Categories
funny idiocy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

>Breaking News: Man Oppressed at Safeway!

>

Woman oppressing men.

Women reading this site may not appreciate just how many ways men are oppressed in our society. So here’s a first-hand report from the battlefront, found on the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) forum.

Let’s set the scene: our hero is out picking up a couple of things at a Safeway, when the first oppressor of men comes into view:

I walk in and there is a woman with a basket with maybe 10lbs worth of items in her left hand and a small item in her right, she not only walks very slowly but blocks the entire fucking space and almost nails an old man in the back of the leg with the basket. I literally wanted to push her the fuck out of the way.

Our hero manages to circumvent this obstacle without resorting to violence. Then — oh no! — some gay guys come into view! Just so you know, these were REAL gay guys. No, they weren’t actually having anal sex in the store while listening to Cher, but they didn’t need to be for our hero to figure out their secret. You see, our hero has highly tuned gay-detecting abilities.

Then its the two gay guys, how do i know they are gay? Please don’t say to me the PC bullshit you cant tell a dude is gay by how they act, feminized lispy speech has never EVER let me down 100% of the time, they were gay.

That settled, we move on to their dastardly behavior:

They happen to separate and take all of the spots at self check out making me wait even though they were clearly “together” then walking out these same two are lallygagging like the woman blocking me from exiting the store, I stood there for 5 seconds and just looked at them, like the self-importance meter is just running off the charts here!

Yes, yes it is.

Oh but now we come to the kicker. Brace yourself. It’s: A TEENAGE GIRL CROSSING THE STREET!!!

If you’re not already sitting down, please do so at once, as reading about this encounter may well chill you to your very bones: 

Driving back in the rain, visibility and braking power obviously reduced, I am making a left hand turn on A GREEN FUCKING ARROW, and little girl who is probably 15-16 years old is walking across the street on a DON”T FUCKING WALK sign … I slam on my brakes and FUCKING WAIL ON MY HORN at her. She gave me the “Doe in the headlights” look and just blinked at me, that’s it.

The worst part of it? Our hero is literally prohibited — by evil feminist laws and by the feminazi press — from simply running her down.

Sad part I can tell you what happens if I hit the girl, the headline would read “Man mows down helpless 15 year old girl, and is not in the least remorseful”. Also my insurance policy would have to pay a massive settlement out to her regardless because she was injured or killed even if i am found 99% not at fault a 1% at fault claim would still probably net her or her family a massive amount of money that no one deserves for this Darwinian fucking reject.

Oh, the humanity!

Brave, brave man, please continue Going Your Own Way.

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tec
Tec
11 years ago

>@YohanYou have my response to you in your own diatribe: if almost all of the persons going into politics are male, and then the majority who do well enough to move through the ranks are male, and still do well enough to come up as a candidate for presidency are male, whereas women would not go into politics because they are female, do not move through the ranks because they are female, do not become candidates because they are female and even *if* a woman were to go through all and become a candidate, the majority of the US would not vote her in just because she is a female, then yeah, that's Patriarchy (TM). You assume a level playing field when male (not to mention class and race and religion and sexual orientation and ability) privilege is oozing from the entire field. The majority of US politicians are white, upper middle class, Christian (and usually Protestant) straight able-bodied men. That's kyriarchy(TM).Or else you think that George Bush would have been for instance questioned as being truly a US citizen the way Obama has been? In fact, maybe you can tell me since my US history isn't that great- has that charge been leveled against ANY of the US presidents (who incidently were 99.9% white, upper middle class Christian straight men) other than Obama?

Eoghan
11 years ago

>David, chit chat about positive discrimination is not misogynistic, you are misusing the term and misrepresentating the conversation.Your labeling their complaints lends weigh to their position, women can have the system slanted in their favour and most of the money, yet men getting together and talking about it about it is painted as some sort of hate crime.

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>Eoghan, assuming that women are inferior and cannot succeed without help is misogynist. (In fact, affirmative action is meant to counterbalance discriminstion.)

Pam
Pam
11 years ago

>"This has however nothing to do with the gender.It has nothing to do with MRAs, feminism etc."I wasn't intimating that it did, was just pointing out that it's not necessarily the majority (popular) vote that gets someone elected.

Yohan
11 years ago

>TEC: The majority of US politicians are white, upper middle class, Christian (and usually Protestant) straight able-bodied men. I don't understand.And? And what is wrong with that? What's your problem? Most Americans are white, straight and Christians.Why should a white, straight, Christian American NOT vote for a white, straight Christian American representative?Only 3 percent I think, in USA are Muslim, so they are not much present in American politics.Asian Americans are also complaining about discrimination, but in most places in USA they are outnumbered by white people.Same is here in Japan. Just opposite. I have never seen a white politician in the Japanese government, because 98 percent of the population are pure Japanese. And? I can't see any problem with that.

Yohan
11 years ago

>David Futrelle said… Eoghan, assuming that women are inferior and cannot succeed without help is misogynist. Misogynist is clearly the wrong word. It's about rejecting unreasonable demands from women, who are spending more than they earn. Women, who demand advantages and privileges but are totally unwilling to work for them.It's not about 'women succeed' – It's about to give men and women the same opportunities.In Western countries this is clearly not the case.Check out the education system, how much money for boys, how much for girls?Check out international institutions, how many are for women (UNIFEM etc), how many are for men?Check out the legal system, how many women are in jail and how many men?Check out jobs, how many men are in mines, off shore drillings, construction, and how many women?And in military, how many casualties are women, how many are men?Check out Western healthcare and welfare system, How many women are homeless, how many men? How much is spent for health care for women and how much for men?Check out retirement age, check out working hours …And if men are complaining about their bad conditions out of their gender, they are misogynists?

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>@Yohan "Most Americans are white, straight and Christians." Nope, people who are all three of these make up only about 40% of the population (40% nonwhite, 30% nonchristian, 2-4%openly nonhetero). If you then cut out the females, you end up with 20% of the population being white, hetero, Christian men. If you cut out people with disabilites, that number drops to about 18% (10% disabled). Now, considering the wealth level of the average politician (far higher than the average person), most federal ones rank in the top ten percent income class (I, unlike some, will not refer to the top ten percent as the 'middle class'), and you are left with wealthy, white, hetero, able bodied, Christian males making up about 1.8% (I would guess slightly higher, as abled bodied, males, heteros, and whites make higher incomes on average-so let's double it to 3.6%). It's a crushing majority, obviously.

Yohan
11 years ago

>@DarkSideCatThanks for your explication, About money, I think you find a similar situation in almost every country in this world, not only in USA. Politicians and influencial businessmen are not poor.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.htmlAbout race:80 percent of the US population is 'white', therefore they will elect likely white people.I know US is confusing because you might ask now, what if there is a white woman, will she elect a black woman or a white man. Religion is another problematic issue, if this is a white Christian woman and the candidate is a white Muslim woman vs. a white Christian man…how to decide?I am not sure about USA, but non-voters are already known to be something like a 'silent party' everywhere in Europe.

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>@Yohan, the US census puts the number at 75%, when it counts many Latinos as white. Excluding Latinos, the percentage of whites is 60-65%. Latinos are not considered white by most Americans, but are expected to list themselves as Latino and then mark a race category of black, white, asian, etc. on the census. 15% of Americans marked that they were Hispanic or Latino on the last census (2000) and most of that group was also listed as white. If you use just the 2000 census data, non-hispanic whites account for 65%. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html It is expected that the latest census will find an increase of number of Latinos and a decrease of white identification amoung Latinos. It is also expected that less middle easterners will mark themselves as white on this census, as they were instructed to do on past censuses, marking instead 'other' or 'asian'. So 60% percent is a pretty decent estimate.

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>Oops, wrong number for the first line, 75% should be 79%.

Delianth
11 years ago

>This is the kind of guy who would honk at me and my friends when we were crossing the street. Because there was no sidewalk on our side of the street. Only road. That we could get hit on or, at best, break our ankles.This is the kind of guy that, when he tried "tooting his horn" at us, we flipped him off. Collectively. Because unless you have just turned and had no idea they were there and are about to hit them, it is insanely rude to honk. We know you're there, asshole. We're crossing the street because, GASP, not everyone is privileged enough to have a car!This is the kind of guy who, after we flipped him off, would take a couple minutes to come back around and honk at us some more. With screaming.This is the kind of guy who, when he came back around honking and yelling at us, would get ridiculously angry when we flipped him off again. You know. Because he's expecting an apology. His injured manliness requires compensation! He's threatening us with death-by-2,000-lb.-vehicle because WE WERE JUST SO MEAN… to get offended by the social equivalent of emitting a 70-decibel fart. Specifically in our direction.Woe is men. If we silly wimmins would only listen to the manly purveyor of wisdom, well, there wouldn't be any need for MRAs – because we'd be in the kitchen, barefoot and naked.Holla, Crazy Motorist Asshole.

Yohan
11 years ago

>Delianth: Holla, Crazy Motorist Asshole About what are you talking here?

Danny
11 years ago

>Apparently Delianth is trying to say that the existence of jerk guys is proof that men have easy lives and MRAs are just whining.

%d bloggers like this: