Categories
kitties MRA oppressed men whaaaaa?

Hey ladies! The Men’s Rights movement needs you. Like, really, really needs you.

The Men’s Rights subreddit is a gift that keeps on giving!

In response to a woman pledging her support to the Men’s Rights movement, someone calling himself Nephilim_Hunter offers his thanks:

Because men have been relegated to a what of a what now?

Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society

Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society

Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society

Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society

Just wanted to make sure I understood that you really, actually did just say that.

Oh, by the way,I’m starting a new feature here at Man Boobz. It’s called: Random Pictures of Boards of Directors.

Here’s a picture of the board of directors of Wal-Mart:

Oh, and here’s the board of directors for GE:

And here’s the board of directors of Duke Energy:

Oh, and the board of directors at Dynasty Financial Partners:

And these fellas are the board of directors at The Rea Magnet Wire Company:

And, while we’re at it, here’s the board of directors of Man Boobz:

 

316 replies on “Hey ladies! The Men’s Rights movement needs you. Like, really, really needs you.”

I totally would have gone to “John Carter” on opening night if they’d kept Burroughs’ original title, “A Princess of Mars.”

That’s a much more catchy title. Who the hell is John Carter to the person on the street? But no, men aged 18-45 who go see a movie with “Princess” in the title are 17% more likely than average to have their manlybits shrivel up and drop off in the middle of the night. Trufax!

… I love your work. I should probably go tell you that on your website 🙂

Dear DKM:

I found a very special doll just for you!

Robert the Doll! I saw him when I was in Key West last year! I spoke politely to him and he did not curse me. He is, however, a very unsettling doll.

That’s a much more catchy title. Who the hell is John Carter to the person on the street? But no, men aged 18-45 who go see a movie with “Princess” in the title are 17% more likely than average to have their manlybits shrivel up and drop off in the middle of the night. Trufax!

The title was going to be “John Carter of Mars,” but Disney changed it because “Mars Needs Moms” was a big flop and they decided moviegoers didn’t want to see movies with “Mars” in the title.

There are people who are paid far, far more money than you or I to make decisions like this.

I think the reason Mars Needs Moms was a flop was because it was a shitty movie.

When I was little my mom would send me to the store sometimes to buy French bread. LOOK AT ALL THE POWER I HAD CHILDREN RAN THE FAMILY

Disney changed it because “Mars Needs Moms” was a big flop and they decided moviegoers didn’t want to see movies with “Mars” in the title.

Wow. That’s all.

I have to admit that I read and watched “The Princess Bride” several years later than I could have because of title-bigotry.

It was my tragic loss, and I shall not repeat my mistake.

A lot of people had title-bigotry against The Princess Diaries, too, which is sad, because they were great books.

Don’t… don’t get me started on the movie though.

Neither are women, Nick. And that does not address the statement those pictures were an answer to. The dood said men don’t have decision making power. In what sphere?

“[N]onwhites, much less females(of any race) are protected even from well justified criticism”

What this person does not get, and will never get, let’s face it, or they would know by now… it’s the grouping of the groups together and saying X does Y, so Z.

They claim this is also done with men, it is not.
The only thing even remotely close is within the critique of blind spots a demographic can have due to societal privilege. Even then, there are plenty of white men that get the blind spot, privilege thing. So that’s not that either.

Thanks, Nick. Until you said that, I totally thought there was a 3 billion person boardroom out there.

There are people who are paid far, far more money than you or I to make decisions like this.

Tell you what, Disney: You pay me half what you pay these guys, and I’ll make better decisions than they do because I do not fear that bros will stay away from my movies in droves.

You will all notice that I included the word “inherit” in my post. Women live (on average) 8-10 years longer than men do. This doesn’t even include the largely invisible, mostly tacit methods of manipulation and brainwashing that women are taught to do, from early childhood, in the art of dominating men.

This is only a matter of sitcom humor for millions of ordinary people, but it can have enormous impact among the uppermost 1%, where women are decisive in the decisionmaking of which industries are to thrive and which are due for “reconstruction” or “relocation”, which women go to university and who goes into the fostercare/ ‘welfare’/prison systems, whose banks get bailouts and whose don’t, and so on…

For a small and rather superficial overview of this, you may find an book from 40 years ago, The Manipulated Man, written by Ester Vilar at the beginning of so-called women’s libertation, to be helpful and thought provoking. If not, just keep eyes and ears open, and remember that the same people who babble about “White men running everything” are the same media/academic/ bureaucratic jokers who lie about EVERYTHING else anyway!

The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.

The fact is that it is often much easier and more convienient for women to rule from “behind the scenes” rather than expose themselves to the stresses, controversies, and rivalries that constitute top level positions in a modern economy and society.

Meller: And you have what proof that women are inheriting vast quantities of wealth?

Because wealthy people… don’t pass money on through direct inheritance. They use trusts, and pass-throughs and in-life gifts (I have friends who are getting 20,000 a year from their parents, so the parents won’t have to worry about 1: living so long their kids don’t get the best benefit of the parent being well-off, and 2: because they own enough property (their father inherited his from his parents, and his uncle) that they will trip the estate tax limit.

They have also put their assets in trust, so as to avoid some of the aspects of the estate tax. Not because they hate taxes: but because they are Quakers, and don’t want that much of their money going to pay for armies and wars.

The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.

The likelihood they are all pop-people who were grown in vats should be considered too; as well as them being raging communists who want to do away all ideas of freedom.

Both are just as likely as your hypothesis. The latter perhaps a bit more. Because the idea that Ken Lay was being dominated by his wife, and she as the “power behind the throne” at Enron (feel free to choose any other company you’d like to name… IBM, MIcrosoft, General Electric, Monsanto, DuPont), is laughable.

They have to answer to shareholders (not as much as they should), so “wifey wants it” ain’t gonna wash when the subpoenas come.

This doesn’t even include the largely invisible, mostly tacit methods of manipulation and brainwashing that women are taught to do, from early childhood, in the art of dominating men.

This is what’s known as a “paranoid fantasy”.

The likelihood that these so-called Powerful men photographed above, are all marionette puppets dominated by the women in their lives should be at least considered in an article purporting to show the distribution of power along gender lines.

No, it really shouldn’t be considered, because it is, again, an absurd, misogynistic, paranoid fantasy.

@Dracula: If you take NWO and DKM”s absurd, misogynistic, paranoid fantasties away, they’ll have nuthin!

*thinks about it*

**encourages you to take them away, ahahahahah*

WHAT tacit methods of manipulation?

I was assigned female at birth and SHOULD have gotten all that indoctrination. But I didn’t. I am hilariously, notoriously bad at subtext. When I say “does my ass look fat in these jeans?” I mean “does my ass look fat in these jeans?” I once had a conversation about how much I want roses, with my girlfriend, on Valentine’s Day, and didn’t realize until she bought roses that apparently I was hinting that I wanted roses. I couldn’t manipulate someone if I tried, and no one has ever taught me how.

I assure you, when they separated the genders during sex ed, all the girls got was a video about periods.

Seconding Ozy here.
Unless DKM means the fact that many of us have learned strategies for dealing with people that have power over us. You know, showing the utmost respect for them and their concerns, putting our best foot forward, not sharing things that could get us in trouble. Things we try to do to make up for the fact that we don’t have male/white/class/able/heterosexual/fill-in-the-blank privilege.

Pecunium et al…March 13, 2012 @ 3:34pm–

I never said, or even implied, “direct inheritance” in their long-term estate management, Pecunium. I’m not a CPA or a trust attorney, –neither, I suspect, are you–but even I know that income tax laws, “gift taxes” and other loopholes make it necessary for multi-billionaires to resort to all sorts of obscure machinations, usually involving marriage and trust arrangements, to pass on their wealth untouched. Women play, as mothers, wives, and sometimes even daughters or daughters-in-law, considerable roles in this.

Not that it really matters, since at least 1913, both government and “private” corporations are funded from the same source, and these maneuverings mean nothing more than transferring cash (or debt) from one holder to another, with CONTROL remaining essentially with the original owners. Needless to say, the “managers”, whether members of Congress or the Courts, the Boards of directors, or trustees of major Churches or “nonprofits”, are still selected by these kleptocrats (or their widows) with advice and recommendation (as needed) by top level attorneys and accountants.

Have you ever wondered why, from Andrew Carnegie and George Perkins to the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, and (after Henry Ford I ‘s death) the Fords, and now Soros and Warren Buffet, are enthusiastic advocates of central banking, extensive business regulation, and the income tax? It doesn’t matter much if your property is handled from your “left” pocket, or your “right” one, does it?

Even if their money (in small amounts, just a few billion $$$ every generation) goes to the “government”, who do you think owns the legislatures and courts who supervise the disbusements?

Occasionally, for appearances, they may have a few families (usually from the midwest or the South), usually, for the most part, safely away from the bi-coastal centers of power, e.g. Mellon, Dupont, Forbes, Olin, and now, I suppose, the Koch brothers, put on a show supporting “free enterprise” or so-called “traditional American values” as part of a dog-and-pony show staged for the noisemedia (again headquartered, and owned from, New York and Hollywood) to fool the sheeple into once again believing that “government” is protecting “the people” against the criminal oligarchy which is, and has been, robbing us blind for well over a century!

Where is my “proof”? I don’t know, but I suppose that a few (hundred) books, written from both hard left and hard right antiestablishment perspectives, have helped to explain this in more detail than we have time for here. Start with, e.g. Ferdinand Lundberg, Antony C. Sutton, Carroll Quigley, G.William Domhoff, Murray Rothbard (his Wall Street and American Foreign Policy and America’s Great Depression–especially documenting largely unknown connections between J.P.Morgan and the Bank of England–are gems), and the Ron Carnow biographical studies of Rockefeller, Ford, Morgan, and the rest of the criminal element in our society. These will do for starters…

Happy exploring!

“They have to answer to shareholders…”

Not when they, or their wife’s family, or their trusts, owns the majority of common shares, they don’t! Besides, there are so many avenues for an unscrupulous management to get around shareholder scrutiny (restrictions against ‘Insider trading’ or short selling, being only two of the most obvious) that at least since 1932, the year that Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means published The Modern Corporation and Private Property, explored this dichotomy between “ownership” and “control”, the notion of shareholder control, or management accountability, is about as reliable as the similar notion that “the government belongs to the sheeple” when we are “allowed” to vote every so often for a candidate pre-selected and pre-approved by the corporate criminal class! The “personhood” status of corporations also acts as a line of defence by selected management against bumptious or critical shareholders, when the Corporation is legally obligated, regardless of social or ethical considerations, to seek monetary profit for its owners, at all costs.

Lotsa Luck, suckers!!

Power, ladies, if it means anything at all, is the ability to get what you want, often over considerable opposition. The “poor little me” routine is one, and only one, classic feminine gambit through which women gain power, or at least great influence, over the men in their lives.

You personally may not find it to your liking, but many women will, when they want something that the man in their life can provide, indeed pursue their fulfillment through what may be called “the flattery and helplessness act”. Other acts involve more unpleasant methods such as whining, bitchiness, and nagging, which modern women like yourself are probably better at, as well as the “egalitarian argument” option, the “if men can do it, why can’t I”, which we have heard so much about since the 1920s–when women got the vote–and even more since the 1970s, when every major center of activity, from the Civil Service, to the Schools and Churches (whatever is left of them), to the Armed Forces and Law enforcement services (Lord help us!) are now infested with, if not dominated by women.

The POWER to affect these changes had to come from somewhere, and from someone, so women are as good a source of suspects as any. Don’t you agree?

Lauralot–March12, 2012 @ 6:12pm:

I am absolutely NOT interested in your bizarre choice of doll! A doll should be a “little lady lovely”; a visual impression of all that is feminine, desirable, cute, and adorable in womanhood. Same thing with a photograph/painting, or a figurine. Your “doll” is the stuff of which nightmares are made of.

Give it to one of your feminist goofy girlfriends!

The above photos of these supposedly “powerful” white men, who comprise less than .00001% of White people collectively, and, in any event, are nothing but “uncle Tom Whites” who betray their fellow Europeans at the drop of a hat, or for thirty pieces of paper (not even silver,here), are evidence of White political, economic, or male-gender empowerment, HOW???

Once again, look at who may be ridiculed, criticized, or attacked with impunity. Nobody would, for instance, show a bunch of influential Africans (starting,of course, with the current occupant of the Oval Office) as proof that blacks dominate American society, still less ridicule and publicly demean them at every chance (e.g. “stupid black men running the country”) courtesy of Michael Moore during Bush II’s Presidency.Even attempts to portray O’bomber as a “monkey” was denounced as racist!

Care to look back to George Bush II, Dan Quayle, or even Reagan, for example? White men were certainly respected by media and academic elites weren’t they? Even a certain W.J. Clinton faced the music when his public (mis)behavior affected the first Feminist! Compared with Martin Luther King, however,President Clinton was a eunuch, and yet when was the last time one heard of the sainted one’s adulteries, which were indulged in by a supposed ‘man of G-d” no less! Even if these particular Whitemen–and their families–accrued some advantage from this, this would have little or no meaning for 99.999% of everyone else!

White Men having power in contemporary America (still less in Europe) as white men? An arguable–VERY arguable–assertion. Analyse ruling class/power elite dynamics along the lines of the pertinent political, economic, and sociological conflicts and rivalries in the evolution or decay of human societies, but leave any race/ gender/ religion pishposh in the politically correct feminist/marxoid wastebasket where it belongs!

People manipulate each other no matter the gender. You don’t think men manipulate women? What universe are you living in anyway?

In order to “manipulate” one of these captains of industry into doing my bidding I’d probably have to have sex with him, and, um, no thanks. What a perfect illustration of the saying that those who marry for money then have to earn it.

There’s also the fact that “use your vagina to influence events in an indirect manner” shouldn’t be the only option available to women, but this is Meller and we all know that there’s no point try to explain that concept to a man who prefers dolls to women because the dolls lack that incovenient sentience that modern women have been cursed with.

Not when they, or their wife’s family, or their trusts, owns the majority of common shares, they don’t!

If that’s the case, they are the shareholders. The market in action.

Things DKM thinks women are incapable of:

A) flying jets
B) math
C) deciding for themselves who they should marry or have sex with

Things DKM thinks women are totally capable of:

A) expertly manipulating men into doing exactly what they want, while keeping their machinations secret and far away from public scrutiny.

So, to recap: 9*26? Too complex for girlie brains!!1! Being the puppet masters hiding in the shadows, pulling the strings of the elite and bending the world to their will? Typical womanly behaviour.

Viscaria, its exactly this kind of thinking that never ceases to be a wonder to me. I dount doubt for a moment that DKM thinks women are as dumb as a bag of hammers, I suppose the puppet master thing is just paranoia or his need to justify his shoddy treatment getting the better of him. But when you take his two statements side by side and at face value, it is a singularly strange phenomenon.

Ruby Hypatia–March 15, 2012 @3:17 pm: ”

What kind of woman would pledge her support to the MRM? ”

The kind of woman, or women, who can love real men for being what we are; the kind of woman who appreciates male strength, wisdom, and (where necessary) dominance, the kind of woman who cherishes her feminine identity and “loves being a girl”. The kind of woman to whom it is a pleasure and a joy to make her man happy, and tend to her home and children, and to whom it is her greatest satisfaction for her femininity to complement, support, and reinforce her mate’s masculinity, NOT fight with him, denigrate him, or prefer others (her career, her goofy girlfriends, or her family over him!

The kind of woman who wants the world to be one of order, cohesiveness, and decency for herself, other women like herself, and, perhaps most importantly, her daughters and granddaughters. The kind of world where she can love and adore the primary man in her life, where she can manage her home, and where she, and other women like her, will bring up her children in love, safety, and prosperity.

In short, what used to be considered ‘normal women” before the feminist dementia took over!

The kind of world where “the mad, wicked folly of woman’s rights” pace Queen Victoria, was understood for what it was-and is!

I hope this all too brief reply helped to answer your question.

Also, for newcomers to the site, who might not realize, here is what DKM thinks should be done to women who don’t follow HIS rules: murder ’em, gentlemen!

http://manboobz.com/2012/02/09/alcuin-and-out-or-the-kkk-with-tits/comment-page-8/#comment-123827
Ithiliana–February 12, 2012 @2:31pm

“graduate student “murdered” by ex-husband”

Take post cited above. Could woman who talks like that (over the ‘net) have such an unpleasant, unfeminine, and just plain horrid personality that she could say something that MAY provoke an unpleasant response from a nearby man who may already be troubled about something else. Look at all of the cases you read about where a murder or vicious assault or rape was committed by a man whose entire life was coming apart, and the very person—his wife–whom he was relying upon to keep what was left of his sanity was turning on him…

Did graduate student take her “how to handle men” or something like that from YOU?

I was explaining that a man who loved his nearest and dearest would do anything to avoid the spousal abuse so often cited on feminuttery websites and blogs like this, because it wouldn’t get him what he wanted! I would rather be kind, gentle, and loving to a woman than beat,rape, or kill her, and so would most men, for obvious reasons!

Gee, Ithiliana, for an intelligent woman, you sure have a lot of trouble understanding ordinary common sense, don’t you?

@Ithiliana, I love you for your dedication in exposing DKM for the sexist, horrible person he is every damned time he posts. Thank you. 😀

So basically a Stepford wife would pledge her support for the MRM. Doesn’t really matter as they’re few and far between. Patriarchy is over. Get over it.

Ithiliana, I was only trying to show what can happen when a feminist allows the rage and frustration of an already unbalanced and destructive man spirils out of control. I didn’t say that killing was justified–AND NEVER WOULD—but that people could explode with tragic consequences for everybody concerned. Nothing in that post ever said that “disobedient or quarrelsome women should be murdered”, or anything like it!

Molly Ren–You’re on the wrong blog, or at least responding to the wrong post. I have nothing against lesbians. They can love other women to their hearts content, as far as I am concerned! However, this doesn’t do men any good! Lesbianism is alright, I suppose, for anybody who wants it, but it has nothing to offer women who love men, who feel blessed in making a special man happy, and who want to raise up their family (with her husband’s help) in the ways of the Lord. You Lezzies now have your “gay” marriage, go to it, have fun, but it has nothing to do with traditional families, Sweet Old-fashioned girls, or normal male-female relations.

There are MRMs who deeply resent the responsibilities of supporting women, or the strictures of monogamy, but I don’t think that I have ever addressed my posts to them. It is an honor to be a family breadwinner, but the man should be regarded as the Patriarch and “master of the house and king of his castle”, NOT the ‘ ATM with legs” the way too many modern women, even if they marry and have child(ren) too often feel. Again, while a man may stray, most traditional men will, if encouraged by a good woman, return to a monogamous home and appreciate what he has “keeping the homefires burning”.

Even if he should break his marraige vows, at least he KNOWS that it is wrong, and if she is a good wife, will try to do better by her and their marriage. Contrast that with modern women, who don’t really place him at the center of their lives anyhow, and put him behind, among other things, her career. her family, her goofy girlfriends, most of whom are likely to be feminists, or at least spinster old-maids anyway, and do everything that they can to undercut her attachment to her nearest and dearest, and even her children, who may even be those fathered by another man…No man worthy of the name is going to be faithful to a woman who puts her husband (or “significant other”) down near the bottom of her personal concerns. She should make him, at the very least, her “nearest and dearest”.

Many MRMs would be happy and satisfied regarding the obligations of a man’s financial support and monogamous commitment–in return for HER sweet submissiveness, love and adorability. They won’t commit to, or support, a “woman?” who can’t, even at her best, offer him much more than a male room-mate, and at worst, inflict upon him, or any man like him, an experience of hell compared with which, even being alone for the rest of his life, or even, one suspects, doing time in jail, would still be preferable! Almost all of the resentment expressed by MRMs on these pages, and other blogs and websites as well, is due to the unwillingness, or even the inability of modern women to love men the way that they should. One is proud to support a helpmate, but certainly NOT an adversary or competitor!

We still remember that you advocate for murder of women and for slavery, DKM. You are also an unrepentant racist who advocates for segregation.

No amount of backpedaling and flowery language can cover up your hateful way of thinking.

My husband financially supported me through most of our marriage so far, and he never felt the need to have more power than me. BTW, I filled out our census paperwork in 2010. I love that there was nothing about any, “head of the household.”

DKM: Nothing in that post ever said that “disobedient or quarrelsome women should be murdered”, or anything like it!

For the umpteenth time, we know you never say it directly.

You just say that you can understand why a man is driven to murder a disobedient or quarrelsome woman LIKE YOU SAID ABOUT MY GRADUATE STUDENT WHO WAS MURDERED (and the DA announced he was going for the death penalty btw).

You condone it. You support men no matter what vile thing they say or do because women drove them to it, and as long as I am hanging around this site, I am gonna post that comment (which got you banned, remember) every time I see you posting.

Suck on that, dickbiscuit.

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.