MRAs are so convinced that feminists hate men that when feminists express their genuine sorrow about a man’s suicide it doesn’t occur to MRAs to perhaps reconsider some of their beliefs about feminism. No, they’d rather use it as an excuse to attack individual feminist women.
I‘ve been trying to avoid reading, much less writing about, the human stain and pickup guru who calls himself Roosh V. But I couldn’t keep myself away from his most recent post, an appalling little exercise called The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut,which turns out to be even more appalling than its title.
Roosh, you see, has figured out a simple one-question test to determine the sluttiness of any woman. Let’s let him explain:
Many girls go to great lengths to hide their slutty past, knowing deep down the low value it conveys for being a suitable long-term partner, but there is one easy indicator that should tell you beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is a slut or not.
Has she lived on her own?
I believe my response to this is best illustrated by the following video of Don Draper saying “what?”
Let me just add:
HAS SHE LIVED ON HER OWN?
Are you exclusively dating high school girls?
If she’s an adult, or at least an adult somewhere in the vicinity of your own age, OF COURSE SHE’S LIVED ON HER OWN.
Yes, yes, I know, given this economy it’s true that some young people â mostly young men â are living at home a little longer these days than in the past, but the overwhelming majority have moved out by their mid-twenties. You’re 35 years old, dude.
Roosh continues:
If she has lived away from her parents for more than a year, she hasâat the minimumâslept with many men whose last names she did not know, including one-night stands that did not involve condoms.
Dude, do you even know the first names of the women you sleep with? And haven’t you bragged endlessly about how you âraw dog itâ with women? Weren’t you âraw dogging itâ even when you were afraid you had AIDS? (Those are rhetorical questions; I already know that the answers are yes, and yes.)
An âindependentâ girl, removed from the constraints of a nuclear family home and its rules, curfew, and the concern of good parents, will allow the slutty dick gobbler within her to be released.
Women engaging in consensual sex that they enjoy ⊠with someone else? THE END OF THE WORLD. Raping women who are too drunk to consent? According to Roosh himself, it’s âwhat I do.â
In other words, a natural-born slut who lives on her own will have far more sexual partners than if she lives with parents of average skill who require their daughter to be home by midnight.
Amazing deduction, Sherlock. And if she’s a nun, she’ll probably be having even less sex. The question is: why are you, as 35 year old man, regularly pursuing women young enough to live with their parents?
Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.
Really? Here are some young men who have recently started living on their own; I’m not sure that what they are doing could really be described as a “great thing.” (Content Warning: Drunk dudes hitting each other in the head with boards.)
If you want to estimate a girlâs notch count, simply multiple the number of years she has lived on her own by the number 3. If she has lived on campus in college for four years and then moved to a large city for two more, you can rest assured sheâs had over 15 cocks in her vagina, and god knows how many more in her mouth.
Not that anyone’s worth is determined by how many penises they’ve had in their vagina, or anywhere else, but I feel I should note that these figures, clearly pulled from the Journal of Roosh’s Own Ass, are completely wrong.
According to people who’ve actually studied human sexuality, his number is just a teensy bit high. And by “teensy” I mean they’re off by an order of magnitude. According to one 2005 study, women in their 30s and early 40s report that they’ve had only 4 male sexual partners, on average, not the 36 to 78 that Roosh’s formula would predict for women who move out on their own at the age of 18 to go to college.
There are definite exceptions for girls who are relationship minded and had boyfriends of more than one year in length, but unless she mentions this, youâre interacting with a slut and should proceed accordingly by escorting her home and asking if you can use her bathroom. Then you must fornicate with her like so many other men.
Yeah, that’s really ⊠creepy. You lie to get into her home, then proceed as if, as a slut, she’s already consented to sex?
You may be thinking the following: âMany Western girls live alone, at least 50%. Does that mean that over 50% of American girls are sluts?â Thatâs exactly what it means. Independence in women drives them to disempowering sexual behaviors that oppose motherly or wife behaviors. You must be skeptical of girls who have lived alone if you want a serious relationship.
At least if you want a relationship with a creepy, judgmental asshole who thinks like Roosh.
[T]here is absolutely no need for a girl to be independent by living alone without a husband unless you want her holes to be used as a real-life enactment of 50 Shades Of Grey by many strange men.
Well, that is, if you assume that 1) all women can magically find men, whether their father or a husband, who will pay all their bills and 2) Roosh’s opinions about any given woman’s sexual life matter more than the opinions of the woman herself.
If you end up having a daughter of your own, I highly recommend you limit her financial independence before she finds a husband. Refrain from giving her Think & Grow Rich advice that would be better suited for your son. Otherwise, sheâll become a slut who gives it up to any man who dances a good clown jig.
So: prepare your daughter to be dependent for her very existence on dudes who think like Roosh.
That may be the worst parenting advice I’ve ever heard. Then again, it’s from Roosh.
Why can’t women take up interesting hobbies, like men? (Note: this is a real book.)
Now that he’s taken the Red Pill, the Reddittor who calls himself F9R recently announced, he’s âstarted seeing women as people rather than as magical beautiful goddess creatures.â That’s a good thing, right? Seeing women as actual human beings rather than some imaginary construct?
Well, not so much. Because it turns out that women are just terrible as human beings. No, it’s true! In a rambling comment in the Red Pill subreddit with more than 100 upvotes, F9R reports his scientific findings on the ladies of the world.
Now I’m disillusioned with them because women, for the most part, are boring people. 95% of them spend more time on their appearance than anything else, so as a result they never really have interesting hobbies or develop respectable skill in any particular area. This, in my opinion, could be one of the reasons that women have historically under-performed in almost every activity/industry.
Ah, that explains it! There haven’t been any women presidents, or Popes, or Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because the ladies are spending way too much time fussing with their lipstick and trying to find the exact right shade of eyeshadow.
There haven’t been more women inventors, not because women were denied education for thousands of years or because STEM fields are filled with angry manbabies who cry oppression whenever a woman comes near, but because women don’t have any fascinating, mentally stimulating hobbies like the Red Pillers of the world have. You know, like weight-lifting, or âGame,â or âsaying terrible things about women online.â
A new video from Vocativ features a number of young women describing the sexual harassment â from creepy catcalls to actual physical assaults â they and countless other women face on the streets every day; the unsettling video, in which one woman, a former beauty queen, recounts her own sexual assault on the Washington DC metro last year, has been seen more than 2 million times on YouTube in the eight days it’s been up. (I’ve pasted it in at the end of the post.)
Some of these viewers have been Men’s Rights activists, and a lot of them aren’t too happy about it. Not about the street harassment. About the women speaking up against it. Indeed, one new Men’s Rights Redditor by the name of liuetenantwaffleiron was so angered by the video that he sat down and wrote a 700 word rebuttal of sorts â which quickly won him dozens of upvotes from others on the subreddit.
He started off with a story of his heroic efforts to stand up against one of the evil sexy women in the video, and the terrible price he paid for expressing his so brave opinions on the subject on Facebook:
I have a confession to make: I don’t always read the comments on posts by Men’s Rights Activists.
I realize this might come as a shock to some of you. I mean, one of the main, er, critiques I get from MRAs is that I “cherry pick” comments from MRAs to make them look bad — never mind that it is the comments that make them look bad, not me. But the embarrassing fact is that I often don’t read the comments at all.
In my defense, I have a hard enough time making it through the posts themselves. Life is short, and MRAs are long-winded. And by the time I get to the end of a lot of MRA posts, I’ve pretty much lost my patience with their nonsense. The last thing I want to do at that moment is to read the fawning word-vomit of a bunch of irritating fucks whose comments are likely to be as bad or possibly even worse than the original post.
So today I decided to do a sort of penance for my sins — and to actually read through a week’s worth of comments on A Voice for Men to see what I could learn about the world, and (perhaps more to the point) about the sort of people who actually enjoy reading posts on that terrible site.
I tried my best to do this little experiment as scientifically as possible. But I cheated a little. I didn’t read the comments to every post. And I didn’t read every comment on the posts that I did look at. I mean, what the hell. There’s a limit to my masochism. Seriously, you try reading a week’s worth of this shit in one sitting.
Anyway, here are the Top 7 Insights I’ve learned from a week’s worth of comments at AVFM. In choosing the following, I stuck with comments that were either upvoted or unchallenged by the site’s regulars, or both.
I‘ve been so busy with all the shenanigans surrounding AVFM and their little conference that I’m afraid I’ve been neglecting the good old Men’s Rights subreddit. Don’t feel bad, Men’s Rights subreddit, for today I took a few moments out of my hard-core semi-vacationing to pay you a little visit!
While there, I noticed the regulars discussing a terrible quandary that faces all modern men: “As a man, would you help a child in distress?”
Misogyny Theater takes another look at the charming philosopher-king-asshole Stefan Molyneux, who seems to be carving out quite a spot for himself in the world of the lady-haters.
In this episode, some audio excerpts from Stefan Molyneux’s frighteningly well-received talk ostensibly on circumcision at A Voice for Men’s June 2014 conference, as presented in his video âShocking Misogynist Attacks Feminism, Defends Rape Culture.â Despite the ironic title, this is pretty much an accurate description of his talk, even a bit of an understatement.
The title of my video is a shortened version of something he says in his talk (and in my video). The full quote: âIf you don’t have a husband, if you chose the wrong guy, to keep the child is abusive, almost always.â
That’s right: according to Stefan M., being a single mother is, in itself, abusive.
The audio excerpts are drawn from an hour-long talk, so naturally I did some editing. In the interests of transparency, I marked each edit with a little snipping sound.
If you just can’t get enough of this guy, see my previous Molyneux video for more exciting women-blaming.
Scissors sounds and weird background noises courtesy of FreeSFX.
A Voice for Men’s grandly titled First International Conference on Menâs Issues wound down a week ago. But the drama continues.
Today, in a post on AVFM, maximum leader Paul Elam set forth a series of accusations against the Doubletree Fort Shelby Hotel (where the conference was originally going to be held); against an unnamed security contracting company in Houston; and even against some hypothetical âprivileged little college girlsâ who might have had the conference booted from the Doubletree by simply making a couple of irate phone calls, because, at least in Elam’s imagination, âprivileged little college girlsâ have that power.
But the bulk of Elam’s complaints lie with the Doubletree, as the typically understated title of his post makes clear:
Fox News host Jessie Watters: seemed to be channeling Warren Farrell with some particularly obtuse remarks he made recently on the Fox show âOutnumberedâ on the âsingle ladiesâ vote.
If we ignore the implicit racism of his castigating “Beyonce voters” for being welfare “takers,” Watters is more or less rehashing an old, bad argument that Farrell made in The Myth of Male Power. In a section of the book called âGovernment as Substitute Husband,â Farrell wrote that âwhen divorces left women without husband-as-savior, many women looked for substitute saviors ⊠.â
You’ll all be glad to hear that Paul Elam has returned to normal. Well, normal for him.
After several days of doing his best impression of someone who isn’t a rage-filled attention misogynist, he’s back to his old woman-bashing self. You’ll also be happy to learn that he’s found a brand new woman to hate:Â Time reporter Jessica Roy, who is apparently quite stinky.
I’ve heard rumors that most females are stinky, actually.
Roy, who is covering the conference for Time, hasn’t even published her account yet. Her crimes so far? She tweeted some appalling quotes from some of the talks at the conference and made clear that she was not having a good time amongst the assembled assholes human rights activists. A selection:
