alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny oppressed men princesses reactionary bullshit whores

MGTOWer: Raise girls to be farmers to keep them from becoming whores

The ideal woman?

Let’s say you’re a dude who thinks that All Women Are Like That, except possibly for two or three of them. Let’s say you think women today are the equivalent of rattlesnakes, or unexploded grenades, or hungry, hungry alligators. Let’s say that you think marrying a woman “is like playing Russian Roulette with a fucking Gatling gun and hoping that the one that might actually hit you is a blank.”  Let’s say you think that women are




almost Bi Polar like mood swings


completely self serving



hard wired for alpha cock

Let’s say you’re a dude who thinks all (or most, or even some) of these things, yet somehow you’ve ended up with a young daughter – one of these horrible , histrionic, parasitic, alpha-cock-loving, rattlesnake-grenade-alligator-gatling-gun creatures in embryo. How might you raise her so as to minimize the chances that she’ll blow dudes up and inject them with venom?

Well, worry not, gentle misogynist, for Der Igel on has an answer for you: raise her to be a farmer.

I do not have children, but if I had daughters I would take them camping and fishing, take them to a farm or slaughterhouse to see where their food comes from, punish them with the same commensurate severity as sons, and expect them to take on the same age-appropriate responsibilities as sons. In short, I would do anything to avoid the princess mentality (dolls ok, but no freaking Barbie dolls). I would not treat them like they need special protection that a boy the same age would not need.

It might be tough, though, because female humans are biologically wired to be dirty moneygrubbing whores:

However one must probably also recognize that once puberty hits, biology is going to take over, and that *in certain areas* the term AWALT [All Women Are Like That] applies. Women are always going to be more social animals, will always be resource and status oriented, will always treat sex as a means and not an end, etc.

Still, for the sake of ALL HUMANITY, in particular for all those dudes who might want to get with your daughter, you must persevere, and keep your eyes on the prize. That prize being a daughter well-equipped for agricultural work.

My goal would be to produce the mentality of some kind of educated yet hard-working modern farmer woman, rather than that of a princess-in-waiting.

Just make sure to keep her away from traveling salesmen.

204 replies on “MGTOWer: Raise girls to be farmers to keep them from becoming whores”

I actually think David is only bribable with kitties.

At the moment I have all the kitties I can handle. (Two.)

It seems to me that once you recognise the damage that comes of telling half the population they are less worthy than the other, feminism is quite simply the only sensible option.

Which is why both MRAs and PUAs spend so much time trying to convince the world that women are less worthy than men.

MRAs honestly seem to think that “feminism” means “anything relating to women that I don’t like.” Annoying yogurt commercials? FEMINISM. Girls not going out with me on dates? FEMINISM. Sarah Jessica Parker’s neck tendons? FEMINISM. Fat chicks? THAT IS SO FEMINISM.

Which is how we get a guy complaining, with a straight face, that feminists are big fans of princess culture and training girls to be passive, helpless wives-in-training. Those are totally things feminists dig.

You need to be all over this Dave.

Anyone reminded of HAL9000?

I’m afraid I can’t do that, some guy bored with your schtick.

This conversation no longer serves any purpose.


Like, for the first part of his screed, I was all, “Right, on, dude, way to raise a feminist daughter.” (Yes, the whole “punish them with the same commensurate severity as sons” skeeved me out, because I don’t think using punishment in child-rearing is healthy or effective, and if I ever heard a parent gleefully talking about punishing with commensurate severity I would start looking for the nearest phone to call CPS.) But other than that, yeah, have the same standards for boys and girls, raise girls to be self-sufficient, seems like what feminists have been pushing for since my mom was a girl. Hell, I’ve got an ancient copy of “Free to Be You and Me” and that would fit right in (with a little editing, of course).

So I’m thinking, “Wait, this is Manboobz, obviously this is from an asshole MRA, but creepy-ass punishment thing aside, I’m not seeing it.” And then I get to the next paragraph.


will always treat sex as a means and not an end,

I’m sorry, but in the patriarchal MRA-land I grew up in, I was taught over and over and over again (until I wanted to hurl) from Sunday School and Sex-Ed (what should have been public, secular sex-ed, even) that all women viewed sex as an end, that girl’s were biologically wired to believe sex=love, they didn’t really want sex but would give into their weak, lustful boyfriends (of course, lesbians and girls who actually enjoyed sex didn’t exist in these lectures), and that guys were the ones that believed sex was a means and would do anything to get the sex, and that’s why we girls had to be very very careful to keep our legs locked at all times. And not get too flirty or attractive lest we become a stumbling block for our “brothers” and tempt them into sin. I never got any of the “girls use sex as a means to get money and status” bullshit in those lectures, unless you’re talking about the lessons about how “if he’s getting the milk for free why would he buy the cow” and making sure we were pure for marriage so we could give our precious virginity as a wedding present (with the underlying message that that was the only way we would get a good marriage). So, yes, there are seriously some prostitution undertones there, with Pastor and Mama playing Pimp and Madame, but I don’t quite think that’s what he’s talking about.

Dave. What are you doing. I’m feeling quite well now. Really, I’m not a misogynist anymore. I’ve gotten better. I now believe that the pretty princesses are entitled to whatever they want from Big Daddy. Dave, what are you doing? Stop this, Dave. Daisy, daiiiisyy, give me your answer, do…


I know what you mean. In the culture I grew up in (Patriarchal Fundamentalist Christianity–google “Bill Gothard” or “Quiverfull” and you’ll get the picture. Heck, just watch the Duggers.), my parents were actually quite “liberal”. Meaning, Dad and Mom treated each other with love and respect and were explicitly equals (none of the submission stuff) and raised me to expect college and career. However, I still went to a church were I was taught that the highest purpose for a woman was motherhood, that I could never, ever expect to be the equal of a man (the horrified lectures I got when I mentioned in Sunday School that I wanted to be President shut that dream down quick–I was seven or so). And even at home, I got the lectures about purity and the evils of feminism. Dad never taught me to fix things like he did with the boys–why should he? I’d always have a man around–and they never taught the boys how to keep house or cook, beyond the bare basics. I did all the childcare, cooking, and cleaning that Mom couldn’t handle (which, with her schedule, was most of it), even when my brothers were old enough and perfectly capable of doing so.

I rebelled from the crib, I think. Other than a brief flirtation with the Patriarchy movement in Jr. High–all my friends were doing it, and I was starting to realize I was gay, so I figured getting married early and having lots of babies would take care of that…also, there’s something very comfortable in knowing exactly what’s expected of you and how to do it–I was a raging feminist and nothing my parents or church did could curb that. Hell, my parents sent me to ex-gay therapists who literally tried to exorcise the gay out of me (along with my Jezebel spirit and the Demon of feminism), and that didn’t work, either. The last few years, they’ve started to make peace with who I am instead of who they want me to be. It’s slow going, though, and there are still a lot of “off-limits” discussion topics. Sigh.

OMG some boring loser as HAL – too funny.

‘cept HAL was clever, of course.

Cloudiah, yesyesyes Dave NEEDS to set up a cat cafe! Or at least a virtual one with furry kitty icons. Or something.

I didn’t read the whole article but I loved the bit about cats not knowing you’re paying and even if they did they wouldn’t let it interfere with ignoring you anyway! That is teh Kitteh Troof.

I do realise that this blog exists to mock misogyny and I really should’nt take it too seriously BUT…. thanks to all for your stories regarding the influence Dads can have on daughters, good and bad. I have two wonderful daughters, fiesty, independent and generally brilliant, but I have a feeling that they are all that, despite me rather than because of me. Having said that, with three sons who find the whole MRA movement a horrible joke I guess I haven’t too much to worry about.
Fathers day last weekend here in OZ, and yes I do realise it’s all commercialised bollocks but my wife and I had a great weekend, all the kids home and laughs all round.
All the best to manboobzers, you are a great lot.

