Category: white knights

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism chivalry evil women misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men the fucking titanic white knights

A Titanic mistake? New research sinks the “women and children first” myth.

Another manifestation of Sink Misandry

The Titanic sank 100 years ago today, and Men’s Rights Activists are still pissed off about it.

They’re not really pissed off that it sank. They’re pissed off that the men on board were more likely to go down with the ship than the women. You know, that whole “women and children first” thing.

Some MRAs were so pissed off about this that they were planning to march on Washington on this very day in an attempt, as they put it, to “Sink Misandry.”

You don’t know how much I would have loved to see this, a dozen angry dudes marching in circles on the National Mall carrying signs protesting the sinking of the Titanic and demanding that in all future sinkings of the Titanic that women and men be equally likely to drown in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. For that would be justice at last!

But, alas, due to unspecified logistical problems this march was cancelled some months back, and so misandry remains unsunk.

Or does it?

For you see, it turns out that the whole “women and children first” thing was not really a thing. Oh, on The Titanic it was. But women unfortunate enough to be passengers on sinking ships that weren’t the Titanic (or the HMS Birkenhead, which sunk off the coast of South Africa in 1852) weren’t able to push ahead to the front of the line. That, at least, is the conclusion of a new Swedish study (link is to a pdf of it).

As Discovery News explains:

The chivalrous code “women and children first” appears to have sunk with the Titanic 100 years ago.

Long believed to be the golden standard of conduct in a shipwreck, the noble edict is in fact “a myth that has been nourished by the Titanic disaster,” economist Mikael Elinder of Uppsala University, Sweden, told Discovery News.

Elinder and colleague Oscar Erixson analyzed a database of 18 peace-time shipwrecks over the period 1852–2011 in a new study into survival advantages at sea disasters.

Looking at the fate of over 15,000 people of more than 30 nationalities, the researchers found that more women and children die than men in maritime disasters, while captains and crew have a greater chance of survival than any passengers.

Being a woman was an advantage on only two ships: on the Birkenhead in 1852 and on the Titanic in 1912.

The notion of “women and children first” may have captured the popular imagination, but it’s never been an official policy for ship evacuations. It wouldn’t be fair, nor would it be an efficient way to get as many people as possible to safety.

Nor was “women and children” strictly enforced even on the Titanic. True, my great-grandfather, the mystery writer Jacques Futrelle, was one of those who went down with the ship, while his wife and my great-grandmother, writer Lily May Futrelle made it off safely (in the last lifeboat). But there were many men who survived, and many women who died.

If you want to get mad about the sinking of the Titanic all those years ago, get mad at the White Star Line for not bothering to equip the ship with lifeboats enough for everyone on it. Blame the captain, for ordering the ship to continue plowing ahead on a dark, foggy night into an area of the Atlantic where numerous icebergs had just been sighted by a number of other ships. Blame the crew for botching the evacuation – for the strange lack of urgency after the ship hit the iceberg, for the lifeboats leaving the sinking ship with half as many passengers as they could fit.

Much like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, Elinder and Erixson’s research has poked a giant hole in the “women and children first” myth. Of course, MRAs aren’t interested in historical accuracy. They’re looking for excuses to demonize women and feminists. So I imagine we’ll be hearing about the Titanic from them for years to come.

Here’s another tragic sinking, of yet another ship without a sufficient number of lifeboats:

EDIT: I added a couple of relevant links and fixed a somewhat egregious typo.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women I'm totally being sarcastic manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men paranoia racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit sluts the spearhead violence white knights

Skanks, Sharia, and Manginas in Shining Armor: Yet another rant from The Spearhead

ARGLEBARGLEBLLLAGGH

[TW for violence, rape apologism.]

On this lazy Sunday (why can’t every day be lazy?), I present to you without comment this lovely little rant I found over on The Spearhead, where it received more than two dozen upvotes for its lively mixture of misogyny, Islamophobia, and rape-as-comedy-fodder. (It got a decent number of downvotes too, I’m guessing less for its views on “femiskanks” or Islam than for its straightforward endorsement of White Nationalism;  I’ve edited out some of the Islamophobia for space reasons.) Take it away, Bryan the cracker-loving woman-hater:

Ah, american femiskanks, where would we be without them?

In a nasty way I almost look forward to the rise of Islam in the West/USA because it will be amusing to see feminism crushed under the boot of Sharia. There is no room for feminism, gay rights, etc, in a Sharia land. …

I think that being a man who is disgusted with western women, I’m going to spend a bit of time laughing at the thought of femiskanks being raped by Muslims for taking part in “slut walks” and having acid thrown in their faces for making their typical femiskank claims about how men are worthless. …

I look forward to the day when police stop responding to requests for protection orders, emergency protection orders, etc… If a woman is truly in danger from a man then she should be able to seek protection via her brothers, her male cousins, and stay in her father’s house. If her brothers don’t want anything to do with her that speaks to the sort of woman she is.

Along similar lines, I look forward to the day when police stop responding to domestic “violence” calls unless it has crossed into the realm of disturbing the peace or creating a disturbance for the neighborhood. When some femiskank calls 911 and tells them, “I see a man raising his voice with his wife and telling her it is time to leave the store they’re in, this isn’t right” said femiskank should be told, “why don’t you just drop dead, this line is for serious calls, get off the line or we’ll arrest you.”

There are too many mangina police out there who are all too ready to physically assault and even kill other men, at the behest of crazy power-tripping women, simply because they care more about making $50,000 dollars per year and gaining the approval of random femiskanks in the community, than about doing what is right and what is healthy for the nation.

Women realize the incredible power they have, be it political, social, economic, judicial, or extra-judicial. If a woman makes a false rape claim she can ruin a man financially, socially, politically, legally, and often she can have him attacked, perhaps killed, by an outraged mob of manginas in shining armor. …

A Roman father had the legal authority/power to have any of his daughters PUT TO DEATH, yet … I cannot cite a single example of the law being applied in practice.

Can you imagine how terrible things would be if women had the codified and unquestioned legal power to put a male relative to death merely by word/command? The male population in the USA would easily be less than half of what it presently is. The only reason women might refrain from engaging in mass purges against men is because on some level they realize they need men for economic reasons. Even still, that realization might not stop them as they are incredibly short-sighted to the point of being so hateful and bitter that they cut off their nose to spite their face.

Yes, we have seen it time and time again, they have restraining orders taken out to keep their ex-husband away from his children, thinking, “ha, that will show him who is boss, let him cry about it!” and they give no thought to the fact that their children are almost certain to grow up with tremendous problems. Either they do not realize it or they just do not care. I tend to lean towards the latter being the case, they just don’t care whether or not their own children suffer, as long as they can “make that jerk (ex-husband) suffer” and make him realize “I am woman, hear me roar!” that’s all that matters.

Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason. I’m pretty sure that if I lived in the same town as you, I’d try to get a restraining order against you just for this comment alone.

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women bullying creepy evil women misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam rape rapey the enigma that is ladies threats violence against men/women white knights

MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place

Making women cry: Highly ineffective.

Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.

As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk  literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women,  and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.

But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.

So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:

Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …

And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:

Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are

[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.

If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …

Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?

Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:

plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.

And lecturing us about morality too?

I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.

NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund  banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist  devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.

Categories
a voice for men antifeminism idiocy misogyny MRA reddit white knights

Breaking News from Imaginary Backwards Land: Atheists "worship at the altar of feminism."

The Scumbag Privilege Denying r/Atheism meme.

Paul Elam has apparently become something of a comedian – though not on purpose. In his latest post on A Voice for Men, he takes on the atheist community for being too in thrall to (wait for it) feminism.

I’ll let him explain:

[T]hey are too religious. Yes, I mean that literally. For when you wipe away all the bombastic bellowing about empiricism and the strident mocking of those who choose a life of faith, what you are left with is a population of people that surrender their reason and cognition as though they were at gunpoint; that hit their knees as fast as any Catholic…to worship at the altar of feminism.

His proof? Several years ago someone at Atheist Nexus posted a link to a Men’s News Daily column of his, and – get this! – some feminists responded!

You can go here to see all the horrible things these evil cultish feminist atheists said. Like, for example:

I guess I’m a feminist, but I really like men and these are some of the things I love about them:

Protectiveness is a positive trait in men that women who want to have babies look for. We also like passion and some recklessness, but you won’t get me to admit that to my daredevil husband…..

Confidence; men usually have more of it and it is mostly a postive trait.

The ability to make decisions quickly.

Physical strength and endurance are helpful in many family situations. Ahem.

Penises. You have them, lots of us like them. I know it’s not technically a “trait”, but I had to put that in.

You can practically taste the man-hate there!

Elam, I should note, ignores that comment. No, what’s got his underpants in a wad is this comment:

The whole web site mensnewsdaily.com is a sad overreaction to the growing equality of women in society.

Evidently he’s been stewing about this remark for more than two years.

In fact, if you go and take a look at it, the discussion on Atheist Nexus wasn’t … really … all that feminist.  Yes, several people criticized Elam and mensnewsdaily as “extreme,” but one of those people also criticized radical feminists as similarly “extreme.” Some of the commenters explicitly identified themselves as feminist; others explicitly criticized feminism. Nonetheless, the discussion somehow managed to be the politest conversation about gender I’ve run across online in a long, long time.

Seriously. Go take a look at it. Then consider how Elam sums it all up:

Apparently they can’t even handle 50 years of loud mouthed arts majors without drinking the Kool-aide and going brain dead. There was scarcely a voice among them that did not wallow in the ersatz enlightenment so common to feminist ideologues.

And then he moves on to whatever this is:

Feminism, as far as ideology goes, has been very effective at using human reproductive realities to co-opt other movements. In fact, from the American Civil Rights Movement to Occupy Wall Street, feminism has progressed without paying its own way, but rather by sending women in to other social arenas and wheedling men into supporting them. The Borg would be proud if they had emotions. Resistance is Futrelle.

Ho ho! Futrelle rhymes with futile! Sort of! Lest Elam and co. become too overwhelmed with pride for this clever wordplay, I should note that some junior high schoolers beat him to the punch back in the late 70s. Or maybe it was grade schoolers. I really don’t remember.

I’m less clear about the rest of his argument about “human reproductive realities.” Apparently it’s a fancy way of saying that dudes only support feminism so they can get laid. Another highly original notion.

Elam’s other piece of evidence that feminism has taken over the atheist community? PZ Myers.

He quotes this evil athio-feminazi ideologue arguing that if male atheists want to get more women involved in the atheist community, they should:

Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.

God – or, if you prefer, Imaginary Entity – forbid that male atheists actually listen to women explain why they might feel unwelcome in the mostly male (and not particularly feminist friendly) atheist community.

You really think feminism has taken over the atheist community? Take a look at Reddit’s Atheism subreddit, where, recently, a woman who recently described how she had been raped was attacked as a liar and a slut in a thread filled with rape jokes. Or go back a little further to the Elevatorgate brouhaha, where an atheist blogger who politely mentioned in a podcast that she doesn’t really like being hit on by strange men in elevators at 4 AM drew the ire of countless angry atheist dudes, including Richard Fucking Dawkins himself? (In case you want to revisit that bit of nastiness, I wrote about “Elevatorgate” in several blog posts; here are some reactions from decidedly non-feminist atheists.)

This is a movement that “worship[s] at the altar of feminism[?]” Not really seeing it, dude.

But again, congrats on the whole Futrelle/futile thing. Genius!

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

Bicycle-riding ladies and other threats to manly order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women hypergamy I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reactionary bullshit the spearhead white knights

Misogyny to the Maxd: Women are “liabilities in our technological culture.” Also, they’re fat.

Eeerything started going to hell when we let them wear bloomers and ride bicycles.

Oh boy. Over on The Spearhead, the good old trusty Spearhead, a fella called Rmaxd has some bold new ideas to share with the world.

Well, they’re not really new, or bold, or true, and some of them kind of seem to contradict each other. But they are, indisputably, ideas. And because he’s a dude, they’re automatically good, because dudes are the dynamic, creative force behind all historical progress. So it’s no wonder this comment of his got more than two dozen upvotes.

Rmaxd starts off by addressing the manginas of the world, and every man who might be considering the benefits of manginahood:

Grow some balls, be masculine, & these so called feminists have zero power

Because NATURE.

We always revert to our biology & nature, over idealism, this is why feminism is dead in the water

And NATURE says women should stay home and cook and pop out babies.

Women in our society are so fucked up, precisely because they rejected their biological need to be part of a society, through their children, husbands & a family

It’s time for a little thought experiment.

Imagine if men were no longer engineers & soldiers & scientists, imagine the biological havoc they would cause on society, all that intellectual brilliance channelled on society, on the loss of their biological roles, instead of as engineers, soldiers & scientists

I’m having a little bit of a hard time imagining, because that doesn’t make any fucking sense. Is he suggesting that the world would collapse if more dudes stayed home and tended the kids?

But never mind, because Rmaxd is on to his next point, which is that women are terrible at math and this makes them OBSOLETE!

In a technology based society, women are the first to be discarded, their lack of scientific & mathematical skills are a liability to our technological culture

Also, they’re lazy and don’t invent shit. Even though by keeping them at home and denying them education the men of the world gave them ample opportunity to invent all sorts of shit, they chose instead to sit on their fat asses and eat bon bons.

Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history

& what did women do with that leisure, with all that time & opportunity to progress science?

 Women became biological luddites, they became entitled, inbred & backwards & technologically liabilities in our present technologically based age

When women should’ve been developing technologies to makeup for their inability to logic & reason, in the same way men developed music & art in order for men to experience emotions, all they did was call for young men to destroying their own futures, to be used as walking wallets & chattle

You can tell how innovative Rmaxd is, because he’s totally just innovated a new way to spell “chattel.”

Anyway, QED, fuck women.

Women are liabilities, we no longer need women to maintain our social networks, we have everything from mobile phones to the internet

Huh. Declaring half of humanity expendable. I was under the impression that MRA dudes considered that sort of thinking to be the equivalent of committing GENOCIDE. Seems some of them were making a big stink about that the other day, when a couple of ladies made some similar remarks about men.

Weird. Because MRA dudes are upvoting this, instead of gathering together in angry mobs on the internet to EXPOSE this dude’s personal information and talk about Fucking His Shit Up.

Never mind, though, because Rmaxd isn’t done with his case against ladies.

We no longer need them to maintain morality, as theyre incapable of morality, a womans ability to destroy herself, in the same fat women destroy their own bodies, is unprecedented, give a woman enough leisure & freetime, & all she’s capable of is how to enslave all of society, to ensure society does the same for women everywhere, irrespective of the results

Damn. So women getting fat is part of a sinister plot to enslave mankind?

This all sounds pretty dire for us civilization-creating dudes.

Happily, as Rmaxd explains in another comment, the ladies are so crazily self-destructive that they will fail in their evil designs, despite “being bankrolled by the rich upper class.” Just like the evil radical blacks back in the 1970s:

[W]omen are following the black activism handbook of the 70′s. …

[N]ear the end of the black movement, as the more mainstream, publicly accepted part of black militancy was rejected & debunked, the more radical components of the movement, began attacking its own supporters, in particular the white supporters of black rights, & they also started attacking blacks who were sympathetic to white males

We see the exact same thing happening with feminism, as the more popular & acceptable parts of feminism have now been rejected by popular culture, ie the colossal failure of stayathome dads

Because nothing is more evil and against NATURE than stay-at-home dads! It’s like sodomy squared.

Anyway, the evil ladies are doomed.

They now start becoming more radical, their antagonism & alienation of men, especially manginas & feminists will inevitably destroy them

As we all know women & especially special rights movements, are always self destructive, as the solutions are never radical enough.

So back to the homes, ladies, where you can return to fulfilling NATURE’s role for the females of the species: sitting on your fat asses and eating bon bons and being terrible at math. Because that is nature’s way.

I had a

Categories
evil women MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny nightstorm sex sexy robot ladies vaginas white knights

Do MGTOWers just want to cuddle? (Possibly with robots?)

MGTOW nightmare: Sexy robot ladies turn out to be stuck-up bitches.

Are MGTOWers all a bunch of closet romantics? In a recent discussion of some research which concluded that men value kissing and cuddling more than women in long-term relationships, a number of the regulars on MGTOWforums.com confessed that they … actually missed the affections of women.

BeijaFlor reported

I’ve gotten along for decades without sex OR cuddling. And I miss the cuddling, the snuggly affectionate feel of a loving partner, FAR more than I miss the sex. That’s one reason why I don’t call the call-girls; all they offer is the sex.

Golem added:

I’m going to have to agree with the touch thing, too. Hell, I can cut my own hair, but I’ll still drop the cash to have it done with a wash and a scalp massage just for the contact.

That’s actually just really … sad.

Even Nightstorm2516 — the legendary theorist of the Mousetrap Vagina – offered a poignant confession of his own:

I don’t know anyone elses reasoning for cuddling over sex but my own personal reason would be a huge deprivation in my life of affection. I get zero from women so thats a no-go for me. My male friends think hugging is gay via society programming so men show affection by “bumping fists” and “being cool”. My dad IS anti-affection. My mom showed me some affection, but she was so busy working to the bones, I don’t think I ever got enough. My sister and brother never showed me any love.

I think I value cuddling just because its something I never got to do. 26 Years without affection.. dam thats a long time.

That’s actually sort of heartbreaking – at least until I remember that this is the same guy who once argued that vaginas were like strange venom-injecting mousetraps:

This poison … creeps into the male brain and literally makes him stupid, it shuts down his intellect, and activates all his hormones for more pussy. She’s got the bastard. Now she can slowly but surely take all his wealth and keep pumping more poison into him.

It sucks – I mean really, genuinely sucks — that you got no affection from your parents, dude. But if you view women as monsters secretly plotting to entrap you with their vagina-poison, you’re not likely to get a lot of affection from them.

If you want to live a life that has more to it than bitterness and misery, get yourself off of MGTOWforums.com and find a good therapist.

And whatever you do, don’t listen to avoidwoman, MGTOWforums’ budding futurist, who thinks he’s got a woman-free solution to the affection deficit: perfectly realistic robogirls, which he predicts will be here in 2030. (Let’s just hope they’re a bit more reliable than the Cherry 2000 model.)

Yep, we’re back to the topic of sexy robot ladies.

In several comments in the thread, starting with this one, avoidwomen explained his waiting game:

I personally don’t even care for sex and I never want it. I would love romance, such as cuddling and kissing but not with human women, only women substitutes! …

I will get the chance to cuddle as much as I want by 2030 with robogirls and probably earlier when VR technology becomes advanced enough for the simulation to feel realistic. …

The few times I got the chance to be romantic with women, I really enjoyed it and never thought of going “further” or being “sexual” whatsoever. …

Then we got a reminder of just why he’s not getting affection from real, live human women:

Nowdays I just avoid women like the snakes they are! …

I am no white knight in real life, I will not protect a woman. But when VR and robogirls come, I will hold them in my arms. My robogirl will protect me outside the house and inside the house, I will cuddle and hold her. 🙂

Someday, his robotic princess will come.

 

Categories
drama idiocy misandry misogyny rape rapey scott adams white knights

Scott Adams: Self-proclaimed Misunderstood Genius, Part XVIII

Scott Adams contemplates his favorite subject (artist's conception)

Oy. Scott Adams won’t shut up about that execrable “Pegs and Hoies” piece of his that I (and quite a few other people on the internets) wrote about the other day. Naturally, he’s being willfully obtuse about the reaction his piece caused, and blames it all on the “low reading comprehension” of everyone in the world who is not him and/or one of his sycophantic fans. So he’s decided to interview a number of those who wrote about it. (Not including me. Aww, Scott, but we had such good times together!)

So far he’s interviewed Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon (a great writer and lovely person, by the way) and Irin Carmon of Jezebel. Naturally, the interviewees offer cogent explanations of just what was wrong with his idiotic post, and he responds by completely and utterly missing the point. (Or pretending to; it’s always hard to tell with Scott.)

Scott Adams is so relentlessly irritating – he’s a bit like Eoghan in his stubborn refusal to get the point – that I can’t bring myself to write any more about this idiotic manufactured controversy.  So you’ll have to go check out the posts yourself.

EDITED TO ADD: Adams has put up yet another post on the  subject, entitled “Maybe it’s me?” in which he decides ” to take a step back and seriously consider the hypothesis that the reason people disagree with me is that I’m an idiot and I don’t realize it.” Scott, your hypothesis is correct.

EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And … Mr. Adams has now made a personal appearance in the comments below. Be gentle!

Given Adams’ intense narcissism, I can’t help but get the song “Biggest Fan” by the Martini Brothers stuck in my head every time I read any of this posts. Listen a bit, and you’ll see why.

Categories
antifeminism misogyny PUA sex sexy robot ladies sluts white knights

Let us prey

Also, nuns totally put out.

When the dudes at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog aren’t wistfully looking forward to the days in which sexbots and artificial wombs make mere flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete, they’re pondering  the crucial spiritual questions of our age, like how to pick up hot sluts at church.  Any church, really, so long as it’s full of hot sluts. The blogger there – who doesn’t give his name, so let’s just call him Anti – recently highlighted this observation, from commenter The Fifth Horseman:

[C]hurch would be a great place for a PUA to run Game …

1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.

 2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.

3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?

4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.

Jesus wept.

But Anti didn’t, and added his two cents to the discussion:

All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women.  Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them.  Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20.  …  I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …

When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”.  These women will put out for you.  You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues).  The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.

Absolutely. All you need to do, fellas, is to approach them calmly and confidently, look quickly down at your crotch, then directly into their eyes, and ask them:  “Would you  like to meet … Little Jesus”

Verily, I say unto you, it works every time.

Categories
cock blockade manginas men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny PUA vaginas white knights

Meet the Meat Market Makers

Buy! Sell! Neg!

Uh oh! Trouble in mansophere paradise! Over on MGTOWforums, the “ghost” calling himself MrLahey is throwing down the gauntlet to all the pickup artists out there who dare to consider themselves allies of MGTOWers. Apparently PUAs are violating the terms of the Cock Blockade; by screwing women, they are evidently screwing over their brethren.  MrLahey, who apparently once took an Economics class, explains:

Ghosts are driven to celibacy due to current market conditions, voluntarily or not, it is done in this particular context of risk aversion. I dare say any ghost would prefer, all else the same, to be sexually active, and wishes the risk-reward was different so he could participate in the meat market.

The conditions that make a man ghost are legal, practical and moral. Too risky, too high a price, too time consuming. … Now those conditions that make a man ghost do not exist in a vacuum, but are created by the sum of interactions of the meat market players, right ? The sexually active are the traders and the market makers of pussy, ensuring market liquidity.

Yes, he did just use the phrase “market makers of pussy.” And evidently not as a joke. He continues on with this metaphor:

So when the ghost leaves the market, the ones left to play it, and thus able to sustain or modify the conditions of the trade are the men left in the field : manginas, white knights, puas and mgtow. …

The reason I believe women get away with exorbitant prices (associated risks) for pussy is the existing demand, which sustains the price and favors similar conditions for each subsequent iteration of the trade. …  I fail to understand how catering to a woman’s skewed entitlement and grandiose sense of self-worth (telling her lies, buying her things for sex, investing more time in entertaining her than in actual sex … etc) can ever be helpful or instrumental to bring the market price (risks and costs) of pussy down.

The rattling sound you hear is Adam Smith’s skeleton rolling in its grave.