discussion of the day funny men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

>Unfunny Girl


Was it all based on a lie?

You know what’s always hilarious? Humorless douchebags pontificating on “why women aren’t funny.”

Our text today: A set of comments on the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) proboards forum. Madashell gets the ball rolling:

In my entire life I haven’t met one single women who is funny especially compared to the numerous men who are able to make myself and many other people laugh. I’m sure this is true for almost all of us.

If you can’t think of a single funny women you’ve ever met, you either 1) have no sense of humor whatsoever, or 2) you’re such a flaming misogynist your brain simply can’t process humor when it comes from females or 3) you live in a hole in the ground eating bugs. Or some combination of the above. In the case of Madashell, I’m guessing it’s a mixture of 1) and 3). (He just seems like a bug-eater to me.) 

Now, I’m not even going to bother to provide a little list of women in history who are fucking hilarious, because every single reasonable person on planet earth should be able to come up with a little list of their own.

Instead, let’s hear what the MGTOWers have to say on the subject. Here’s Whytry:

Because laughter is a sign of joy and women aren’t capable of emotion. They’re literally creatures of lust and animal behavior.

Hanzblinx, meanwhile, offers a little list:

1. humor is related to wit which is related to intelligence
2. humor requires seeing the world outside of the 1st person perspective
3. humor is used by men as a tool to attract women by display of wit, however, women attract men with display of skin, no wits required.

Of course, when a woman laughs at your joke, it doesn’t necessarily mean that she actually has a sense of humor. At least according to dontmarry, who suggests that laughter is sort of a female version of a boner:

When a woman likes you (i.e her gina tingles madly for you) she will laugh at ALL your jokes, even the not so funny ones. …  ‘I want a man with a sense of humor’ really means ‘I want a man who pushes the right buttons and makes my pussy moist.’ Women are incapable of appreciating, or possessing a sense of humor. None of the so-called female comediennes can approach the greatness of George Carlin or the brilliance of Rowan Atkinson.

Interesting theory, but I’m a little stuck on the notion that George Carlin and Rowan Atkinson represent the highest pinnacle of achievement in human humor history.

rebel has a somewhat more elaborate, if somewhat less coherent, explanation:

Because le rire est le propre de l’homme- laugh is specific to man.

MAN is the only creature on the planet that has a capacity for humour and laughter. When you really think about it, humour is a gift from God. It sets MAN apart from all other creatures: on a higher level of existence.

To me, the question is irrelevant. Does my dog have a sense of humor? The question is irrelevant because only Men have a sense of humor. By design.

Adam was the first sentient creature (so they say… I don’t know). Then Eve was produced to provide some blow jobs whenever Adam felt bored. Eve was content to be Adam’s receptacle (in Latin: vagina):she didn’t have to be funny: only have a deep throat. But that was before feminism took the bag away…but humor has not returned…


“LOL!!!” Really?

I guess I just don’t understand humor after all.

EDIT: Looks like the humor-discussers have discovered this post.

45 replies on “>Unfunny Girl”

>After 50 years of vile deconstructions and stereotyping of men by feminists the shoe might being going on the other foot, Im not saying that its right, Im saying look who set the bar so low.

>Eoghan, do you just have a set of anti-feminist macros set up that you push randomly when making comments here?Sexist men were convinced that women weren't funny (or capable of doing math, or giving public speeches, or having enough responsibility to be allowed to vote, etc etc etc) long before feminism ever existed. Blaming feminism for sexism against women is just bizarre.

>Sure David, there were always sexist men and sexist women and Im sure a minority of men and women didn't support womens suffrage. But gender war is a new thing.

>Just stop David. Men as a whole are funnier than women. Yes there are women who are funny like Sarah Silverman etc. But this whole equality in every single fucking thing is bullshit. All you do is make equivelancies based on the canard that anything a man can do, so can a woman, but that doesn't mean that anything a man can do, women like to do just as much! Dolts like you like so say crap like: Women are just as good as men in math. Women are just as athletic as men. Women are just as funny as men. Women like sports just as much as men. All bullshit. There ARE things men TEND to like to do more than women and vice versa. The only things that feminuts like you will admit that men do more or are more prone to is crime. Get off it David. You're full of crap. Men tend to be funnier on the whole and you know it. But that wouldn't get your head pattied by your feminut masters now would it you groveling psuedo male?As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, the best like 100 comedians of all time are likely male, same with atheletes. Random Brother

>Eoghan, before feminism women were not allowed to vote, and were considered to be lesser people then men. It was well excepted that women were stupid and less capable then men, that education was wasted upon them, and that they could not handle the power to make decisions in their lives, let alone vote. A man owned his wife and could rape her and beat her as he pleased. So I think it's clear who set the bar low. And if we go back further, we can find a time where only landed gentry were wholey. human, so I guess it's clear who we can blame for this mess. Damn landed gentry.Or maybe we should blame the people actually spewing the sexist rhetoric, and not try to trace a vein of blame back through history.

>@Sandy"before feminism women were not allowed to vote": That's right, and now that they can, we have socialism, we piss away tax money on wymyn's empowyrmynt (so they can take up slots in medical schools, have a 5-year practice, and then get married, stay home, and watch Oprah nonstop), and we got President Osama"education was wasted upon [women]": That depends on the education. Learning to cook – good. Women's studies – bad. Learning to sew – good. Learning how to file for divorce and lie about domestic violence – very bad."A man owned his wife" – Smart men don't own a wife. You should never own a depreciating asset. Leasing makes much more business sense. "A man…could rape her" – I thought that getting married implied sexual availability. Silly me. In America marriage means a man can slave himself to death for a nagging wife who gets empowyred by watching hours upon hours of Oprah. SIGN ME UP!"maybe we should blame the people actually spewing the sexist rhetoric" – I agree; it's all the fault of feminists."not try to trace a vein of blame back through history" – This works for me too. It's all your fault.

>"Thanks you had me waste a few seconds on Wikipedia looking up Dorothy Parker. Good job. Random Brother"Man, do you who I trust to have a valid opinion on what's funny? Some guy who had to look up Dorothy Parker on Wikipedia.

>Sandy said… ….. before feminism … A man owned his wife and could rape her and beat her as he pleased. This is not true. Separation and divorce was always possible, even in the USA. A man could not force his wife to stay with him under any circumstances, as it was possible with slaves at that time in the United States.In case of death of the husband, the wife always had inheritage rights, while slaves had no rights at all. Many women were considerably rich before feminism, before they had voting rights, and many women had by far more rights than their male servants, not to talk about slaves. Servant was NOT the same as a slave at that time, but they also were sometimes badly treated regardless their gender.In USA there were also females who were owning male slaves. About 'rape' – this term was totally distorted by feminists and nowadays even judges and bar associations in Western countries have problems to understand the definiton of 'rape' in the lawbooks.There is a fairly number of countries, not only Islamic countries, where 'spousal rape' does not exist in the law. In those countries a spouse can be prosecuted for severe mistreatment however, which might result in a similar sentence as rape if convicted.Laws in feminist countries are treating a married man as a stranger, despite being married and sharing the same rooms. Between strangers in general a regular sexual relationship does not exist. However a regular sexual relationship between spouses is considered to be normal, the usual way in a marriage.The question is therefore, what does a marriage offer for a man in feminist countries? What does it offer to a woman?Is a marriage nowadays solely a meal ticket for a woman? To find a guy, who is willing to pay alimony even 40 years after divorce?

>@Yohan "This is not true. Separation and divorce was always possible, even in the USA." Not true at all. Divorce was virtually impossible in 1800s US, and abuse or rape were not considered grounds for divorce (and, yes, married women aren't property and their husbands do not have a right to rape them). There are, in old US law books, entire bodies of case law when women's families (because married women could not bring a suit in court at all) against husbands who beat their wives to severe injury or death in the name of 'discipline' and it was generally allowed."In case of death of the husband, the wife always had inheritage rights, while slaves had no rights at all. " Not true, well, not true if he had sons or other surviving male relatives. Inheritance laws were heavily biased and many explicitly forbade women from being executors of estates of deceased persons. The only way a woman would be likely to inherit is if she had not uncles, brothers, or sons, had never married, and got the money upon her father's death. Ownership of property by married women was highly contentious around the time of the civil war. It was, in fact, one of the reasons that Texas delayed becoming a state, because Mexican women could own property while married and had stronger inheritance rights. Free white men in pre-civil war US had unparralleled rights to property, legal participation, and access to the courts. Also worth noting is that HALF OF BLACK PEOPLE ARE WOMEN. I think this is about the millionth time that I have told you that women of color exist as well. Black women raised in slavery spoke at early feminist conferences. I suggest Sojouner Truth as a starting point if you want to see early black feminism. From her 1851 speech 'Ain't I a Woman'(in which she calls for equal rights for women):"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? "

>@DarkSiteCatAll what you write in your interesting comment happened over 150 years ago. It's history.This what you are telling us about the year 1800 can be hardly considered to be a good argument for nowadays feminists demanding unreasonable advantages and privileges.You did not mention anything about the life of all these men 150 years ago. What about all these soldiers, sailors, miners, workers, servants? Some women were rich and others were mistreated, some men were rich and had powerful positions, but many other men had a miserable life. The feminist claim that in history ALL men were better off than ALL women is not true.Living conditions improved a lot after WWII, for both men and women – but especially for women.About voting rights for women, I never had a problem with that. When I was born, women had voting rights in USA and many other countries already and I am not a young man.

>Boy, it's easy to take apart those feminist arguments when you just make up what feminists say in the first place. But I suppose understanding feminism is not really necessary for all the foaming at the mouth. Learning just wastes time that could be spent on hating strawwomen!

>Sandymen couldnt vote either and few people had education because there is no point in educating people when an economy isnt providing jobs that require it, none whatsoever, we educate as the economy requires and women genuinely couldn't contribute like men until reliable birth control and the surplus of female friendly jobs were introduced. Previous attempts at equality pre reliable birth control and cosy jobs were rejected by women, for good reason too.Whats insulting to the intelligence of women is feminist revisionist history failing to provide this context and making women believe the unlikely story that men as a class oppressed women as a class.Im not going to go through your checklist of feminist rhetoric and revisionist history.

>"This blog collects and critiques examples of misogyny online. I focus especially on the often misogynistic Men's Rights Movement and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Sometimes I mock. Note: Not everyone I write about is a misogynist; some are merely sexist, or retrograde, or just sort of creepy. I leave it up to you to decide who fits in which category."Or more likely, just well informed.

>That's it. The interwebs have finally rendered me to hysterical laughter. Men complaining about everything wrought at the hands of men as womens fault.We want to rape you! IT'S YOUR FAULT.We screwed up our economy and our country IT'S YOUR FAULT.You don't think we're as awesome and funny as we know we are IT'S YOUR FAULT.My god the privilege that you seep off is staggering.I pray for the women in your life. That you must hate them and yourselves so much.

>David, I don't know how you deal with so many misogynistic MRAs on every post. "That's right, and now that they can, we have socialism."As someone who studied political science in college, this makes me laugh. so. very. much. Next you'll say every Osama bin Laden is really a woman in disguise.

>@Yohan, I was specifically talking about the 1800s because you were talking about slavery, which was banned in the US in the 1860s. The 'women had it great because they weren't slaves' line does erase the full half of slaves who were women. Women also make up more than half of the poor. I suggest you look up something called 'intersectionality' and the numerous feminist writings on simultaneous privilege and oppression (Peggy Macintosh, who discussed having white privilege while being on the loosing end of male privilege, or Bell Hooks writings about patriarichal privilege in black communities would both be good starting points). White privilege and economic class privilege (in the simple sense, because the Marxist sense could include other forms of social privilege in such terms) both exist, so does male privilege. A person can be privileged in some or all of these areas (the same holds in other areas of privilege, such as able bodied privilege).

>Magnoliathe banking class screwed up the economy, and women held most the sub primes, not men collectively.Feminist thinking is along the same lines as "all *whatever group are *some pejorative.And of course, the wack comments that David cherry picks aren't in anyway representative of men collectively as you are suggesting either. Exercise your brain beyond feminism.

