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 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

BTW I am totes kvalt, according to the quiz.

kittehserf
8 years ago

No sympathy for Rand from me after reading part of that comic – I was feeling sickened by her by the first page of her arrival in the US. She sounds like she was a creepy little brat from very early on, and I’m not going with the “her mother didn’t care” as the only cause of that, because it’s not like everyone with an indifferent parent (or worse) turns into a destructive, inhumane douchebag who worships a serial killer. Internet diagnosis, but shit, “sociopath” was the word playing on loop in my head. Right or not, “dirtbag” certainly applies.

@cloudiah – just showed the Dreamland pic to the boss and replacing the lightbulbs was the first thing he thought of, too. But yeah, job security! 😀

I wouldn’t fancy having to get up on scaffolding to do it, though. Waaaay too high for me.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Athywren: Short version: Yes.

Longer version: … but it takes a lot of effort, respect, honesty and willingness to communicate. Note that Rand, for instance, failed in at least three of those categories.

The problem with the structure depicted in the strip isn’t the open nature of the relationship; it’s the one-sidedness (note that Rand goes apeshit when she learns that her off-man has been sleeping with someone else) and emotional abuse and neglect (her treatment of her legal husband).

I’ll admit–most non-monogamous relationships I’ve personally been aware of have failed, but that’s more often because they weren’t hewing to those four traits I identified above.

kittehserf
8 years ago

Athywren – did you read the thread here about poly/mono and all the shit from creepy books like Sex at Dawn? It was before you were posting, I think. The whole “poly is superior and btw you should let me/someone else you’re not interested in fuck you” schtick is just as eye-rollingly awful as the “mono is superior and only a trollop would think otherwise” one.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

[–]HalfysReddit 0 points 2 hours ago
Women are not a minority and are not encouraged any less than men to enter the STEM fields.
At some point in time we need to at least consider that it just might be a biological reason why women aren’t as equally represented in these fields. When did it become so immoral to even consider nature in this nature vs. nurture debate?

I am so sick of hearing this BS every time women are disadvantaged in some way it’s because BIOLOGY and gender essentialism, yet when men aren’t nurses or work jobs that are labourious and dirty OMGMISANDRY look how oppressed the men are.

Why do they think Marvel is doing this in the first place? because of the regurgitated comments I see on every topic Re: women in STEM on r/MR that claim women are just not interested. Maybe if they’d STOP telling women what they supposedly are not good at or interested in and then maybe women wont need any special scholarships to counter that assertion. And yes MRA doofus, you are encouraging women less to enter STEM fields by telling them their biology keeps them from doing it, and all your other ilk who keep insisting that they aren’t interested.

This shit doesn’t change overnight and of course, they want to give up. Not too long ago doctors were mainly men and now it’s (and correct me if I’m wrong) 50/50 between men and women. Give it some more time and women will catch up in STEM.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Let me splain your interests to you. When I’m done I will splain your capabilities, and then what your sexual preferences should be.

kittehserf
8 years ago

I wonder how they account for all the men who aren’t in STEM fields? All the men who weren’t good at maths, or not interested; all the men who’d rather do arts, or work at something completely different, or simply aren’t whizz-kids in any field, who just go through life in a “fluff job” like customer service or admin or whatever, and may be perfectly content to do so. Are they some sort of gender traitors, or outliers?

kittehserf
8 years ago

and then what your sexual preferences should be.

“Me, nobody else, because even if you were interested in a guy very similar to me, he’d then turn into one of those alpha asshole types I like to whine about.”

Brooked
Brooked
8 years ago

@ Quackers
The posters on that Reddit thread are so busy praising their superior STEM skills that they haven’t noticed how they kind of suck at reading comprehension.

The OP is complaining about Marvel giving girls STEM scholarships, but the brief article he links to doesn’t mention scholarships at all. That’s because Marvel isn’t giving any scholarships to anybody, it’s running a contest/publicity stunt for HS girls. The winners will get flown to California where they’ll meet with women in STEM fields (real life Jane Fosters!) and get a “private tour” of something, all of which will be filmed for a short documentary/film promo. It’s a cute idea and kudos to the PR flack who thought it up.

No doubt the OP would rage against anyone encouraging girls to consider a STEM career on principle, but it’s amusing that he’s railing against a non-existent injustice he pulled out of his ass.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@AllyS

Putting aside that Marvel and all it’s characters were created by men in the first place, now they have issues with Loki too? He happens to put a giant wedge in their “women only chase alpha chiseled hunks” theories. Loki has a huge female fanbase, is more popular than Thor himself and there’s even jokes about how the Thor movies should just be called Loki. Not to mention Tom Hiddleston who is a good looking guy, but by no means the type of man MRAs/PUAs constantly claim women are attracted to, has so many fans due to his part as Loki

Shouldn’t they be happy about this? that the skinny outsider nerd (according to yetanothercommenter) is the one who women like the most? does nothing please these assholes? do they even think to scream at the MALE CREATORS if they feel so bad about chiseled superheroes? or is that all just a bunch of bullshit that they just use as an excuse to counter feminist arguments?

