We Hunted The Mammoth
Just a note: I’m going to be out of town on vacation for a week, so the posts will be a little lighter, and it may take me a bit longer to moderate comments and respond to emails and the like. There will still be a post every day; they’ll just be a bit on the short side.
Oh, and if you’re looking for the WEEKEND OPEN THREAD DANCE PARTY, it’s been moved over to the Man Boobz forum. See you there!
Always hilarious: MRAs deriding feminists as “cretins” in posts riddled with egregious grammatical errors and other indications of less-than-stellar intellect and/or education. Pot, kettle, and all that.
Anyway, here’s the dude behind the blog What Men Are Saying About Women trying to argue that even the MSM (mainstream media) has started to turn against feminism. (I had no idea the MSM had ever been pro-feminist in the first place.) He even throws in a little dig at Ozymandias’ new blog!
For best results, read this aloud in a steady monotone. Insert the word “MONEY” from time to time if you want to interest any ladies within earshot. (Inside joke.)
Well, finally. MSM is finally and slowly seeing things our way. Finally climbing aboard the winning side as they join the ongoing chorus against feminists, feminism and those white knight manginas even though they are busy creating false MRA and Men’s Assistance sites such as the good men project and a few other which I will not list as yet, to try and entrap the unwary and ignorant into joining their anti-male drivel which ofcourse is dying rapidly even though their desperation increases..
Dude, you only need one period at the end of a sentence.
Sadly, those cretins continue their dead end attempts at ridiculing all and sundry because they have the termerity to question their feminist nonsense similar to those same cretins wallowing in the AGW hysteria. [AGW is a reference to global warming, right? –DF] In both cases, those loosers are in for a giant wakeup call but most of them are way too deaf to hear, what!!
How can wake-up calls be “giant?” I guess one could be loud, if you turned up the ringer on your phone, or taped it to your ear, or if whoever made the call yelled at the top of their lungs, but isn’t the idea of the wakeup call that just getting such a call will wake you up?
To you and I, that death knell is on it’s way and nothing will stop that as the MSM will ensure that hate movement wallows into insignificance and irellevancy as the western world finally realises that their hate doctrine is a doctrine of destruction and the funds to that movement have to be cut to ensure that dying, shrivelling, wrinkled carcass is drained of it’s nourishment and that is access to the government trough..
Dude. You know how your computer sometimes puts those little lines under the words you type? This means they’re spelled wrong. You’re supposed to go back and fix them.
Also: The word “wallow,” used as a verb, means “to roll oneself about in a lazy, relaxed, or ungainly manner,” as in pigs wallowing in mud. It can also mean to take delight in, or luxuriate in, something, or to “to become or remain helpless” — to wallow in ignorance, for example. One cannot, in other words, “wallow into insignificance.” The word you are looking for there is “dwindle,” which means “to become steadily less.” I realize it can be difficult to keep track of these different meanings, especially given that both words contain the letter “w.” Pro-tip: Words containing the letter “w” do not all mean the same thing.
To finally kill that beast, thrashing as it will as so many rely on it’s existence for income, that end will be all the more enjoyable as it wallows in it’s own destruction..
So that’s four incorrect uses of “it’s” in the last two paragraphs, two of them in the same sentence. The difference between “its” and “it’s” is really not that difficult to understand. Read and learn.
Once you’ve removed the superfluous periods, gotten your metaphors ironed out, fixed the spelling errors, and learned the proper usage of “it’s” and “its,” we can start in on the rest of the grammatical carnage. That last, er, sentence of yours? All I can say is “wow.”
Let this be a giant, smelly, bad-tasting, itchy, teal-colored wake-up call for you.
So AskMen.com just put up the first segment of its annual 3-part Great Male Survey. Filled with strange assumptions and sometimes creepy questions, it’s a survey that reveals at least as much about the survey makers as it does the survey takers, and what it reveals ain’t good: it seems to have been written by a jaded ex-romantic ( or a committee of such) only a few short steps away from full-blown MGTOW-hood.
The survey starts off with a fairly innocuous question about basic compatibility, but quickly veers off course with question #2:
How important is it to you that your wife/future wife signs a prenup?
Hold on a second, daddy-o! We haven’t even determined if the little missy has “wife potential” yet — as question #3 puts it.
After one more question about marriage, the quiz moves on to cheating and then (perhaps inevitably) to the issue of divorce:
Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?
Then it’s onward to kvetching about what a naggy shrew your partner is (assuming you haven’t already finalized the divorce):
Followed by the classic “Would you dump a girlfriend if she became fat?” (Just in case you’re wondering, ladies, nearly half the American guys in last year’s survey said “yes.”)
Next we get to what we might call the “creepy controlling asshole” portion of the survey. After asking whether we’ve ever snooped through our partner’s email or Facebook messages, they pose this doozy:
That quiet clattering you hear is the sound of a thousand creepy dudes Googling to see if this is possible – and, if so, the best place to put the chip.
After several more questions about Facebook and the internet, a few badly conceptualized questions about romance, and a bunch about sex, the quiz moves on to some good old-fashioned slut shaming, asking men to quantify the number of sex partners a woman is allowed to have before they consider her “promiscuous.” Ladies: you’ll be glad to know that 41% of American dudes who took the survey last year consider any women with more than 9 lifetime partners to be dirty sluts – sorry, “promiscuous.”
Then of course it’s on to an attempt to quantify exactly when women start getting all old and ugly:
Yes, one of the possible answers is “18.” You may be slightly reassured by the fact that zero percent of last year’s survey takers gave that answer. Six percent said “20,” though, and 24% said “30.”
Then we have this curiously worded question on workplace sex:
So the idea that your partner might be a big higher up on the old org chart isn’t even a possibility? What is this, 1962? Did they borrow this question from Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl? Or find it scribbled on a napkin on Don Draper’s desk just before he impulsively proposed to his new secretary?
I think we need to design our own survey.
(Note: Cartoon above borrowed, of course, from Comically Vintage.)
So Esquire magazine recently posted a list of “The 75 Books Every Man Should Read” on their website. Esquire being Esquire – that is to say, a men’s magazine that had its glory days in the era of Mad Men and that seems to be aimed mostly at old farts (and aspiring old farts) — only one book of the 75 was written by a woman. (That’s 98.67% male, for those of you with lady brains who can’t do the math.)
The internet being the internet, some people noticed that the list was a wee bit heavy on the dudes, even for a men’s magazine, and pointed this out. The bloggers at the Joyland Publishing blog suggested that while the books on Esquire’s list were “mostly fantastic,” it might behoove men to pick up a book or two written by a woman once in a while. And so, with the help of some of their readers, the two assembled a list of “250 Books By Women All Men Should Read.” (Why 250 and not, say, 75? Because they got a lot of suggestions.)
Here’s a little one-question quiz for you all: What title did W. F. Price at The Spearhead give his post on the controversy?
A) “Some Great Suggestions for Books by Women You Guys Might Want to Read.”
B) “Did You Know There Are Female Authors Besides The Chick That Wrote Harry Potter?”
C) “Feminist Publishers: Force Men to Read Women’s Lit”
Yep, the correct answer is C, of course. Apparently a couple of bloggers suggesting some books by women that men “should” read is some kind of Gestapo-like imposition upon men by “Feminist Publishers.” Price grouses:
[I]it strikes me as rather mean-spirited of females in the publishing industry to denounce even ineffectual efforts to introduce men to literature. By all accounts, publishing has come to be dominated by women, and men are reading far fewer books than women these days. Given this state of affairs, you’d think that the women in the industry might be a bit gracious and let the boys pick and choose which titles interest them.
But of course that won’t do, because feminists must find fault with any and everything men are involved in. …
The implication [of the Joyland Publishing blog post] is that men should be forced by political pressure to read female writers (sometimes these feminists come off as whiny, annoying girlfriends complaining that “he just won’t listen to me!”).
Or, you know, it might just be that the writers of the blog post, and those who wrote in with suggestions, really enjoyed the books in question and thought that dudes might just enjoy them too. Sort of like when a friend tells you that you should totally watch the movie Dogtooth, because it is so fascinating and creepy and awesome. Or when I tell you right now that you should go watch Jane Austen’s Fight Club on Funny or Die.
Naturally, the comments from Spearheaders were even more ignorant and obtuse than Price’s post. The basic theme: Bitches can’t write for shit (as far as I know).
In case you think I am offering an unfair characterization of the, er, debate, here’s one Spearheader’s contribution to the discussion:
when a man says “no, I won’t read your literature”, you have to respect that, bitch.
