Category: violence against men/women

Categories
antifeminism beta males creepy evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny violence against men/women

>Murder and male resentment

>Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here. 

One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I’ve seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here — an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my “Enemies List” in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile “humor” pieces — deliberately crude, and festooned with “wacky” pictures — directed at feminists and the like: here’s one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled “Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women’s Rights!”

But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post’s title a “Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who ‘Puts Out’ for Physically Abusive Men” — and who “is Missing and Probably Dead.” Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.

This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it’s essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of “skanks” generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because

she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men … when being approached. You know – the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn – but not at me of course.

Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.

Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:

Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus – a murderer too!

He ends the piece with the phrase “live and let SKANKS die” in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.

There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he’d shown the post to that he’d gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:

I was raised to have respect for all life. … Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart – but – I have seen crap like this way too often in my life – and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions  …

I have met too many women like this – and – yes – been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course – I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.

Do I still care?

NOPE.

From Men-Factor, Scarecrow’s blog.

For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.

Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez  and other so-called “skanks.”

The first link recounts what he rightly calls a “whale of a tale.” In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the “incredibly beautiful … busty brunette” in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you’ll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.

All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been “arguing” with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case.  Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn’t the real suspect — her boyfriend was — and moved on.

Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:

Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this – and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid – lord only knows how many times – or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? …

This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these “mega-hottie” women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. …

Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!

That’s the conclusion he draws from all this?

The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against “skanks” are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison.  Though the “accuser” here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a “f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any ‘nice-guys.'” He also manages to work in a shot at the “heavy-set women” he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:

Funny – since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?

Oh wait – that’s right – silly me. There’s an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course – lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!

The other story involves — long story short — two Nazi skinheads he’d never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they’d committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:

The thing that pissed me off:

They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. … I wondered: Why do … losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and “square” do not get the time of day from such women?

Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn’t know — for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.

To restate an obvious point I’ve made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who’ve rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that’s life. Life’s unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over “nice guys.” That’s their business, not yours.

But let’s pause for a moment on the issue of the “nice guy” — as in, for example, the “nice guys” who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How “nice,” exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of “skanks,” here’s the thing, and I shouldn’t really need to say this: you are not actually “nice.” You’re a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.

NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone — male or female, MRA or feminist — who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.

Categories
douchebaggery MGTOW misogyny MRA rape violence against men/women

>Two “manosphere” blogs have now posted the contact information of Assange’s accusers

>Two influential blogs in the “manosphere” — there may be more, I don’t know — have now posted the names and contact information of Julian Assange’s accusers; I won’t link to the posts. Clearly the purpose of doing this is to encourage harassment of these women. Disgraceful.

EDIT: Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments for now.

Categories
antifeminism discussion of the day misogyny oppressed men violence against men/women

>Justifying Marc Lepine’s Murderous Rampage

>

One of Lepine’s victims.

The 21st anniversary of the Montreal Massacre this Monday naturally inspired some discussion anongst Men’s Rightsers and Men Going Their Own Way. And so it was only a matter of time until someone posted something essentially justifying Marc Lepine’s murderous rampage. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forums, Kargan3033’s only real objection to Lepines’ actions was that he picked the wrong targets — women who weren’t actually feminists. Here are the key parts of what is his own Lepine-style manifesto. It’s badly written, and full of typos, but it’s worth slogging through simply because it is so utterly vile. I’ve bolded the creepiest parts.

Was ML right in doing what he did?, in my opinion yes and no, yes that he had the right idea and no that he picked the wrong targets.

If I was ever to pull an ML, I would go to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and start handing out some FMJ [Full Metal Jacket] love notes to them, not some innocet person in the streets that I would run into, why you might ask, that simple to make it clear to the femanazis and their goverment whore misters that “You keep pushing and abusing men you will pay for it with your live’s blood personaly” and by taking out the femanazis and the evil scum sucking traitors who sold out their fellow men for a wiff of pussy and more power you would be sending a clear message to the public that one you are not some crazed gun man who walked into the local walmart and capped off a bunch of random strangers and second of all that the reason why you went postal was because of the shit and abuse that you suffered because you are a man thanks to the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies and you settled the issue with them Personaly which would give you more respect in the eyes of men and most of socity at large because you delt with the ones who pushed you to far instead of gunning down innocent men, ladies and child who happened to be in the worng place at the worng time.

Also by taking out the femanazis and their goverment puppet masters you will inspire other men who are to the snaping point to got after their True Abusers and not innocent people.