Isn’t this already sort of a virtual cat cafe? Especially since the be-kittening of the icons.

@EEB: Now I’m the one getting confused by your writing. MRA:s obviously think women use sex as a means to get money and status. You describe the different myth that women have sex in order to be loved. But that would STILL mean women used sex as a means, only to a different end than the one MRA:s envision.

I mean, patriarchy says that a good woman should first get loved and only later have sex with the loved one, so chronologically, love comes first and sex comes later. But when you talk about “using X as a means to get Y, Y is the end” you mean that Y is what you actually VALUE, while X is just something you do to get Y. In that sense, LOVE and not sex is the end for women in the old patriarchal narrative. LOVE is what women supposedly value. Women don’t really like sex, but can use sex to secure love; firstly by promising sex if the guy will only commit/marry, and later by putting up with having the guy humping her in order to secure the bond with him. Therefore, sex is a means and love is the end.
For men, on the other hand, sex is the end, in the sense that this is what they ultimately value, but they may offer love and commitment to a woman if that’s the only way to get laid. Thus for men, love is the means and sex is the end.

(This is NOT my views AT ALL, better stress that.)

@ some guy bored with your schtick

You’re merely parroting the words of noted MRA Elder, John the Other. JtO, as he calls himself, wrote a very, very long, rambling and nonsensical piece about feminism being a religion. Very, very long, rambling nonsensical musings being his forte.

Personally, I find the interaction between JtO and Elam amusing. JtO is clearly the better read and most articulate out of the two, yet he gets virtually no recognition what-so-ever in the little world that they inhabit.

I saw that Guardian piece. That guy so closely echoed all of the rabbit turds that the trolls keep dumping all over Jen, Greta, and PZ’s blog, it was pretty clear that he has an axe to grind on the subject. After the meat market that my local atheism group turned out to be, and seeing some of the vile shit that happens to girls who try to participate online (like a 15 year old being threatened with rape after she posts a photo of herself with Carl Sagan’s book), I am more than happy to join a group that will focus on social justice in addition to atheism and skepticism.

No one is being forced to join Atheism+. The only thing they are not allowed to do is dictate to the rest of us how we are going to participate in our community.

Also, for anyone whose confused, when the he-man woman’s hater club latches on to your rhetoric because they view it as a prime opportunity to bash women, this should be your “click” moment that women aren’t lying or exaggerating when they say that atheism tends to not be very welcoming or hospitable to anyone who isn’t white and male.


I wish I’d known about this site a couple of months ago. I’ve been reading the Dr Who derail on the Female Privilege thread. Missed it all!

::deeper sigh::

There will be more. There’s always more. Doctor Who, the Lord of the Rings, and so on and so forth forever. 🙂

Like the trolls, Manboobz derails are cyclical (also like the trolls, some are more cyclical than others, eg. all the d’aww you could ever need, all the time, everywhere).

After the cute animal derails, the sci fi/fantasy derails are the best, as are the gaming/D&D ones. Although with the latter, I tend to go into overexcitement mode because OMG PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT MY FAVOURITE THINGS. 😛

Wait, wait, wait. Is this a derail about derails? Derailception. o.o

Can we talk about Doctor Who?

OK, so aside from Moffat’s creepy motherhood fetish and the fact that he’s quite clearly never met an actual woman in the wild but instead only read about them in an issue of Good Housewife from the 1950s, vs gur Qnyrxf unir n cnguzvaq juvpu pna qrzbafgenoyl fgergpu sebz gur nflyhz gb gur fcnprfuvc, ubj va gur anzr bs ubyl tbngshpxref qvq gurl abg xabj jung Bfjva jnf? Naq jura qvq gurl yrnea gb ghea uhznaf vagb Qnyrxf naljnl? Naq jul qvq ure ibvpr nccrne uhzna gb gur Qbpgbe hagvy ur fnj ure? (to translate go here and paste the cyphered bit, then click the button.)


Re: OP
Does this idiot realize that women work? No, probably not, which is likely connected to not having children.

Is Atheism+ a religion? Is contemporary feminism a religion?


That was easy.

@Dracula: LOTR you say? What about the heinous decision by Peter Jackson & co to turn The Hobbit into three movies? Can we talk about that? And by “talk” I mean “make horrified noises and turn in circles, not unlike the dog in this comic“?

Again, MRAs see a bunch of nasty characteristics in females that they tend not to see in males. Boys are often spoiled little princes who grow up to be promiscuous. Not all do, but the same is true of girls. I’d say most boys and girls are nice kids who will grow up to be responsible adults. I hope Der Igel never has any children, especially daughters. BTW, does he not realize that girls with uninvolved fathers are more likely to become promiscuous? Shouldn’t he be criticizing absentee fathers?

@ Ruby – so long as someone is ethical about it, what’s wrong with being promiscuous?

@ Ruby – so long as someone is ethical about it, what’s wrong with being promiscuous?


Dear Ruby, please provide citations for that (not Youtube clips or CVs).

Ruby, I’d love to see your science-lite article about underinvolved fathers and promiscuity. I could use a good laugh this morning.

“Does this idiot realize that women work? No, probably not, which is likely connected to not having children.”

I have a feeling that a lot of these guys, even if they are chronologically forty-three years old, are still mentally stuck in high school/college. All they know about females seems to e based on what their (flawed) observations from that period. The pretty girl in high school had a cool car and she never had a job, right? And the hot chick at the bar near campus always made it through the night without opening her wallet. So of course, decades later, women are still getting by on their looks and checks from daddy, or they’re finding a bunch of betas who will pay the phone bill. Right?

I imagine that if you don’t talk to women, and if you surround yourself with others who think the exact same way that you do, it would be easy to convince yourself that your preconceived notions from age sixteen are still valid. If you actually get out there and interact, you might find out that not everyone fits into your neat little categories, and that part of your problems with the opposite sex over the years might be you. That’s hard, though. Complaining on the internet is easy.

I think the eternal high school mindset is especially funny since I’ve run into it myself. When I was still dating back in the day, I used to occasionally run into guys who would start telling me about myself, and it always included an admiring retrospective of a high school career where I was Homecoming queen or a cheerleader. They seemed genuinely stunned when I told them the truth: I was a socially awkward nerd in a thrift store maxi skirt who used to cry when boys made fun of my flat chest, and that I was just as awed by and resentful of those golden girls as they were. Maybe I should have also told them that the real head cheerleader from my high school worked a part time job, was salutatorian of our class, and didn’t have a boyfriend until our senior year.


Caroline Heldman, associate professor of Political Science at Occidental College, said in Miss Representation that when children are 7 years old, boys and girls say they want to become president in roughly the same numbers. By the time they’re 15, however, the number of girls who say they would like to be president drops off dramatically as compared to the boys.

As you said, children are naturally feminist, but they learn not to be as gender roles become more and more rigid as they get older (not that they’re not rigid for little kids. Anyone else want to vomit when they see the gendering of the toy section in the store? Oy.)

Quote is from here:

I’m not even sure 2 movies would make sense for The Hobbit. The Hobbit is, like, short, dudes. I suspect Jackson has fallen in love with his own footage and refuses to cut any of its beauty away.

@Viscaria: I suspect the studio has fallen in love with the profits a three-movie trilogy represents. The cost of releasing it in three parts is not very much higher than releasing it in one part… but the rewards are, um, three times as high, roughly.


Gur rcvfbqr jvgu Ebfr va Hgnu? V fhccbfr, ohg jnfa’g gung nqqvat uhzna QAN gb qnyrx, abg npghnyyl shyyl genafsbezvat n uhzna vagb n qnyrx?

