Category: western women suck

Categories
alpha males antifeminism evil women homophobia I'm totally being sarcastic incel misogyny MRA oppressed men penises PUA pussy cartel rapey reactionary bullshit sex vaginas western women suck

Happy Pride Day, non-existent gay men!

Well, you're no lady. But I guess you'll do.

Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)

Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.

Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.

Let’s let him explain this:

Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.

Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?

As Rookh  sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.

[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.

A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:

Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.

Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.

Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.

Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?

No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been  encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:

As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.

And so, in Rookh’s world,

homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.

Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!

[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general.  … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.

Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.

Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:

Court’s free!

Categories
asian fetishist evil women MGTOW misogyny MRA patriarchy violence against men/women western women suck

New "Obedient Wives Club" in Malaysia: wives should be submissive helpmeets and first-class whores

Marry one, get one free: Two members of the Obedient Wives Club and their husband.

MRAs regularly accuse feminists of promoting the idea that all women are “perfect princesses” who can do no wrong. Which is a rather silly accusation, as every feminist I’ve ever met is well aware that women, like men, are capable of vast evil. Jiang Qing, also known as Madame Mao, was one of the ringleaders behind China’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Madame Delphine Lalaurie was a 19th century New Orleans socialite who tortured her slaves and performed bizarre medical experiments on them. And then there were Ilse Koch, the “Witch of Buchenwald,” and her counterpart Irma Grese, the “Bitch of Belsen,” sadistic Nazis who tormented the prisoners under their charge and kept grisly “souveniers.” (For more on them and other truly evil women see here and here.)

But today I’m going to talk about some women who aren’t so much evil as retrograde and wrong: the 800 women who have reportedly joined the newly formed Obedient Wives Club in Malaysia, an offshoot of a fundamentalist Islamic organization called Global Ikhwan, previously known for its Polygamy Club.

If you set aside the whole fundamentalist Islam thing — MRAs by and large don’t seem terribly fond of Islam — these Obedient Wives would pretty much represent the ideal women for manosphere misogynists; much of what they profess sounds like it came straight from discussions on The Spearhead or one of the popular MGTOW forums.

According to the Obedient Wives, for example, “disobedient wives are the cause for upheaval in this world” — including social ills like domestic abuse. As one spokeswoman for the group sees it, “domestic abuse happens because wives don’t obey their husband.” Asked by the newspaper The Star if this meant that a wife was at fault if she was abused, the spokeswoman replied with a “yes,” because “most probably … she didn’t listen to her husband.”

But it’s the group’s pronouncements about sex that have caused the most controversy in Malaysia. Apparently Obedient Wives need to be sexual dynamos as well as submissive helpmeets, eager and willing to “obey, serve and entertain” their husbands “better than a first-class prostitute” can.  As one of the group’s founders put it at the event heralding the formation of the Obedient Wives,

Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it’s all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore … to your husband?

Several days later, another Obedient Wives Club spokeswoman attempted to “clarify” these remarks in an interview with the Malay Mail:

I believe we have been misunderstood and misinterpreted. When we said that husbands should treat their wives like first-class prostitutes, we were not putting wives on the same level with prostitutes. We are talking about first-class elite types, not street hooker types.

So that’s … good, I guess? Although we should point out that actual prostitutes in Malaysia – even those working at “high end” clubs — are treated like shit.

Before all the “American-Women-Suck” dudes reading this convert to Islam and buy one-way plane tickets to Malaysia, I would like to note that there are feminists in Malaysia who think these women (and the men Involved in starting the group) are full of it. Islamic feminists, even.

Categories
evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW racism western women suck

Who’s the ugliest of them all?

The smirk's not helping, dude.

It’s not only our Western-women-hating MGTOW brethren who like to make obnoxious generalizations about large groups of women. A couple of days ago, London School of Economics evo psych prof Satoshi Kanazawa got more than a few people royally pissed off with a Psychology Today blog post that suggested black women were, well, ugly. (PT took the post down, but you can see screenshots of it here, and a bit more about him, and the controversy here and  here .)

Looking at a study that purported to measure beauty “subjectively” and “objectively” – uh, really? – Kanazawa attempted to explain why black women were rated less attractive than women of other races. After calling them fat, then dismissing weight as a possibility (“Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI”), he offered this bit of speculation:

The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race difference in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.

So … good news, I guess, if you’re more of a misogynist than a racist; a bit of a mixed bag if you’re a racist who hates black men and women equally.

Evidently the fellow who posts as 6dutchman6 over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum falls into the former category. Declaring that “Science proves Black women undesirable,” he chortled:

LOL, so true, black women are the most butch, ball busting, head weaving, lying, conniving, two faced, scum bags I have ever encountered of all the women, an that’s saying a lot when we’re talking about western wimmin folk.

I thought White Ameriskanks were shit until I met a big fat ugly “princess” with the most deluded mind EVARRR. An this is in Canada.

They are INCREDIBLY flaky, want to fuck you stupid one minute, yelling rape & loser the next. They are 3x more nasty than white wimmin so it’s no wonder black men have something to bitch about.

Now science steps in an say’s “yah, black women = shit” an the hissy fit shit storm kicks into over-drive.

Naturally, 6dutchman6’s MGTOW pals jumped in to agree with him. I don’t quite have the heart to tell them that according to Kanazawa’s, er, data, men of all races are rated uglier than black women.

Categories
antifeminism evil women idiocy internal debate manginas marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead western women suck

W.F. Price: A Daisy Picking Mangina?

I'm onto you, all women!

MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.

Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:

We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?

Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,

a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …

If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.

And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:

[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …

Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.

So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.

On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.”  Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:

The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..

 [I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)

Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.

W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.

Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.

Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!

Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead vaginas western women suck

The Royal Scam

Do you like my hat? No, I do not like your hat.

I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over  Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,

but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?

Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:

Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.

Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.

But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:

Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!

Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!

So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that

promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.

Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.

But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:

Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.

The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.

What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.

Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)

While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”

To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:

The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.

Equality in marriage = oppression of men.

I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.

And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .

—

*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.

UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.

Categories
douchebaggery evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny western women suck

Desperately Seeking Übermenschen

Hey ladies!

The general line amongst manosphere misogynists is that American women are a bunch of stuck-up princesses whose “ginas” – that is, vaginas – tingle only in the presence of “thugs” and “alpha males.” But one YouTube ranter calling himself LogicJunkie has a somewhat different theory, as he recently explained in a note to the moderator of the Happier Abroad forums. American women, it turns out, are basically all Nazis at heart, “preoccupied with … eugenic perfection in males.” Let’s follow LogicJunkie’s, er, logic:

American females regard as a “creep” any guy who isn’t at least six feet tall, with a pronounced chin, a jock physique, and, in general, Ken doll good Aryan looks. And money is important, too, but not nearly as important as the physiological eugenics. So, in good Germanic fashion, I think what they’re mainly concerned about, is somehow being contaminated by the mere presence of the inferior. …

America is, now more than ever, a Germano-eugenicist death camp, wrapped in the facade of “capitalism” and “corporatism” and “pop culture” and blah, blah, blah. But it’s all about covertly advancing the genetic omnipresence of the Teutonic physiological ideal.

I hate to poop on LogicJunkie’s logic here but, dude, if all the women you’re meeting turn out to be eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis, it does not therefore follow that all American women are eugenics-obsessed, Aryan-fetishizing Nazis. It may just mean you should stop cruising for chicks at Klan meetings.

Categories
I'm totally being sarcastic MRA reactionary bullshit sex Uncategorized western women suck

>Body heat

>

Jayne Mansfield leaks sex onto Sophia Loren
Be careful, gals. With warmer weather coming, don’t be tempted to wear skimpier clothes. Because female sexuality works the same as body heat on a cold winter’s day: the more skin you show, the more heat – literal and figurative – leaks out. Eventually, you will run out. And that’s bad news, possibly for you, and definitely for your future husbands. (And really, they’re the only ones who count.) 
That, in any case, is the theory of one traditional-minded Men’s Rightser calling himself Alucin. In a blog post today he mused about the differences between traditional religious women and, you know, all those filthy “western” sluts wandering around exposing sexy bits like their legs and their … hair. (Not their leg hair, their head hair. We’ll get to leg hair in a minute.) Alucin writes: 

Orthodox Jewish [and]  Muslim women [cover] their hair and other parts when in public. The ideal is that they save their sexuality for their husband. Only their husband can see their hair, legs, cleavage, and experience their sexuality. 
All well and good, Alucin says. “Western women,” by contrast, 
fully display their sexuality, and tend not to value virginity or other traditional sexual morals. Then, when married, they turn into dowdy, asexual androids, gaining weight and wearing their man’s clothes. And forgetting to shave.

They give none of their sexuality to their husbands. It has already been used up. She says that she owns her sexuality, but in fact it was the zillion guys she’s been with who have owned her sexuality. Her sexuality has been farmed and mined.

A western woman’s sexuality is for everyone but her husband. 

  
Here’s one of those horrible hair-showing western harlots singing about hot cleavage in the summertime. (Just so you don’t get too confused by the lyrics, I’m pretty sure the song is from the point of view of a guy missing his girlfriend.)


— 
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 asian fetishist evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sex western women suck

>Asian women: Sexual strikebreakers?

>

Pick a stereotype. Art by Margaret Kasahara.

Today, on the blog Objectify Chicks — devoted to women, not bird children — the would-be “relationship expert” behind the site attempts to explain why so many men of his ilk prefer Asian women. Naturally, he spews forth an assortment of stereotypes which manage to be insulting towards American and Asian women at the same time.

American women, he writes, echoing a widespread sentiment amongst manosphere men,

are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational – and that is on their very best days.

Asian women, by contrast,

are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values. … They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the “party” attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane.

Mr. Chick Objectifier shows how much he values these women with values by illustrating his post with a picture of a young, attractive Asian women, with the following caption: “Hello There …. You must be the birthday boy!!! I am your gift!!! I am here to love you long time!”

Clearly, Mr. Objectifier suggests, the best way to knock those smug American women down a peg or two is to import as many of these Asian “gifts” to the US as possible. Alas, evil feminists — sorry, “femtards” — have put a some barriers in the way, in the name of protecting women and girls from “human trafficking.” Mr. Chick Objectifier objects, arguing that

the femtard interest in Western men’s attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for “human trafficking.” Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.

That’s right: In his mind Asian women are basically sexual strikebreakers, and feminists want to keep them out of the US so they can have … bitter, woman-hating dudes like the Chick Objectifier all to themselves?

I was following his logic up to this point, but then my head exploded.

—

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
hypocrisy MRA reactionary bullshit violence against men/women western women suck

>A New Low in Victim-Blaming, Part 2: In Mala Fide on Lara Logan

>

From In Mala Fide

The reaction of the “manosphere” to Lara Logan’s reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men’s Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.

Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu’s posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:

Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.

Then turned up the sarcasm:

Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. …

Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple  fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution — indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a “twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.”)

For Bardamu, though, Logan’s story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man’s world:

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. …

Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]

To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:

[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.

And then, after arguing that Logan “had it coming,”and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:

There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. …

I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.

Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu’s fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to “John”:

Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” …

This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.

For some, the case was not just another excuse for “slut shaming” but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:

American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? … We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”

There were other comments even worse than these — e.g., this one — but I don’t have the heart to post them here.

But Bardamu’s retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments — mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.

This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a “premenstrual whiner”), and casually referring to Logan as “an unwilling cum dumpster,” Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.

Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?

Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a “cum dumpster” pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.

About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he’d taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the “True Psychopaths.”  His posts on Logan — full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy — seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.

—

If you liked 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
misogyny sex western women suck

>Animal lust

>

What better day than Valentine’s Day for a post about love? Or at least the MGTOW version of love, which is more like a mixture of lust and loathing.

I’ve spoken before about what I’ve called the MGTOW Paradox: Men Going Their Own Way generally seem to hate the ladies, but the ladies still keep giving them boners. Recently, on the grotequely misnamed Happy Bachelors forum, Marcus Aurelius — who describes himself without irony as “one of the more, if you will, ‘spiritual’ voices on the forum” — offered four partial solutions to this problem of excess lady desire. They are, in order: Porn, furious masturbation, a deep understanding of the Buddhist notion of “the impermanence of form,” and … whatever this is:

And another thing I do…when [desire]  ACTUALLY hits….like say I see a hot looking girl at work, and it starts to creep up, I actually indulge in it for a moment. I look at the woman. Think about my attraction to her nice…whatever. Then, I think about it as tho I am at the Public Zoo. Seriously. At the zoo, you will see a wild exotic animal, and you will stare through that glass in awe of this animal…..but you wouldn’t set foot in that damn cage…because you KNOW if you did….that damn thing would TEAR YOU APART. Thats how I like to look at attractive american women. Animals in a zoo.

That only works for so long, dude. Then you turn into a furry.

—

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.