All in all we are going to see more and more MLs as the femanazis and their goverment pimp daddies keep puting the screws to men which in turn will cause them to tighten the screws to the men and boys which will inspire more revenge and the spilling of their blood untill western socitey tears it’self apart. 

Kargan3033 was so proud of this comment he posted it to AntiMisandry.com. He was quick to add that it was “not a call to violance” [sic]. Really?  Then what on earth is it?

People like this aren’t just wrong. They’re dangerous.

Categories
antifeminism evil women misogyny violence against men/women

>Remembering the Montreal Massacre

>

The victims.

21 years ago today, a misogynistic asshole named Marc Lépine shot and killed 14 female engineering students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, then himself, after penning a manifesto-cum-suicide-note that is chillingly similar to a lot of the rhetoric I see every day on the various antifeminist blogs and message boards I watch. Lépine’s message to the world reads, in part:

Please note that if I am committing suicide today … it is not for economic reasons … but for political reasons. For I have decided to send Ad Patres [Latin: “to the fathers”] the feminists who have ruined my life. … The feminists always have a talent for enraging me. They want to retain the advantages of being women … while trying to grab those of men. … They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can.

I don’t have much to say other than: rot in hell, asshole.

Here are some reflections on the anniversary of the massacre, from Clarissa’s Blog, the Geek Feminism Blog, and Womanist Musings.

Categories
MGTOW misogyny violence against men/women

>Spanking and Civilization

>

Some dude made this.

Always funny: Pompous misogynist doofuses who can barely string a sentence together pontificating on how “Men made civilization.” That’s the topic of a recent thread on NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum started by the mighty Ragnar — you may remember him as the co-inventor of the whole Men Going Their Own Way thing. In it he asks what he thinks are some profound questions about the past and future of civilization itself. And spanking.

There’s not much doubt that men made civilisation. …

If men really are the ones that took us out of the animal kingdom and the price payd for that is the occasional spanking of women.
Can spanking of women then be regarded as oppression?
If families are the building stones of society and thus different from primate promiscuity.
Can restrictions of female sexuality then be regarded as oppression?

Could it one day be regarded as ethical and higly moral to spank and restrict women, because it is related to a higher principle that is good for Mankind, their women and children?

Well, that sort of restriction was seen as ethical and moral in the past — here’s a good starting point for anyone interested in reading more on the subject — and still is among a significant number of people in the world (though not any I’m going to invite over to play videogames anytime soon). As for the future, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the answer to that final question will be “no.”

Categories
men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paul elam rape violence against men/women

Paul Elam, you’re no Jonathan Swift

>

Paul Elam, in context.

Yesterday, I posted a set of pretty awful comments from Paul Elam’s A Voice For Men blog, one of which included this lovely line:

I am so fucking tired of this shit, that I really wouldn’t mind shooting a bitch dead in the face.

While even the mildest critiques of MRA dogma tend to get downvoted into oblivion on Paul’s site — see this one, for example (you’ll need to click another link there to even see it) — the “shoot a bitch” comment got more upvotes than down. Which tells you something about Paul’s audience.

Paul has now taken the offending comment down, saying that he hadn’t noticed it before, because he was on vacation. I’ll take his word for this. His explanation for taking it down? “[T]he bottom line,” he writes, “is that I am vehemently against violence.”

Given that Paul has written several posts containing similarly over-the-top fantasies of violence against women, and another recent post mocking female rape victims, this explanation rather strains credulity.

His explanation for these previous posts? Again, back to his post today:

I have satirized violence several times, and it has of course been taken out of context and even drawn criticism from MRA’s and sympathizers.  …  If people don’t recognize satire or humor then let ’em stew.

So he’s making three claims about his previous posts containing fantasies of violence towards women: that they’re “satire,” that they’re “humor,” and that the violent quotes have been “taken out of context.”

So let’s deal with all of those claims in regard to Paul’s most notorious “satirical” post. I’ll start with humor.

Here is an example of humor, from comedian Emo Philips:

Always remember the last words of my grandfather, who said: “A truck!”

What’s funny about this — at least the first time you hear it — is that Philips has led us to believe one thing (that we’re going to hear some words of wisdom from his grandfather), but instead flips the script, challenging our expectations by delivering instead the last thing his grandfather shouted before being hit by a truck. (Sorry, explanations of humor are almost always completely unfunny.)

Here is an example of something that is not humor:

Let’s punch some bitches until blood spurts from their noses!

