So one of the regulars on Reddit’s The Red Pill subreddit — the “TRP Endorsed” contributor who calls himself IllimitableMan — has worked himself into a lather about the coming Whitepocalypse. You know, the impending collapse of civilization that Mr. Man and assorted other racist asshats fear will come about as a result of white women refusing to pop out the required number of white babies to keep it alive. Sorry, due to white women refusing to “shit out” the required number of white babies. (Mr. Man is quite the defender of family values.)
It pretty much goes without saying that IllimitableMan blames feminism for it all. In fact, over the course of his rambling, repetitive, and rage-fuelled 2,000 word rant he manages to blame feminism for the impending death of the white race roughly half a dozen different times.
Here’s perhaps the most coherent statement of his thesis:
Not the apology that Clint Carpentier is looking for.
We met new A Voice for Men writer Clint Carpentier earlier this week, when we took a look at a recent post of his waxing nostalgic about the good old days before marital rape laws, when wives couldn’t say “no” to their husbands and expect the law to take this no any more seriously than a husband intent on rape.
In a second posting, he’s doubled down on the whole marital rape thing and incorporated into a vast and fantastical vision of the past and future of humankind that bears so little resemblance to reality that it’s worth quoting in detail as a sort of case study in Men Going Their Own Way delusions.
Men Against Misandry is a blog, and a Facebook page, devoted to the proposition that feminism is misandry.
The anonymous fellow (or fellows) behind the sites, or group, or whatever it is, has apparently decided that the best way to fight the alleged misandry of feminism is with raging misogyny.
I would call it fighting fire with fire, but it’s more like fighting an imaginary campfire with the flaming pits of hell.
The latest post on the Men Against Misandry blog takes on the issue of women athletes, and why they get less attention and money than their male equivalents. Mr. MAM has a fairly simple explanation:
Why are there no truly famous women in sports?
It’s because women suck at sports. Period. We all know there’s only one real professional sports team that anybody actually cares about – the men’s team. Men just let women have their own sports teams to feel better about themselves. That’s just the truth.
I didn’t put that bit in bold. He did. He wanted to make sure we understood just how much he thinks women really suck at sports.
And in case we haven’t gotten the message yet, he continues:
You know that old saying? you throw like a girl!
Well, it’s a saying for a reason. Women just plain suck at sports. If women sucked dick half as well as they suck at sports there would be no more divorces in the great US of A.
Yep, he’s the one that put that last bit in bold, too. Indeed, he was so proud of that last sentence he posted it — just that one sentence — as a separate post on his Facebook page.
It’s all in a day’s work for this noble fighter against misandry.
Thanks to the folks in AgainstMensRights for pointing me to this blog post.
What do women want? According to one of our favorite female feminism-haters, Laura Grace Robins, it’s sort of a a tossup between the vote and designer purses. But that’s not what women really need — which is a husband. Oh, and milk. Can you remember to get milk?
At least that’s what I think she’s saying. See if you can figure it out from this quote from her post “Remove the Needs.” I have taken the liberty of bolding my favorite bits. Anyway, here’s Ms. Robins’ vision of the modern postfeminist woman:
She may have everything she wants, but not everything she needs. She wants independence, the vote, her own income, etc., but she wants all these things like she wants a designer purse. Underneath it all, it is just for show and what she really needs are the basics; like food, shelter, and a husband. She may have fancy clothes and independence, but it is the needs that nourish. She can deny the needs and focus on wants, but a life purely filled of wants is typically shallow and empty. Feminists have been the advertisers that make us buy into wants instead of our needs. If we know what our needs are then we can walk down the aisle of feminism and not be allured by the glossy packaging of independence and income. I’m not here for the “Starbuck Frappuccino”, but for a gallon of milk.
But what if the woman in question is lactose intolerant? IN YOUR FACE, LAURA GRACE!
Also, I’m wondering what exactly a “Starbuck Frappuccino” is. I would love to have a Frappuccino with Starbuck. Either one, actually.
Starbucks
Ms. Robins concludes:
Now most women live hollow lives filled with closets full of shoes and purses, while homes are empty of husbands and children.
I think that, like a lot of the people I write about on this blog, Laura Grace Robins has confused reality with Sex and the City.
The show ended nearly a decade ago! At least get a current TV show to confuse reality with!
So our old friend Roosh Valizadeh seems to have fully embraced the Matt Forney school of misogynist internet celebrity, posting over-the-top offensive posts in a transparent attempt to gin up controversy and blog traffic. And it’s working: he’s brought an avalanche of well-deserved hate down upon himself. But don’t worry: he’s still got some supporters — not only on his own blog but in the Men’s Rights subreddit.
A Voice for Men’s so-called “Honey Badgers” — its little super-team of female MRAs, led by blabby Canadian videoblogger Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan — have a new theory about Anita Sarkeesian. And it’s a doozy.
Sarkeesian, you may recall, is a feminist cultural critic who’s faced pretty much nonstop harassment from misogynistic internet assholes since she launched a project to dissect sexist tropes in video games. AVFM has contributed, in its own special way, to this wave of harassment, with articles describing Sarkeesian as, among other things, a “moneygrubbing liar” and a “queen bee … girl interloper” in the world of video games; AVFM’s Dean Esmay also held her partially responsible, along with an assortment of other internet feminists, for the suicide of one Canadian Men’s Rights Activist.
The principals at AVFM have blamed her for — either inadvertently or deliberately — bringing this harassment on herself by going to 4chan and posting about her project. (As I noted in a previous post, there’s no actual evidence she ever did this.)
The Honey Badgers, for their part, are certain that getting harassed by 4chaners was part of her devious plan all along.
Like all professional damsels in distress, Anita Sarkeesian had to choose a good dragon. Just the right looming shadow to fall over her delicate and fragile sensibilities; just the right cackling stage-villain to inspire her cries of helpless horror.
She chose 4-chan. An internet forum known for it’s underbelly of foul-tempered and hair-triggered trolls.
Then, after accusing Sarkeesian of inviting countless rape and death threats upon herself (and only a portion of it from 4channers, I should add), the Badgers take their weird conspiracy theory one step further:
But we at Honey Badger Radio have noticed something… odd. The wave of so-called hate that Anita received from her carefully chosen dragon, wasn’t really all that bad.
Yeah. A year and a half (so far) of pretty much unending harassment and baseless criticism, complete with violent threats directed not only at her but at other women who have defended her — that’s nothing.
Compared to 4-chan’s usual scorched earth strategy–raizing [sic] everything to the ground and pissing on the ashes, Anita got a little singed, like she sat too close to a campfire.
So we have to ask… Did 4-chan white knight Anita? I mean, come on. Was that the best 4 chan could do?
Yes, that’s right. The Honey Badgers are accusing those who sent rape and death threats to Anita Sarkeesian … of “white knighting” her.
One of the issues that many Men’s Rights activists profess to be Very Concerned About is prison rape. This alleged concern translates into essentially zero actual activism beyond the occasional indignant reaction to someone making a terrible rape joke about men in prison. But then they’ll turn around and make similar rape jokes themselves.
That’s right: MRAs don’t only joke about rapes in which women are the victims. Like many Americans, sadly, quite a few MRAs seem to think that rape is an appropriate — and even sort of hilarious — punishment for men they don’t like.
This quote from the Men’s Rights subreddit was featured on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit a week ago, but I can’t resist reposting it here, since it’s such a marvellous distillation of Men’s Rights LOGICS at work.
That’s right: while we of course agree that women are all crazy bitches, we generally don’t like to say that sort of thing out loud, at least here in this subreddit, because our actual opinions are so foul they discredit us every time we say them out loud in public and the evil feminists cherry-pick our statements and reveal to the world WHAT WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
And jabberwockeysuperfly won himself 60 upvotes for that wondrous bit of SUPER STEM MANLOGICS.
Later in the discussion, our dear old friend Pecanpig clarified that even if there are some women who aren’t crazy bitches, they’re definitely a bunch of bad … oranges?
If you’re starting up a political movement and want to get the asses into the seats — and then out into the streets — it’s helpful to have a stirring manifesto.
So A Voice for Men, classy joint that it is, “reported” yesterday that Elizabeth Vargas of ABC’s 20/20, who interviewed Paul Elam for a 20/20 piece that has yet to air, has checked into rehab in order to deal with her alcoholism. The general reaction of commenters there ranged from “ha ha” to “well, maybe once she’s cured she’ll see how oppressed we men really are.” Those aren’t exact quotes. The exact quotes are below.
![jabberwockysuperfly 60 points 7 days ago (93|33) We appreciate your solidarity. However, please refrain from making statements like "women are all crazy bitches" regardless of how true it might be; feminists mine this subreddit in the hope of finding this kind of statement so they can use it to discredit this movement. permalink source save give gold hide child comments [–]lolyesok [S] 30 points 7 days ago (33|3) Woops, I'll edit that out when I get to a computer. permalink source save parent give gold [–]theskepticalidealist 15 points 6 days ago (19|4) They'll quote that too.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/crazybitches.png?resize=504%2C247&ssl=1)
![dejour 13 points 7 days ago (29|16) It's not true though that all women are crazy bitches. So she shouldn't be saying that. For me the point though is that some women are and the legal system and public shouldn't assume that women=good, man=bad. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]Pecanpig 5 points 6 days ago (8|3) Depends on individual circumstances, if you eat 10 oranges and they are all bad then for all intents and purposes oranges are bad, that can be true despite contradicting your own experiences with oranges or whatever.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/badoranges.png?resize=502%2C234&ssl=1)
