjoy!

Over on Chateau Heartiste, the (He)artist(e) Formerly Known As Roissy devoted  a recent post to the conundrum of handsome men coupled with ugly women. It’s essentially an open thread for the denigration of women who don’t live up to Roissy’s porntastic standards (17 to 20 years old with a BMI of about 18 *and* a D cup, and related WTF?! attributes), as well as ragging on those awful beta manginas who are punching below their weight – or, to quote Heartiste himself, are “polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.”

I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.

He’s just getting started.

What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.

Speaker: Any questions?

Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…

Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…

So obviously the young good-looking man is totally under the thumb of the big fat evil feminist woman, who has sucked out his brains and reduced him to a quivering lump of hesitation and uncertainty!

As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.

So, sniveling, indecisive beta manginas are repulsive… but not as repulsive as a corpulent woman! Gotcha, Roissy.

After getting in a few more digs at the contemptuous, unsympathetic wife, Roissy sets forth his views on various types of couples. First, the kinds of couples that should be allowed to exist:

Handsome man with beautiful woman

All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. …

Ugly man with ugly woman

All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.

All is well in the world of alpha males with hot babes, but those in ugly people combos need to find some highly diverting hobbies to keep from offing themselves.

Now Roissy turns his attention to two apparent mismatches, and delineates his usual double standards:

Ugly man with beautiful woman

Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.

Moral: ugly men are permitted to have counter-balancing attributes! Can you guess what is coming next?

Handsome man with ugly woman

Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.

Women have no value beyond their looks, so the pitiful man dating someone wretchedly below Roissy’s artificial standards must likewise be sub-standard, in some way invisible to us, to have abased himself so humiliatingly.

Having drawn these pictures, Roissy rounds out the post with a sermon on female ugliness, which is to be universally shunned:

There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.

And we’re back to the disparaging references to pigs. Why, oh why does Roissy hate pork so? (That he detests women is more or less expected.)

In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.

And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.

What the hell was that? I’ll quote it again: “Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.” Oh, the huge manatee! Shrink in terror from the impending doom to be brought about by porcine-human hybrids!

Naturally such hyperbole is a cue for some predictable misogyny in the comments, such as the following from regular tool Tyrone:

That’s why its good to be older to get a good sense for how a woman will age. There are loads of women who look hot when young but turn into cattle as they age. Mom is usually a good bench mark. If you’d do her Mom, you’re probably safe. Check out how Ginger Lynn looks like nowadays. You’d never recognize her from her porn days.

A view right in line with Roissy’s famed dating value regimen that women lose value once they’re older than, say, 29; and Tyrone follows it up with some white supremacism:

White people won’t survive without more kids. Smart white men need to breed more in our country- with white women.

What, you might ask, about women with great bodies but unappealing faces? One Anonymous coward urges his brethren to go for it :

[O]ne of my biggest regrets was not doing a girl who had the hottest body around but an ugly face. Temporarily of course.

But for fuck’s sake don’t marry them. Right, tenderman100?

Some years ago, before I was married for the first time (twice married, twice divorced) I was banging this babe. Amazing body. Amazing tits. But a kind of a bucktoothed face. When I first met her, I thought, wow what amazing tits…yeah she’s kinda ugly but she’s friendly and I just have to see those tat tas. Well, not only did I see them, we banged for a few months. She was incredible in bed, highly orgasmic, very flexible (did ballet). Haven’t seen her in decades, but if she is a fat cow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yeah, she was ugly but she pounded like a pro. So it isn’t always what it seems. Then again, I would never have married her.

If not marriage, then what about a long-term relationship? Over again to Tyrone:

A good woman who has reparable shortcomings is still a good option for an LTR. Fugly is a whole different animal.

But if you marry one of them, Tyrone adds, make sure you have a contingency plan!

My wife knows if she ever lets herself go, talks about divorce, whatever that pisses me off enough to leave, I will simply disappear into the night. No arguments or emotions, it will be a complete coup de main. There won’t be anyone around to serve papers to. I’ll be overseas in an undisclosed location screwing LBFMs.

In case you don’t already know, LBFM is short for Little Brown Fucking Machines, a term of art to refer to Asian women (frequently underage) sought out by sex tourists — which should be sufficient to outline Tyrone’s sophisticated moral principles. He continues:

I say this with no emotion or bravado, just let her know its a fact that she must deal with. Marriage is like defense policy, the best defense is a good offense. Strike first, strike to kill. Identify a location and buy yourself some property there, so you have somewhere to go. Move enough money there to live well until you can start a bar or whatever to live. Plan this for a few years in advance if need be. Life is too short to be some stupid broad’s wage slave.

How charming!

Heartiste really has a way of bringing out the best in people!

Categories
$MONEY$ crackpottery creepy I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men PUA racism rapey reactionary bullshit sex

Homeless girls: A frugal alternative to pricey prostitutes!

NOTE: The title of this post is sarcastic. If you found this post through a Google search because you’re actually looking for tips on how to exploit desperate young women, you’re a piece of shit, and this post is not for you. Go away, and go fuck yourself.

Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:

Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.

Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!

Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.

I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.

According to AD, all you have to do is to:

Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.

Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:

Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.

The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.

You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.

Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).

And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.

Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..

But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:

Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.

How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located

in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.

Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!

There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.

Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?

Just remember to keep to your budget!

Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.

And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:

Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.

You have hit the jackpot! 

Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!

Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.

Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!

Just remember:

They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.

Now that’s a motto to live by!

Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.

Simon invoked the c-word, before tossing in some racism:

Mate you are one deadset sad cunt. It’s no surprise to know you’re Indian.

Cathater broke out the other c-word:

Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.

Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.

Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.

Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:

This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.

Savrola returned to the theme of race:

There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.

Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.

What to do?

Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.

ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …

If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).

We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.

Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.

Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.

Men, the forgotten victims once again.

This post contains:

Categories
alpha males antifeminism homophobia misogyny reactionary bullshit that's not funny! the spearhead

Christopher Hitchens is no more, yet women remain unfunny: The Spearhead pays tribute

Hitch also enjoyed smoking.

As you may have heard, Christopher Hitchens – writer, drinker, atheist, shit-stirrer – died the other day. He’s gotten tributes from people all over the political spectrum. Over on The Spearhead, the fellows are paying tribute to his life. Well, not so much his life as to his opinion that women just aren’t funny – apparently their vaginas get in the way, or something.

Here a fellow named Rocco offers his fond remembrances of the man:

I applaud him and wish him to be considered by the big man upstairs to have done the world a service by publically opposing the political machine that is feminism by telling a simple truth.

Woman aren’t funny and men do alot of the great stuff they do like music, art and war to impress women.

Maybe this is why women will never invent anything, why bother.

Twenty upvotes and one downvote for that. Presumably that one downvote is from God, who’s probably spent the last couple of days just going around downvoting anything positive said about Hitchens.

Keyster elaborated further:

His point being that not only do women not need to be funny to attract men, they don’t need to do anything else but simply be women; dress nicely, wear a little make up and perfume – – pleasant personality or the ability to engage in substantive conversation is completely optional.

Everything men strive for is to attract more women.

Everything women strive for is to be more like men.

See the conflict?

Attila added this:

This Cuntry has become so PC- that it couldn’t produce someone like Hitchens- as much as I may disagree with some of his views. He had a functioning mind- and an evidently rigorous education. Can anyone name anybody like him in the public arena? The fact he could throw words like “dyke” around with ease in the middle of his perorations shows a great deal of confidence (he wouldn’t let himself be bullied).

Hitch, this part of your legacy lives on!

But it’s a little-noticed comment from Nutz that highlights Hitch’s most impressive accomplishment:

Well, he was drunk in a lot of his interviews. Personally I thought he was great and one of the things that made him remarkable–he’d be drunk in an interview or debate and still soundly spank the other person with his wit.

Whether you loved him or hated him, agreed with him or disagreed with him, you’ve got to admit: he somehow managed to accomplish more while staggeringly drunk than most of us accomplish stone-cold sober. And that’s something, I guess.

Categories
beta males manginas misogyny MRA nice guys oppressed men rape rapey reactionary bullshit victimhood

Dudes: silent no more!

This tiny kitten actually has nothing to do with the post.

Did Tom Matlack of the Good Men Project – not to be confused with Ben Matlock, fictional defense lawyer beloved by the elderly – swallow one of those mysterious “red pills” I keep hearing about on Men’s Rights blogs? Whatever he swallowed, it’s apparently causing him to hallucinate.

How else to explain his recent post on the GMP site titled “Being a Dude Is a Good Thing.” Now, as a dude who spends a good deal of time every day being a dude, I’ve got nothing against anyone being a dude, provided that’s what they want to be. It’s just that the piece itself is full of some rather strange generalizations that don’t actually seem to be, you know, true, at least not in what’s commonly known as “the real world.”

Rather than try to rebut his argument, because he doesn’t seem to have much of one, let’s just look at some of his loopier pronouncements:

Why do men get blamed for everything?

Uh, because they don’t? Sure, men get blamed for things, but guess what? Women get blamed for things all the time, too, from witchcraft, to divorce, to getting themselves raped, battered or killed. They’ve been blamed for earthquakes, for “inciting” male lust, for killing chivalry and “killing off real men,” for “taking roles intended by God only for men.” Heck, some inventive sorts have even figured out how to blame women for men who are assholes. And this guy has decided that “Black Women are to blame for the disrespect Black Men show towards Black Women.” For endless additional examples, scroll back through the posts and comments here, visit any of the blogs on my “boob roll,” or simply continue living on planet earth.

Back to Matlack, whose generalizations get more surreal by the sentence:

In the locker room, in the bathroom, on the walk out of the board room, in my conversations with men of all kinds, that’s what I hear more than anything. The resignation that to be a man is to be unacceptable at some level to the woman in your life.

Really? Who on earth are you hanging out with? And what women are they hanging out with? Are men other than Tom Matlack and his possibly apocryphal conversational partners actually having conversations like this on a regular basis? If the “woman in your life” basically hates men, what is she doing with you, and what are you doing with her?

One close friend jokes, “When speaking to my wife I always make sure to look at the ground in deference. And I make sure not to make any sudden movements.”

Um, what?

I’ve watched him. He loves his wife.

He’s a very competent human being. But with her he’s decided the only way to survive is to submit. The female view is the right view. The male view just gets you into trouble.

You see what I meant before about the hallucinations, right?

But Matlack suggests there is hope for the poor demure, never-before-heard-from men of the world. Apparently they are starting to open their mouths at last.

It seems that the blame game in the mainstream, whether through the minimization of male life in pop culture or on television or through the continued obsession with men behaving badly, has finally struck a chord with the average guy.

Let’s just pause a moment to reflect on this whole “minimization of male life in pop culture or on television.” Mr. Matlack, do you actually watch movies or television, or visit libraries or anything like that? Most movies revolve around men as the main characters, with women in many cases serving as little more than a love interest or simply as scenery. Have you ever heard of the Bechdel test? Read up on it, run the test on some of your favorite films, and then get back to us on the “minimization of male life in pop culture.”

Now back to Matlack’s manifesto:

We are no longer willing to be blamed for being men. We are no longer willing to avert our gazes and stay silent about our feelings. We are raising our voices and telling our stories in our own male vocabulary.

Yeah, because men have been so utterly silent about their feelings, their opinons, and pretty much everything, up until now.

To women, I assume the response is, “well, it’s about time.” But just remember when we talk it’s not going to sound like a women in a man’s body. It’s gonna be all dude. And you are just going to have to deal with that.

Ladies, prepare yourselves for a lot more Dudesplaining in the near future.  Dudes will be ignored no longer! Dudes!!! DUUUUUDESSS!!!!!!

EDITED TO ADD: Matlack’s gotten some responses on Twitter to his dudely roar; he’s posted a bunch of them here. Guest appearances by Amanda Marcotte and (seriously) Roseanne Barr.

Categories
antifeminism evil women I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy misogyny reactionary bullshit that's not funny!

Maxim explains “How to Cure a Feminist”

Given that we live in a feminazi gynocracy, with evil feminasties controlling all that we see and hear, it’s amazing that something like this ever found its way into print. This is from Maxim, in 2003. I found it here. Click on it to see it full size.

In the interest of accuracy, I would like to note that the woman pictured below might not be an actual feminist, as her armpit hair appears to be fake.

 

From Maxim, 2003.

 

NOTE: This post contains