That second example might seem a bit strange. It’s not clever. There’s no twist, no challenging of our assumptions. There’s no incongruity. It’s really just a violent fantasy. Why would anyone claim that it’s “humor,” or satirical?

Well, that’s essentially what Paul Elam has been doing. That quote isn’t from him — I made it up as an example — but it’s essentially a condensed version of Paul’s allegedly “humorous” remarks about domestic violence:. Here’s Paul, in his own words, in a post I’ve criticized before:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Ba-dump TSSH! Not even an instant rimshot makes that funny. There’s no clever twist; it’s just a fantasy about beating and humiliating women.

Is it unfair to quote this passage “out of context?” Here’s a bit more context: those words ran next to a photo of a woman with a black eye, with the caption: “Maybe she DID have it coming.” (See the picture at top right, which is a screenshot from Paul’s site.)

But I suspect that’s not the “context” Elam is talking about. He seems to be referring instead to this, from later in his post:

Now, am I serious about this?

No.

That seems clear. And in one sense this is true: he’s not literally calling for men to organize a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

But let’s look at the comment I just quoted in context, shall we? (Emphasis added.)

Now, am I serious about this?

No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves. …

In that light, every one of those women at Jezebel and millions of others across the western world are as deserving of a righteous ass kicking as any human being can be. But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.

In other words, he’s not backing off from his advocacy of violence against “violent bitches” because he thinks that this violence is wrong; he’s backing off for purely pragmatic reasons — if you actually “bash a violent bitch” it may get you arrested.

Now, about the question of satire. Satire is defined as “the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.” When Jonathan Swift wrote his famous essay seemingly calling for the Irish to eat their own children, it was satire because he was being bitterly ironic: he didn’t really think anyone should be eating babies, and his essay was in fact intended to mock British authorities and callous attitudes towards the Irish.

By contrast, there’s no irony in Paul’s post: he actually believes that “violent bitches” deserve “a righteous ass kicking,” and he states this quite explicitly.

Since Paul wrote that post, he’s written others that reveal a pretty callous view towards female victims of violence. In one post, which I discuss here, he mocks and blames women for the crime of getting raped, suggesting that women who get drunk and make out with guys are “freaking begging” to be raped, “[d]amn near demanding it”:

[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

You can find those quotes, in all their glorious context here.

And in a more recent piece, Paul announces that he doesn’t really care all that much about rape:

I lack any desire to react to rape, especially as currently defined, with the same vengeful repugnance that I would other crimes generally considered heinous.

The fact is that I care about a lot of things more than I care about rape.

He goes on to suggest a curious moral equivalency between women and rapists, saying that he views “the perceived struggles of women with all the concern I have for the struggles of real rapists in the criminal justice system.”

Now, again, there is context here: in the rest of the piece he argues, not very effectively, that rape has been defined in crazy ways by the “hegemonic [feminist] elite,” that “so often nothing more than accusation is needed in order to secure a conviction.” And so on and so forth. You can read the whole thing here. Still, none of this “context” alters the noxious attitudes he’s shown towards women time and time again.

Paul, you’re a terrible comedian, and an even worse satirist. But as a human being?

You’re pretty fucking awful at that too.

Categories
antifeminism discussion of the day homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MRA Uncategorized violence against men/women women are...

Women Are … Part 3: A Voice For Men edition

Britney, don’t you know YOU’RE toxic?

More, uh, questionable wisdom from angry dudes on the nature of women. Today: comments from A Voice For Men. I’ve highlighted some of the nastiest stuff for easy reference.

Women: Deserve to be shot in the face.

Women are the natural enemies of men. No matter what anyone says and how good women claim to be, that is just the truth. This will never stop and men will continue under the tyranny of women. … We are called rapists, abusers, bullies, and even homophobes because we don’t embrace the faggots biologically backward, queer-ass culture. … I am so fucking tired of this shit, that I really wouldn’t mind shooting a bitch dead in the face. … They are evil. ALL OF THEM!!! … This is a gender war, and women, ALL WOMEN! are the enemies, there is no compromising.

(Note: This comment, even with the whole shooting-women-in-the-face bit, got more upvotes than downvotes from A Voice For Men’s peanut gallery, and “redpill” was not taken to task for actually suggesting murder by the site’s owner, Paul Elam. Lots of other crazy stuff in that comment thread.) 

EDITED TO ADD: Elam has now removed this comment, which he says he hadn’t seen before, saying “I am vehemently against violence.” Given that he has posted similarly violent fantasies several times in his own pieces, this is a little difficult to take altogether seriously. (My link is to the version of the page saved on the Internet Archive, which still contains the comment intact.) He claims those other pieces were “satire” and that the violent parts were “taken out of context.” Of course, none of this changes the fact that a comment about “shooting a bitch dead in the face” got more upvotes than downvotes on his site. (Here, by contrast, is a comment that got massive downvotes on his site; you’ll have to click a link there to even make the comment visible.) EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: In this post, I take apart Paul’s claim that he’s being satirical when he talks about violence.

Women are: Toxic, but their vaginas are useful. 

Women are toxic – stay away from them, dont be around them for too long and most importantly when pumping them with man juice wear protection so you dont get infected with child support.

Until women regress back into their maternal/house keeping roles use them for the only thing they have to offer to a straight man – their vaginas.

Women are: Malleable, gullible, stupid, bad, irrational, and ridiculous.

In my opinion women are malleable,gullible and lack vision.The statements they make are ludicrous,they are therefore stupid, driven on by one thing and one thing only-their sexual power. The day someone creates a pill that desexualizes them in our eyes, then that is it. It is over. I don’t for a single second believe that the nature of women has transformed over the ages. Go back in time and the same nonsense will be as visible then as it is now. … women are this way by nature. The good thing is,they have demonstrated, to their everlasting detriment, just how bad, irrational, and ridiculous they really are. Time to stop pandering.

Women are: Crazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, toxic, entitled, and they’ll probably get your penis infected.

[W]omen in this country my age and younger are out of their minds! They have no concept of discipline or responsibility. They can talk with the best of them but their actions paint an entirely different picture. It’s not going to an extreme to want to get away from Western women entirely. They are toxic human beings. It is dangerous physically (many of them have STD’s), economically (look at hulk hogan’s ex and her new yacht the alimoney), religiously (these girls are some of the MOST entitled I have seen), etc.. Even the best of them slip into the entitled mentality far too frequently.

Categories
discussion of the day evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Your “fertility symbol,” my body

>

In a discussion of my “Ladies! Stop assaulting us by dressing like slutty sluts” post, regular commenter DarkSideCat left a comment that really got to the heart of what is so troubling about the CoAlpha Brotherhood and others of their ilk. I thought everyone deserved to see it, so here it is. (I’ve edited it down slightly, broken it into paragraphs and put especially pertinent points in bold; you can see the original comment in context here.)

To set it up: In a previous comment Eoghan had referred casually to the “aggressive flashing of fertility and mating symbols by females.” DarkSideCat replied:

You mean their fucking bodies? Have you so objectified women that you can’t think of their very BODIES as anything other than ‘fertility and mating symbols’? You are thinking of women’s skin as some sort of sexual object for you, rather than their own flesh. … You are assuming that women’s bodies are sex objects or sex acts, they aren’t, they are people’s fucking bodies.

Men show their skin all of the damned time. They even routinely go topless in public places. Because a man taking off his shirt in the heat, or putting on a nice pair of jeans to try and look nice is a person doing stuff, whereas a woman going topless in [the] heat or putting on a pair of jeans to look nice is a filthy slut who deserves to be raped?

Women’s bodies and skin are no more public property than men’s, and, if you can’t manage to see someone in public and find them attractive without thinking they are evil and are asking for you to rape them, you are the problem, not them.

Shit like this is also pretty damned insulting to men. You know, I think more highly of men than this, perhaps that is the difference between me and CoAlpha. I think that men can (and some in fact do) behave like decent human beings, and see women as human beings as well. I do not see male sexuality as so innately out of control and violent that if they see someone sexy, they will feel a burning need to violently attack and rape them.

You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists? Because they believe the same stereotypes about men as anti-feminists like CoAlpha. If you spend so much fucking time pushing the notion that men can’t help being assholes or rapists, you are going to get some people to believe it, but disagree about the solution.

 The quotes here contain direct threats of rape and murder and say that people dressed in certain types of clothes are asking to be raped. Yet, somehow you can’t see how fucked up that is?

Amen.

Categories
bullying douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Was his name Stuntman Mike?

>

… and a misogynistic sociopath!

From a Jezebel post titled “Horrible Online Dating Stories to Keep You Single,” here’s an example of why it’s not a good idea to date men who think all women are whores: 

After we … settled in to watch the first movie, he paused it, turned to me, and started ranting about how women are whores and how hard it is to be a rich guy. I was really uncomfortable and told him so, and he apologized and resumed the movie. Five minutes later, same thing happened again. I firmly told him that I’d like to go home, so he said he’d drive me. When I get into the car, he peels away so fast that I can’t get my seatbelt on.

