We Hunted The MammothThis 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.
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.
Drauger seconded the notion that lesbians are imaginary:
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.
Goldenfetus added some conspiracy theory to the mix:
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.
The Great One imagined a slightly different result:
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
On the relative values of women and toilet paper:
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.
Let’s end with some excerpts from a little poem ZTM has written for the women of America:
You’re an American woman
You try to make me see
It’s all about you, the hell with me
You’re selfish, you’re spoiled
you put up a front
You’ve got nothing to sell
except your cunt! …
Oprah and Phil have made you feel
Like you were all that
Even though you’re big and fat
You bash all the men and then………….
you think you’re a 10
But you belong in a Pig Pen!
I won’t spend a dime, no matter how you whine
I won’t give you kids or marry you bitch
You’ll ass rape me in court, you wicked witch.
I kick you to the curb of your rotten loser life
I have the last laugh
’cause I didn’t make you my wife!!!!!!!
I find myself agreeing with one of ZTM’s points: it’s for the better if he doesn’t marry. That’s a program I think we can all agree on.
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.
MISERABLE AMERICAN BITCHES!!!!!
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.
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.”
Besides, the whole idea of “rights” is, well, just like, an opinion, man.
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.
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”).
That’s not “Game.” That’s just being a dick.
But, hey, Nietzsche! He’s BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! Or, as he puts it in a comment, “Shame and guilt are beta.”
You know, if you have to go around telling everyone what an Nietzschean ubermensch you are, you’re probably aren’t much of a Nietzschean ubermensch.
Found on Reddit. Of course, this being Reddit, someone had to step up and defend the evil plutocrat Tom Nook.
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:
Stay classy, AnnArchist!
I mean, come on. That’s pretty spooky. Someone (can’t remember who, alas) posted this in the comments recently, and I felt I needed to share it.
Also, here’s a dog that meows like a cat.
Ok, that one’s fake. But the one with the cat? Seriously, what the fuck are these creatures up to?
On Wednesday afternoon, according to reports, a man named Scott Dekraai walked into a salon in Seal Beach California and opened fire, killing eight people, including his ex-wife Michelle Fournier, his evident target. The two, who shared custody of their son, had been entangled in an acrimonious custody dispute. (Dekraai wanted to reduce his ex’s access.) Fournier had told friends she feared her ex would try to kill her.
It’s not, unfortunately, uncommon for angry or jealous exes to harass, stalk and in many cases actually kill the objects of their obsession. Usually the killer is a man, and the victim a woman, but women kill too, and same sex couples are hardly immune from this kind of violence.
I’ve been following this story – it’s a heartbreaking one — though I hadn’t planned to write about it. There’s no indication, at least based on what we know so far, that Dekraai’s shootings were ideologically driven, that he was anything other than a deeply troubled man, bitterly angry that he had to share custody of his son with a woman he hated. There seemed to be no clear connections between this story and the misogynist ideologues I write about on this site.
But then they started making the connections themselves, offering apologias for Dekraai’s violence and twisting the facts of the case to fit their ideological agendas. TRIGGER WARNING: Many of the comments I quote below are some of the most vile and vicious I have ever found in more than a year of writing this blog.
On In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu didn’t let the facts get in the way of his perverse ideological spin on the case, titling his post on the subject “Anti-Male, Anti-Father Divorce Laws Drive Man to Commit Heinous Rage Shooting Against Ex-Wife” and blaming feminism for “poisoning the relationship between men and women” in America.
Bardamu’s argument, such as it is, is utterly at odds with the basic facts of the case. Dekraai and Fournier had shared custody of the boy they’d had together; Dekraai was not fighting to see his child — he was trying to further limit his ex’s access.
As a local Fox News affiliate noted:
Dekraai’s former attorney, Don Eisenberg, told CNS that the two had a “typical” divorce, which was finalized on Dec. 28, 2007.
“This was not a remarkable case. It was a stipulated judgment and the parties agreed on these details,” Eisenberg said.
Under the shared custody agreement, Dekraai had the boy each week from Thursday through the weekend, and the mother had him Monday through Wednesday, the attorney said.
“It was almost an exactly equal split,” Eisenberg said.
There’s not much beyond the headline to Bardamu’s post; the real action is in the comments — many of which openly advocate violence and explicitly endorse Dekraai’s murderous rampage.
One anonymous visitor left this chilling comment:
[E]nough of this type of offensive action might just start making women and their supporters* think twice, especially if they also become targets. (* Divorce attorneys, child services workers and counselors, family court judges, and other enabling cogs in the feminist legal system)
Self-immolating Thomas Ball may have made a point, but the fact remains that he didn’t strike a blow, even as he advocated it.
Someone calling himself Remorhaz expresses a similar sentiment:
The only way this or any offensive action will make a difference is if it starts affecting the judges and lawyers. King John did not sign the magna carta because he was a kindly just ruler, he did it with a sword on the back of his neck while watching a grinning man holding an axe who was busy trying on black hoods. In Mexico entire police forces quit because a few officers go missing. If that started happening then the law becomes meaningless as there is no one to enforce it. …
Essentially men need to tell feminism to shut the fuck up, give it a vigorous slap across the face thus reminding it who is the biological superior, then order it back into the kitchen/bedroom.
In a followup comment he railed against those who expressed disapproval of the shootings:
What options other than overt acts of physical violence are there for a man to deal with a shrew ex and corrupt family court system? To those who are horrified and surprised at this one question…. why? Isn’t the real question – “How come this isn’t a lot MORE common?”. And please avoid the “Well… nothing justifies killing blah blah blah” as we’ve all voted, supported, and tolerated governments who kill over parking tickets much less loss of children. And if keeping your children isn’t worthy of killing what is exactly?
Hopefully one of the dead carcess was his wife. The son will be better off without any parents than to have been raised by a single mother who would have gotten her vindictive way. And to Scott, when you mess with a real man’s child, blood will be spilt. Most men will just lay down and be resigned to the state-enforced kidnapping and extortion plot, but some are made of tougher stuff and for you to whine about this dead ex-wife or that is inconsequential and no loss to humanity.
Presumably he will be pleased to learn that she was one of those killed.
Frank saw the dead as “collateral damage” in a just war; his only complaint was that Dakraai hadn’t gone after public officials.
This man went to war. He caused much collateral damage and casualties have piled. And the people whose first reaction is to cry “those poor, innocent people” are people who will never change anything. Death is the way of the world. Violence or the implicit threat of it is what causes change. Go ahead, make it clear that you don’t have it in you to destroy life. The enemy will breath a little easier, because you certainly aren’t going to make any changes.
That said, he should have gone after judges and legislators. There’s no justice like a dead “justice”.
Tweell hoped the shootings would frighten women out of challenging their husbands or ex-husbands in court:
Gandi [sic] and MLK got what they were after via non-violent means, but they were dealing with people of conscience, people who would think about the issues they espoused and not just kill them. Non-violence only works when your opponent has moral character. …
I submit that women … are much more likely to pay attention when they’re being threatened. If it becomes obvious that claiming child abuse during divorce, withholding visitation and other such actions could result in their death, then they might think twice about such behavior.
Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, more moderate MRAs weighed in on the case. While no one explicitly defended the shooter’s actions, numerous posters said they understood the violence, and (completely ignoring the basic facts of the case) blamed it not on Dekraai but on a court system biased against men.
A poster calling himself TheRealPariah embraced Dekraai:
He is one of us. You cannot throw men struggling out simply because they do something you disagree with.
Bobsutan predicted (and came very close to endorsing) more violence,
violent outburst[s] like this will continue to happen so long as ‘kidnapping by court’ and ‘sold into slavery by court’ (via CS & alimony) keeps happening. … fix the family court system and these murders wouldn’t happen.
Moderator AnnArchist – we’ve met him before – agreed, arguing that
To prevent this in the future the solution is clear: Mandate 50/50 custody without any child support as the default
Another r/mr regular, carchamp1, took it a bit further:
I don’t condone what he did. No sane person would. But, I understand it. … You steal someone’s kids with the help of our so-called “family” courts you’re a pig. You have it coming. Period.
I think it’s high time we put a spotlight on these kidnappers. They are NOT innocent people. They are the scum of the earth. I couldn’t care less about their “welfare”. I care about the millions of parents, mostly fathers, who’ve had their kids stolen from them AND their kids.
When I pointed out in the discussion there that Dekraai had hardly been denied access to his child, AnnArchist changed the subject, suggesting that it was Fournier’s accusations against Dekraai in court that had pushed him over the edge. In fact, both had made numerous allegations about one another in court; Dekraai accused his ex-wife of phone harassment; she complained that he was abusive, mentally unstable and had threatened to kill her. Obviously she was right to have worried.
But according to AnnArchist, Fournier was wrong to bring up his instability in court. As he put it: “Poking the bear is dangerous.”
When I pressed him on this, he responded:
If you really think someone is nuts, you probably don’t want to be the one to call them out in open court because if they don’t go to prison they might kill you. Its tough to do with kids involved, but if she thought he was capable of something like this, using it in a custody dispute would be considered by many to be risky.
Astonished, I asked him if he was really saying what it looked like he was saying, that if you think your ex is dangerous, and literally insane, you shouldn’t challenge them in court when they try to get sole custody of your kid? His reply:
I didn’t know what to say to this bizarre argument, so I stopped responding.
I don’t know what to say to any of this. It is beyond appalling.