Misogynists also like to remain anonymous when they make terrible jokes
Time for a little quiz!
Who posted comments online in which he (or she) declared that:
“Sluts are just whores in training.”
“Women look at 2 bulges on a man, one in the front of the pants or second one in the back pocket. Whichever one is bigger, they can do without the other.”
“What’s the most used line in Arkansas: daddy get off me you are crushing my cigarettes.”
Female college students are “sororostutes.”
Women expect special treatment because of their “golden vajay jays”
So Twitter is a bit depressing today. One of the trending hashtags at the moment is #LiesToldByFemales and, yes, it’s the misogynistic cesspool that you might expect, a vast assortment of not-very-original stereotypes about women — sorry, females — and their allegedly lying ways. The female-bashing tweeters — some of them female themselves — aren’t even terribly original in their complaints, and most of the tweets seem to be reworkings on a few very basic themes.
We have the good-old fashioned trope of the female-as-narcissist, forever obsessed with how she looks — and given to lying about how much work she puts into her appearance.
Longtime readers of Man Boobz will have noticed that most of the pickup artists and “game” gurus I write about here are also vociferous slut-shamers.
This might seem a little odd and, well, counterproductive, in that you might expect that men who enjoy having no-strings-attached sex with a large number of women would in fact be kindly disposed towards women who enjoy having no-strings-attached sex with a large number of men.
So I’ve been reading a bit more in the Evo Psych literature — some of the alleged classics in the field that most Manospherians seem to have either read or absorbed by osmosis. I’m learning a lot about the dubious “science” underlying many of the Manosphere’s most cherished beliefs.
But I’m a little worried for my own intellectual safety, because I see so much clear evidence around me that reading too much Evo Psych can turn one’s brain to mush.
Consider the example of rmaxgenactivepua, the Evo-Psych-addled gentleman who writes the blog “Rejecting Modern Women: Pickup & Advanced NLP & Charisma Behaviourial Conversational Strategic Technologies.” Specifically, consider the recent post of his that asks the grammatically confusing question: “Is It Possible For Women To Be A Healthy Promiscous [sic] Woman?”
I’m just going to quote the whole damn thing because, yikes:
To definitively answer that question, is a woman biologically designed or hardwired to be promiscous
Are there any biological co-factors which support a womans ability to be promiscous?
A womans vagina is a massive breeding grounding for std’s, making it highly unsuitable & dangerous for sleeping with multiple men
Women have a highly short period of fertility. only 10 years of fertility, less if theyre in bad shape
Women have a limited amount of eggs
Plus women dont have the emotional blocking abilities of men
The real kicker is, women are only capable of having one mans child at a time
If women were meant to be polygamous, they’d be able to carry multiple children of multiple men
Making it ludicrous to assume women are polygamous, it’s laughably ridiculous to assume women are polygamous when theyre own biology isnt even capable of reproducing polygamously
Men on the other hand are designed from the ground up to impregnate millions of women, they reproduce over millions of sperm a day, & can impregnate 100′s of women
In fact one man, men are so efficient at reproducing with hundreds of women, one man could repopulate an entire civilisation if he wanted to, thanks to his production of millions of sperm
One woman on the other hand, couldnt populate her own ass, let alone a shoe box or a cat litter tray …
Proving a woman isnt anywhere near designed to be a slut, FACT
Well, yeah, I guess if you make up a rule that states women can’t have sex for pleasure with multiple partners unless they’re biologically capable of giving birth simultaneously to children sired by all these different partners, then women aren’t designed to be “sluts.”
Then again if you can simply make up your own rules like this, you can prove pretty much anything. If I decide that men can’t be polygamous unless they are simultaneously holding their breath underwater and on fire, I guess I’ve proved that men can’t be sluts either.
FACT!
Oh, and while it’s true that a cis man with healthy sperm could (in theory) repopulate an entire civilization, there are some women who are giving men a run for their money in this department.
Over on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog, a dude who calls himself Tuthmosis has provided a useful list of “24 Signs She’s A Slut” in order to help aspiring PUAs to figure out whether or not the HB 6 they’ve been negging all night is going to eventually succumb to their drunken, er, “charms.”
Much of the list is basically rehashed PUA conventional wisdom: sluts have tattoos and lots of piercings; they dye their hair unnatural colors, wear revealing clothes, and have daddy issues.
PUAs really have a thing about women with tattoos, huh?
So the Red Pill subreddit, as you may recall, is a place for dudes to discuss the devious and possibly not altogether ethical or even consensual strategies they’ve come up with to … have sex with anyone they want. But their real goal is not just to have sex, but to control other people’s opinions and thoughts of them doing so. They want to silence all critics, and then even demand praise for their morally reprehensible or at least morally questionable actions.
Woah. It feels like my brain was just taken over for a second. Did I even write that? I don’t think I did. I swear I’ve read most of that paragraph before.
Oh wait.
Oh yeah. That’s where it came from. I must have been possessed.
The Red Pill subreddit, where lying to women to get them into bed is perfectly acceptable but a woman having consensual sex is a reprehensible, narcissistic slattern with a gymnastic hamster for a brain.
Men’s Rights Edmonton doing important human rights work by protesting Slut Walk
Our old nemesis Fidelbogen — the Would-Be Counter-Feminist Philosopher King — has taken on a dire, if altogether hypothetical, threat to the men’s rights movement as we know it today: the danger that actual activism that benefits men in the real world will get in the way of the feminist bashing that he thinks is job #1 for all good MRAs.
Doing good things for men – opening DV shelters, men’s centers, passing male-friendly laws, and so on – is all very excellent and fine, but it does not attack the root of the problem.
This is kind of a remarkable statement for him to make, given that the Men’s Rights movement that Fidelbogen has attached himself to — or at least its very vocal online contingent — has so far succeeded in opening precisely zero DV shelters and/or men’s centers and has successfully lobbied for zero “male-friendly” laws.
Indeed, it’s only in recent months that any MRAs active online have managed to raise even a miniscule percentage of the money it will take to open much less operate a single shelter for men.
But apparently Fidey is worried that even these paltry efforts from MRAs will get in the way of the noble task of yelling about feminists. As he puts it, in LARGE BOLD TYPE so you know he’s extra serious:
Fidey, I don’t think you need to worry for a minute that MRAs are going to actually accomplish anything in the real world. And you can quote me on that,
Don’t let the books fool you — these gals are up to no good!
So the high school freshman who calls himself Bostonian42 is thinking ahead to college. And he’s got questions. Well, actually just one question, which he’s asking people about every college he’s interested in: is this college full of sluts? Because if it is, he wants none of it.
Sounds like he may want to avoid whatever college it is that Amanda here is going to. (See here for more from this inadvertantly hilarious comic book.)
(Thanks to @MaraWritesStuff on Twitter for alerting the world to Boston42’s noble quest.)
(Oh, and I guess I’m back to posting again, though my posts may be a little light for awhile.)
Better than spending an evening with Firepower, I suspect.
I’ve heard tell that some Pickup Artists aren’t actually misogynistic pieces of shit. Unfortunately, I keep running across guys like Firepower here, whose blog I discovered only yesterday, and purely by accident (though evidently I’ve quoted him off the Spearhead a couple of times before)
Here he is doing some wonderful PR work for his fellow PUAs, defending them (and himself) against accusations that they treat women like “disposable blow-up dolls.” Not so, says Firepower:
I’ve found my new favorite Men’s Rights Redditor. Brand new, really, as gonemgtow’s account is only two days old. This comment, his very first, is so loopy — yet also so true to manosphere ideology — that I can’t help but suspect that it’s an inspired hoax — and possibly even the work of one of the old banned trolls here. (I have one in particular in mind.) If not, wow.
I’ve taken the liberty of breaking his wall o’ text into readable paragraphs. Enjoy. Oh, if you’re at work, don’t read this out loud, as it starts off with a bang, NSFW-wise.
