Categories
antifeminism evil women idiocy misogyny MRA oppressed men rape reactionary bullshit sex

Women wearing makeup, nutshots, toilet seats in the down position, and other signs of male oppression

In my last post, I referred (albeit obliquely) to a discussion taking place in the comments section over on The Frisky about an article called How to Teach Boys to be Feminists. With a title like that, it’s hardly surprising that the topic drew MRAs like, well, I was going to say like flies on shit, but it was more like the other way around. (Even our friend NWOslave made an appearance.)

Reading through the comments, I noticed a couple from a commenter calling himself “Really?” — with a question mark – that laid out point by point why he thinks men are getting the short end of the stick. His points were an equal mixture of wrong and silly. So I decided I would offer point-by-point responses to them all.

If any of you want to fill in more detailed responses to any of his points (or to challenge or correct my points), please do so.

So let’s give the floor to Really?

If you ever think women have it harder in modern society, just think of this:

Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?

Really, Really? You’re going to lead with this? This, to you, is the most salient example of female privilege? My answer: I don’t know because this literally never happens in my life. I put the seat and the lid down because I don’t want things to fall into the toilet.

Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?

Huh? Men complain about women who “want everything” all the time.

Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?

Because these are rights that are reserved only for those who can make babies inside their body. (Women who are infertile, post-menopausal, or transwomen don’t have these rights either.)  When (cis) men develop this ability, they can have the same rights. Remember that pregnant (trans) man? He had the same rights as a pregnant women.

Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?

You actually think that heterosexual men are oppressed by women wearing makeup, showing cleavage and wearing short skirts? Most heterosexual men manage to steal glances at women they find attractive without being a creeper about it. And for the most part, women don’t get upset if a guy looks at them; what’s upsetting is when guys pull up in a car and ask “can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?”

Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?

Who pretends that? Feminists acknowledge that women abuse children. And yes, women do abuse children more than men —  because women, on average, spend much more time caring for children than men. If you adjust for the amount of time spent caring for children, men are more likely to abuse. But it’s not some sort of gender competition here. Abuse is a horrible thing, regardless of the gender of the abuser.

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

I’m guessing for the same reason men initiate divorces: because their marriages are terrible, and they’re miserable. [Citation Needed] for the claim about perjury.

Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?

At the time the bill was passed, people were only just beginning to understand the prevalence of domestic violence towards women. Nonetheless, despite the name of the bill, VAWA is gender neutral, designed to protect male victims as well as female ones.

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman – won’t the man be in more pain?

I don’t know why it’s funny. You’ll have to ask any of the sixteen gazillion guys posting videos on YouTube of themselves getting hit in the nuts, often on purpose.

Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?

No feminist I know thinks this is funny. Here is more information on the subject.

Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?

I know of no feminists who would consider him a wimp; they would consider him to be what he is, a victim of domestic abuse. No one is a criminal for defending themselves; they can be a criminal if they respond with disproportionate violence, responding to a slap by beating their partner unconscious.

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Many of these issues are related to (cis) women’s reproductive health. Men have a smaller number of issues specific to their gender. If men want to help increase awareness of men’s health issues, they are free to organize awareness campaigns just as women have done over the years.

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

[Citation needed]

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

Depends on the club.

If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?

Women do get paid less. That’s simply a fact. The question is why, and that’s complicated. Sexism plays a part. See here.

How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?

The same way they know who to arrest in cases of domestic violence involving heterosexuals: by determining who is primarily responsible for the violence. This may involve collecting witness statements (if there are witnesses), by looking for visible signs of injury and other evidence of violence, and so on. Women – heterosexual women and lesbians alike – are regularly arrested for DV. Sometimes both partners are arrested.

Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?

I’m having a hard time seeing the contradiction here. If a married man doesn’t regularly care for his children, he is less likely to be awarded custody.

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

Women cannot unilaterally decide to cut off visitation. This is something determined by the courts. If a man is denied visitation, there’s generally a good reason for this – he may, for example, be an abuser.

If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?