And another’s:
I basically do not read anything a wimminz has written, not even in my favourite genre of science fiction, because every single time I have tried they have been unmitigated fucking crap full of feminazi girl power bullshit and emotional baggage and basically very little hard SF…
And still another’s:
I never read anything written by women unless it happens to be instructional and related to work. Pretty much all the fiction I’ve ever read is by and for males. If I read some non-fiction for fun it’s always got a male author. I realized a while back that my cd collection is about 98% male. When I was a kid I never thought about it, it just came naturally. Now that I’m older I intentionally avoid anything by women.
It’s always,er, instructive to see what some random guy who apparently reads mostly instructional manuals has to say about the literary controversies of the day.
There were, of course, more thoughtful analyses, like this earnest comment from the excitable, exclamation-point-happy David K. Meller:
Women write for an audience of their own level–to wit themselves! Most men are simply too intelligent to be interested in what passes for literature scribbled by women! …
Correct me if I am wrong, but is most woman’s “literature” one more kvetch klatsch of women–or girls–getting together to complain about, to defeat, or to evade the workings of us evil, letcherous, abusive, horrible M-E-N! There is no point in men reading such drivel …
There may be better days coming; when women are once again taught the arts of pleasing men, in their creating a comfortable environment for the chosen man in their lives, and when they again will use their ability to read to discover new and better ways to do this, and their ability to write to communicate these truths to others of their sex! Until that happens, literacy for women, much less dominance in authorship, editing, and publishing has been, and is, a BLOODY MESS for everyone, especially men!!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Yes, women should really only be allowed to read and write if they are reading or writing instructional manuals on how to cook and give better blow jobs, possibly at the same time.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! to you too, good sir.
Speaking of which — the blowjob bit, not the PEACE AND FREEDOM!! — the commenter calling himself dragnet suggested that young men such as himself were simply too busy to read much of anything. They have other priorities:
The vast majority of my reading is for work, research, and classes. …
Frankly, I’d rather be getting laid than reading a novel after a grueling work week. The three or four hours I sometimes have free on the weekend when I’m not working or working out or sleeping or eating, I’d rather be out with my friends or getting serviced by whatever girl I’m with at the time.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a penis, must be in want of some girl to service it.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!1!!
Anyway, ladies and manginas, any good lady books you want to suggest for the dudes of the world?
Our friend Trogdor005 has returned with a new manifesto on the greatness of men and the utter suckitude of women. It’s inspiring stuff, rendered extra HEROIC through his use of CAPS, BOLD TEXT, random “quotes” and “italics,” and, from time to time, red lettering.
Trog starts by setting forth a now-familiar thesis: Men do everything, and women are just useless parasites. As he puts it:
Men … are survivors, innovators, explorers, fighters. Most importantly, we men have the ability to ADAPT to changing conditions and environments … something women are incapable of for the most part. …
Take away all the take-out/fast food, automatic cars, cell phones and place one of these self-proclaimed “strong and independent” women out in the wilderness with nothing but the clothes on her back and watch how quickly she starves to death or gets eaten by a bear/lion/tiger/hyena/snake/shark, whichever comes first.
Especially if she’s on her period. Bears love menstrual blood. Sharks, too. Whereas the average man could easily knock a bear out with a swift left hook to the jaw or fend off a shark some sort of clever shark-killing tool he’s managed to fashion out of seaweed, jellyfish and his Speedos. That’s because men are HUNTERS:
[T]he average man is a natural hunter thanks to instincts ingrained in his brain by evolution and (barring injury) can fend for himself. Women on the other hand are PARASITES that depend on, and live almost exclusively off of, MEN for their survival. Even today with all of the technology that we have, women are still COMPLETELY and HOPELESSLY dependent on men.
Trog then provides a long, long list of the things MEN and only MEN do. Some highlights:
– It is MEN that create and service the cars, trucks, and SUVs that women drive to/from work, to/from their “thug” lover’s place, to/from the mall, etc. …
– It is MEN that create and service the computers that women use to hop on Slut-book/MySpace and do their attention whoring.
– It is MEN that build and assemble the couches, sofas, recliners, and other furniture than women use to sit on their fat asses watching shows like “Oprah”. …
– It is MEN that toil and sweat in the fields in scorching temperatures, collecting the raw vegetables/fruits that are then shipped to the grocery stores that women visit.
– It is MEN that work in dangerous unsanitory conditions inside the meat/butcher plants to provide safe meats to the fast-food/take out chains that women frequent.
– It is MEN in the form of police, security guards, and soldiers that provide women with a “safe atmosphere” in which they can walk around freely at night.
– It is MEN in sweat shops halfway across the world, working in some cases for nothing but a meal, that produce the “designer clothes” women buy and wear.
– It is MEN in semi-trucks that transport all of the goods I just mentioned (except real estate of course) to their intended destination and “keep the machine turning”.
– It is MEN that set up and maintain the necessary electrical, telecommunications, and sewage “grids” that make “civilized life” possible….
– And finally, it is MEN who venture deep into the deadly, hazard prone “diamond mines” located in remote locations to retrieve the raw stones which are necessary for, and later cut to create the shiny looking object that goes in THE RING
The bottom line is, women need men, but men DON’T need women.
So here is a collection of pictures of Women Who Do Not Exist, in the World of Trogdor:
Trogdor follows his list of Things That Only Men Do with another familiar MGTOW fantasy:
And of course, if things go total “Road Warrior” on us and the electrical, financial, and transportation grids finally fail altogether, women will be in an even more untenable position. I suspect they will be getting raped, robbed, and otherwise not be safe in “the streets”. The police will NOT help, let alone “other” men … who will not have forgotten all the abuse these same women imposed on them in years past via “divorce”, “child support”, “false rape accusations”, “sexual harrassment”, and “I cheated on you … I love you _____ but I’m not IN love with you”. Aside from the contempt for/distrust of women that will have been built up over the years in such a scenario, most men will simply be too busy trying to survive to the next day to give a fuck about some “desperate” single mom that comes to their front door begging for food.
Has anyone else noticed just how much MGTOWers love talking about how bad women will have it when The Shit Hits The Fan? How much they enjoy fantasizing about women being robbed and raped in a lawless world? How much Trogdor seems to relish the notion of single mothers (and presumably their kids) starving to death?
Trogdor continues on, suggesting that our future looks a lot like “any African country where lawlessness reigns.” Naturally, he manages to throw in yet another reference to women “in constant fear of being raped or robbed every time they are walking thru the streets.”
He ends with this happy picture of the End Times:
The smart men will expat before shit hits the fan and watch the entire debaucle from a safe distance. The “thugs” will not go anywhere and will simply rob the women to deal with their “food shortage” issues. The manginas will cower in the corner like pussies … unable to grasp reality, and will also be robbed of their food, water, and possessions by the “thugs” and “bad boys”. The real losers will be women in the end (as it always is following these “Feminist” periods of history … look what happened to women in Babylon, Greece, Egypt, Rome, etc), I suspect many of them will be reduced to fucking for food. …
I’m not really quite sure I’m willing to accept the dire prognostications of someone who can’t spell the word “debacle.”
You can always count on men’s-rightser-turned-conspiracy-maven Henry Makow for sound and sensible commentary on the sexual and social mores of today.
Oh, wait, it’s not Opposite Day. You can count on Henry for loopy misogynist paranoia.
Henry recently took a trip to Toronto, where, he explains,
signs of the elite’s psychological attack on heterosexuals are everywhere. Young females are the main victims.
His evidence for this? He noticed some people fundraising for a program designed to help girls in the Third World. He read about a conference of feminists in Winnipeg. (No, it’s still not opposite day: in his mind these things are terrible for girls.) Oh, and he read about one oddball couple that is raising their kid to be genderless.
All this leads him to conclude, naturally, that the powers that be are trying to make women obsolete. Huh? Let’s let him explain it, because I sure can’t:
WOMEN BECOMING OBSOLETE
If a woman will not accept her husband’s just leadership, she does not love him. …
A woman loves by surrendering power to her husband in exchange for his power (protection) expressed as love. Men want power; women want love. …
Masculinity is defined by power. Power = penis. Empower women and you give them a psychological penis. You neuter them.
Well, damn. That doesn’t sound good. Who exactly is giving women these psychological penises?
By sabotaging their gender identity and their faith in marriage, the Illuminati are transforming females into their sexless worker-drones and amateur whores.
Oh, right. Those guys. Those guys must be really, really busy.
Anyway, back to Henry’s trip to Toronto:
Most of the young women I saw on the street clearly defined their self-worth in terms of sex appeal. …
But they seemed to regard male attention as predatory. They were like amateur streetwalkers who were both too self-enamored and gender-confused to relate to males.
There’s also a chance that these women looked at Mr. Makow and thought, “huh, a weird angry dude old enough to be my father is staring at my tits like they belong to him. I will definitely not be having sex with him.”
Oh, and apparently ol Henry has heard about the Slutwalks:
Yet they will actually demonstrate for the right to behave like sluts without suffering any consequences. Their younger sisters are also being sexualized and look like Brooke Shields in the film Pretty Baby.
Um, THAT’s your cultural reference? Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby? Not, I dunno, the Bratz? And seriously, if you want to reference a 70s movie that creepily sexualizes underage girls, at least be a little original about it: go with Jodie Foster, in Bugsy Malone.
If you’ve never heard of Bugsy Malone, or simply want to remind yourself of its icky weirdness, the trailer below should help.
Ol Henry again:
The Illuminati are turning young women into mutants, unfit for marriage, and unfit for motherhood.
They are fit only to betray themselves and their society as cannon fodder in the New World Order.
Our world is increasingly zany because it is controlled by a Cabalist satanic cult, the Illuminati.
Dude, way to totally sell yourself short. The world is zany because of people like you. And the producers of Bugsy Malone.
Lone father paralyzes Sydney in rush hour protest
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
SYDNEY — A lone protester paralyzed rush-hour traffic in Australia’s largest city for hours Friday by scaling the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge and forcing the closure of the country’s busiest roadway.
The man, who said he was “ex-military”, evaded extensive security precautions to climb the bridge at dawn and hang two banners in a protest apparently linked to a custody dispute over his children.
The stunt forced the closure of the bridge that links north Sydney with the downtown area for around two hours, causing massive back-ups and leaving thousands of motorists and train and bus commuters stranded. ….
“If I have to stuff four million people around for one morning and that gets my kids and other kids help one day sooner, I have achieved my goal,” he said before rappelling down onto the roadway to be arrested by waiting police.
“Stuffing” four million people around. Goal achieved!
Getting more contact with your kids. Goal not so much achieved as hindered, I’m guessing.
More on the protestor here. He’s apparently a “bikie” – the Australian version of a biker – and “was almost killed during an alleged bikie shootout last year.”
UPDATE: As a result of this, the protester, Michael Fox has, not surprisingly, been ordered to not contact his ex-wife or family members.
And here’s an interesting detail from the coverage:
He left a note in his car, warning police to close the bridge and not to try to bring him down by force. “If anyone attempts to climb the upper arch of the bridge during my protest, the consequences will be fatal. Do what I ask and this will start and end peacefully,” it said. “You’ve taken my kids, I’ve taken your bridge.”
Generally speaking, nonviolent protestors don’t threaten “fatal consequences” for those who try to arrest them.
UPDATE 2: Another odd detail:
He last saw [his kids] almost 70 days ago, soon after a home owned by him was engulfed by fire. His estranged wife and one young daughter were sleeping inside. Both escaped the blaze.
A reader recently pointed me to a curious and fascinating document online with the puzzling – to me – title “Confessions of a Ward Hopper.” The author, it turns out, is an unmarried Mormon lawyer in his early 30s, and he isn’t happy about his single status. The “wards” he’s referring to in his title are Mormon singles wards, essentially congregations designed to give, well, Mormon singles the chance to meet and marry (and then to move into one of the Church’s regular home wards). Such is the theory, in any case. But our “Ward Hopper” has had no such luck, and he’s been flitting from singles ward to singles ward in a so-far fruitless search for a mate.
I have attended every LDS singles ward that has existed in the last decade from Provo to Ogden – and a few in Vegas, California, Washington and St. George. …
I hate singles wards — and so does everyone who attends them — but we all keep going to them, pretending we like them, pretending like we belong, only because we all want to get married to someone who’s LDS and we believe the wards are a necessary mine field in our lives. … There is no where else to go to meet LDS singles in person and no other way to get to know them
So what seems to be the sticking point? At first glance, Ward Hopper seems like quite a catch, at least for a certian kind of woman. He makes a good living. His faith, he says, “is solid as a rock.” He owns a small fleet of vehicles (four cars, two motorcycles, two boats). As he describes himself:
I’m 6’2, and fairly slim. I used to body-build, but now I just drink Coke and watch FOX News. I have thinning brown hair and blue eyes that are so piercing that sometimes I find whole rooms of people falling silent and staring at them as I enter.
Wait, what?
I think we’re beginning to see just why Mr. Hopper hasn’t quite clicked with anyone yet: his self-descriptions veer wildly between grandiosity (those piercing blue eyes) and hypercritical self-loathing. Hopper continues:
I like to think I’m attractive and smart; but, in moments of pain and failure, I realize that I am not as attractive and smart as I’ve convinced myself I am. I am constantly stressed about cases, clients, being single, money and my habitual disorganization. My apartment is a disaster, and so are my cars.
Maybe he’s trying to pull a Costanza here, throwing women off-guard with his radical honesty. (“My name is George. I’m unemployed, and I live with my parents.”) But this strategy works better on sitcoms than in real life.
And here we come to another of Hopper’s less endearing qualities. If Hopper judges himself a bit harshly at times, he’s even more judgmental of others. Walking into a new singles ward, he sizes everyone up at once with those “piercing” eyes of his. And he doesn’t seem to like what he sees – or, rather, imagines:
I can tell within thirty seconds of meeting another priesthood holder whether that Elder is addicted to porn by watching which women he glances at. I can tell from the response I get to a single smile whether any young woman is from a small town, whether she is spoiled and stuck up, and whether she is a democrat.
As you have probably begun to suspect, Hopper is especially judgmental when it comes to women, none of whom seem to live up to his exacting standards. All he wants, he says, is “someone beautiful who’s LDS, who’s not spoiled, who needs me.” But, alas, most of the singles ward ladies are fat fatties:
Two thirds of the young women are overweight. These girls all think that because they have good personalities, or good jobs, or are well-educated that guys should care more about who they are than how they look. Someone needs to make them understand that young men will never want to be intimate with them if they’re even a little heavy, and they’re doomed if they don’t lose weight. If these girls understood the world and men, they’d all quit their jobs, drop out of school, and devote themselves soley to losing weight. It’s that important. While beauty isn’t the only important thing in a girl, it is the gateway to the other qualities which no man cares about exploring without the attraction. No amount of makeup will cover a size fifteen dress size. Like men, women have an obligation to be happy, to procreate, to start a family, to experience humanity and love — which means they’ve got an obligation to lose some weight to accomplish that. Nobody would have wanted to kiss Sleeping Beauty if she were a fatty with a Ph.d.
What about the singles ward ladies who aren’t overeducated cupcake-munchers? Apparently they’re all New Age flakes, into “exotic fruit-juice cleanses,” astrology, and gay civil rights:
The other third of the girls who aren’t overweight have a different problem. … We sit down at a nice dinner, and they begin to talk about somebody who’s suffering some medical or emotional problem. They then begin to extol the virtues of holistic/herbal medicine and animal rights, which apparently this person who’s suffering doesn’t understand. I nod in increasing frustration as they begin to praise vegetarianism, then proceed to pontificate about liberalism/feminism/homosexuality from mental notes they took in a humanities class being taught by some gutless, godless, gay, liberal hippee freak at the University of Utah … It seems like many LDS women who aren’t married seek to identify with bizarre belief systems, as if these beliefs have become their spouses … .
And get this, ladies – he’s still single! The line forms on the right.
Despite all this bitterness and blaming of others, I don’t think Hopper is completely hopeless as a human being. He admits to some of his human frailties, talking about his struggle to free himself from a gambling addiction; perhaps this experience could give him a bit of empathy for others who don’t live up to his very specific standards of perfection, or who otherwise have motes in their eyes, as it were. And he does have occasional moments of self-awareness:
I try not to break the Sabbath, but I do buy food on Sundays because I don’t know how to cook. Maybe I’m a hypocrite. I’m the kind of guy who walks into Walmart on a Sunday night and looks around in dismay at all the Sabbath breakers who are wandering the store, and wonder how dare they be there.
From such tiny acorns of self-awareness, mighty oaks can be grown. Forgive yourself for some of your many flaws, and forgive others for their flaws (and all the flaws you simply assume they have). And you might not have to keep hopping forever.
One of the many happy benefits of moving this blog to WordPress is that I can now see in gory detail the search terms people use to get here. The most common search terms are, naturally enough, “manboobz” and “man boobz.” It’s on the third-most-popular search term that things start to get weird: it’s “Australopithecus.” Why? Well, because once upon a time I posted a picture of an Australopithecus couple going about their Australopithecus business.
Let’s take a quick tour through the rest of the search terms list. I think we can learn a few things, both about this blog and about the dreams and desires of people whiling away a boring afternoon at work by poking around the internet. Here are some preliminary conclusions I have drawn from the data:
1) The teeming millions want to look at dudes with lots of muscles:
world’s most muscliest man
most big muscle in the world
world’s muscular man
disgustingly big muscles
silly muscles
les muscle man end the world
And no, I have no idea what that last one means either.
Clearly, the prevalence of muscle-man related search terms is the side effect of having that little picture of a muscly man at the top of the sidebar in the blogger version of this blog. I feel bad that this was all I had to offer the searchers, so as you can see I’ve added a pic of a man with some, yes, ”disgustingly big muscles.”
2) Human sexuality is a weird, wonderful, and often horrifying thing. Sometimes, it involves advanced computer and/or robotic technology:
future lady robot
create a virtual woman with boobs
will cherry 2000 ever happen?
computer mouse in vagina
Other times, animals:
panda furry porn
animal dildo porn
fish meat and women porn movies
I am trying to get that last image out of my head.
3) If you regularly mention sperm on your blog, you’re going to attract a few weirdos:
how to steal sperm
do lizards like human cum
I just Googled that last one and this post of mine was the FIRST RESULT! I would therefore like to publicly state that I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION and have never even tried to find out the answer to that question. And if you by chance actually do know the answer to that question DO NOT TELL IT TO ME.
4) Angry dudes trying to find men’s rights sites can be careless typists:
why do you always here fiminist indoctorin at school but nothing about mens right activist?
women are like chilfren
A few final thoughts:
Many of the questions listed above are questions that are frankly best left unanswered. But there are some others I would dearly love to see answers to:
what do intellegent agressive beefcake nerds want
what does germaine greer think of buck angel
And one question I can answer pretty definitively:
can socially awkward men find love
Yes. The answer to that one is yes.
I’ve never understood the whole “toilet-seat, up or down, debate.” Let me put that more precisely: I’ve never understood why people talk about it as if it were some kind of real live issue in our society. Are there really men and women who argue over this? I don’t think I’ve ever even had a conversation about proper toilet seat etiquette, much less gotten into an argument over it. (Or perhaps I have, but have simply forgotten it because it‘s so fucking boring.) Over the course of my life, I’ve probably spent less time thinking consciously about the issue than I’ve spent writing this paragraph.
That’s clearly not the case with our good friend MarkyMark, a somewhat excitable MGTOWer who (wholly unintentionally) provides this blog with choice material on a semi-regular basis. He must get into arguments about toilet seats all the time, judging from the long screed he posted yesterday on the topic of “what the toilet seat says about women.” Apparently, the fact that some women complain about men leaving the seat up – I’ll have to take his word on this, as I don’t think I’ve ever encountered it in my life – is evidence that women are foul, selfish creatures indeed. As he puts it, laying forth his basic thesis:
The toilet seat is living proof that women will complain about anything and everything. The toilet seat shows us that women cannot and will not accept responsibility for themselves. The toilet seat shows us that women have no perspective about anything. The toilet seat is living proof of the eternal solipsism of the female mind. The toilet seat provides empirical evidence that, no matter what or how much they get, women will never be happy. Finally, the toilet seat shows us that women are spoiled, entitled brats. …
The toilet seat shows us what women are REALLY like, and it ain’t sugar and spice and everything nice.
So distressed is poor Marky at the thought of women demanding that the seat be lowered that he’s driven to reconsider the very idea of universal suffrage:
You know what’s sobering? We gave these creatures the right to vote! Yes, that’s right; we gave these childish, immature, spoiled brats the right to decide who has power over us, to decide OUR futures. With the way women handle the toilet seat issue and what it says about them, is it any wonder why they were denied the vote?!
If this were someone other than MarkyMark, I would probably consider this a joke, or satire, or some sort of reductio ad absurdum. But as far as I have been able to determine, MarkyMark does not in fact have a sense of humor; this is a guy, after all, who once wrote a point-by-point “rebuttal” of an article in The Onion.
Presumably at some point in the future Marky will take on the other pressing bathroom-related issue that bedevils the men of the world:
Why do women always go to the bathroom together? Are they lesbians? Are they plotting something? Or … both?