Which brings me to another question. Can anyone give me a clear and concise definition of objectification? I always thought it meant rendering people into objects, mainly objects for sexual pleasure. But every time I read anything MRAs write on the topic, they muddle it up and apply it to men in every single aspect. Like claiming men are “power or success objects” how can a powerful person be an object when powerful people are the complete opposite of an object because of all the agency they poses? powerful and successful people make huge decisions, many of which could negatively or positively affect people other than themselves. Not to mention how they keep mixing up objectifying someone and just finding someone attractive. I’ve seen MRAs claim women objectify men based on practically everything, even a man’s character (um, this is how we should judge people) and its getting very confusing…it’s like they keep making up new definitions for the term and expanding it to everything and anything. So Ally, your sister can probably define it better than I can too :/

girlofthegaps
girlofthegaps
8 years ago

I wonder how they account for all the men who aren’t in STEM fields? All the men who weren’t good at maths, or not interested; all the men who’d rather do arts, or work at something completely different, or simply aren’t whizz-kids in any field, who just go through life in a “fluff job” like customer service or admin or whatever, and may be perfectly content to do so. Are they some sort of gender traitors, or outliers?

Nah, it’s because men are individuals! They’re unique! How dare you try to pigeonhole them and force them into some kind of rigid gender-determined role?! Men aren’t all the same, you know!

They’re not a monolith, unlike women!

/sarcasm

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

So not caught up but Katz, 17/20, because I spent to much time at ikea.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@Brooked

I noticed that too! (no I swear I did lol, I just got caught up in calling it a scholarship because of the stupid thread) it looks just like a meet and greet, and if you follow the original link on the Marvel website it details just that…its not a scholarship at all. This…from the ones that think they are so rational and logical, that they can’t even read an article.

Like this nitwit:

Nobody is against girls in STEM field research. We’re against GIRLS ONLY scholarships, in a time when boys fall behind in every academic subject across the Western world and in an economic recession. It should be gender neutral, or equal, a balanced amount of boys and girls.

No. We are not going to completely stop helping girls where they lag behind just because boys lag behind in other area. It’s clearly NOT balanced dimwit, that’s the problem here. Why do we have to put girls on hold until boys start doing better in school? both can be addressed.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Quackers: When reading MRAs, you have to remember they are to social activism what cargo cults are to supply and distribution lines. They only see the form, not the meaning or the function. So they use a LOT of SocJus terms without understanding the context of them, and then get confused when everyone looks at them like they just sang a hymn in Pig Latin.

So, yeah, ‘objectification’ doesn’t mean what they think it means. Neither does ‘privilege’.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@freemage

I wonder if they do it purposely just to obfuscate discussions. As I understood objectification, it’s like ads of women used as props to sell shit, or a interchangeable sexy bodies used either for pleasure or for selling shit or anything else. What are the equivalent ads for men that are say, objectified as ATM machines as MRAs put it? I see no ads with sexy men lying in a bed of money or draped across ATMs, I see don’t see fictional male characters that are only depicted as rich and successful, unlike all the sexy or beautiful female characters. The only thing I’ve noticed is a higher influx of shirtless buff men in certain ads, but it does not compare to sexy, interchangeable women everywhere I look.

Yeah, I really don’t know anymore, its confusing :/

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
8 years ago

Quackers:

Can anyone give me a clear and concise definition of objectification? I always thought it meant rendering people into objects, mainly objects for sexual pleasure

Sure, I’d love to help you. A good definition is “Rendering people into objects, mostly used when referring to sexual pleasure”.

Wink.

Brooked
Brooked
8 years ago

@Quakers
After the introduction of the imaginary scholarships, the Reddit thread was full up on the typical “affirmative action” bashing that’s been around since the 1980s, so I think your arguments are valid. Scholarships and grants do exist for women, minorities, disadvantaged students etc. Certain people view this as the gravest of grave injustices marring our freedom-filled meritocracy. And those people are annoying and wrong.

I just enjoy how much the OP was flat-out stupid wrong. I also enjoy that commentators on reddit and the original article can’t believe Marvel would betray their true fans (aka fanboys) to help a bunch of stupid girls.

Finally, saying a group of people are good or better at “science” is simplistic (if not flat-out nonsensical) since people do “science” in a myriad of ways.

People saying stupid shit while discussing how brilliant and superior they are. It never gets old.

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

> claims that he doesn’t hate women
> calls women “fleshlights” and “cheating whores”

LOL, WUT?

Athywren
Athywren
8 years ago

Athywren: Short version: Yes.

Longer version: … but it takes a lot of effort, respect, honesty and willingness to communicate. Note that Rand, for instance, failed in at least three of those categories.

Oh, I know that there are a number of people who happily enter into polyamorous relationships – I was thinking more specifically about the “if you were rational, you’d be happy to do this” thing. I have no issue with polyamory between happily consenting adults who have chosen it freely. It’s not for me, but then neither is skate boarding or peanut butter and, as long as it’s fully consenting, I see no problem with comparing my issues with it to my issues with peanut butter. It’s the attempt to manipulate someone who isn’t willing into such a relationship that gets my hackles up.
I’m starting to realise that, for a depressing number of people, “if you were rational about this,” isn’t a plea to honestly analyse a situation or set of facts, but is simply demanding agreement.

Athywren – did you read the thread here about poly/mono and all the shit from creepy books like Sex at Dawn? It was before you were posting, I think. The whole “poly is superior and btw you should let me/someone else you’re not interested in fuck you” schtick is just as eye-rollingly awful as the “mono is superior and only a trollop would think otherwise” one.

I’m not sure… I do remember commenting on that topic before, probably here, but I’m not sure when it was. I did comment a few times before relurking for a while, about three or four months ago (I think it’s that sort of time scale anyway… I have an odd relationship with time. It never calls, it never writes…) so it’s possible that I did comment then, and it’s just that I wasn’t all that talkative at the time. Either way, it’s an annoyingly common issue. Why can’t people just be happy with, “this is my personal preference”?

When did it become so immoral to even consider nature in this nature vs. nurture debate?

“All we’re saying is that women should take some responsibility for their own safety for a change!”
What is it with these people? It’s not that you’re considering nature that makes you discriminatory weasels, nor that you’re advocating personal safety that makes you a rape apologist. It’s that you’re overtly ignoring nature and opposing anything that intends to stop people from raping people in the first place. Why are they so oblivious to that?

No. We are not going to completely stop helping girls where they lag behind just because boys lag behind in other area. It’s clearly NOT balanced dimwit, that’s the problem here. Why do we have to put girls on hold until boys start doing better in school? both can be addressed.

What, isn’t it obvious? Boys are better therefore, if they’re slipping behind, we need to put a stop to that immediately and return them to their rightful place at the top of everything. Only then can we work on getting girls out from underneath the boys… although it’s worth remembering that we’ll have to put a stop to that and work on returning boys to the top as soon as girls surpass them anywhere.

Oh, and 12/20… I have slipped in my death metal skillz, I’m gonna have to put some Arch Enemy on to regenerate my powah.
Also, where can I learn some brevity? Jeeeez, sorry.
Ramble ramble ramble.

Kim
Kim
8 years ago

Can anyone give me a clear and concise definition of objectification?

Isn’t it basically like subject and object in a sentence? The subject acts and the object is acted upon. So agency is a big part of it.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Am caught up. Am confused. Am going to sit and stare in bewilderment.

*wanders back*

Ok, so OP wants a fleshlight instead of a woman, cool, one less asshole for women to worry about! But this is because he got his heart broken and thus all women are EBIL? Not just, you know, that one? Cuz even when I’ve sworn off dating (cis) men (other categories of ex lovers seem to lack this problem) because I’m sick of the damned entitlement complex, it’s that I just don’t feel like dealing with it, and since “everyone” else does, I’m the outlier and it’s my problem. He isn’t getting that.

I know ikea too well, and Cassandra, I suspect, knows death metal too well.

Much as I hate Rand, it is possible that her other man was cheating in the traditional sense. Poly relationships tend to have agreements on what is, and is not, acceptable. Had he been supposed to ask permission before seeing a new partner, then she’d have been right to be pissed. In practice, I doubt this applies.

Definitions are misandry. Including, but certainly not limited to, social justice ones (particularly feminist terms)

…I think that’ small my brain jumble has at present.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

*that’s all

Fuck you auto-“I hate contractions”-correct.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

To be fair, you could probably score high on that quiz just by going “does this sound too ridiculous to be an IKEA product? must be a black metal band then”.

(Please remember that I am not a virgin and therefore I would not make a suitable ritual sacrifice, black metal dudes.)

Athywren
Athywren
8 years ago

(Please remember that I am not a virgin and therefore I would not make a suitable ritual sacrifice, black metal dudes.)

Well you’d think that, but you can get virginity kits now, and Satan doesn’t really check too closely…

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@Fibinachi

Hehe…point taken 😛

@Brooked

Yeah, meritocracy is one of those things that make perfect sense and what we should implement, but then there’s that little tiny problem of oppression and discrimination that MRAs like to pretend never existed. Of course women who have the ability to be in STEM should have that chance, but yes, lets continue telling women that they aren’t interested in it or their biology isn’t cut for it,etc…that will really help >_>

Also I did not know the affirmative action debate went on that long.

@Athywren

Which reminds me, they are concerned about young men lagging behind in post secondary education. Well If I was guy who just graduated highschool, you know what would make me not want to go to college? hearing MRAs talk about how its a bastion of evil liberal feminazi professors and drunken college sluts just waiting for the chance to falsely accuse me of rape, and then having the school decide whether I’m guilty or not. Yep, that really makes me want to get a college or uni education.

@Kim

I heard that before somewhere too…makes sense.

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?

I know I’m not the only person out there who thinks its possible to find someone sexually attractive and still care about them as a person, and not as a fucking fleshlight, even if its on a very simple level…for example: “hey I like wasting ridiculous amounts of time on the internet too! wanna fuck? ok *20 mins later*…oh you’re leaving for Iceland tomorrow? well it was nice briefly getting to know you/fucking, take care”

Something like that.

Hopefully I’ve been making sense, I haven’t slept, I should probably do that.

%d bloggers like this: