Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

>The Cupcake Files, Part One: Happy Bachelors Edition

>

Available for purchase on Etsy

When you think of the word “cupcake,” what pops into your head? A vision of a delicious miniature cake, on the general model of a muffin, with a topping of lovely creamy icing and perhaps a light dusting of sprinkles? Or do you imagine some evil vindictive bitch hell-bent on ruining your life?

If the latter, there’s a good chance you’re a Man Going Your Own Way. On the MGTOW message boards I read (so you don’t have to), “cupcake” is the go-to insult when the regulars want to say something especially nasty about a woman that they, or some other man, once regarded as the epitome of sweetness and innocence. In the minds of some MGTOW, a cupcake is even worse than a cunt.

Let us look at the characteristics of a truly modern cupcake. We will start today with some statements from the fellows on the Happy Bachelors forum. (I’m too lazy to provide links for every example; they all can be found by searching for the word “cupcake” on HB’s search page.)

Cupcake: Fucks up relationships just for the hell of it

The way things are going there is almost no incentive for a woman to maintain a relationship and there is always the knowledge that no matter what cupcake is like at the start she can destroy things completely whenever she feels like.

Cupcake: Only brings vagina to the table.

If you ever decide to get married, just ask cupcake what she will be bringing to the marriage other [th]an a vagina. Watch her squirm trying to answer that question.

Cupcake: Is the queen of food-related mixed metaphor

Some men, once they get a whiff off pussy, turn into jello in the hand of cupcake.


Cupcake: Something-or-other to do with Lord of the Rings, I can’t figure it out.

If you want a Tolkien analogy, look no further then the 9 ring wraiths, once that magic ring got on their finger they were enslaved and drained of all life, nothing but shadow figures. Women will do that to any man, no exceptions, don’t delude yourself into thinking you’re special, you’re not and you will be a source of amusement for cupcake as she emotionally torments you for her pleasure. Women hate not only men but they especially hate themselves, it’s why they do what they do. Their behavior is that of a clinically insane inmate. Only the asylum is the real world and the few sane men must take refuge behind emotional bars.

 Tomorrow: Guys from NiceGuy’s offer their take on the Cupcake Question.
—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
antifeminism misogyny reactionary bullshit the spearhead Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The uprising in Egypt: Not all about the menz

>

Leon Trotsky — you know, THE Trotsky — once said disdainfully of writer Dwight Macdonald, who’d had the temerity to actually question him about something-or-other, “everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade Macdonald abuses the privilege.”

Now, Trotsky was sort of a shit, and probably would have been a worse dictator than Stalin, and Dwight Macdonald was awesome, but I’ve always loved this little put-down, and I’d like to update it for the internet age.  So here goes:

Everyone has the right to pontificate about shit they know nothing about on the internet, but our comrades at The Spearhead abuse the privilege.

The latest example: A short piece about the Egyptian protests from Spearhead head cheese W.F. Price. Noting that footage of the protests show a lot of angry men out on the streets, Price opines:

Governments that consistently neglect or antagonize their male populations never last too long.

Yep, no matter what happens anywhere in the world at any time, on The Spearhead it’s always all about the menz. Indeed, not only has the Egyptian government been insufficiently accommodating to men, Price suggests; it’s also started flirting with feminism, having “recently taken the lead in the Arab world in empowering women.” But such a transparent ploy to win over the wimmenz will invariably backfire, he argues (or, rather, asserts), further angering the angry men in the streets:

Female support matters little; women shift allegiance at the drop of a hat, so any government that counts on them to prop them up is making a mistake.

Those fickle, fickle women!

In the comments, someone called Antz took this absurdity a step or two further, asking his fellow Spearheaders to

note the alpha males in battle gear, ready at the drop of a hat to open fire on their freedom loving brothers with machine guns.

Alpha males have always been the wielders of the burning blade of feminist anti-male hatred.

Yes, that’s right. The Egyptian security police have suddenly gone feminist on us.

This isn’t the first time Price has attempted to cast an uprising in the Arab world as a manly reaction to the doings of evil women. He titled a recent piece on the Tunisian uprising “Arrogant Woman Slaps Young Man, Brings Down Her Regime.” The “arrogant woman” in question was a corrupt local official who slapped and thereby humiliated a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohammad Bouazizi; his very public suicide — he lit himself on fire in front of a government building as a form of protest –was what set off the Tunisian uprising. (I have no idea what Price means by referring to “her regime,” as the woman in question was  merely a local functionary and the regime in question was of course headed by a man.) Price wrote:

Authoritarian regimes in Muslim-majority states tend to favor women’s empowerment, seeing women as natural allies in keeping fundamentalist Islam at bay and willing participants in corrupt patronage systems. However, favoring women can only go so far, as men need a certain degree of appeasement as well, and it seems that young Tunisian men have had enough of being – quite literally in this case – slapped around.

Never mind that Tunisia’s historic adoption of women’s rights legislation — abolishing polygamy, and, horror of feminist horrors, requiring men to actually get consent from women before marrying them  — happened more than half a century ago. Never mind that the repressive Ben Ali government was actually moving backwards on women’s rights. A woman slapped a man, so the uprising was therefore all about the symbolic slapping of men by an evil regime that Price has bizarrely described as a “her.”

Back to Egypt, which is even less of a feminist paradise than Tunisia. Indeed, a 2010 report from the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights concluded that the country was getting worse, not better, when it came to its already dismal record on women’s rights. As thedailynewsegypt.com reports (link is to Google’s cached copy of the story):

The report, which is based on the findings of international human rights organizations, stated that Egypt was ranked 125th out of 134 countries regarding women’s rights, and was ranked 13th among countries in the Middle East/North Africa region. …

The state council’s refusal to appoint female judges in February was considered by the ECWR as a major setback to women’s rights in 2010. …  Women still suffer from inequality in the workplace … there’s been a rise in violence against women. …  71.4 percent of violent crimes in 2010 were against women. …

The ECWR also highlighted the increased use of two new alarming police practices against women: the practice of holding women hostage in order to force fugitives to surrender themselves to the police, as well as the sexual violation of women by police officers.

But that’s not the only thing that Price has gotten very, very wrong: As many observers far more knowledgeable than Price have pointed out — including, amazingly, one commenter on The Spearhead — the footage of male-dominated protests we see on TV is in many ways wildly misleading: Egyptian women have been involved in the current protests in unprecedented numbers.

As Jenna Krajeski noted on Slate’s XXFactor blog,

An unprecedented number of Egyptian women participated in Tuesday’s anti-government protests. Ghada Shahbandar, an activist with the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, estimated the crowd downtown to be 20 percent female. Other estimates were as high as 50 percent. In past protests, the female presence would rarely rise to 10 percent. Protests have a reputation for being dangerous for Egyptian women, whose common struggle as objects of sexual harassment is exacerbated in the congested, male-dominated crowd.

Max Strasser, a former associate editor at Al-Masry Al-Youm English Edition in Cairo, explains the dynamic:

It is no secret that Egypt is a conservative country when it comes to gender relations. Men and women generally, though not exclusively, adhere to traditional gender roles where women stay at home. As a result, many public spaces are heavily male dominated. Moreover, sexual harassment is frustratingly common … Big crowds, like soccer rallies, are usually the least hospitable for women.

Since this uprising began, the typical gender dynamic in Egypt’s public space seems to have been thrown out with the regime. Some have said that as many as half of the protesters are women. Moreover, as I have watched Al Jazeera it seems clear that women of all walks of life, from young girls in jeans to older women wearing niqab, are taking part.  All are chanting, pumping their fists and, at times, battling with the riot police.

As feminist human rights activist Nawal El Saadawi told Democracy Now!, “women and girls are beside boys in the streets.”

Do I have any idea what’s next in Egypt? Of course not. The crowds I’ve seen in the news coverage on CNN and elsewhere have been mostly men, and a lot of these men are fundamentalist fanatics. But I think the presence of women alongside the men in the protests is heartening, and gives us some reason for optimism.

—

If you appreciated this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I thank you in advance!

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery misogyny rape reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The Republicans take aim at pregnant rape victims.

>

He’s not crying for pregnant rape victims.

Let’s take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here’s how the SF Chronicle sums it up:

Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of “forcible rape.” The incest exemption would only apply to minors.

“Forcible rape” doesn’t have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.

So if you’re drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don’t count.

As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill’s sponsors apparently

believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise.  Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce.  And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped.  The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped.  Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old.  Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.

In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill’s reference to “forcible rape”

brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.” By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.

Meanwhile, Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of “false rape claims” being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money.  The answer, of course, is no.

Eligibility rules … differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. …

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can’t really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they’ve been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.

UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the “forcible rape” language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate. 

If you’re American, and want to do something about this bill, here’s one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.

Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:


 
—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
antifeminism atlas shrugged I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny Uncategorized

>Screw you gals, I’m going home!

>

Atlas Tugged (Charles Atlas vs. the Rockettes.)

I guess it shouldn’t really be surprising how widespread the Atlas Shrugged fantasy is in the weird world of the mansophere. The fantasy, that is, that if the truly important people in society get fed up and simply stop working, the whole society will collapse in a heap. There are two things that are inherently funny when Men Going Their Own Way start spouting off on this particular subject. One, of course, is the fact that this fantasy was originally articulated by an, er, woman — a small, stern, Russian-born intellectual dominatrix and husband-cuckolder who went by the made-up name of Ayn Rand. Two, is the fact that the MGTOWs honestly think that they are the world’s Atlases rather than a bunch of insignificant internet whiners.

Still, the would-be Atlases of the manosphere do sometimes manage to fluff up this tired old fantasy with some inventive new ideas of their own. Consider the recent advice given by dad_savage  on the Antimisandry.com message boards. dad starts out with a fairly standard-issue articulation of the MGTOW Shrugs fantasy:

The Government calculates tax on a basis of expecting men to earn many times more than they need to simply live. Men only do this if there are incentives; the no.1 incentives are women and community respect; Feminism will take these away, and men will stop working hard to obtain them. Feminism, indeed all liberalism, will be starved of the revenue it must have. Women will no longer be subsidized to live fairy-tail lives benefiting from male largess whether directly through husbands, sugar daddies, Johns or indirectly through the state-as-husband. Women are financially, physically and emotionally dependant on men so all we need to do is cut them off.

Fairy-tail? I’m pretty sure fairies have wings, not tails. In any case, dad_savage contends that the jig will be up for the ladies sometimes in the next ten years. He hopes to speed up the process a little bit by offering some specific “tips for living a fun life and fighting feminism in the most effective way possible.” Here they are:

Get a Public Sector job, or do ‘Women’s Work’ – Try working as a Garbage Man, Mail Man, or some other Council or State position. … most Government employees are women so you’ll have a lot of chance to practise game, and antagonize them by refusing to be a mangina. … Working in the public sector or in a female-dominated industry ensures that your not feeding the beast, but in reality sucking its blood, and will benefit from sexist policies and tax-funnelling subsidies designed to improve the lot of the workers in these female-dominated areas.

Be Rich, Scrape By or Play Robin Hood – Either earn just enough money to enjoy the lifestyle you desire (and think about what it is you really need!) or be a somebody so that you can use clever accounting to maximize the amount of tax you dodge. …

He’s got some odder ideas as well:

Use cunning and intelligence to discern those forces truly destructive to feminism, and aid them. Islamic organizations for example do untold damage to feminist aspirations, Sharia courts in the UK are for example rebalancing some divorce-based iniquity, and Muslims can hide behind accusations of racism just as effectively as feminist’s can behind sexism.

MGTOW patron saint?

And when you tire of demonstrating for the imposition of Sharia law, buy some porn and hire a hooker:

A thing need not be ‘activism based,’ to have an activist effect; pornography, prostitution and other forms of sexual proxy are powerful kinds of activism available to men as they make going your own way more accessible especially to young libidinous men.

This next big of advice is a tad, well, convoluted, but seems rock-solid otherwise:

Tell The Truth, And Let Reason Guide – An example, you let a woman off the train before you holding the door for her, and she doesn’t thank you. Annoyed you stomp past her, and exiting the station you’re looked over by a rough looking youth with an air of being up to no good, but he leaves you alone. You’re sure he’s a mugger, and will probably go after the woman who is coming along behind you. Now let’s say you chose to help, would you do it for the opportunity to redress her for her rudeness earlier? ‘You didn’t even thank me for holding the door open, but had I not been that kind of man I wouldn’t have come back to help, can you not understand why you should appreciate such sentiment?’ seems fair to me. On the flipside you could chose not to help (the choice is of course your own once you’ve weighed the pros and cons in a way that seems wise to you) or you could help if you like on the basis that she’s attractive, and demand her phone number as payment (I see nothing wrong with this) the point is don’t help just because.

So to sum up:

1) Get a job at the DMV or somewhere else in the public sector, and pester the women who are working there.
2) Either earn nothing or become a rich tax dodger.
3) Support Sharia law
4) Buy porn and hire hookers
5) If a woman is rude to you when you’re getting off a train, and then she gets mugged, rescue her just so you can tell her off afterwards, or maybe get her number. Or don’t rescue her.

I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds like a foolproof plan.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference. Oddly appropriate given the subject matter.

Categories
evil women hypergamy hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sex Uncategorized vaginas

>Now I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger

>

Manosphere men often complain about evil women attempting to drain them of their money. To which there really is a very simple solution: If you don’t want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don’t seek out women who expect you to support them.

This seems like a  fairly common-sense strategy, and one that would simple enough for even the dullest of man boobz to remember. But apparently it has proved a little hard to put into practice.

For evidence of this, let’s return to our good friend Nightstorm — you know, the mousetrap-vagina, leech-women in the food court of doom guy on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum. He’s back with another posting called “The List,“which is a list — naturally — of

the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together. He MUST do these things to “make the relationship work”

The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men (“Open all doors before and after for her”), but which have not actually been a part of any relationship I’ve ever been in. Aside from some complaints that are ridiculously petty (“Go to borning [sic] family out-goings”) and some that are weird paranoid fantasies (“You get your penis size and bed performance revealed to the sisterhood. Oh yes, their not laughing with you!”),  the complaints come back, again and again, to money:

Pay for dinner …
Buying her yet another useless item she doesn’t need, like shoes or a brand new car ….
You get to pay for the privledge of being with this woman. …
You get to work while she lays around the house doing nothing. …
She can have the government garnish your wages to pay her just for being the female spouse. …  You get to feel like the worthless scum you are and pay her for telling you that you are.


I’m not even sure what the fuck he’s even talking about with half of this shit.

But, again, there really is a simple solution to all these money issues. I’ll say it again, in bold  this time: If you don’t want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don’t seek out women who expect you to support them.

This, evidently, is where Nightstorm’s grand strategy has gone a bit awry.

For, as I discovered from another posting of his from a few days back, it turns out that Nightstorm’s plan to totally avoid evil leech-like women apparently entails spending many hours flirting with women online. Indeed, he included a long transcript of an online chat he’d recently had with an (alleged) 18-year-old (alleged)  girl who’d evidently decided after a couple of online chats that she wanted to be his girlfriend, despite the fact that the two of them have never actually met and in fact live in different states. (Hey, women can be idiots too.)

Nightstorm (posting as “shawnz”) decided they needed to set down the terms of their relationship, and began by asking her what she thought she brought to the relationship. She jokingly suggested: herself, her “sexy hair,” and her vagina.

[20:54] shawnz: if you become my GF..
[20:54] shawnz: I will get you, your sexy hair, and your vagina
[20:55] shawnz: and what do you expect out of me …
[20:55] [name redacted]: ur penis ur cuddles and ur texting/calling/being on cam and coming to visit!
[20:55] shawnz: ok, anything else
[20:56] [name redacted]: nope

That seems pretty straightforward. No mention of “family out-goings” or even paying for dinner.

Nightstorm then set out his terms for the relationship:

[20:58] shawnz: First, I want a girl who cooks and cleans the house, I want someone who doesn’t nag, cripe
[20:58] shawnz: bitch, or complain, someone who cuddles and anytime I want sex
[20:58] shawnz: someone who has ambition
[20:58] [name redacted]: demanding arent we lol
[20:58] shawnz: and someone who wants more than just love in the relationship, after all its hard work

Demanding, to be sure, lol, but he offers some things in return:

[20:59] shawnz: and what I offer is romance, a good paying salary for provision, and intimacy
[20:59] shawnz: I also offer you good self-esteem and reliability and faithfulness

Let’s pause for a moment to consider that bit in the middle after “romance”: “a good paying salary for provision.”

The two haven’t even met, and he’s already offering to support her financially.

It appears Nightstorm not only has not only bungled the whole “don’t pursue women who expect you to support them” strategy I have outlined above. He’s actually OFFERING TO SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO DOESN’T ACTUALLY EXPECT HIM TO SUPPORT HER.

It seems to me that if you want a woman who is financially dependent on you — you provide the money, she provides “anytime [you] want sex” — you pretty much forfeit your right to complain about her being financially dependent on you.

Fortunately for Nightstorm, [name redacted], and the rest of us on this planet, he decided that [name redacted] wasn’t serious enough to be his girlfriend. So, crisis averted. For now.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
evil women hypergamy kitties misogyny Uncategorized

>Pay no attention to the man behind the turntables

>

He’s up to his neck in pussy, no doubt.

So the fellows over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum are discussing why women seem to like DJs — sorry, “why a womyn so crazy about DJs?” Because that’s what Men Going Their Own Way like to do: spend all their time speculating about the details of the dating lives of the women that they totally don’t want to have anything to do with.

I can’t answer for the, er, womyn, but last year I had a date with a woman who did a bit of DJing, and considering that I’m sort of a music obsessive her DJing seemed maybe just a tiny bit, you know, cool?

But  apparently for the womyn it’s all about status. Also, women are apparently extremely stupid. According to the going-his-own-way-dude Iron John:

Womyn are focused always on two things 1) The immediate situation, as they lack foresight and hindsight, 2) Immediate foodchain. So when they find themselves in a night club they are looking for immediate indications of status. What do they see? A single individual who gets to control the music, lights, etc. They don’t see the artists that created this stuff ahead of time, the business men who owns the establishment, or the bankers who collect the profits. The see just one man who appears to be running everything. They can’t see anything else so to them it does not exist. Since that one man is in control of their immediate environment he MUST be the, “alpha male”. And we all know what girls think of him.

Yeah, that must be it. That’s why, whenever they get on a bus, women immediately start throwing themselves at the bus driver. He’s driving the thing! Obvious Alpha!  Or why when they go to a convenience store, they throw themselves at the clerk. He controls access to the shriveled hot dogs and lottery tickets! Obvious Alpha! Or why, whenever they get into elevators, they throw themselves at the elevator buttons. They control where the elevator goes! Obvious Alpha.

I just wish I understood women as well as these guys.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
Uncategorized

>Off-topic Friday: Rick Ross tries to remember what geese are called.

>

Why yes, that IS my head. I’m wearing my head.

So this has basically zilch to do with the topic of this blog, but I’ve been sort of obsessed lately with Rick Ross. Not the famous drug dealer, but the Miami rapper who borrowed his name. Now, I know that Ross’ schtick is vaguely ludicrous: he raps mainly about being a big-time drug dealer and spending insane amounts of money. He’s actually a former prison guard; it’s not clear if he’s ever sold a kilo of coke.

But somehow I can’t stop listening to him. The songs of his that are currently on heavy rotation in my apartment (and in my head) are BMF (Blowin’ Money Fast) and MC Hammer off his latest album. They’re essentually two versions of the same song with different lyrics. The first is, well, about selling dope. And spending insane amounts of money. The second is about being … MC Hammer. And selling dope. And spending insane amounts of money. It contains the following couplet:

I got 30 cars, whole lot of dancers
I take them everywhere, I’m MC Hammer

But that’s not what I’m here to tell you about. What I do want to bring to your attention is an interview with him I ran across on AskMen.com. It’s, well, a little odd. Consider this exchange:

How’s life in Miami?

Rick Ross : Ah, it’s wonderful. I’m currently in New York City, it’s 20 degrees… it feels like it. My nose feels like it. But two days ago I was in my briefs, in the pool, palm trees, I saw like — not ducks flying over me, but something else. Some other… amphibian… yeah, they be flying over me. Not like a duck or a bird, but something else. Them long-necked things. Geese. Yeah, geese. They look fly when you fly by, you know what I mean?

Well, I suppose technically speaking, geese are amphibious: that is, they can function in water or on land. I’m pretty sure they’re birds, though.

Later in the interview he notes how much he loves “that smoke for my mind. I love that smoke for my mind, you know? It inspires me.”

Yeah, dude. We can tell.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
Uncategorized violence against men/women white knights

>Lucky McKee at Sundance: The Woman and the White Knight

>

The Woman

After a midnight showing of horror director Lucky McKee’s The Woman at Sundance this past Sunday, right before the scheduled Q and A with the director, one irate moviegoer stood up to denouce the film, the director, and Sundance itself. According to film blogger Drew McWeeny, who was there, the unidentified man shouted:

“THIS MOVIE DEGRADES WOMEN! THIS MOVIE DEGRADES MEN! YOU ARE SICK! THIS IS NOT ART! YOU ARE SICK! THIS IS A DISGUSTING MOVIE! SUNDANCE SHOULD BE ASHAMED! HOW DARE YOU SHOW THIS!”

Ultimately, after a bit more of this sort of ranting, he was escorted out of the theater by security guards. You can read more about the incident, and see a couple of videos that capture its aftermath, here; you can read McKee’s response to it all here.

So what’s the connection to this blog? At this point, many of my regular MRA and other manosphere readers will no doubt have concluded that I will be joining the irate moviegoer in denouncing McKee’s alleged misogyny. If so, this will not be the first time (or even the first time today) that they have been utterly and completely wrong.

No, It’s because the incident provides such a clear example of a “White Knight” in action: someone who seems to think that women are delicate flowers that he, as a man, needs to protect from images of women being brutalized.

MRAs and other manosphere men love to denounce feminist men as “White Knights.” And sometimes they are justified in their complaints: there are men who consider themselves feminists who  do indeed put women on a pedestal, and who talk about women as if their shit smells like roses. But that’s not really feminism; it’s a patronizingly traditional view of women masquerading as feminism. Real feminists don’t pretend that women don’t have flaws. White Knights do.* Real feminists don’t assume that women are too sensitive and delicate to see harsh images. White Knights do.

The irony of the kerfuffle at Sundance is that McKee is about as far from a misogynist as any director I know. Though, as far as I know, McKee doesn’t actually call himself a feminist, his films reflect a subtle, nuanced, and sympathetic view of women — at their best and, just as importantly, at their worst — that can only be called feminist. As McWeeny notes, McKee’s

sensitivity towards his actresses, and the perspective each of his films takes, is practically political.  He returns to themes of power inequality and gender struggle, and he externalizes his subtext.  He has been consistent in his interests, and as a result, he hasn’t been making $50 million studio films.

His films May and The Woods, and his Masters of Horror episode “Sick Girl” all center around female lead characters. But he doesn’t, as a real “white knight” would do, portray women as angels or innocent victims. No, he portrays them as, well, human beings. That is, as messy and complicated characters with flaws and evil impulses.

In May, while he is empathetic towards weirdo loner May, he also makes clear she’s out of her fucking mind, a creepy stalker and a violent sociopath to boot; she’s both the protgonist and the villain of the film. Nor does he portray men as mindless evil thugs: in Roman — which he wrote,  but which was directed by his frequent collaborator Angela Bettis, who played the lead in May — he plays, er, Roman, another strange outcast and creepy stalker, and manages to render him quite sympathetic, despite the fact that the socially stunted,  sexually and romantically frustrated character (SPOILER ALERT — highlight to read) actually kills a woman while trying to rape her early on in the film. 

In The Woods, a more mainstream horror film, McKee portrays the almost-all-female world of a private girl’s school in the 1960s; he does a marvellous job getting into the head of the troubled girl at the center of the film, and plays with female stereotypes in a way that challenges and surprises the viewer. (I’m being deliberately vague here so as not to give too much away.) The villains in the film? All female.

Still, I can see how a less-than-careful viewer might get the impression that McKee hates women: many of his female characters, both women and girls, are crazy, violent, and sometimes simply evil; he isn’t afraid to show women being brutalized — or brutalizing others. In this view, if you portray a female character as evil, you therefore think all women are inherently evil; if you portray violence against women you aid and abet real-world brutalizers of women.

That’s the essential complaint of one putatively feminist critic on Pajiba, Dustin Rowles, who saw The Woman at Sundance:

The more images of sexualized and subjugated women we see, the less likely things are going to improve. They perpetuate steretypes about women. Lucky McKee’s The Woman is the perfect example of this.

Correction: Rowles saw PART of the film at Sundance, then walked out:

I’m certain that, like many rape-revenge fantasies, the men get their commuppance in the end, both the father and his son, who has taken after his father. I wouldn’t know — I couldn’t make it past the scene where the woman is power washed.

Criticizing a film without watching the ending — particularly a horror film based around a rape-revenge plot — is a bit like criticizing a joke without hearing the punchline.

Now, again, I haven’t seen even a minute of The Woman either, so maybe it is really a long exercise in violent misogyny. Given McKee’s past work, and the nature of the complaints against the film, this seems about as unlikely as Sarah Palin sprouting wings, reading a book, and/or endorsing a handgun ban.

What really strikes me is that the complaints directed at The Woman are similar to those directed against numerous other horror films in the past, particularly those centered around rape and revenge, like the notorious low-budget shocker I Spit On Your Grave, which inspired a infamously indignant, and rather White-Knighty, column from Roger Ebert that completely and utterly missed the point of the film. It was, he wrote,

a movie so sick, reprehensible and contemptible that I can hardly believe it’s playing in respectable theaters. … an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures, Because it is made artlessly, It flaunts its motives: There is no reason to see this movie except to be entertained by the sight of sadism and suffering. As a critic, I have never condemned the use of violence in films if I felt the filmmakers had an artistic reason for employing it. “I Spit on Your Grave” does not. It is a geek show.

Ebert was angry about the brutal and graphic sexual violence directed at the female lead in the first part of the film — that is, before she sets out on her (brutal, graphic, violent) revenge against the men who brutalized her. Never mind that the central plot of, say, your typical Western movie features a hero who has to endure horrific violence and pain before exacting his revenge at the end — and that this formula has produced a vast library of amazing films.

Ebert rightly considers The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to be a “masterpiece.” You may recall some of the crazy and brutal shit Clint Eastwood’s Blondie had to endure in that film — you know, like that walk through the desert that left his skin looking like pulled pork. Why is violence against men, in the context of a revenge drama, artistically justified, while violence against women, also in the context of a revenge drama, not?

By allowing its brutalized heroine the same chance for revenge that Westerns offered many generations of heroes, I Spit On Your Grave is, while hardly a great film, a feminist one. Indeed, it offers one of the most memorable depictions of what has come to be known as “the final girl,” a character familiar to horror movie fans — that is, the one victim, invariably female, who manages, through wily evasions and sheer force of will, to survive the assaults of the monster or psycho at the center of the film. Here’s how feminist film critic Carol J. Clover described her in the legendary essay “Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film,” which first introduced the notion of the”final girl” to film criticism:

The image of the distressed female most likely to linger in memory is the image of the one who did not die: the survivor, or Final Girl. She is the one who encounters the mutilated bodies of her friends and perceives the full extent of the preceding horror and of her own peril; who is chased, cornered, wounded; whom we see scream, stagger, fall, rise, and scream again. She is abject terror personified. If her friends knew they were about to die only seconds before the event, the Final Girl lives with the knowledge for long minutes or hours. She alone looks death in the face; but she alone also finds the strength either to stay the killer long enough to be rescued (ending A) or to kill him herself (ending B). She is inevitably female.

Halloween 2: Final Girl in action

As Clover notes, in some horror films, like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, the final girl merely endures; in others, like A Nightmare on Elm Street, she triumphs. Most of these final girls don’t start out as badass in the slightest; if anything, they tend to be nerdy, awkward introverts. The brutality they endure is necessary to understand their transformations.

“Protecting” female film characters from violence also “protects” them from having agency in their own stories. Portraying them as free of evil thoughts and urges is similarly patronizing and ultimately disempowering. Women in the real world aren’t angels, and there’s nothing feminist about portraying them as such. Like McKee, most feminists are well aware of this.  True “White Knights” — male or female — do the women they hope to uplift a disservice, treating them as one-dimensional characters in some simplistic morality play. Women, like men, deserve better than that.

—

* This is not to say that we should overlook the simple fact that women are more likely to be brutalized by men than vice versa — that men commit far more violent crimes and sexual assaults against women than women do against men, that men cause the majority of serious injuries associated with domestic violence. Women, like men, have violent impulses. But they are less likely than men to act upon them in ways that seriously damage others, male or female. To point this out is to recognize reality; it is not a case of White Knighting.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
drama manginas MRA the spearhead Uncategorized

>The Spearhead: You don’t have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

>

Don’t ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead

These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I’m sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there’s one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that “a site called mamboobz.com” won’t quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men’s rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren’t all MRAs and I don’t identify them as such. That’s not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to “a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry.” Another added, “I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt.”

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.
Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?
Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn’t talking about me. He’s talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan’s posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad’s threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I’m not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal “debate.” Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
– being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
– is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I’m not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here’s what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here’s what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I’m having a really hard time seeing how I’m the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some “interested third party with deep pockets” wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won’t interfere with what I write in any way, I’d like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

.

Categories
beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny sexy robot ladies Uncategorized

>More Dating Advice from the Boobz

>

Discussions of dating on The Spearhead? Pure comedy gold. So here are some more highlights from the Internet dating thread I talked about in my last post.

Let’s start with a comment so delightfully loopy I went ahead and screencapped it, for no good reason. Nergal suggested that women over 40 weren’t worth dating. Another commenter challenged him on this, which resulted in this response:

Now, granted, I’ve never actually seen deflated balloons half-filled with cottage cheese, but I, er, have  seen recent photos of Jennifer Aniston topless. And I’m guessing there isn’t really much resemblance. Anyone else thinking of that line in 40 Year-Old Virgin in which Andy compares a woman’s breast to a bag of sand? Seriously, if you’re going to throw Jennifer Aniston out of your bed, do it because of The Bounty Hunter. Or Love Happens. Or The Break-up. Or Marley And Me. Or All About Steve. (Oh, wait, that was Sandra Bullock.)

Meanwhile, The Man On The Street attacked evil women for deceiving men by wearing makeup:

Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce. A mask. Just as the phony paint (made of foreskin and feotus’) that many women use to fool silly beta types into believing the false front of beauty.

Herbal Essence — not to be confused with the shampoo of the same name — lamented that “online dating is a female candyland of power trips, validation-seeking, and ego boosts,” and related how he totally put down some dumb broad he met online. I would bet good money that whatever happened between Herbal and his alleged date did not actually go down this way:

I once had a 2 month-long relationship with a girl. She flaked once without explanation (the third date) and I told her very politely but firmly not to do it again. She did it again three weeks later, and I sent her a text that said “You’re dumped.” Two hours later, I had a hysterically crying girl on my doorstep, begging for my forgiveness. I told her “In the age of cell phones there is simply no excuse to disrespect my time like that. Go home.” and shut the door in her face.

Big Daddy from Cincinnati, the author of the post that started the discussion, added a few more thoughts. including this bit of advice:

For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it.

Yeah. I’m sort of thinking that a guy who uses the phrases “pump and dump” and “lick it and stick it” will set off asshole warning alarms in most women even if he doesn’t start blabbing on and on about how much he loves Glenn Beck. Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok.

Firepower wins the award for brevity with this little gem of misogyny:

Playing hollowed-out courtship rituals with single-mom manatees stoked with anti-depressants (mainly SSRIs) is no great calling for a man.

But WGMOW wins some points for managing to compare women on dating sites to two different animals at once:

[M]ost of the women on the “serious” dating sites tend to look like elephants and/or have the intellect of a howler money. But they’ve been schooled by the dating industry to believe that they are beautiful on the inside, and that you, as a man, are shallow if you can’t sense their inner beauty. However, don’t expect one of these monsters to look for your inner handsomeness, only your wallet. Despite the fact that they claim to be strong and independent, they are just looking for a man who can “Support them in the style I’m entitled to.”

Keyster suggested that any man who decides to go ahead and date one of these SSRI-taking elephant-manatee-monkey women should make sure to illegally record their sexual encounters so he won’t be accused of breaking any laws:

[I]f you insist on persuing pooh-tang for fun, ALWAYS have a recording device rolling. Preferrably a video camera. You don’t want your life ruined by a bitter revenge seeking shrew. Remember all they have to do is dial three numbers 9, 1 and 1, and you’re screwed for life. Protect yourself!

I’ll end this little compilation with the always-quotable Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c), who attacks women for … not wanting to have sex with robots. Seriously.

You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides. Today measured in money. No-one is going to pay a robotic man to work so he won’t bring you what you so clearly want. MONEY.

On the other hand? How much money are MEN spending on robotic women? LOTS. And why are they doing so? Because they percieve that there is a MASSIVE market for robotic women. Why? Because they will be EASILY preferable to the VAST MAJORITY of real women. For a start they will have an OFF BUTTON.

Something tells me that when the sexy robot ladies arrive at last, there will be men on the internet complaining about what a bunch of bitches they are.

 —

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.