>@DarkSideCatYou did not answer my question, I said in my previous posting:You did not mention anything about the life of all these men 150 years ago. What about all these soldiers, sailors, miners, workers, servants? Do you really think, that simple men in general had a better life than women at this time?You see only some rich influencial men or better call that family clans, and you are claiming so many women were mistreated at that time.But ordinary men were also mistreated and had also a bad life.'…women had it great because they weren't slaves' line does erase the full half of slaves who were women. Yeah, but the other half of slaves were men… and they really had it so much better than all these white women who were oppressed by their husbands in 1800?I doubt that…Anyway, this was 1800, and now is 2010.And you still feel oppessed? Despite public fonds with million of USD into women issues, with laws totally biased against men, with all the rights you were claiming like voting rights…All what I can answer all these feminists, what about doing from now on some productive work by yourself instead of showing up all the time and demanding this and that? It sounds that feminism is rather expensive, and many Western countries do not have money anymore to pay for that.

>Magnolia: We screwed up our economy and our country IT'S YOUR FAULT.This argument is true!For sure, feminism is an expensive experiment, as the entire feminist movement is non-productive.Basically spoken, feminism costs us all more money than it is earning.For this reason we have seen Hillary in China, rather silent about human rights and women rights in that country, because she was asking for some money.Feminism is not for every woman, obviously – so let the Chinese women (and men) work in the Chinese factories for low pay and ask money from the Chinese government to cover the demands of American women.Some US-feminist groups openly admit, that they are non-productive and are living from public fonds. grant has provided critical funds ($500,000 over a two year period) to fund our direct legal services for women and girls fleeing domestic violence and sexual assault. We’ve recently received news that the grant will not be renewed this year. This was not anticipated and will have a devastating impact on our ability… You see, this is the BIG difference between feminism and the MRAs. MRAs do not need money from others, we pay for our own expenses…Magnolia said… That's it. The interwebs have finally rendered me to hysterical laughter. Men complaining about everything wrought at the hands of men as womens fault. Don't worry about that, Magnolia, your hysterical laughter will end and your wallet will be empty.MRAs never say, it's all the fault of ALL women, MRAs say this is the fault of feminism, which is a hateful parasite movement.MRAs favor a policy to cut off public funds, sponsorships and other resources which are financing feminism – no money and feminism is a part of the past.

>Once upon a time, Hitchens was a decent writer. Over the past ten or fifteen years he's degenerated into an increasingly reactionary hack. That article of his was dumb 3 years ago when I first read it and it's just as dumb today.

>So why not make a post ripping into it then? Are you afraid that he will see it and challenge you to a debate? Seeing as how you couldn't last more than a few rounds with Paul Elam I don't blame you for being deathly afraid of Hitchens. It's so much easier to pick on random people in small forums, isn't it?

>Um…getting back to the question of whether men are ever so much funnier than women, and operating off of the experience marrying one man and raising three sons……there is truth to the adage that "men fear that women will laugh at them"…derisively.So we tone it down "at large," but there are few gatherings more hilarious than a bunch of menopausal women celebrating whatever.

>(note, my past comment was a reply to cold) ahunt, that's pretty much what Laura Kipnis said in Slate:"If Hitchens is right and women are less funny than men, this insight applies to the public sphere alone. Women can be scathingly funny in private, especially when it comes to finely honed observations about the romantic conduct of men. "

>"I dare you to make a post ripping on his article."Yah…just because one trifling little man assumes that his sense of humor defines all humor…we are to bow before his admittedly entertaining style…is boy privilege in action.

>Well David…what can I say? We love our men, and want them to feel good about themselves…so we tone it down, because it is a loving thing to do.Chicks! Man, they suck!

>Do you all realize that you sound like the scared conspiracy theorists that huddle in the basement and talk about Area 51?Are you aware of that?Women caused the financial fall. Right..with their glass ceiling, rampant sexism and misogyny keeping them in place and the completely political lack of wherewithall to even get equal -salaries- much less accumulate such power as to direct this Male dominated sphere of business and commerce to do anything that they want.You know? I've decided what it is you all are. Sad, privileged men realizing that their time at being vastly superior simply because of the color of their skin and the cock between their thighs is coming to an end. You are reactionaries…not revolutionaries. Gripping desperately to the stolen privileges and self deception and lies that you sell and are sold. You are sad caricatures of the relics of the past. The only reason that you deserve any small measure of attention and monitoring is that reactionaries are historically more violent.Your short comings? Are your fault. Your issues? are Your fault. Get a fucking therapist and stop blaming other people for your lack of social skills and ability to survive without the enhanced privilege you cling to so damned desperately. Equality is not the same as oppression. You loosing privilege? is not oppression. It's balancing the scales and the moment that you realize that you're screaming for rights and status that you only earned on the backs and suffrage of is the moment that you join the rest of the non white, non male world who has EVERY right that you do.

>David,You must have a seriously strong constitution to work through this stuff. Particularly given the way some of them follow you home.I find them fascinating, and not a little sad. What price masculinity if it's so fragile that it cannot withstand a world in which some female human beings dare to dream that they are the equals of male human beings?Why does it have to be a zero-sum game? Why do some men believe they aren't respected unless women "treat them like kings"? (as one put it in the recent-ish thread about western sex-tourists). Bizarre.I'm just glad I've never met anyone like this in real life; I know plenty of men (and women) with whom I disagree sometimes, but as far as I know none of them have doubts over whether I'm a person, and "capable of emotion", just because of my XX. Although I suspect that many of these comments are only half-serious anyway – they're just the product of twits egging each other on from behind the safety and anonymity of their screens.

>Magnolia said… ….. Women caused the financial fall. Right..with their glass ceiling, rampant sexism and misogyny keeping them in place and the completely political lack of wherewithall to even get equal -salaries- much less accumulate such power as to direct this Male dominated sphere of business and commerce to do anything that they want.What a stupid comment…There is no law existing nowadays in Western countries which says a man can and a woman cannot.The gender pay gap does not exist, as even EU-ministers have to admit. It's a difference if you work 30 hours or 50 hours and if you work from Monday to Friday only or if you are willing to work on holidays or during night time. It's a difference if there are more jobs than applicants in a certain sector, or if there are more applicants than jobs. etc. etc.So far the feminist movement failed to create anything, which can be called productive. To create a quota for women in the CEO level cannot be seen as productive. It cannot be denied, that countries with the most advanced feminism are running the highest national debt and still continue such life-style with excessive deficit spending. USA is selling out its debits to China, the deficit of feminist fortresses like Iceland and UK are a serious problem, and Sweden just sold its Volvo-Car-production, and guess to which country.Economically seen, feminism is only into spending, but not into producing anything. No money and feminism is finished and it is about the time…

>Yohan–you do realize you sound like a complete sociopath? I mean, priding yourself on not being one of those lazy govt-dependant WOMEN AND GIRLS FLEEING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT???Men's rights advocates want to stand up for men in abusive relationships right? What happens when one of them is forced to leave his house with nothing but the clothes on his back or get murdered? Do you really say, "sorry bub, don't bother asking for a lawyer if you can't afford high lawyer fees"?Oh, and–Tina Fey and Margaret Cho forever!!! 😀

>@SarahI have no idea, what my postings have to do with American actresses.I don't really understand what you want to say with this comment to me.And to be forced to leave the house (HIS house) with nothing but a few clothings, this happens to men all the time.

>@Yoha, again, please stop talking about the US when you know nothing about it. 75% of US debt is to owned by its own citizens, only 25% is foreign owned at all. In regards to foreign owned debt, only 27.3% of that is owned by China (including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the mainland). Japan is a close second with 20.2%,and the UK owns 9.2%. The remaining debt is mixed between Russia, Brazil, oil producing countries, and the Carribean. 6.8% of total US debt is all that China owns, US citizens and companies own a whopping 75%. The concern about China taking over the US via its debts is mostly just good old fashioned racist fearmongering. It is also funny how you like to pontificate about the law, but every statement I have seen you make about US law was either blatantly false or displayed deep and extreme miscomprehensions. Again, I understand that you are not an American and reiterate rhat it would be fine if you knew nothing of US culture, economics, or law if it weren't for the fact that you can't seem to ever shut up about it.

>"Man, do you who I trust to have a valid opinion on what's funny? Some guy who had to look up Dorothy Parker on Wikipedia."Sam for the win today!, though I feel that Dorothy might like our MRA/MGTOW commentariat more than we do:"I require three things in a man: he must be handsome, ruthless, and stupid."— Dorothy Parker Let's give them the benefit of the doubt on the handsome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.