He hits a cement pillar on his way out and the hood of his car starts to smoke, but he doesn’t stop, and he’s going so fast that I am slammed into the door, him, the windshield, etc. like a bean in a tin can. He starts saying crazy stuff like, “Oh, I’ll get you home, but I don’t know what condition you’ll be in when you get there.” …
Someone suddenly pulls out in front of him and he slams the car to a stop; I hit the windshield, and in an incredible feat of awesomeness, grab the handle of the car and open it, propelling myself out of the car as he hits the gas pedal. I hit the ground and started running as fast as I could… .

I wonder if the movie they were watching was Death Proof?

Happy Thanksgiving!
Categories
I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sex violence against men/women western women suck

Ladies! Stop assaulting us by dressing like slutty sluts

Dirty whore flaunting her sexy arms.

Oh, you foul, filthy women, why must you continue to oppress men with the power of your evil sexiness? I’ve been spending some time recently reading a tiny internet forum with big ambitions. “The CoAlpha Brotherhood,” the site’s Mission Statement notes, “is an attempt to abandon feminist society and collectively create an independent sub-culture based on patriarchal values.” High on the CoAlpha agenda: get women to stop dressing like such sexy, sexy sluts.

The head CoAlpha, a fellow calling himself Drealm, laments the situation he finds himself in as a man living “in a university town that’s overrun with young girls,” a man continually assaulted by the sight of women in clothing more revealing than a Burka:

As you can imagine, my university town, Berkeley California, is one big liberalized hypersexual runway show. I’m forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle.

He is forced — forced, I tells ya! — to stare at these women with lust in his heart, and presumably in his trousers as well. How unfair is that?

[T]he only time it’s enjoyable looking at promiscuously dressed women, is if you can have them on the spot. So if a woman is a hooker or a stripper, then it’s enjoyable to watch them. However, if a woman is completely unattainable, then it’s mentally and physically unpleasant to look at promiscuous women.

So, ladies, if you’re not going to put out, or at least give the poor fellow a free lap dance on the steps of Sproul Plaza, cover up.

Women, out of respect for men, should dress in a way that doesn’t excite men. A woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement is the equivalent of a man dressing in such a way that causes a woman to have a sudden onset period. Simply put dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men’s sexuality.

And if you assault a man like this, he might …

Ok, I’m going to pause for a second here, because at this point Drealm takes his “argument” in a really dark, if unfortunately not unprecedented direction.

Basically, he argues that if women “assault” him with excessively sexy clothing, he might not be able to control his urge to sexually assault them:

I cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. … [t]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. …  If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it’s easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. … Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. … A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.

Ladies, really, do you want to bring out the murders and rapists in men? Forget tight t-shirts and skinny jeans. Just say no to halter tops and short skirts. Think: what would I wear if I were Amish?

Seeing as Berkeley is also a multi-cultural haven, I sometimes have the pleasure of being startled by the sight of conservative muslim and Indian women. … The only thing I want to do is help them. Yet the only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. These muslim and Indian women are very beautiful, so it’s not as though I’m not attracted to them. It’s just that dress codes in both sluts and modest women operate as agents for activating different hardwired impulses in my psyche.

And seriously, no man can be expected to actually curb his baser impulses to rape and murder ALL the time. They’re hardwired! So don’t set him off by wantonly exposing your arms and legs and perhaps even some of your even sexier parts. Dress as if the ozone layer has gone poof and every little bit of exposure to the sun will burn your flesh like steak on a grill.

[T]he point of modest clothing is to cover up anything that excites men. … to cut off all triggers that excite men. In my opinion this starts with skin coverage. The more a woman’s skin is covered, the less she excites men. This is why short skirts and low cut tops are antonyms of modesty.

Tight clothing is also very dangerous.

[C]lothing should not exaggerate a female’s body shapes. This is why I still think jeans can be immodest on women, because a tight pair of jeans will accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. High heels meet the same conflict as tight jeans, while they may not show extra skin, they accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks.

And watch out with that evil, sexy hair of yours.

Uncovered hair isn’t as much an immodesty crime, but I still feel raw long hair can excite men. Long hair’s affect on men can be counteracted with a scarf or veil.

So what should a nice modest young gal do? Cover up. Cover everything up. Rent yourself a copy of Witness, and sew yourself some clothes that are really motherfucking Plain.

Or, I suppose, you could always crawl into a garbage bag and hop.

NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.