Category: sluts

Categories
alpha males bad boys beta males creepy grandiosity I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts

When is a slut not a slut? When he’s a dude.

I did a search for PUA and this showed up. So, fuck it, I'm going with it.

When is a slut not a slut? When he’s a dude. So says the (He)artist(e) formerly known as Roissy, in yet another post of his trying to prove that his brand of Pick-Up Assholery is fully proven by SCIENCE!

His evidence in this case? A recent study of speed dating that showed that (straight) women, in addition to being attracted to attractive men (duh!), also seem to be attracted to men with high “sociosexuality” ratings. “Sociosexuality,” for those not fully immersed in the SCIENCE!! of dating, is basically someone’s propensity for casual sex.

In other words, the study found that guys who do a lot of casual dating tended to do better at casual dating.

Heartiste/Roissy puts it this way:

Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.

It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.

In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness.

If you strip out the PUA nonsense about the “alpha judging process,” all this seems fairly self-evident, if not simply tautological. Guys who’ve been with a lot of women will probably do better with women in the future than guys with no experience who view women as strange alien creatures. (Note: In all this, we’re only talking about straight people; PUAs don’t seem aware that gay people exist, outside of their own fantasies of hot bi girl threesomes.)

It’s at this point that Heartiste/Roissy amps up the assholery:

Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.

In other words, it’s bad to be a female slut, but great to be a male slut:

[T]he study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.

Not only can this SCIENCE!! of game help to get dudes laid – it can basically save the world from evil fat chicks.

It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.

Turning former nerds into wily lotharios will help to put those uppity female sluts in their place:

[A] moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.

And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.

Yep, he did slyly insert “voting” into all that. Sneaky!

So slut it up, fellas! It’s the only way to put those evil lady sluts in their place. And, thereby, save the world from sex-having, vote-casting slatterns.

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery disgusting women evil women grandiosity homophobia MGTOW misandry misogyny none dare call it conspiracy reactionary bullshit sluts transphobia TROOOLLLL!!

Skanks, Spongebob, and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex

Jenna Jameson on a Harley. (Chuck E. Cheese not pictured.)

Sure, Man Boobz 2011 Troll of the Year NWOslave may live in an alternate reality — but he at least seems well-grounded in that reality. What might happen if he were to suddenly ingest a tab or ten of LSD?

I think I have an answer to that question. Meet blogger and conspiracy theorist Jay Dyer, a self-described “controversialist, writer, comedian, debater, and philosopher/theologian.”

That’s a mouthful, and Jay more or less lives up to it, delivering stream of consciousness rants that range from Aleister Crowley (he’s not a fan) to the evils of women dressing like Hannah Montana. Plus he quotes the Bible from time to time.

Actually, that description doesn’t even begin to capture Jay’s peculiar charms. So, without further ado, I present to you some highlights from an essay titled The United Skanks of Amerika that Jay wrote with the assistance of someone identified only as M.B.

Amerika has become one, big, nasty, black metal mosh pit. Satan said to Adam and Eve “do what thou wilt,” Satanist Aleister Crowley said, “do what thou wilt” and the gospel of Amerika is “do what thou wilt.” …  Churches are dominated by fat matriarchal women and homosexuals. Women open their purses and the priests of Ashtoreth bow and tell them whatever they want to hear. …  Amerika is a play land – a bigger, gayer Disney world. It’s middle-aged moms on facebook, donning Montana garb. The nation is frozen in perpetual adolescence and arrested development.

After this dramatic opening, Jay offers up the strangest capsule version of American history I’ve ever seen:

Started by a bunch of tee-totaler puritan gnostics, this nation has jumped to the opposite extreme and become a cess pool of flesh. In fact, in the East Coast punk scene, kids are now eating chunks of each others’ flesh. Let that sink in. In the West Coast gay scene, it is now an honor to receive AIDS from trendy gays.

Then Jay gets around to the “skanks” of the essay’s title:

Women of this country, especially young women, are perpetual princesses stuck in a perpetual mirror glance, coated in chemicals and striving for the most unnatural goals – to be a manwoman. For a sensible male to get with one of these creatures is in serious danger. But watch out – before long, they’ve left you for another woman and taken your fake Federal Reserve notes. They get half of your all-seeing eyes. Whores with your Horus. Dressed like complete whores, will they soon be completely naked?

But young men don’t get off any easier in Jay’s critique:

The average twenty-something male is now a fat, gamer, feminized, emo freak, who spits every time he lisps, because he can’t form sentences.

Neither do middle-aged men:

Grown men – baby-boomer dads – collect comics and play Dungeons & Dragons. And if they don’t, they stare at pixelated football and the Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.

Yes, he really did just say “Maso-kabbalist videodrome complex.”

Jay also has some issues with higher education:

The “wise men” of this culture are the Marxist, gay, feminist, druid college professors, who, if they have children, drive them to white horror core rap concerts. Just like the sociology professor mom involved with Pyscho Sam whom her daughter met over Myspace.

And lower education:

That any parent would put their children in public school is a sign of apparent hatred of their kids. Why would anyone put their kids in a government re-education camp? Public schools are prisons where the teachers screw students and students get doped up on pills become homosexual.

When they’re not shooting each other, that is:

[P]arents can’t understand why their children shoot each other at school. The[y] shoot one another at school because they are possessed by the demonic culture. And while you stupidly play golf and make scrapbooks, your kids are worshipping Lucifer, who, according to you, doesn’t exist.

Women working! Men raising kids! It’s all one big air-conditioned nightmare for Jay:

The family is now become stay-at-home dads that care for the 1.3 kids, while moms climb the skyscraper and has sex with the CEO for more fake fed notes. If it’s not this, it’s “my two dads.”

Preach it, Jay!

Amerika is just this – Chuck E. Cheese speeding at you on a Harley, holding Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice,with Jenna Jameson mounted on the back. …

Amerika is krunk. Amerika is funk. Amerika is junk. Amerika is Lil’ Jon having sex with Lady Liberty. …

Rationalism is what birthed this country, but it morphed into utter irrationality. Thomas Paine became Spongebob and Spongebob is Thomas Paine.

I think I’ll just leave it at that. Oh, there’s more — much, much more —  in Jay’s little manifesto, but my poor brain can only take in so much in one sitting without exploding.

NOTE: I discovered Jay’s essay through a link on MGTOWforums.com; the dude posting the link described it as “one of the best essays about feminism and life in the US … By far one of the most accurate essays I have ever had the pleasure of reading.” It got a mixed reaction; the consensus seemed to be that while he made some good points, Jay might just be a little too obsessed with Aleister Crowley and the Masons.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, if middle-aged women want to wear some sort of “Montana garb,” I’d suggest they go with Patsy, not Hannah. Patsy Montana was awesome!

Categories
$MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism crackpottery evil women manginas marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men oppressed white men racism reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead

“The dried-up vagina is a tool of the state, and population control.”

Marriage: Not an effective form of birth control.

When we first met Spearhead commenter Rmaxd, he was raving about how our technological society had rendered women obsolete. He’s back, this time taking on, well, women again, and welfare, and declining birth rates, and, well, it’s all a little bit hard to follow.

Let’s start with Rmaxd’s basic premises:

Women are serially monogamous or hypergamous & are infertile for the majority of their lives

While men are polygamous, & FERTILE for the majority of their lives

Marriage has always been used as the earliest form of birth contraception, limit the amount of children a fertile male can have, by forced mating with a single infertile woman for the rest of his life.

We are off to a bad start here. Is there anything in all that that’s correct? Among other things: marriage is most decidedly not a particularly effective form of birth control. (The show Eight is Enough was based on a real family, and I suspect we’ve all met people with enough siblings to fill a bus.) But let’s continue; Rmaxd is on a roll:

As the government can no longer force this sort of mating on infertile womens, especially in the lower moronic, under educated peasantry states,

As women want alphas,

Obviously sluts & whores, are simply mimicing infertile women, as only infertile dried up vaginas, can afford to sleep around with hundreds of men

This is why we have sluts & promiscuity, marketted to young girls today, imitate infertile women, imitate their habits, destroy your fertility, destroy your youth

A childhood of std’s & yeast infections

Yeah, I’m not even going to try to parse all that.

In any case, as Rmaxd argues, these “infertile” ladies somehow still manage to pop out a few kids when they’re young, and the evil welfare state rewards them for it:

It’s essentially birth control by sponsoring infertile women, most women have a couple of kids, basically enough to live off the welfare & free housing

As we all know, single mothers live lives of untold luxury and indolence.

What we have here is essentially welfare for infertile women, as they’re no longer able to siphon cash from enslaving men into walking wallets & their magical vagina’s a pit of std’s & warts

In the past, you see, women could enslave men by marrying them. Now they can’t get dudes to stick around, so instead they enslave men by not marrying them, raising their kids on their own with the help of welfare money. It’s all very devious.

Rmaxd would prefer that the welfare money go to the fathers:

If we had welfare for men who had kids, with different women, we would have a healthy birth rate, instead of the declining birth rate we have now … this is all about rewarding & protecting a womans sexuality over a mans sexuality

It all leads to what Rmaxd calls:

The new another dark age of female fanatical male hate,

sponsored & policed by the church of radical feminist mangina, & government

The dried up vagina, as a tool of the state & population control

This barely coherent spew of woman-hatred – and it’s even less comprehensible without my edits and annotations – still managed to draw a few upvotes from the regulars, proving that internet misogynists will upvote pretty much anything so long as it contains the requisite level of anti-woman vitriol.

In case you’re feeling especially bored this lazy Sunday, the whole Spearhead thread is a trainwreck of misogyny and racism – including some fairly obnoxious discussions of black “Welfare Queens” and Mexican immigrants from a fellow called Keyster. Does that (fake) name sound familiar? You may know him as a fairly regular contributor to A Voice for Men and the producer of the AVfM internet radio show.

 

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

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

Other people have also noticed a lot of gayness on Glee

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

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

Apparently, it is really, really gay.

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

The horror!

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

So, you’re saying it’s gay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bicycle-riding ladies and other threats to manly order

Click on the pic to see it in its full-sized glory!

So I linked the other day to Kate Beaton’s awesome comic about the obstreperous velocipedrix (inspired by the cartoon I used to illustrate this post). But since then I’ve had bicycle-riding-ladies on the brain and I thought it was worth another post. Besides, it gives me an excuse to use the cartoon above, which Beaton linked to in her Hark, A Vagrant post.

The notion that bicycle- (or velocipede-) riding women are inherently hilarious (or inherently evil) may seem a tad quaint now, but back in the late 19thcentury, when bicycling really took off, these cartoons were every-fucking-where.

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

The independent mobility of cyclists raised genuine alarm for their physical, if not moral, safety; simply put, the bicycle could easily take women to unsavoury places where they might be endangered physically (for example, by being attacked), or morally (for example, by being seduced into imprudent conduct with intemperate company).  . . . Drawing on previous knowledge of the kinds of women who deliberately made themselves conspicuous in public, that is, prostitutes, there would be a strong tendency to conclude that cycling women were far from respectable: not exactly prostitutes, perhaps, but possibly women of loose morals or with an undeveloped sense of propriety.

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

What actions? Going outside dressed in something more revealing than a nun’s habit. Going outside at night. Not reacting with gratitude when dudes patronizingly lecture them on the perils of being a woman in public. It’s the same old shit: the “independent mobility” of women is pissing off a lot of men even today.

That’s why so many MRAs got so angry about the case of Lara Logan, the CBS news correspondent who was sexually assaulted while covering the protests in Egypt last year — many in the MRA camp weren’t so much angry at those who assaulted Logan as they were at Logan herself, for daring to cover political unrest in another country … while being a woman.

That’s why it always strikes me as a little odd that MRAs routinely describe their movement, such as it is, as a new one. It’s not. Theirs is a reactive movement, and a reactionary one – and not just because some of them literally think women should be denied the right to vote. It’s because so much of what they obsess about is the same old shit that pops up whenever women have stepped up and challenged their traditional roles.

Of course, these guys aren’t simply angry at women doing traditionally masculine things – from going where they like, on bikes or foot, to covering world politics. They’re worried that newly “masculinized” women will turn men into a bunch of emasculated pussies.

While poking around to find more cartoons to illustrate this post with, I happened across several that show just how persistent this worry is. Take a look. The first couple are from the turn-of-the-twentieth century; the third is from the 1970s. Notice a theme here?

This same old theme is handled a bit more subtly today, as this bit of clip art shows. Note the pink apron, in case you didn’t get the point: a man washing dishes is an emasculated wussy.

Of course, in the Manosphere, things are not quite so subtle. It’s telling that amongst MRAs and other modern misogynists the insult of choice for feminist men is “mangina.”

Here’s how one little manifesto defines the term. (I’ve edited out a lot; it’s pretty fucking repetitive, though students of misogynist psychology may wish to read the whole thing here.)

Manginas are pseudo-men who fixate their lives on getting a sniff of the female genitalia (figure of speech) at the expensive of others and by betraying real men.

Manginas see women as an ultimate being, places them on a huge pedestal, mind focuses only on sex or the satisfaction of women all the while not giving two bits a damn about his fellow man. …

A mangina is not a man, and we wouldn’t dare honor them by gracing them with the title. …

A Mangina seeks continuous approval from females thereby becoming their servant.

Manginas support women’s issues which are against his fellow men. Someone who espouses feminism but is really being suckered into a form of chivalry in which women’s interests take precedence over men’s. Unaware that they are merely “useful idiots”, doing what women want in the vain/hope of getting laid. When his usefulness is over she tosses him out with the rest of the rubbish. …

A Mangina is a self-depreciating man who subconsciously hates himself and blindly believes women are superior to him. He has been raised to think masculinity is inherently wrong – perhaps even a genetic/evolutionary/social flaw – and must be corrected by embracing his “feminine side” to the point of losing the very qualities that make him male.

Women acting like men; men acting like women. These were the bugbears of the velocipedrix-hating, women’s-suffrage-opposing assholes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; they were the bugbears of the protoypical woman’s-lib-hating chauvinist pigs of the seventies; and they remain the bugbears of an astonishingly large number of those in the Men’s Rights movement today.

And that’s why it, too, will end as a joke, remembered as a quaint holdover from earlier times rather than the progressive civil rights movement it sometimes pretends to be.

In the meantime: Kate Beaton, fucking hilarious, right?

NOTE: I found a whole bunch of awesomely retrograde cartoons from bygone days while looking for the illustrations for this post. I’ll be posting some of my favorites soon.

Categories
actual activism feminism inspiring misogyny MRA rape rapey sex sexual harassment sluts

Sady Doyle on “Fighting Sexual Assault, One Tweet at a Time”

Upvoted!

Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown fame has a great piece up at In These Times on the ways in which the Internet has helped to highlight virulent and violent misogyny — and inspire effective feminist pushback. It’s actually kind of … inspiring? (That’s a word I don’t use often!)  Here’s the opening:

When a history of 21st-century feminist activism is someday written, 2011 may be labeled Year Rape Broke. Sexual assault and harassment have, of course, always been key feminist concerns. But in 2011, sexual violence, exploitation, or intimidation were part of nearly every major story that fell under the heading of “women’s issues”–and the activism against it has been particularly widespread, focused and effective.

As we enter this renaissance of sexual assault awareness, it’s worth considering the ways in which new media has informed it–and, indeed, perhaps even made it possible. …

You can read the rest on the In These Times website.

Full disclosure: I worked at ITT for a couple of years in the 90s (yes, I’m old), and Sady says some nice things about Man Boobz in the piece.

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males creepy evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men reactionary bullshit sexual harassment sluts

Women! Why must you assault men with your evil sexy outfits?

Women totally slutting it up in provocative waist-cinching attire

Apparently, or so I’ve learned from the manosphere, every single thing that women do is designed to torment men. Yesterday, we learned that women with jobs are leeching off of men just as much as women without jobs.

Further proof of female perfidy can be found in a recent post on the popular manosphere blog In Mala Fide with the provocative title Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men. Guest poster Giovanni Dannato lays it out for anyone who needs convincing:

When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.

The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.

Amazingly, the fact that a woman might show some cleavage does not automatically mean that she wants to have sex with every single man who sees her.

