The Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit is awash in mini-manifestos. My favorite of the most recent batch, a rousing 3-part rant running under the title “Do not fear them!”
Who is “them,” you ask?
Women who might just decide that they don’t really want to have sex with some dude who keeps going on about how men are the most oppressed group in the world.
Responding, apparently, to a comment in an earlier thread suggesting “that being publicly vocal about the way men’s rights are trampled on and ignored is a great way to lose the opportunity of getting laid,” manifesto writer Kuppers argues that it just ain’t so — but when it is, just bite your tongue for as long as it takes to get into her pants.
He starts off with a strange variant on the notion that there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you feel that women won’t want to have sex with your Men’s-Rights-espousing self, Kuppers suggests, it’s
because your brain was conditioned in a small communal/tribal setting. A group of angry women was a serious threat to your prospects of reproduction. As you know, women often act like herd animals, and view acceptance and appreciation from their peers of their choice of man to be important. This is completely moot today. There are millions of fish in the sea.
Aside from that final truism I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about. I don’t recall growing up in anything that might possibly be considered – literally or figuratively – a “tribal setting” ruled over by a group – sorry, a herd – of “angry women” hell-bent on keeping me from reproducing. Is this a common experience? Also, I have precisely zero interest in “reproduction.” Indeed, I sort of make it a policy to only have sex with women who are at least as interested in preventing reproduction as I am.
On to point two in this curious document, which is that ladies love dudes with strong opinions:
Women, while they do not always explicitly say so and sometimes contradict so, sincerely do appreciate a man who has strong internal beliefs and principles, and does not compromise that for the sake of assuaging someone else’s sensitivities, including theirs. A man who is willing to pretend he is something he is not, isn’t attractive on a deep masculine level to women.
True, up to a point, but you might want to keep all that shit about women being angry reproduction-threatening herd animals to yourself. That might not go over so well on your first Starbucks coffee date. Or ever. Protip: Misogyny aside, very few people want to get with people who refer to sex as “reproduction.”
But if your desire for sex outweighs your manly desire to be truthful about your obnoxious beliefs, well, that’s all good too – if by “all good” you mean “you can still have angry sex with women you despise if you just keep your pie hole shut for a few hours.” Or, as Kuppers puts it in his third and final point, which he apparently doesn’t realize completely contradicts point number two:
The kind of woman who a) wants you to be subordinate to her crazy foaming feminist nonsense, and b) has no tolerance or patience for your concerns, is not worth anything more than a cheap, well-protected fuck anyway. Fine, keep your mouth shut for the couple of hours it takes to get her into bed, but you’d be mad to pursue anything more serious with a woman like that.
Men’s Rightsers – such romantics at heart!