We Hunted The MammothMore proof that Reddit will believe pretty much any story, so long as it makes a woman – sorry, “female” – look bad. Even if there is some tiny kernel of truth in this story from AskReddit , there is zero chance that it went down exactly (or even vaguely) as described by Mr. Kickass. Redditors are terrible writers of fiction, especially when their fictions masquerade as fact.
Oh, and there are plenty more comments castigating this probably-imaginary woman.
After hearing a misogynist make some rancid generalization about women based on the terrible behavior of one particular woman, it’s hard not to respond by saying “not all women are like that.” Misogynists hear this so often, and evidently see it as so hilarious, that they’ve invented their own little acronym for the phrase: NAWALT. You’ll find this all the time on MRA sites, along with its sister acronym NAFALT, with “feminists” in the place of “women.”
Many MRAs seem to believe that simply repeating one or another of these acronyms is an effective, and highly witty, rebuttal to their critics. Because to them it is self-evident: All women, all feminists, ARE like that.
So imagine the pleasure I felt when I finally ran across an MRA-ish fellow challenging this conventional wisdom. On his blog la prensa, the regular Spearhead commenter known as Boxer makes this controversial claim:
It is a popular misconception which men hold on to which suggests all women are the same. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, my pleasure lasted only as long as it took to read these two sentences. Because then Boxer went on to explain just what he meant by this:
For example: Some women are whores, and others are even trashier than whores. Some women live in houses where the litter boxes overflow and the pungent aroma of catshit lingers lovingly in the air. Other women are allergic to cats, and their houses carry the stench of human feces, rotting food and the cheap perfumes they douse themselves in.
Apparently Boxer has never been invited into any woman’s house, and bases most of his opinions of the fair sex on reruns of Hoarders.
Men will center themselves upon these notable differences, and mistakenly assume that the diversity of individual women points to differences in the way individual women behave. Such high-minded fools usually learn the hard way, when the woman decides to “cash out” with the help of the state and its family law courts, who are always eager to liquidate a lifetime of male planning and work, dividing it between themselves and the cunt which the fool so stupidly married.
See yesterday’s post for more on women and their apparently insatiable hunger for D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
The foolish man, confronted by a mountain of inescapable evidence that every woman, from his mother and sister down to the bitch who empties the trashcan in his office, is a trashy slut, will immediately construct an intricate conspiracy theory between his ears. ‘Yes,’ the dumbass tells himself, ‘all the women I have ever known were and are trashy skanks, but that’s just because western society has brainwashed all the women in my own vicinity with its toxic headpoison.”
I am actually pretty sure my mom is not a slut. (Though I have heard that Las Vegas is full of them.)
This mangina will be aided along in his misconception by other manginas and white knights, often falling in with a disgruntled lot on various loser’s hangouts, in real life or on the internet. Often these men get “yellow fever”, and fly off to some third world shitheap to marry (again) in an effort to find that one precious snowflake who is not a third rate whore among the billions and billions of cunts on planet earth who prove their utter worthlessness on a daily basis.
Oh dear. I think Boxer is about to add a heaping helping of racism on top of his misogyny sundae.
It is true that Asian bitches tend to be slimmer and more intelligent than those in the white and black camps, but that just means they are more cunning, and better able to exploit the chumps who delude themselves into thinking that marrying and serving an oriental master is somehow “better” than being the slave of a homegrown American cunt.
Huh. Honestly, that wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting. Though after nearly two years of intense study of the manosphere, I have some pretty high standards for offensiveness.
For all their variety, bitches’ behavior is uniformly lousy, and in that regard, all women are indeed like that. Yes, all of them, all around the world. This is not a war, it is something more analogous to an organized deer hunt, and you are the prey. For god’s fuck’n sake, quit marrying these slits already.
And so we circle back around to “all women ARE like that.”
Still, I have to say I agree with Boxer’s final sentence. Dudes, if you believe any of this crap, please do not marry women. Or, really, have any contact with them whatsoever. Frankly, I’d suggest that you find yourself a nice uninhabited island – like, say, this one – and move there posthaste. You’ll be much happier, and so will the rest of us.
Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.
Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”
The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.
So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.
Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.
Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:
I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.
Sassy6519 agreed:
That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.
And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!
As Walsh put it in a comment:
The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.
Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.
Ian Ironwood agreed with her analysis, more or less, but urged his fellow dudes to exploit the situation for their own advantage:
Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.
Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.
Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.
Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:
[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:
“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”
And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.
You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …
If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)
You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.
Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.
EDITED TO ADD: I added a quote from Walsh.
You may have heard of, if you haven’t already seen, the stupefyingly terrible film The Room. The film is so bafflingly inept and nonsensical that you’re hardly surprised to learn that writer, director, and star Tommy Wiseau had never made a film before; indeed, you might find yourself wondering if he’d ever even seen a film before.
The Room (released, barely, in 2003 and available on DVD) is a mawkishly melodramatic, and deadly serious, drama about a man betrayed by his fiancee, which Wiseau has been trying to market as a quirky comedy because no one can watch the film without laughing at his hero’s travails. Rent The Room if you want to stare dumbfounded at your TV for an hour and a half some night. Seriously, rent it.
Seeing it for myself the first time not long ago, I was struck by the manosphere-style misogyny that pervades almost every frame of the movie. It’s not an MRA film, and Wiseau is no MRA, but somehow he manages to encapsulate every terrible stereotype about men and women that most MRAs seem to believe.
The film tells the sad story of Johnny (played by Wiseau), a good-hearted, long-haired banker with an unclassifiable accent who is betrayed at work (he doesn’t get his expected promotion) and, more importantly, by his “future wife” Lisa, who blithely cheats on him with his best friend.
Lisa is portrayed like the evil bitch villain in nearly every MRA urban legend: she’s a self-absorbed twit who, in addition to cheating on Johnny, falsely accuses him of domestic violence and fakes a pregnancy just to fuck with him.
Johnny, meanwhile, is supposed to be seen as a loyal, helpful, compassionate man who cares deeply about his friends and treats his adored “future wife” Lisa like the princess he tells her she is.
I say “supposed to” because Johnny is hardly the great guy Wiseau thinks he is. For one thing, everything he does and says is bit … off, as if his body has been taken over by a space alien who’s learned everything he knows about women (and human interaction in general) by reading comments on Reddit and watching Christopher Walken as “The Continental” on Saturday Night Live without getting the joke.
For another, he’s a rage-filled narcissist with a bad case of “nice guy” entitlement and absolutely no self-awareness. When his friend Mark tells him about a woman beaten so badly she ends up in the hospital, he responds with a hearty laugh. (“What a story, Mark!”) And when he confronts Lisa about her false accusations of domestic violence (“You are lying! I never hit you!”), he angrily shoves her down onto a couch. It doesn’t seem to occur to Johnny (or to Wiseau) that this too is a form of domestic violence.
When, after learning of Lisa’s betrayal, he trashes their apartment and [SPOILER ALERT] kills himself with a conveniently located pistol, Wiseau presents it as the ultimate comeuppance to the cruel Lisa.
While you have to see the whole film to truly appreciate its epic badness, the following clips will give you some idea of what I’ve been talking about.
First, the trailer, which tries its best to cover up the film’s true weirdness:
The infamous “roof scene” in which Johnny tells Mark (the guy Lisa is sleeping with) about Lisa’s accusations of domestic violence:
A compilation of some of Johnny’s best (i.e. worst) moments:
This one (ignore the misleading title) gives you some idea of Lisa’s oblivious evilness:
Here’s Hitler reacting to the film. (Note: Not the real Hitler.)
And here, if you dare, is the whole damn movie in its entirely. (If you’re pressed for time, you may want to fast forward through the film’s five completely unerotic sex scenes, set to the worst slow jams ever recorded.)
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and here’s the scene the gif above is from. Johnny is the most efficient flower buyer and pug-petter in the world.
Just look at this blatant burro misandry I found on Tumblr!
The Biblio-Donkey. This is an initiative by a teacher named Luis Soriano Borges, who travels through the most distant and hidden villages of Colombia to bring books to children. The male donkey is named Beto and the female is Alfa.
That’s right! Alfa and Beto! Just look at that alpha bitch burra marching along, so smug and carefree, while that poor beta trudges along behind her, forced to stare at that hot burra ass he will never have! And you just know that the slut burra is totally riding the alpha ass cock carousel.
NOTE: In all seriousness, what Borges is doing is awesome.
So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:
Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?
As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.
I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.
This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.
Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.
But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:
Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.
Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:
Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.
So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.
No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.
For example, you can just call them sluts:
Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.
Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:
Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.
You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:
Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …
Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.
What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:
Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.
Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,
I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.
Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.
Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?
Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!
I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!
NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.
—
This post contained some
Men of America! You face a grave threat today: Evil feminist slutwalkers are working tirelessly to enslave men by conning them into marrying secret porn-star whores! Over on The Spearhead, an unnamed “Featured Guest” explains the whole dastardly scheme in a post with the intriguing title “Whore is just a label.”
With slutwalkers working hard to remove the stigma of sex for women, you see,
young women in porn face far less stigma than they ever have. So much so that for that young women the leap from wanton behavior at a drunken college party to getting double teamed followed by a full facial in a porn shoot may not be a far leap at all.
Exactly. Because if you’re going to be having sex anyway, why not do it on camera with strangers?
The dollars and cents is that you have a huge growth porn industry demanding a huge number of sex workers who blend invisibly into the population because there is no longer any stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession.
Wait, I thought that prostitution was the world’s oldest profession. I guess porn and prostitution are the same thing now?
Not that it matters, because if you’re a man the evil ladies will keep their sordid whoring from you:
Unlike men women know how to keep a secret. Women don’t brag to their girlfriends, in fact they’ll lie even to themselves. You really have NO IDEA where even that conservative and very virginal girl you’ve proposed to has been until the night she thought she forgot shows up on Youtube.com. Where does that leave an increasing number of American men?
So YouTube is a porn distribution hub now? Or is he suggesting that any woman who has sex is by definition a whore?
Evidently he is, as Mr. Featured Guest then goes on to warn of the dangers of those who are:
Trying to turn a whore into a housewife.
Yes, there are terrific women out there. But single women are angling for a man to pay for their lives, and given that incentive there’s a huge temptation for a woman to present herself falsely, to tell a lot of lies and to make a lot of “stay at home, cook and raise kids” promises she has no intention of keeping. Under US and ESPECIALLY Canadian divorce laws, women are almost never accountable for bad behavior or broken promises. For all the men who thought their betrothed was only slutty the night she met you and who are steaming mad that you’ve been sold a bill of goods, does the marriage contract needs a “false advertisement” clause?
Or do women who have sex with men other than their betrothed – possibly on video, possibly on YouTube — simply need to have the word “whore” tattooed on their foreheads?
The regulars at The Spearhead respond to this sophisticated analysis of contemporary marriage with their usual good sense.
Quentin, in a comment that got 50 upvotes, notes with some alarm that
A lot of women don’t feel bad abut their sexual escapades. In fact, they take pride in them. “Ladies” are an endangered species, and are on the verge of going extinct. All this slutty behavior has really made me lose interest in women. I don’t want to be with a woman who has had sex with a lot of men. If she is easy to get into the sack, then she is a liability in a relationship. I have lost a lot of respect for women over the past several years. Sex, along with marriage, is something most women view as a get-rich-quick scheme. It is disheartening to think I live in a world where being a whore is considered empowering, while being a supportive wife is frowned upon. This world is upside down. … If you act like a whore, then you are going to get treated like a whore. If women were pleasant to be around and were loyal, more men would probably stick around. You reap what you sow, women.
Napoleon (24 upvotes) urges his fellow men to be cautious when dealing with the wily female:
Women these days are increasingly trying to have the best of both worlds and present themselves as wholesome nice girls to the public while hiding a lot of whoring that goes on behind the scenes. There is really no way to know whether a woman is a part-time prostitute or not but a good rule of thumb is to assume that she is until proven otherwise due to the prevalence of such antics.
Silent warns men to be especially suspicious of any woman who seems to know what she’s doing in bed:
Just be careful about the super-sweet girlfriend who knows a little too much about how to do that thing you like, without you having taught her. She may have had a mouthful. But hey, maybe it’s all “in the past”.
YoungMan shares his tale of woe:
Back in my plugged in days I dated a girl for over a year before I found out she used to play with herself on camera for money. I was incensed I had been taken advantage of like that.
Keyster, a bastion of morality who once boasted about dating a 14-year-old (when he was 25), warns men to stay away with women who don’t keep silent about their sexual pasts:
Any woman who feels compelled to reveal her debaucherous past has no intention of having a serious relationship with you.
It’s not a shit test.
It’s meant to show a certian amount of disdain and disrespect for you as a man who doesn’t quite measure up to her standards. Don’t ever forget that.
Yes, because if a woman has had sex with anyone other than you, it’s all about disrespecting you.
And then he adds:
If she says she can’t even remember how many guys she’s f*cked in a rather “matter-of-fact” tone, you’ve entered the Futrelle Zone. Go home and video tape your cat on a Roomba and post it on YouTube. It would be time better spent.
I guess I should be flattered? But alas it was not my cat on the Roomba. I wish I had a Roomba. (Also, I wish I had my cat back, but that’s a whole other and much sadder story.)
Alan Vaughn writes an impassioned defense of pedophiles – sorry, “pedophiles,” in scare quotes – that I’m frankly too tired to bother to cut and paste in here. Check it out yourself if you dare.
Eric has a sad about the poor quality of American women:
Women are presumed to ‘have all the power in relationships’. Really, it’s her choices alone that matter. Women choose to be with thugs and idiots when there are numerous better and more responsible options open to them. The fact that women overwhelmingly terminate relationships with good men and pursue worthless ones is proof in itself that the responsibility lies with them and not with us.
Men, on the other hand, are very limited in their field of choices (unless they expat out). The abysmal quality of American women; women’s complete lack of interest in responsible men; and the ever-impending consequences of acting contrary to misandryist legal and social norms considerably constrict men’s options. Most men, if they were honest about it, would admit that their choices are pretty much limited to the least objectionable—not the most desirable—of available women.
Life is apparently very tough for American men who hate the very idea of women ever having sex with anyone but them. And doubly tough for those who don’t see the inherent hilariousness of cats on Roombas.
On AskReddit, lostabro33 tells the sad story of how he, er, lost a bro. The tl;dr version:
I lost a really good friend because he didn’t want to believe his wife was a fucking whore bitch slut cunt lying piece of shit.
Here’s the full quote. As you’ll notice, it has 1314 upvotes.
Yeah, that totally happened.
Is Reddit officially the worst place on earth?
(Sadly, I know the answer to that is no. But, damn, Reddit, you really to seem to want to take that number one slot.)
(Thanks to ShitRedditSays for finding this, er, gem.)
EDITED TO ADD: [TW: Child porn]
Speaking of shitty things on Reddit: There was more child porn up on Reddit, this time a post in r/videos with more than 900 upvotes and numerous positive comments, with a link to a video that showed the sexual abuse of a six-year-old boy. The folks in SRS have been talking about it; after numerous complaints from SRSers to the r/videos mods, Reddit admins, YouTube, and the FBI, the video has apparently been removed from YouTube. More details, and a link to the original r/videos thread, in the SRS thread devoted to it. There’s also a lot of discussion of it in the comments to this post here.
Is it wrong that I love the perpetually incoherent Christian J. – the self-proclaimed Male Renaissance Agitator behind What Men Are Saying About Women – as much as I do? If it’s wrong, I don’t want him to be right! Fortunately, he’s never right about anything.
Here, to celebrate today not being tax day, are some tasty quotes from some of his most recent posts. (He really churns those suckers out.)
Vaginamoney is the root of all evil:
You have to wonder how the opposite sex can easily make the claim about how “Strong” and “Independent” they are when in actual fact the majority of those making that claim are either receiving child support, vaginamoney as well as copious handouts from the state, their very own standby sugar daddy is on call 24/7. One who has been trained to behave like a defacto ATM, specifically trained to drip feed cash when required, without asking too many inappropriate questions and to hide when anyone or anything approaches..
Come on and take a free orifice ride:
[W]hat do women actually bring to the table besides their genitals and reproductive ability. Why do they now increase and expand their value as human being rather than relying on the state for enforcement of their will and they free ride their orifice affords them..
(That one was so incoherent, even by Christian J. standards, that I’m thinking there must be a typo in there somewhere. Maybe “now” should be “not?” Obviously the “they” near the end should be a “the.”)
[W]hile the slut feminist hoards continue with their manufactured bastardry, the response will be tailored to nullify it..
Too many slut feminists spoil the broth:
How many times have you heard those slut feminists and their cowtowing (sic) white knights and manginas claim that all the MM and men in general want to do is put women back into the kitchen. …
They make that claim whenever any mention is made regarding all those anti male laws and sexist actions that governments have introduced to nobble men, take away our fundamental human rights and turn us into third class citizens, whose sole activity is to be forced to act subserviently, like a slave, to the opposite sex. …
Now just think for a moment about the fact that women can’t even cook anymore, they are totally useless in the kitchen … They have problems even making a sandwich, even that task is beyond their capability, a proven inability. So why would any man want to “Put women back into the kitchen”, it just doesn’t make any sense. It’s just stupid..
“Nobble?”
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
Revver started things off with this lovely thought:
Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.
How easily they make themselves look like fools.
Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:
Women judge men by pre-selection.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
