Categories
divorce dozens of upvotes evil women female beep boop gloating irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men red pill reddit sexualization

Red Pill Redditor on Women: “I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.”

Some thoughts on divorce from a delightful, and recently divorced, Red Pill Redditor by the name of vengefully_yours. (Divorced? Yes, that’s right, ladies: he’s available!)

vengefully_yours 36 points 1 day ago (57|21)  I have been divorced a month now, and I timed buying some land for about a month after it would be final so I could close on it today and her name is nowhere on it. Its mine. No trollop nor cheating whore will be able to wrest it from me by taking off to fuck some other guy.  I will never again marry, and most likely never tell a woman I am not blood related to that I love her. This is my life, and I am living it how I see fit. I do what I want, when I want to do it, and no female has any say in how I go about it. Its not as if my ex wives had any say what I did anyway, but now I dont have to listen to them bitch that I am spending more money on cars than I am on them.  Fuck yes I am free, and you're damn right I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.  That might sound like I hate women, I dont. I love and adore them, but damn you just cant trust them.      permalink     source     give gold     save     hide child comments  [–]Cyralea 24 points 1 day ago (38|14)  This is RP shining true. Don't hate women. They are what they are.  Trusting them makes you the idiot, not them.

I’m glad he clarified that he doesn’t hate women, because some people (you know, manginas and feminazis) might have jumped to conclusions based on, you know, reading his comment and understanding his words.

Thanks to maniacalnewworld in the Blue Pill subreddit for finding this golden nugget in the shitheap.

138 replies on “Red Pill Redditor on Women: “I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.””

Aaaaand now I’ve got headcanon that Pierre has a sister or maybe an alternative-universe-self and her name is Pirouette. Which is stupid and I apologize profusely but that’s where my brain went.

Woman : Oh, look, there’s my bus. Bye.

MRA : You think you can just walk away from me? Fuck you, you entitled bitch! I don’t need you! I’m going my own way! This is why women don’t succeed in the corporate world, always running late, letting your emotions rule!

Could I make that up? No, no I couldn’t.

As horrible as Ayn Rand was, I’m in complete stitches over the “if you had any sense of morality you’ll be impotent for 20 years” thing. If that’s what years of dedicating your life to logic and rationality’ll get you, I’ll happily pass.

RE OP: I would say “That might sound like I hate women, but” is the MRM’s “I’m not a racist, but” if they didn’t have such dire need for the “I’m not a racist, but”.

Also, because this post doesn’t have nearly enough, have a couple more “”””””””

@CassandraSays: That was hilarious…and accurate, I’m sure! 😀

Other than that…

Boy, there isn’t anything as disingenuous as “Women are evil, putrid creatures that use men like tools…but that doesn’t mean I hate them!” – is there? Even the “I can’t stand feminism but I’m totally for equal treatment of women” claim annoys me because it’s like saying “I hate affirmative action programs but I’m totally not a racist” or “I hate market regulation but want to help the economically disadvantaged.”

That’s convenient; hating an entire ideology that’s based on rooting out gender discrimination and the various injustices/abuses that comes with it – but still somehow agreeing with it on the most superficial level. Too bad that kind of thing is always said as a clarification, as though it’s just an afterthought. Given the fact those same people never bring up the subject as much as continue disliking feminism, it’s hard to think it is in any way sincere. It’s just hypocritical bullshit to try saving face.

Via Quackers:

You also gotta love their excuse “men’s biology makes them objectify women, it’s just nature!” it’s their excuse for everything these days, anyone else notice that?

Yep! It’s certainly funny (not “ha ha” funny, mind you) to hear these guys disparage women for being over-emotional – yet don’t see the problem in excusing their shitty behavior on “urges.” Yeah, guys, it’s impossible for men to not turn into perverts at the sight of a woman…nevermind many men do so every day and don’t bear bizarre grudges over it, perhaps even having decent relationships with women.

It’s called “self-control” and they’re simply not capable of it, if not getting laid on command counts as some horrible crime towards them.

Every time I read something like this, I can’t help but feel really frustrated. Do these men think that only men get screwed over in relationships?! I’ve been flayed raw by a number of people in my life but still I just take it on the chin and even find a way to forgive them. I don’t think I am so exceptional, so I can’t help but think that this is nothing but willful nastiness on their part.

Also, I didn’t know much about Ayn Rand, other than that she was a terrible person and that she inspired lotsa other douche-baggery to happen…but goddamn it I really dislike her now having read that little comic. I really hate her for the way she treated her poor husband. That part of the story just about broke my heart to pieces for him. 🙁

t’s called “self-control” and they’re simply not capable of it,

Or, rather, they don’t want to do it (self-control, that is) and so they’re behaving like toddlers being told that they can’t do something they want to do – throwing tantrums and drumming their feet and screaming “It’s not fair!”

“No trollop, nor cheating whore will be able to wrest it from me by taking off to fuck some other guy.”

How do you obtain someone else’s land by going off to fuck someone else? Did she fuck the realtor?

Re: Objectify, confusion thereupon

The confusion is actually sort of proving the point, innit?

Okay, so the feminist says ‘look, stop treating these women like they aren’t people and are just slabs of meat?’

The MRA replies ‘but I have to see women in a sexual manner, how can you demand I don’t?’

Would you believe that it’s possible to have sexual feelings about a person without treating them reductively as only a sexual object, only an object, as an object? That it’s possible to treat other people as people and be sexual with them?

Well, of course you would believe it! You’re all in thrall of those feminist lies! Listen to the MRA hard truth: you can only really have sexual feels for non-sentient things.

Ergo, self-warming fleshlights.

Would you believe that it’s possible to have sexual feelings about a person without treating them reductively as only a sexual object, only an object, as an object? That it’s possible to treat other people as people and be sexual with them?

Yeah… they seem to think it’s the “ooooh, boobies!” impulse that is the problem, rather than fixating upon and feeding the “ooooh, boobies!” impulse to the point where it eclipses the, “so anyway, you were telling me about your plans for your next novel? I was wondering if you’d had any further thoughts on the universality of the messiah archetype in modern fiction?” impulse. I mean, I feel fairly comfortable in admitting that I’m a fan of the general layout of the female body here, and I don’t think I’m going to get lynched for it (though I do have my boots on, just in case!) According to the logic of MRAs, I’m probably more of a misogynist than they are, since I sneakily hide my evil attractions under a thin veneer of feminism! But… somehow I don’t think I’m going to be denounced here for coming out as a human being with sexual thoughts.
I wonder how many of them really believe that their misrepresentation of objectification is correct? Is it just a sales pitch to draw those who’re ignorant of feminism into the MRM?

My theory is that the misinterpretation is deliberate, and very petty. Basically they resent having any restraints at all placed on their sexual expression, even sensible ones like “please don’t grope random women’s boobs at parties if they haven’t indicated any interest in having you do so”, so they throw a giant overreacting tantrum and insist that feminists are telling them that they can never find women attractive ever or want sex or why don’t you just go ahead and castrate me then if I’m not allowed to do whatever I want! You know, like toddlers. I always picture them stamping their little feet as they type.

Also: even at times when women did not generally work outside the home, working _inside_ the home is not exactly a cakewalk either. Especially in pre-birth control times/places, as kids are a lot of work. Also, pre-electrical household appliances housekeeping was fucking backbreaking. Also, neverending.

My paternal great-grandmother gave birth to eleven or thirteen (can’t remember) children. They were poor farmers, so her husband worked on building sites, dockside in the harbour, on larger farms et.c. She had to keep the household running, in a house with no heating or running water, a four hour drive from the Arctic Circle, and with the odd pig or cow and a bunch of chickens and the potato field and other planted land added to the workload. And her husband died when their youngest kid was about a year old. MRAs should’ve tried telling her she was a parasite, doing fluff-work. She was only five feet tall, but dammit, that woman was true steel to the badass bone.

@Athywren: Messiah archetypes in modern fiction? GODDAM MARY SUES!!!!

Ahem.

But yeah, the conflation of sexual interest of any kind with objectification just underlines the obvious; they don’t see women as people.

I got 18/20 in the IKEA/heavy metal quiz, but I cheated by knowing a little Swedish. See if Dvärghundspossen and other native speakers can beat me?

Recently I run into a Tumblr of some NZ heavy metal enthusiast who presented herself as the ridiculously over-the-top metalhead stereotype and was apparently also a fan of Finnish and Scandinavian languages. Her self-introduction went, “OLEN SYNKKÄ HERRA SAATANA!”, which is technically accurate and possibly heavy metal-conventional translation for “I am the Dark Lord Satan”, but veers in connotation into “I’m the grumpy Mr. [swearword]”.

I got 20/20 on the IKEA or death metal quiz, but you know, it’s really no challenge for a Swede. All the names of the IKEA products are either common Swedish names or short versions of Swedish names or actual Swedish words (usually the latter).

I’ll let you in on a secret though: The letter Ö isn’t pronounced like O. The letter Ö is pronounced like the vowel sound in “work” or “search”. And the letter Ä is pronounced like the vowel sound in “fair” or “care”. (The letter Å, the third letter we have in the Swedish alphabet but not in the English one is pronounced like the vowel sound in “walk” or “fall”, but that particular one doesn’t seem popular among metal bands.) When I was a kid I always thought that bands who had Ö or Ä in their names meant for them to be pronounced that way. Like Motörhead or Mötley crüe. Honestly, I still can’t read Motörhead without unconsciously pronouncing the second vowel as the vowel in “work”.

There’s also a Russian metal band called Svartby (means Black Village in Swedish) who write all of their songs in Swedish. Although they’re not very good at the language (they possibly use Google translate a lot), so the results are sometimes pretty hilarious.

cloudiah: re: “Gynocentricism and its cultural origins.” I think it’s really cool how Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie almost single-handedly overturned centuries of male dominance and substituted a system of female dominance in its place, all through the power of courtly love.

Of course, Chretien de Troyes and Andrea Cappellanus were probably trying to be funny and satirical when they wrote (and my source for this is long and boring):


http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/love/ben-love.htm

A big strong knight fainting from a mere glance from his beloved? Preposterous!

And this person makes the point better than I:


http://glosswatch.com/2012/12/13/if-thats-respect-im-chretien-de-troyes/

Honestly, I still can’t read Motörhead without unconsciously pronouncing the second vowel as the vowel in “work”.

Same here. BTW, the NZ metalhead I mentioned was also a fan of using fake umlauts/fake Scandinavian letters in English. Probably for lulz rather than dramatic effect, I assume. Poe’s law applies.

I love my poang chair. I also have the matching foot rest – in red. Perfect for sitting and surfing.

Murray Rothbard, an erstwhile acolyte of Rand’s, wrote a satirical one-act “morality play” entitled “Mozart Was a Red”. It’s more amusing than anything she wrote herself, which admittedly sets the bar rather low. Frank O’Connor spends most of the play asleep on a couch.

acrannymint | October 10, 2013 at 8:03 pm

There is a radio ad that airs in the Baltimore market that pisses me off so much from Cordell and Cordell. It goes on about protecting assets and providing for kids. To me, it comes across as screwing the woman who decided she couldn’t stand your ass anymore.

We’ve got a law firm in Chicago that uses the same overall appeals. Some of the commercials are merely annoying; others will induce outright frothrage at how skewed and twisted the underlying assumptions are.

katelisa – if we’re talking Western societies, the phenomenon of women not working outside the home has been very limited. Basically it meant those who were of the upper classes, or middle classes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Earlier, you get women involved in the trades and the family businesses, and women of the peasantry have always worked outside the home, or done “not housework” in the home; it was a matter of survival. Even among the nobility, it wasn’t a case of women sittng around at home doing nothing; they were very active outside the home, at court if they were high enough up the scale, or politically involved.

Cf. The woman who is ‘above rubies’ in the Proverbs passage is clearly working her Levantine backside off, if you actually read the entire text. And she is clearly in the propertied class! One wonders what is left for her husband to do? This was before coffeehouses, after all.

@kittehserf: I know. It just pisses me off that they think that all women are good for are “fluff” jobs, when in fact, women have ALWAYS done back breaking work that needed to be done (and that would most assuredly have most MRAs’ backs broken in one day). Just as the “female” jobs nowadays are vital to a functioning society.

I can think of two interpretations of “fluff” job. The first is a job that isn’t essential in the sense that society would keep on going even if the entire profession in question went out of existence. Obviously lots of jobs are fluff jobs in this sense. Take everything that has to do with TV, for instance. If all TV sets and everyone working in producing TV programs would disappear tomorrow, it wouldn’t be the end of civilization as we know it. Or take everything that has to do with PR and advertising – you could have a functioning economy without it. LOTS and lots in our society is non-essential in this sense.

But I really don’t think that’s what they mean by fluff job. Considering stuff David has been quoting before on this site, it seems to me that they think a fluff job really is a job of the kind that actually only exists in sitcoms – people whose jobs are vaguely defined but sort of means they have to go to an office in heels and smart clothes each day, and at the office they spend all day scheming and gossiping.

Going by earlier quotes on this site, it really does seem as if lots of MRA:s honestly believe that companies hire women merely to be at the office each day, and that’s it. There’s nothing they need to actually DO to get their salary. I really think that’s what they mean by fluff job, and it goes to show how completely detached from reality they are, thinking people are hired merely to exist in an office between nine and five each weekday.

Yeah… they seem to think it’s the “ooooh, boobies!” impulse that is the problem, rather than fixating upon and feeding the “ooooh, boobies!” impulse to the point where it eclipses the, “so anyway, you were telling me about your plans for your next novel? I was wondering if you’d had any further thoughts on the universality of the messiah archetype in modern fiction?” impulse.

I worked with a woman last summer who was amazingly super-duper-hot. I still managed to work side by side with her and have clear-headed, adult conversations with her. It CAN be done…

I worked with a woman last summer who was amazingly super-duper-hot. I still managed to work side by side with her and have clear-headed, adult conversations with her. It CAN be done…

~~Channels MRAs~~~

No! You are lying.

No! She was never attractive.

No! She hated your guts.

No! You are [choose one:] a) one of those super-duper-hot jerk guys who steal all the womminz b) a beta male who was walked all over and taken advantage of.

No! All of the above!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yikes, that was a frightening excursion for a moment…

No! I’m a woman myself! I don’t even know where that makes me fit into the grand scheme of things! 😀

*Consults MRA handbook*

Oh, the whole strategy changes then. They now have a wealth of insults available to them, even more ability to “doubt” your veracity (and state so loudly and without allowing you to get a word in edgewise because why would you have anything to say /s), and can choose to denigrate you in sexist, heterosexist and/or ableist ways.

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.