Feminists don’t actually run the military. Generally, feminists support women’s right to serve in the armed forces, and NOW has petitioned to include women in draft registration. But most feminists I’ve ever met are opposed to the draft for anyone, male or female.

Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else.

Because the ratio of women to men in the sciences is seriously skewed against women; STEM professions are heavily male-dominated. And this is no coincidence: girls and women are often told that women are “naturally” worse at math and science. There is no similar prejudice against men in, say, the liberal arts.

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Child support is intended to help support, er, the children. Women tend to be the primary caregivers, so they are more likely to win custody. When men win custody, child support payments go to them.

Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?

This is a difficult situation, with no easy answers. Courts put the interests of the children first, as they should.

Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?

Do they? I don’t think aid recipients should have to prove what they spent the money on.

Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?

That’s not how Title IX works. It’s intended to give female athletes the same opportunity as male athletes, not to “cut men’s sports.”

Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five – isn’t that equal pay for less work?

Again: Really, Really? You’ll have to take that up with the people handing out the prize money. The amount of money athletes make is pretty arbitrary, largely determined by how popular their sport is, how good their agent is, and what sorts of endorsement deals they get. Female gymnasts work pretty hard. How many of them earn big bucks? There are far more millionaire male athletes than there are women.

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

It’s cheating either way, unless you’re talking about people in open or polyamorous relationships. Who exactly is lionizing female cheaters? Not the show Cheaters, in any case.

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Outside of a few cases in which women who murdered their children were indeed suffering from postpartum psychoses, this is simply not true. Lawyers defending murderers often press for their clients – male or female — to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity, but they rarely win.

Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?

Are there? I doubt it. And if so, what difference does it make? There are various feminist organizations that deal with issues related to motherhood (and parenthood in general) like parental leave. What on earth is your point?

Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?

The fact that there are social problems attributed to fatherlessness does not mean that all fathers should get unfettered access to their children. Divorce is messy, and generally there are good reasons why certain fathers are prohibited from seeing their children. Giving a father who is a child abuser access to his children will not solve any social problems.

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?

Uh, yeah, that’s not how that works. Many divorced men (and some women) pay child support, with the amount determined by the needs of the children and of the non-custodial parent’s ability to pay. This support is meant for the children. Alimony is only awarded in about 15 percent of divorces; roughly 4 percent of alimony recipients are men.

If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?

[Citation needed]

Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?

Because the person who initiates the divorce is not necessarily the person who has “walked out” of the relationship.

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

There are a number of networks aimed mostly at men. While sexist shows are often criticized for being sexist, the idea of appealing to a specific demographic isn’t terribly controversial.

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Are they? The wife on King of Queens is a bit of a shrew, isn’t she? And Kevin James is the star of the show, isn’t he? (Newsflash: comedians often portray buffoons.) In any case, feminists generally aren’t big fans of shows that reinforce old stereotypes about the genders – including the buffoon dad and the humorless mom.  Every feminist I know is appalled by the new sitcom Whitney, which reinforces a lot of old stereotypes, many of them misandrist.

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Huh? Comedians say misogynistic things all the time.

Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?

These are getting weirder and weirder.  I can only assume you’re talking about women who choose to be stat-at-home moms (or whose husbands choose this for them). Women who do this are more likely to be traditionalist than feminist. Every feminist I know wants men to have the same option to be a stay-at-home dad. That’s why feminists push for better parental leave, not simply better maternal leave.

Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Feminists want women to have the same employment opportunities as men. Women have in fact fought to get into dirty, dangerous fields heavily dominated by men, like mining, for example. (Darksidecat could give you more on this.)

In a second post, Really? asked a bunch more questions. As you’ll see, they got sillier and sillier as he continued:

Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

You don’t “have” to say anything. You can say whatever you want, though people might look at you funny if you were to call a female chairperson a “chairman.” As for “bad guy,” well, men make up the overwhelming majority of criminals (in real life) and villains (in movies, TV, and fiction generally), so it’s not altogether shocking that the term used to refer to the baddies is gendered in this way. You don’t have to use the phrase if you don’t want.

Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?

Huh? Could you give examples of this (that don’t involve the Titanic)? When talking about wars, people generally use the phrase “innocent civilians.”

Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?

[Citation needed]

Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?

The issue of shared parenting is complicated, and it’s often not the best option for the children. Generally speaking, the person who was the primary caregiver gets primary custody, and this makes sense to me. If more men were stay-at-home-dads, men would get primary custody more often. Every feminist l know is supportive of stay-at-home dads.

Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?

Huh? Could you give an example? I think it largely depends not on gender but what the parent in question is angry about – whether they were angry because of cutbacks at their kids’ school, or because they’re an asshole  with a giant sense of entitlement. Angry asshole mothers need anger management classes as much as their male counterparts.

Why is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?

I’m going to let Don Draper respond to this one for me.

Onward:

Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?

Gross generalizations about men and women are sexist no matter who says them. But anyone can criticize individual men or women – or groups of men and/or women who hold specific beliefs – without being considered sexist.

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?

What on earth are you talking about?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Because our legal system works in the open, the names of accused criminals (regardless of gender, regardless of crime) are made public. In the case of rape, accusers are often demonized and shamed and threatened, so we protect their identities. Or try to: in many cases their names have been made public. Accused criminals who win acquittal can move on with their lives; in some cases where the jury’s verdict is controversial, like OJ Simpson’s not guilty verdict, they may be seen as guilty by many people. The law has no control over people’s opinions.

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

[Citation needed.]

Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?

Uh, yeah. Very few MRAs suggest merely that we “consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change.” Instead, they write out long crazy lists like yours, attempting to portray men as horribly oppressed slaves at the hands of evil feminazi matriarchs. When MRAs set aside this nonsense and bring up specific issues that affect men disproportionally or exclusively, like circumcision, they generally are taken much more seriously.

If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?

Feminists don’t “always side with women,” whatever that means. They have raised a number of  issues that affect women disproportionately or exclusively, and tried to win some redress. Feminists also work on initiatives that help both men and women, like parental leave, as I mentioned earlier. Whatever political power feminists have stem from years and years of organizing and lobbying. Other groups – like Christian conservatives, who are generally antifeminist – have also won themselves a degree of power through organizing and lobbying. (Do you remember that whole debate about Planned Parenthood?) Men’s Rights Activists are free to do the same.

For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?

Dude, did you really just ask that?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

Uh, maybe because they still are more privileged, a fact readily apparent to everyone who doesn’t live in MRAland.

Categories
anti-Semitism antifeminism evil women manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy rape reactionary bullshit the spearhead violence against men/women

Violence against women? Blame it on feminism, says W. F. Price

This slogan is apparently what CAUSES violence against women.

Another day, another apologia for male violence from the Men’s Rights crowd. This time the apologist is W. F. Price at The Spearhead, who uses several recent news stories involving violent men as an excuse to attack feminism.

Repeated provocations against men, systematic discrimination against men, and state-sanctioned debt slavery are starting to have the inevitable effect. In a triumph for the feminist movement, men are lashing out violently against women, fulfilling the feminist fantasy of a gender war.

In the old days, everything was (presumably) peachy keen between the sexes. Then along came the feminists, and all hell broke loose. Those “take back the night” marches feminists love so much? They’re just red flags to the bulls – that is, our society’s ample stock of “mentally unstable and out-of-luck men.” You don’t want to make these guys mad!

[W]omen were encouraged to be militant against all males, which can only have unfortunate results, given the hands-down male superiority in combat. …

In other words, the fact that there are violent men out there is why women shouldn’t complain about violent men. Presumably the only marches women should be organizing would be “No, Go Ahead, You Keep the Night” marches. Don’t want to offend those rapists –that’ll just make them even rapier than usual!

According to Price, though, feminists actually like violence against women — because it keeps them in business.

For feminism to exist as a valid movement, there must be violent conflict, so many of the efforts of feminists have sought to provoke just that. … You see, for a feminist to justify her job there must be some degree of brutality against women. … So, if you are a feminist, the hapless women murdered or assaulted by the damaged men feminists have created are necessary sacrifices for advancing the feminist agenda.

So not only do the feminists provoke these “damaged men” – they created them in the first place, by being so feministy.

Wouldn’t this whole provoke-the-men strategy make life more dangerous for feminist women as well? No, because feminists are all rich ladies, and everyone knows that rich ladies are never beaten or raped or murdered:

[W]e all know that feminism has never been about the typical woman who lives a humble life, but rather the ambitious elite who want to have access to the big boys and big money on Capitol Hill and Wall Street. … Disadvantaged women are truly the cannon fodder of feminists.

So what “proof” does Price offer for his claim that men are “lashing out” at women because of feminism? He cites three news stories: one dealing with a woman-hating trucker who’s accused of killing several prostitutes; another involving a man who went on a shooting rampage at a church, killing his wife and wounding two others; and finally, the case of James Ray Palmer, the Arkansas man who shot up the offices of the judge who’d handled his divorce and custody case more than a decade earlier. (I wrote about his case here.)

How do these cases relate to feminism? You’ll have to ask Price, because none of the news stories suggest any connection, and Price doesn’t explain why he thinks there is one. True, the trucker is said to be a misogynist, but misogyny is far more ancient than feminism.  Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the church shooter was angry at any women other than his wife.

In the case of Palmer, there may be an indirect connection, if it turns out that he was influenced by the angry, violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights movement. As I pointed out in my post on Palmer, many in the MRM have made a martyr out of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide on the steps of a courthouse, leaving behind an manifesto that urged men to literally burn down police stations — and courthouses. It is certainly conceivable that Palmer’s courthouse rampage was inspired by this sort of rhetoric.

But to blame feminism for any of this is ass-backwards. Feminism is a response to misogyny, not its cause. To blame feminism for violence against women is a bit like blaming Jews for provoking the Holocaust. (Forgive me, Godwin; it was the clearest analogy.)

Price ends his piece by urging women to, in effect, shut up and fix him a sandwich:

Women’s best bet for security is not in denouncing and fighting men, as feminists would have it, but in cooperating with them and taking on their proper role.

Then he ends with a weird coda suggesting that feminists should be locked up for having the temerity to speak up in the first place:

The United States will once again be a righteous society only when feminists are jailed for interfering with families, and their academic apologists are removed by security from their jobs in taxpayer-funded educational institutions. This would be the most humane course of action to take. Far more humane, in fact, than provoking men and women to physically attack one another, as feminists would have it today so that they can unleash state agents on confused and demoralized families.

I didn’t have the stomach to read all of the comments responding to Price’s argument, such as it is. But here are some highlights – lowlights, really – of the highly upvoted comments I did read.

The ironically named Anti Idiocy seconds Price’s basic argument:

Anger against feminism has been building for years. As the men’s rights movement has gained momentum, feminists and their lackeys have doubled down and become more virulent in their anti-male hatred and propaganda. Women today are becoming more and more nasty on an interpersonal basis, and they are doing so more frequently. A breakpoint will come. It will probably take a catalyst; another severe economic downturn might do it. But it will come. Feminists and their pet femboys will push things until it does.

Wait. If the Men’s Rights movement is, in effect, provoking feminists to get more feministy, then wouldn’t (by Price’s logic) the allegedly increased violence be the fault of the MRAs?

Rod worries that in the case of a real gender war, men might actually lose – all because of those darned “white knights” and their reluctance to beat up the ladies:

I’m afraid that if it ever came down to a real physical war between the sexes, men would unfortunately lose. There are too many men who can’t stand the sight of men harming women, and would immediately step in to save them. Perhaps nature instilled in us a visceral reaction to women’s suffering, making us want to step in and help, and at one time in the history of our species, that reaction was no doubt a salutary thing. Now it just works against us.

Antiphon, meanwhile, blames it all on the Jews. Or, more specifically, the Jewesses, who apparently control the feminist movement in the same way that their husbands control the banks.

Needless to say, this being The Spearhead, Antiphon’s comment has three times as many upvotes as downvotes. Apparently, the only thing worse than a feminist is a Jewish feminist.

I guess my Nazi analogy earlier in this post wasn’t so out of place after all.

 

Categories
antifeminism idiocy MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit reddit

Dude Antebellum

We need a Godwin’s Law expansion pack to deal with white dudes who compare their lives with that of slaves in the Antebellum south. Well, for those who compare their lives to slaves without concluding: “Wow, my life is really much, much better than that of a slave. For example, I am not enslaved!” That’s not, alas, the conclusion drawn by this spelling-challenged Men’s Rights Redditor:  

Edited to add: BTW, I found this quote via ShitRedditSays, best subreddit EVAR!

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit

Stop your sobbing (or expect to get paid less, ladies)

Quit it with the waterworks, lady!

I’ll give Sofia, the antifeminist bloggress behind the blog Sofiastry, credit for one thing: unlike a lot of Men’s Rightsers, she doesn’t deny that there is a wage gap between men and women. She just thinks that it’s justified – that women should be paid less.

Why? Well, I admit I don’t quite understand her explanation, which has something to do with women getting worse grades in school, working less, and, well, whatever the hell she’s trying to say here:

women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.

Oh, and because, like Barbie, women think that math class is tough:

can it not simply be reduced to the fact that the average man has more of of an aptitude for finance and numbers than the average woman?

No, I’m pretty sure it can’t.

In a followup post, Sofia raised a critical issue that she somehow had overlooked in her earlier analysis: women are a bunch of blubbering crybabies.

I couldn’t count on one hand the number of times a female co-worker cried on the job (myself included), but I couldn’t name a single male (homosexuals excluded & even then…). Women are more emotional, more likely to take days off for such reasons (or no reason) and quantifiably put in less hours on the job. Depending on the field, I’d also wager that women are less likely to revolutionize an industry or make the same amount of exceptional contributions men do.

Seriously, gal. Don’t be a bunch of Lady-Boehners. Stop all of your sobbing! (Oh, oh oh.)

Categories
antifeminism reactionary bullshit reddit

Yeah, well you’re a big meanie!

He's planning to bite you.

Comment of the day, from an angry antifeminist in ShitRedditSays who seems a bit obsessed with, if confused by, the sex lives of animals. Well, two comments, actually. The first:

It’s hilarious how reliably the feminist creature will resort to insulting a male’s sexuality. When cornered, it is like a vicious weasel, scratching at the only vulnerability it knows, in desperation of its wretched circumstance.

What’s even more hilarious is how likely it is that you all have the sex lives of a fucking snail.

And a followup:

I am no more concerned with a rancid female supremacist’s opinion on my sanity than I would be of a goldfish’s perspective on the world outside its bowl. You live a twisted, fucked up existence, devoid of reason and love. Your whole world is consumed by hatred of men and society, justifying your dementia by paddling about with other complete mental cases in this joke subreddit, all of you thoroughly skull fucked by evil rabid animals that pollute our universities under the guise of “professors” of various social “science” gibberish.

Um, why exactly would an evil rabid animal (even a vicious weasel) want to skull-fuck a rancid goldfish, even assuming it could? Wouldn’t it just go around biting everyone? I would, and I’m not even rabid.

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism bad boys evil women hypocrisy incel men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA nice guys oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit the spearhead thug-lovers

Gödwindämmerung: Women who won’t date nerds are like Pol Pot

Note to angry dudes: Women not wanting to date you is not the equivalent of this.

There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.

And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.

Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:

The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields.  Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man.  This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields.  Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence.  That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses.  If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.

He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.

So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.

WAN continues:

[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar.  The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now.  Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”.  As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt.  She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world.  … 

Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:

Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.

This type of thinking is widespread among women.  …

[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things.  While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking.  Anything has got to be better than this.

So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.

I couldn’t make this shit up.

Categories
creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny penises reactionary bullshit reddit sex

Oh, Reddit, must you be so, so creepy?

From Reddit's Pics Subreddit. Stay classy, Reddit!

No time for a full post today, but I just thought I’d draw your attention to what may be the creepiest fucking Reddit thread I’ve ever seen. (In the past week, anyway.) It’s a discussion in the Pics subreddit of the picture at right here, titled Biggest fear of having a daughter.

A Redditor called SeeingYouHating has assembled a sort of “best-of” — by which I mean “worst-of” — compilation of the creepiest comments in the thread, many of which have, yep, dozens of upvotes.

Enjoy?

Categories
antifeminism evil women idiocy manginas masculinity misogyny MRA patriarchy rape rapey reactionary bullshit

Alcuin in Wonderland

The Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy: One big sandwich joke.

At first glance, Alcuin’s blog would seem to be some sort of parody. The blog’s slogan – “Promoting the Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy” – seems so over-the-top pretentious that even the smuggest of would-be intellectuals wouldn’t be able to post it with a straight face.

But if Alcuin is a troll, he’s a dedicated one, and one (at least based on my less-than-exhaustive survey of his blog) who never seems to break character.  So I’m assuming he’s real. Which makes him a pompous ass with a lot of irritating ideas he’s somehow convinced himself are new and interesting. Take (please!) his recent post “Back Where They Belong.” And yes, “they” mean who you think, and “where they belong” means where you think.

Men should run the government, business, education, and religion. Women should stay at home. Young unmarried women can briefly work as kindergarten and elementary teachers, but there are no reasons why men can’t usually do this as well.

I’m not sure if Alcuin understands that women actually hold most of the jobs that currently exist, and that removing virtually all of them from the workplace would cause the economy to implode like, well, Alcuin, if you suddenly removed all of his idiocy. Also, how many kindergarten teachers do we really need?

As long as women run things, men will continue to be sidelined and slandered because feminism is a zero-sum movement.

Women … run things?

There can be no peace between the sexes until women are back where they belong. The sexes are meant to complement each other rather than compete and put one another down.

Yes, and the best way to show how the sexes “are meant to complement each other rather than … put one another down” is for one of the sexes to, er, put the other down by sending them back into the home.

Women have no business being lawyers, judges, educators, doctors, bureaucrats, writers, or religious leaders. Their attempted leadership in these areas, an illegitimate coup d’etat, is destroying our society.

I agree. Lady Pope is doing a terrible job of dealing with all those abuse cases!

Sadly, they prefer to enjoy their present situation, and let society rot, than go back where they belong and participate in building things again. Much like enjoying the concert on the sinking Titanic – though in this case, don’t expect chivalrous men to jump into the cold water so the ladies can have space on the lifeboats.

A little Titanic humor always enlivens a dull rant, eh?

Knock knock!

Who’s there!

An iceberg!

Damn, I guess we shouldn’t have kept going in zero visibility in a part of the ocean where icebergs had been recently sighted, in our ship that doesn’t have enough lifeboats for everyone!

I crack myself up sometimes. Back to Alcuin:

Feminism is a hate movement that brings out the worst in women.

Unlike the Men’s Rights movement, a hate movement that brings out the best in men!

It hates women because it hates femininity and motherhood, the chief characteristics of what it means to be a genuine woman. It brings out the worst in women by turning them into men, or trying to masculate them.

Damn you, feminism! Don’t go masculating those ladies! First they want to wear pants, and the next thing you know they’re growing ironic mustaches and using Axe Detailers instead of loofahs and subscribing to Bass Fishing Monthly.

It hates men because it blames everything on men, and regards masculinity in men to be evil. It emasculates men at the same time. Gays and, much more secondarily, manginas, are somewhat acceptable to the gynocracy, especially when the furniture needs moving or some bitch can’t pay her own bills.

Because when you need furniture moved, or some money, you call … the gays? Is this some new gay stereotype I’m not aware of? I mean, manginas, sure, manginas are furniture-movers and money-to-bitches conduits extraordinaire. That’s how they get access to pussy, after all.

But what’s the incentive for the gays?  They don’t need pussy; they’d, presumably, prefer to spend their money on tiny dogs and gym memberships than on some bitch’s bills; and while gays may have strong opinions about where the furniture should go, are they really interested in carrying it there themselves?

Women generally use men, and feminism continues this grand tradition. A man’s value is defined according to his use to women. Deeper than that, feminism regards men in the same way that the Nazis regarded Jews – men are Untermensch and cannot be granted the same rights and privileges that women are.

And … now we’ve got Nazis.

Feminism aims to bring men down, as it is a zero-sum movement. It doesn’t simply aim to improve the lot of women through, for instance, education, but seeks to exclude men from education.

It does? Last I heard, colleges were actually lowering their standards in order to enroll more guys.

Thus the current propaganda about campus rape, and the attempt to make it easier to accuse a university male of rape in the USA. Thanks, government. You are, once again, the handmaiden of misandry.

And handmaidens are bad. Not like Shieldmaidens.

Feminist hate will never be satisfied, so men can’t keep avoiding the issue. We must avoid feminism as much as we can, and educate each other about it and about alternatives.

Generally it is advisable to actually know something about something before trying to “educating” other people about it.

This intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy business is a lot trickier than you might think.

Categories
antifeminism evil women man boobz fun time videos misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit self-promotion we hunted the mammoth

And the We Hunted the Mammoth Award goes to …

Ow! Guys, quit it!

 I didn’t bother to watch the VMAs last night, but something in the air has led me to want to give out some awards of my own. So: the coveted Man Boobz “We Hunted the Mammoth” Award this month goes to some comments from MRA oddball Uncle Elmer on women in the workplace that were recently highlighted on the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog. They are, of course, magnificently stupid.

Without further ado, here are some of the choicer bits of Elmer’s rant.

Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. …

Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. … Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. …

No woman can or will provide me or any man employment, yet all western women feel entitled to help and opportunities from men, even as they drive men out of the workplace.

[W]orkplace women are your enemy. They cannot help you but can and will hurt you. Do not look at them, do not talk to them.

And now the “we hunted the mammoth” moment:

Females want to inhabit man-created business structures as if those structures existed before man appeared on the veldt. … When you have pushed the last man out of the corporation it will collapse under its own dead weight.

And while I’m handing out awards, I’d like to give the Man Boobz Whaaaa?! Award for the strangest, dumbest and least true thing said about me in the past week to Wytchfinde (presumably the same guy who used to comment here as Wytchfinde555), who posted this strange and not-altogether-grammatical comment on my latest YouTube video (which you should all go watch if you haven’t already).

David Futrelle is an opportunist that pretends to worship white women (which is true to a certain extent) helps just fuel more fire for hating men.

Whaaaa?!

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women bullying evil women oppressed men rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts

Slutwalkers and Saints

Saint ... or sinner?

The SlutWalks have not just driven many MRAs to distraction; they’ve also driven one of the bloggers at the Gates of Vienna to set aside her usual Islam-bashing for a few moments to take on the awful bullies marching in the SlutWalks. Yes, bullies, for how else can we describe young women who go out of their way to highlight their foul sexiness whilst denying their bodies to the helpless males who happen to catch sight of them?

According to the blogger who calls herself Dymphna:

Women who walk around in slutty clothing in order to “voice” their opinion about male sexual aggression are indeed acting out a hugely immature power trip. … Call it for what it is. Strutting your stuff and daring anyone to stop you isn’t real freedom. It’s a sneaking, sadistic bully-girl game.

So evil is the behavior of these slutbullies that if any man decides, upon catching sight of one of them, to grope or otherwise assault her, well, she’s at least as much to blame as the dude who lays his hands on her.

If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result.

Dymphna seems to mean this quite literally, suggesting that a slut who gets assaulted should be charged

as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.

Ironically, Dymphna the blogger has apparently named herself after Saint Dymphna, a 7th century Irishwoman who, legend has it, was murdered by her father after she refused to marry him.

In the light of Dymphna the blogger’s airtight logic, we have to wonder if Saint Dymphna was wearing something really, really slutty. I mean, what else could have inspired her father’s foul desires?