She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. …

There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. …

Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.

That’s right. Women are like gum. Or that pizza Spicoli had delivered to him in class in Fast Times at Ridgemont High that the mean Mr. Hand forced him to share with everyone. And if you gum-pizza-ladies are not willing to share yourself with every horny man (and, presumably, lesbian) who happens to notice you in your slut uniform, you are committing a terrible infraction.

Oh, sure, wearing a totally cute outfit is not specifically against the law, but, as Dannato reminds us,

looking for refuge in explicit written law is inherently disingenuous. …

[W]omen exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon.

So how can men defend themselves against such evil feminine perfidy? By yelling “hey, whore! How much?” or “can I squeeze those titties?” or “Can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?” Because street harassment – sorry, catcalling – is

a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only.

What else are men supposed to do?

[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.

And women won’t even admit that when they put on a cute outfit and leave the house that they’re doing it to torment men.

Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.

And now these evil women have come up with an even-more-dastardly-than-usual way to torment men “[i]n the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.” Yep, you guessed it: The SlutWalks. Large groups of women tormenting men with sexy clothes in unison!

Apparently overwhelmed by contemplation of the sheer feminine evil of the SlutWalks, Giovanni ends his post abruptly at this point.

I admit I don’t have the patience to wade through the comments. If any of you do, please post any of your findings below.

EDITED TO ADD: Ironically, Ferdinand Bardamu (the guy behind In Mala Fide) aids and abets the evil sexy-woman assault on men with his own retro porn site Retrotic. NSFW, of course. And if Dannato’s post is to believed, not safe for straight men generally.

NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males bad boys beta males crackpottery creepy douchebaggery evil women MGTOW misogyny MRA penises sex sluts thug-lovers vaginas

“A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.” Um, what?

Vile strumpet! You'll get your comeuppance!

Manosphere dudes – MRAs, MGTOWers, PUAs and whatever other acronyms they will eventually invent – love to tell themselves little “just so” stories about women. One of their favorite stories is the story of the Bad Boy Cock Carousel.

The gist of it: Women in their twenties are at the height of their physical beauty. So they act like entitled bitches, sleeping with every Bad Boy and Alpha Asshole there is and ignoring the humble, honest, hardworking “nice guy” betas silently pining for them.

But once these mean girls hit the age of 27 or so, they suddenly become ugly monsters, and the bad boys stop returning their calls. So then the evil ladies try to glom on to the nearest beta male in an attempt to marry him and steal all of his money.

But the beta males don’t want none of that used-up pussy, and so they Go Their Own Way and everyone ends up forever alone. Or the guys learn “game” and start banging the hotties. Or they just go back to posting sammich jokes on Reddit. I think these are all supposed to be happy endings, because at least the evil bitches get their comeuppance.

Recently, someone posted a n especially creepy version of this Manosphere fairy tale in the comments here; it turned out to have been cut and pasted from a comment on Roissy/Heartiste’s “game” blog by a guy who calls himself PhillyBoy81. It’s long; I trimmed it a little for space.

“[A]lpha males” are doing all the rest of us a favor in the long run. They operate very much like short sellers in the dating market, exposing fraud and helping to discover the true prices of commodities (women).

Yep, we’re on the express train to Doucheytown.

Let’s take a 21-year old chick who’s between a 7/8 (cute to pretty. …  She can pretty much get sex whenever she wants it and with whomever she wants to have it with. And that is ultimately her downfall.

Young women (and some older ones) have an overinflated sense of the value of their vaginas. I mean, they have Wharton MBAs paying for exotic trips and they’re drinking Cosmos in the VIP with the Wizards.

Apparently this is just how women in their early twenties live. Who knew?

Since they are able to get such easy access to “alpha” dick, it follows logically that they should also have access to “alpha” wealth, marriage, and the lifestyle that accompanies all of that, right?

Wrong. See, when women gain this enormous sense of pussy power, they swing for the fences. …  So, the cute guy with a 3.8 GPA, but no car? Nope, not good enough. The nice-looking pre-med student? “Nah, I’ll just get back to him later. I heard Jude Law’s hotter brother is transferring here this semester.”

This had me worried for a second, but I looked it up: Jude Law does not have a “hotter brother,” or indeed a brother at all, which is good news for all straight men of equal or lesser hotness than Jude Law.

Anyway, back to the evil women:

They invariably end up overplaying their hand. They chase these players looking to get a ring, and then that ring never comes. So now they’re 27. It’s a good thing she kept that pre-med Johns Hopkins student in her back pocket just in case things didn’t work out with the player, right?

Wrong again. In a vacuum, women would have their way. Men beg for sex. Women decide whether to give it to them (and for most guys, they will not give it to you). But luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in the real world with social constraints, and there are two that work distinctly to a man’s advantage: reputation and age. …

Ladies don’t think … we won’t remember your bitchiness. And don’t think we won’t remember those guys who you ran behind like a cum bucket.

Hmm. I’m pretty sure the only place buckets are gifted with mobility is in old Disney cartoons.

We remember. And we punish.

When a man sleeps with 100 chicks, he’s a stud. When a woman sleeps with JUST ONE guy, that eliminates you as wifey material to ALL of his friends.  …

Apparently penises have a sort of reverse-Midas Touch thing going on: every woman who touches one turns into a filthy, used-up slut.

The height of a woman’s value, in terms of her value as a long term partner, is around the age of 27. That is the praecipice.  The older she gets, the more her singlehood gets scrutinized by men. Why the hell is she still single? Who’s cock has she been sucking all these years?

Clearly that is the first question every straight man should ask himself whenever he sees a single woman older than the age of 27. (Just make sure you don’t actually ask this question out loud; it doesn’t go over well.)

[L]et’s face it, what virile, successful bachelor wants to entertain a 29 or 30 year old as wifey potential. She’s going to want to become a baby factory right away and rip away the last vestiges of your freedom. I don’t think so. It’s now my time to swing for the fences and bang some of these 21 year olds that I couldn’t bang in college.

Hello creepy older dude lurking in the shadows at the frat party!

In conclusion, a woman’s value is really defined by the type of man who puts a ring on her finger, not the type of guy who will fuck her. It takes a lot of women a long time to understand this, and thus, they overplay their hand. If it wasn’t for the players dogging them out, these women would not get a sense of their true value and start to seek out men who fit within their price range.

It’s all about market equilibrium, yo! SCIENCE!

So that’s the story. It’s a stupid story. It’s not a true story. But it’s the story that manosphere dudes, like young children, want to hear over and over and over.

But I haven’t even gotten to the best part. Our pal MarkyMark, an excitable and somewhat addled Man Going His Own Way, reposted PhillyBoy81’s comment on his blog. In the comments there (as Man Boobz commenter Wetherby pointed out) we find this little gem:

A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.

Yep, that’s right. I’m just going to repeat that, because, wow.

A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.

All women older than 27 or so who date or marry men are disrespecting these men because … they are older than 27. Apparently women age out of spite. Maturation is misandry!

Categories
antifeminism bad boys crackpottery evil women misogyny patriarchy precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts thug-lovers

100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming

"Kids Love it!" Another claim that is not 100% accurate.

The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a  doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.

This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.

Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:

Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players.  The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel.  Now we introduce slut shaming.  It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all.  This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage.  This directly translates into fewer fatherless children.  This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier.  Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her.  After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on.  This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel.  You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.

Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:

Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players.  Now apply shame to the players.  Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them.  No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts!  But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.  The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts.  They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation.  Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first.  This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business.  This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

Well, there’s no arguing with that!

Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.

Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.

Categories
antifeminism creepy douchebaggery evil women homophobia hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit reddit shaming tactics sluts threats

Showdown: #MenCallMeThings versus The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

The most common “critique” of the #mencallmethings hashtag  that blew up on Twitter last week was that the women posting examples of misogynistic shit they got called online were making a big deal out of nothing. As the always-charming Ferdinand Bardamu so memorably put it:

It’s funny, then, that when MRAs find themselves described with less-than-flattering language they have a strange tendency to act like they’ve suddenly been struck with a case of the vapors. Witness the reaction of MRAs when someone calls them the “c-word.” No, not “cunt” – “creep.” As one outraged Men’s Rights Redditor recently put it, in a comment with 30+ net upvotes:

Creep shaming is probably one of the most insidious and anti-equality things you can do. The ability to label men as “creepy” is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society.

When MRAs feel themselves being oppressed by such clearly man-hating language, they often refer to something called the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, which, well, catalogues their language grievances in detail. According to the author of the  Catalogue,

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.  Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

Such shaming tactics, the author of the Catalogue says, with no evident awareness of the irony, are often used by “histrionic …  female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic” and the male “gynocentrists” who ally with them.

Here are some of the awful “shaming” remarks that get directed at MRAs, according to the Catalogue of Shaming Tactics:

 “Stop whining!”

 “Suck it up like a man!”

“You need to get over your anger at women.”

“You’re afraid of a strong woman!”

“You are so immature!”

“You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

“Are you gay?”

 “That’s a sexist stereotype!”

 “You need therapy.”

“You make me feel afraid.”

 “Weirdo!”

 “Loser!”

“You are so materialistic.”

 “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”

“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”

Did someone just use the word "creep?"

Is that last one even an insult? It’s a fairly accurate description of a lot of MRAs, who take a certain pride in being “insensitive to the plight of women.”

So now that we’ve seen the horrible abuse that MRAs have to put up with on a daily basis, let’s take a quick look at some of the things that women and feminists regularly get from their detractors, as posted to the #mencallmethings hashtag and sent to Sady Doyle, who originated the hashtag. (These are all taken from a great post she did in the aftermath of #mencallmethings’ big blowup.) I think you will find the comparison instructive.  Let’s start with the more straightforward slurs. (TRIGGER WARNING for, well, just about everything in the quotes that follow.)

Slut, cunt, bitch, whore, ugly, dyke, lesbo, unfuckable, crazy, delusional, liar, hysterical, autistic bitch child, feminazi,  ballbuster, humorless, heartless whore, man hater, misandrist, stupid little girl, shrieky hysterical moron, airhead, spoiled little princess, stupid bitch, stupid fucking cunt, stupid feminazi cunt, an ugly bitter little woman, cumm guzzling closet lesbian, a pseudo-intellectual Insane Oversensitive Humourless Female supremacist.

Now let’s move on to complete sentences:

 “You’re an ugly fucking cunt.”

“That sort of smirk is why God invented anal sex.”  

“you’re so ugly you look like you have downs syndrome, you’d be thankful to be raped.”

“hope you catch a sexually transmitted disease or vagina cancer, cuntwit.”

”Stick a dildo up your dry vagina.”

“the only time your mouth should be open is when i’m putting my d–k in it”

“Your just a gay cunt who deserves to be punished.”

“A firm backhand to her whore face would provide her with a much needed attitude adjustment.”  

“Fuck you bitch….ya need to get beat like ur pops use to do to u.”

“I hope you never have children, your daughters would be such sluts and end up murdered in a gutter by someone like me.”

 You’re “not worth the effort to murder.”  

“[The] only tragedy is that a bullet didn’t rip through ur brainstem after u were used 4 ur 1 & only purpose in this world.”

“what a long winded bitch. You certainly do need to be gagged.”

“You’re an annoying bitch with no friends.I’d love to run you over with my truck.”

“you stupid bitch, I should fuck the crazy right out of you.”

”i surely hope that one day you get raped.”

“[You] can’t be a female scientist, that phrase is an oxymoron,”

“it’s painfully obvious you’re a woman, get off the internet.”

“I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore. Your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole.”

“Do you need to file a hurt feelings report?”

As I noted before, despite my general unpopularity in the MRA world, I tend to get fewer of these things than, for example, most feminist bloggers with a similar degree of internet notoriety. But I get them. Here, for example, is the latest comment I’ve gotten from the guy who calls himself Nugganu, a sort of follow-up to a previous comment I quoted earlier in which he imagined me raped by ten black men:

He certainly does have a vivid imagination.

But, yeah, somehow it’s a little hard for me to feel a ton of sympathy for MRAs who so regularly work themselves into a lather over “shaming language” like “creep” and “loser” and “you are insensitive to the plight of women.”