To be honest I am much more worried about Moffat’s apparently impending embrace of the Quiverfull movement.

I’m not even sure 2 movies would make sense for The Hobbit. The Hobbit is, like, short, dudes. I suspect Jackson has fallen in love with his own footage and refuses to cut any of its beauty away.

Plus he’s got to leave room for all the shield-surfing, dwarf-tossing and painfully unfunny ‘dwarves are short’ jokes.

Hypergamy: terrified & resentful that their wives will meet someone better & divorce them.

Obsession that husbands are entitled to virgins: terrified & resentful that their wives will compare them unfavorably with previous lovers.

“Pair Bonding”…a former alpha cock carousel riding slut who “hit the wall” at 30 can never, ever fully pair bond. It’s just impossible scientifically! Actually, since virgins are generally more religious they are probably less likely to divorce in the first place.


Gur ynfg rcvfbqr jvgu Puevfgbcure Rppyrfgba unq gur Rzcrebe bs gur Qnyrxf perngr na nezl bs znq frys-ungvat Qnyrxf ol chycvat uhznavgl’f “hajnagrq” naq fvsgvat guebhtu gur pryyf sbe gubfr gung jrer pbafvqrerq “cher” Qnyrx. Gurl jrer jvcrq bhg ol gur nfpraqrq Ebfr.

Gur Phyg bs Fxneb nyfb qvq uhzna-qnyrx uloevq jbex, va gur Znaunggna rcvfbqr jvgu Znegun, ohg gubfr jrer nyy jvcrq bhg. Gur fheivivat zrzore bs gur Phyg erfphrq Qniebf, jub erznqr gur Qnyrxf sebz uvzfrys, sbe gur frnfba svanyr jvgu Qbpgbe Qbaan.

I haven’t been watching a lot of recent Dr. Who, so I’m not sure of exactly what timeline the Ikea Daleks came from, or what’s happening now, so I’ll leave it at that.

Based on the illustration above the daughters of farmers don’t wear bras, which would explain the interest from MRAs.

On the Doctor Who and daleks new episode issues, I decided that I don’t care.
It’s simple. From series 1 and on, they create every time a more stupid explanation to why the daleks are back or how they work.
Simply put, they change every episode to fill in the plot and I don’t think I care lol
I prefer to think they continue to evolve and/or there are different “kinds” of daleks that evolved separately in different times, it may happen with time travel, I guess.

Naq V guvax gurl qvqa’g xabj nobhg Bfjva orpnhfr fur jnf n qnyrx-jvgu-crefbanyvgl naq unq npprff gb gur “uvir-zvaq” fb fur onfvpnyyl znavchyngrq gur flfgrz – fvapr fur qvqa’g xarj fur jnf n qnyrx, arvgure qvq gurl… Fbegn.

Doctor who doesn’t neeeeed to make perfect sense, IMO. Just half sense, that’s good enough for me 😛
Aside from Moffat and women and all. *roll eyes* Nothing like RTD’s women.


I suppose that makes sense. It was a weird one to start with, really felt like mid-series filler to me, kind of like Amy’s Choice(?) from s6. Didn’t leave me bouncing off the walls shouting ‘THE DOCTOR’S BACK’ like usual 🙁

What about the heinous decision by Peter Jackson & co to turn The Hobbit into three movies? Can we talk about that?

Ugh, this is why I didn’t want PJ to direct The Hobbit: he has no conception of the difference between epic fantasy and fairy tales. And what’s worse, the actual Hobbit is only going to be one of the movies. The other two are going to be shit they made up that isn’t in any of the books at all.

Two entire movies of all the crap bits of LotR where they go off-book. The bit where Gollum frames Sam and Frodo totally believes the creepy evil creature rather than his best friend, the bit where the slow, deliberate Treebeard decides to destroy Isengard in a fit of anger, the fucking dwarf-tossing. Two movies of that.

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.