I present to you: the most appalling rage comic I’ve ever seen. And that’s even if the story it tells — one of a very bad romantic breakup — isn’t true. (Which I really, really hope is the case.) How bad is the comic? Even the denizens of r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu, Reddit’s home for horrible rage comics, found it a bit distasteful. (Though this evidently didn’t stop all that many of them from upvoting it.)
Just so you know, when the dude in the comic refers to ‘karma,” he’s saying that if he gets upvotes for this comic, he’ll put the videos in question online.
Yeah, it’s that kind of breakup. So here’s the comic. TRIGGER WARNING for really really assholish behavior and nonconsensual sexual exploitation.
“The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women.”
ANSWER: 3. Apparently L. Ron thought some Thetans were more equal than others. (Citation.) Had this been an actual David K. Meller quote, it would have been filled with more exclamation points.
This is sort of apropos of nothing, but if you’re ever looking for the most cheerful sounding song that’s actually about depression and denial, here it is: The Statler Brothers’ classic “Flowers on the wall.”
Lyrics here. And here’s a later performance of the song featuring a great deal of facial hair, and a brief non-singing cameo by The Man in Black.
Consider this an official Manboobz Weekend Dance Party Open Thread.
Silly lesbian! Girls are icky. Also, you probably don't even exist.
MGTOWers, mostly straight and mostly narrow, don’t really spend a lot of time discussing lesbians. Lesbians, after all, are not only women, but women who like other women — you know, like like. But recently one of the regulars on MGTOWforums.com discovered the concept of “lesbian bed death” – the mythological notion that lesbians in long term relationships barely ever have sex – and, well, a very strange conversation ensued. Shade47 started off the discussion with these, er, observations:
Looks like the super hip lesbos forgot the small fact that in lesbian relations no one ends up paying for sex so it doesn’t happen…
The, “we don’t need men not even for sex.” club isn’t a banging scene these days.
I guess this outcome should have been obvious since you can’t put a hole inside of a hole. I keep trying to picture that and it sends me in a logic loop like a computer tasked with calculating infinity. I just can’t grasp how nothing going into nothing can create the best thing since sliced bread. …
Shade47 is so baffled by lesbians that he refuses to believe that they actually exist:
Do you guys think women are really lesbians or is it just another form of “look at me” attention whoring? I mean they don’t have sex, they don’t reproduce, they don’t achieve financial success like the gay male community does. In fact I’m not sure exactly what lesbians are doing in their relationships. I still don’t believe they are real. In order for two people to come together there must be a very specific purpose and attention whoring is shallow even for women. They usually only shack up for babies and money.
What do you think would happy [if] you put [two] hateful women in a home together? Bliss? Bitches go fucking shit nuts if some man isn’t giving them attention.
Repeat after me: there is no such thing as a Lesbian, only really confused women. Women are by nature whores that will change their whims depending on the whim, depending on what they perceive society rewarding them for, i.e. whores.
However there are such things as gay men, they are men who have made a defining choice.
Honestly, I think the entire homosexual scene is about attention – for both men and women. I’m not denying that there are men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women, but I do believe the entire ‘gay culture’ was intentionally manufactured to further destroy the birthrate, with the reward for participation being attention and the approval of their elite masters.
Avoidwomen, for his part, not only accepted the existence of lesbianism; he also predicted a big lesbian upswing in the future after more and more men Go Their Own Way:
I expect to see a big increase in lesbianism as more and more men avoid women. We know that women are far more social than men and they really hate being alone, even having cats is considered companionship. As for sex, it’s possible one lesbian couple is a dyke with high T(for a woman) so she pressures the more feminine lesbian for sex and the dyke may actually be paying for sex.
Then he returned to his favorite hobbyhorses: sexbots and “virtual reality” girls:
It will be very interesting to see how much sex men have vs. how much sex women have with their virtual reality computer generated men and women in the year 2020. I bet most men get laid everyday while women try it a few times and not bother with sex anymore when she realizes there’s no money in it. Women will use VR men for his virtual money while men will be with virtual women for virtual sex.
I think that instead of a rise in lesbianism we will see a rise in bisexuality among females.
When females can’t find a man, they will settle for another female (or several pets). .. These female on female relationships will fall to the side when an available man offers a long term relationship.
Several pets? Hmm. If this guy is right, the future may bring severe cat shortages, sending the price of cats through the roof!
I’m putting all my money in cat futures right now.
Stay tuned for more on MGTOWers and lesbians. It gets even weirder.
Yesterday we met Zero Tolerance Man, a feisty fellow with lots of strong opinions about the ladies, which he posts in giant letters on his blog NOMARRIAGES.COM. Today I’ve got a few more samples of his timeless wisdom and, as promised, some poetry.
American women have this attitude that they deserve a perfect man; a prince on a white horse who will solve all of their problems, look great, and pay for everything. Instead, most will get the shit sandwich they deserve!
American women are just cum dumpsters; sperm receptacles, and human toilets. They have no other value. A man in the USA MUST remain unmarried and must not impregnate these worthless vile monsters we call:
over the hill, past their sell-by date, ugly wrinkled, worthless piece of shit bitches.
Ever notice how horrible the bathroom smells when an American woman get’s done using it? I have a friend who cleans office buildings and he tells me the women’s bathroom is much filthier than the men’s room. The women piss on the toilet seat, don’t flush, leave used tampons on the floor.American women are truly pigs in most cases. That horrible odor you smell is the toxic residue from their bodies and spirit. …
Most American women stink really badly when they take a dump because of their internal toxicity.
American women have personalities similar to the horrible odor they emit
American Women are the lowest slime on the face of the earth. I wouldn’t use one to wipe my ass with. Even toilet paper has more value than an American women. If any of you feminist bitches are reading this:
“F” YOU, YOU PIECE OF CRAP!!!!
If there are any men here who are inspired enough by these posts to want to take up the “zero tolerance lifestyle, our helpful blogger sets forth a list of rules to guide you on your quest. Two of my favorite:
* The most you should ever pay for is a drink or 2 to get her drunk enough to screw. Do NOT pay for dinners, concerts, travel, or movies. In the USA, you should only be spending time with women if you are screwing them or preparing them with alcohol for sex. Otherwise, you should not be with them at all.
* Do NOT give women any attention in public. Ignore them like they don’t exist in the supermarket, gym, etc. Do not look at them at all. Otherwise, you will be feeding the ego of these attention whores. Don’t give these cunts what they want. No eye contact!!!! Walk past them like the are garbage on the ground. If they speak to you do not answer in any more than 1 word answers. Walk away as quickly as possible.
He may be a raving misogynist asshole who seems to spend most of his free time scanning through PlentyOfFish profiles for women he can insult. But I’ll give Zero Tolerance Man props for one thing: his blog, NO MARRIAGES.COM, is very easy to read.
Not because he’s a brilliant writer with the clarity and grace of a latter-day Orwell. Because he uses such huge fonts, offering those with tired eyes a haven of sorts from the tiny text you find on most websites. The only real trouble is that, reading his posts, I can’t help but imagine him shouting them out at the top of his lungs.
I thought I’d give you some of the highlights — that is, lowlights — from recent posts, in a normal sized font.
I would compare most American women to septic tanks or dumpsters. The ego of the typical American woman is out of control, especially with the on-line dating sites. they get a few emails from pathetic desperate guys and right away, they are a princess waiting for their dream man.
The bathroom isn’t good enough to pump out that titter milk for these American bitches? After all, if I’m at work and I feel like busting a nut, I have to go into the shitter, close the stall door and pump away. But now, that isn’t good enough for a woman and her little womb turd!!! …
American women are essentially worthless except as a fuck and dump, so why are we bothering with this shit? Leave the little bastard at home or if the bitch just has to drain her tit, let her squeeze it out into the shitter.
Besides, it’s just another body fluid like the piss, blood, and yeast infections that drain from her overused overpriced PUSSgina right into the shit pot. I’m sick of giving these “ladies” deferential treatment.
I am sorry, but unless a woman is here to service my needs, she has no more value than shit in the sewer. … We should treat American women like the crap they are and work on lowering their self-esteem.
You wouldn’t buy a dented can at the supermarket! Why would you choose a single mother? Single mothers are for losers. …
Think about it! …
Her pussy is stretched out from shitting out the kids or she has a big UGLY scar across her belly. Also included at no additional charge are stretch marks and varicose veins for your entertainment pleasure. …
Some of these bitches have 120,000 miles on their odometer by the time their husband (s) or the guys they fucked have put them in the recycle bin where they belong!
You can see these bitches walking down the street with their noses stuck up in the air with their snooty, snotty grins as if to say “look at me, I am wonderful and if you are a man, you are a pig”. I wasted years of my life and lots of money trying to please these monsters.
Only a MADMAN would marry one of these creatures.
Oh there’s more, much more. Including a poem. But I’m saving that for a future post.
Women campaigning for suffrage for no real reason, because not voting was just what women did back then.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if the entire Men’s Rights Movement is an elaborate hoax. Our old friend Fidelbogen weighs in today with a typically pompous post on the cutting-edge issue of women’s suffrage, posted with the almost-too-good-to-be-true headline: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as half-baked satire – except that FB is serious, deadly serious. (And deadly dull, too, most of the time, but I’ll try to keep this snappy.)
Fidelbogen’s thesis:
It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.
While most people are either for or against women having the right to vote – though I’ve never met any of the latter group outside of MRA blogs – FB bravely declares himself “a third way thinker upon this subject.”
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, because Fidelbogen is going to get all philosophical on us:
I would submit that women’s historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.
Hey, it was the olden days. People wore silly hats and watched silent movies and no one had iPhones.
Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?
I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges? Hey, it was the mid-twentieth century – people were just into that shit back then.
Well, FB doesn’t mention either Hitler or Stalin, but he definitely considers women’s former lack of voting rights to be just one of those things that, hey, people were into back then:
[W]as it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? … Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was “all that”? Seriously. . . who are we to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life which we can no longer entirely fathom?
And besides, most men had been denied the vote earlier, so even if it matters and it totally doesn’t, what’s the big deal if the dudes in charge decided to deny the vote to the ladies for a while longer? As FB puts it:
[W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn’t always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?
Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn’t it?
Seriously. Those feminologicalnists are totally retrojecting the fuck out of the pastological period using their standard sneakyfulogicalnistic tricknology.
And besides, even though we’re not supposed to judge the past, and even thought that whole denying-the-ladies-the-vote thing was totally a “morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little,” FB thinks that maybe it was actually sort of, you know, cool.
I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times.
FB decides to leave that case unmade, and returns to the whole “who the fuck cares” argument.
Once upon a time, women didn’t have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such an arrangement. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That’s all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, “oppressed.”
Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
And so, if the dudes of the world denied the ladies these “rights,” well, uh, it was “morally indifferent” yet also probably good for some reason.
In conclusion, shut your pie holes, ladies:
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
Well, unless they’re this lady. She’s actually pretty good at tooting a horn.
Cheating is jerky. But this picture is still hilarious.
Here’s the bravely anonymous alpha blogger behind “Danger & Play ~ An online magazine for alpha males” explaining “Why You Should Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” I’ve bolded my favorite bit:
Haters will tell you to, “Man up! Break up with your girlfriend if you’re not happy.” They are missing the point. You want to have your cake, and to eat it too. Steady, reliable pussy and the occasional strange is the best of all worlds.
Cheating is a lot of fun, and it’s something I highly recommend. It’s way more exhilarating than bungee jumping, and few things feel as good as banging your girlfriend on the same day you banged some strange.
Cheating keeps your game tight. The best way to regulate your girlfriend is knowing you can bang chicks as hot or hotter than your girl. Well, when you cheat, this isn’t hypothetical. It’s reality.
Somehow I’m guessing there’s a lot more “hypothetical” than “reality” going on in this guy’s posts.
You don’t want an exclusive relationship? Fine. There’s no law saying you have to be in one. You can date casually and non-exclusively. You can have an open or polyamorous relationship. There are a lot of people out there in relationships, yet happily fucking other people outside of them. They’re just above board with it.
But that’s not what’s going on with our PUA friend here. With his talk about “regulat[ing]” girlfriends, he seems more interested in fucking over his girlfriend (assuming such a creature really exists) than he is in fucking strangers (sorry, “stranges”).
So some douchebag is impersonating me on Reddit. I post as manboobz. He (or she) posts as manboobz_. (That is, with a little underscore at the end.) Luckily most of the faux-manboobz’ comments are fairly easy to tell from mine — this is not someone with a great sense of subtlety — so at least some of the regulars have figured out that this bonehead is not actually me. Not all of them, unfortunately.
As impersonating someone else is a violation of Reddit’s rules, and an asshole move to boot, I politely asked the Men’s Rights subreddit’s mods to ban the faux-me. Here was the response:
