Category: antifeminism

Categories
antifeminism evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men sex

Fear and loathing on a date

Let me tell you more about the Pussy Pass ...

The Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit is awash in mini-manifestos. My favorite of the most recent batch, a rousing 3-part rant running under the title “Do not fear them!” 

Who is “them,” you ask?

Women who might just decide that they don’t really want to have sex with some dude who keeps going on about how men are the most oppressed group in the world.

Responding, apparently, to a comment in an earlier thread suggesting “that being publicly vocal about the way men’s rights are trampled on and ignored is a great way to lose the opportunity of getting laid,” manifesto writer Kuppers argues that it just ain’t so —  but when it is, just bite your tongue for as long as it takes to get into her pants.

He starts off with a strange variant on the notion that there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you feel that women won’t want to have sex with your Men’s-Rights-espousing self, Kuppers suggests,  it’s

because your brain was conditioned in a small communal/tribal setting. A group of angry women was a serious threat to your prospects of reproduction. As you know, women often act like herd animals, and view acceptance and appreciation from their peers of their choice of man to be important. This is completely moot today. There are millions of fish in the sea.

Aside from that final truism I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about.  I don’t recall growing up in anything that might possibly be considered – literally or figuratively – a “tribal setting” ruled over by a group – sorry, a herd – of “angry women” hell-bent on keeping me from reproducing.  Is this a common experience? Also, I have precisely zero interest in “reproduction.”  Indeed, I sort of make it a policy to only have sex with women who are at least as interested in preventing reproduction as I am.

On to point two in this curious document, which is that ladies love dudes with strong opinions:

Women, while they do not always explicitly say so and sometimes contradict so, sincerely do appreciate a man who has strong internal beliefs and principles, and does not compromise that for the sake of assuaging someone else’s sensitivities, including theirs. A man who is willing to pretend he is something he is not, isn’t attractive on a deep masculine level to women.

True, up to a point, but you might want to keep all that shit about women being angry reproduction-threatening herd animals to yourself. That might not go over so well on your first Starbucks coffee date. Or ever. Protip: Misogyny aside, very few people want to get with people who refer to sex as “reproduction.”

But if your desire for sex outweighs your manly desire to be truthful about your obnoxious beliefs, well, that’s all good too – if by “all good” you mean “you can still have angry sex with women you despise if you just keep your pie hole shut for a few hours.” Or, as Kuppers puts it in his third and final point, which he apparently doesn’t realize completely contradicts point number two:

The kind of woman who a) wants you to be subordinate to her crazy foaming feminist nonsense, and b) has no tolerance or patience for your concerns, is not worth anything more than a cheap, well-protected fuck anyway. Fine, keep your mouth shut for the couple of hours it takes to get her into bed, but you’d be mad to pursue anything more serious with a woman like that.

Men’s Rightsers – such romantics at heart!

Categories
antifeminism evil women I'm totally being sarcastic idiocy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead Uncategorized

"No I won't read your literature … bitch!" and other thoughts on female fiction from the dudes of The Spearhead

This better not be written by some dame!

So Esquire magazine recently posted a list of “The 75 Books Every Man Should Read” on their website.  Esquire being Esquire – that is to say, a men’s magazine that had its glory days in the era of Mad Men and that seems to be aimed mostly at old farts (and aspiring old farts) —  only one book of the 75 was written by a woman.  (That’s 98.67% male, for those of you with lady brains who can’t do the math.)

The internet being the internet, some people noticed that the list was a wee bit heavy on the dudes, even for a men’s magazine, and pointed this out. The bloggers at the Joyland Publishing blog suggested that while the books on Esquire’s list were “mostly fantastic,” it might behoove men to pick up a book or two written by a woman once in a while. And so, with the help of some of their readers, the two assembled a list of “250 Books By Women All Men Should Read.” (Why 250 and not, say, 75? Because they got a lot of suggestions.)

Here’s a little one-question quiz for you all: What title did W. F. Price at The Spearhead give his post on the controversy?

A) “Some Great Suggestions for Books by Women You Guys Might Want to Read.”

B) “Did You Know There Are Female Authors Besides The Chick That Wrote Harry Potter?”

C) “Feminist Publishers: Force Men to Read Women’s Lit”

Yep, the correct answer is C, of course.  Apparently a couple of bloggers suggesting some books by women that men “should” read  is some kind of Gestapo-like imposition upon men by “Feminist Publishers.” Price grouses:

[I]it strikes me as rather mean-spirited of females in the publishing industry to denounce even ineffectual efforts to introduce men to literature. By all accounts, publishing has come to be dominated by women, and men are reading far fewer books than women these days. Given this state of affairs, you’d think that the women in the industry might be a bit gracious and let the boys pick and choose which titles interest them.

But of course that won’t do, because feminists must find fault with any and everything men are involved in. …

The implication [of the Joyland Publishing blog post] is that men should be forced by political pressure to read female writers (sometimes these feminists come off as whiny, annoying girlfriends complaining that “he just won’t listen to me!”).

Or, you know, it might just be that the writers of the blog post, and those who wrote in with suggestions, really enjoyed the books in question and thought that dudes might just enjoy them too.  Sort of like when a friend tells you that you should totally watch the movie Dogtooth, because it is so fascinating and creepy and awesome. Or when I tell you right now that you should go watch Jane Austen’s Fight Club on Funny or Die.

Naturally, the comments from Spearheaders were even more ignorant and obtuse than Price’s post. The basic theme: Bitches can’t write for shit (as far as I know).

In case you think I am offering an unfair characterization of the, er, debate, here’s one Spearheader’s contribution to the discussion:

when a man says “no, I won’t read your literature”, you have to respect that, bitch.

And another’s:

I basically do not read anything a wimminz has written, not even in my favourite genre of science fiction, because every single time I have tried they have been unmitigated fucking crap full of feminazi girl power bullshit and emotional baggage and basically very little hard SF…

And still another’s:

I never read anything written by women unless it happens to be instructional and related to work. Pretty much all the fiction I’ve ever read is by and for males. If I read some non-fiction for fun it’s always got a male author. I realized a while back that my cd collection is about 98% male. When I was a kid I never thought about it, it just came naturally. Now that I’m older I intentionally avoid anything by women.

It’s always,er, instructive to see what some random guy who apparently reads mostly instructional manuals has to say about the literary controversies of the day.

There were, of course, more thoughtful analyses, like this earnest comment from the excitable, exclamation-point-happy David K. Meller:

Women write for an audience of their own level–to wit themselves! Most men are simply too intelligent to be interested in what passes for literature scribbled by women! …

Correct me if I am wrong, but is most woman’s “literature” one more kvetch klatsch of women–or girls–getting together to complain about, to defeat, or to evade the workings of us evil, letcherous, abusive, horrible M-E-N! There is no point in men reading such drivel …

There may be better days coming; when women are once again taught the arts of pleasing men, in their creating a comfortable environment for the chosen man in their lives, and when they again will use their ability to read to discover new and better ways to do this, and their ability to write to communicate these truths to others of their sex! Until that happens, literacy for women, much less dominance in authorship, editing, and publishing has been, and is, a BLOODY MESS for everyone, especially men!!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Yes, women should really only be allowed to read and write if they are reading or writing instructional manuals on how to cook and give better blow jobs, possibly at the same time.

PEACE AND FREEDOM!! to you too, good sir.

Speaking of which — the blowjob bit, not the PEACE AND FREEDOM!! — the commenter calling himself dragnet suggested that young men such as himself were simply too busy to read much of anything. They have other priorities:

The vast majority of my reading is for work, research, and classes. …

Frankly, I’d rather be getting laid than reading a novel after a grueling work week. The three or four hours I sometimes have free on the weekend when I’m not working or working out or sleeping or eating, I’d rather be out with my friends or getting serviced by whatever girl I’m with at the time.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a penis, must be in want of some girl to service it.

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!1!!

Anyway, ladies and manginas, any good lady books you want to suggest for the dudes of the world?

Categories
antifeminism atlas shrugged evil women I'm totally being sarcastic internal debate men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny MRA oppressed men sex vaginas

The Cock Blockade

Benedict Arnold: Don't let your dick be like this guy!

There are a lot of manosphere misogynists and  MRAs who think that “Game” (pick-up artistry) offers a sort of liberation for guys  who heretofore have been at a horrible disadvantage to stuck-up bitches in the dating arena. But there are others – and the blogger at Omega Virgin Revolt is one of them – who think that spending so much time trying to figure out how to impress women is not only a waste of time but a sort of capitulation to the evil that is women. To put it in the parlance of the manosphere: If women are just a bunch of cunts, why waste your life chasing pussy?

I recently ran across a comment on the blog  Omega Virgin Revolt that explains this particular theory quite cogently. Well, as cogently as these guys ever get. (I’ve taken the liberty of editing out some of the less-comprehensible bits.) According to this anonymous non-Gamer:

Men have so much power that they literally give it away…  [by] chasing tail. Biological impulses my ass. Humans have this thing called the ability to think and the power to choose. It’s why we are at the top of the food chain yet there are much larger and stronger creatures that exist. Apply that to women and sex as well. If [men would] go on a sex strike like the MRM should have [done] as one of it’s primary objectives … .

It’s like Lysistrata, only with penises.

Which makes men who chase after women sexual strikebreakers. Scabs. Traitors. Collaborators. BeneDICK Arnolds who are quite literally sleeping with the enemy.  

Who in their right mind thinks that fraternizing is going to get them anywhere? First off it makes men in general look like … out of control [scum] who only want sex and gives women even more reason to view us all like that. Well I myself am not manipulated by sex and once men get to that point, women simply can’t overcome that. And you know why? Because they have to bring something else besides it which many unfortunately don’t comprehend.

Yep. We’re back to the MRA misogynist theory – discussed here previously – that the only thing women bring to the table, as possible romantic partners and humans, is the vagina. And that when men “call them on it,” as it were, they will collapse in a heap, realizing they can’t lord it over men with the power of their vaginas any more.

Our anonymous philosopher then makes what he evidently sees as a highly cutting remark about feminism:

Isn’t that actually being a true feminist and the basis to which we should all hold women up to?

Um … yes? Feminism does indeed suggest that the worth of women does not inhere entirely in their vaginas, at least not any more so than the worth of men inheres in their dicks.

What do we want? Genital equality!

When do we want it! Now!

But back to our anonymous friend and his manifesto:

You go to war, the first thing you do is try to embargo or blockade your enemy’s means of getting supplies to keep their own war effort going long before the firs[t] shot is fired. But these days, men are giving women all that and much more just to turn around use on them.

That’s right, fellows. He’s talking about a cock blockade. Cut off their dick supply at the source!

Urk. Let me reword that last bit:

Keep your dicks locked down, far from the grasping hands of desperate women. Starve them out.

Soon enough they’ll surrender, and come out waving white flags. And, presumably, their panties.

Profit??

EDIT: I changed the title to one that darksidecat recommended. It’s really a much better title.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA oppressed men precious bodily fluids sex sluts vaginas

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s adultery: Blame the bitches!

Non-stop fun indeed!

Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Picture the scene.

It’s January 1997. Arnold’s in a good mood, sitting in his den, paging through the latest issue of Variety. He chuckles to himself. Fuck the critics! Jingle All the Way is putting asses in the seats of the multiplexes of America, and that means money in the bank to the Terminator.

Suddenly, he hears the door to the room click shut behind him. It’s that devious maid again, with her wily, sexy Latin ways! “Que pasa?” she says, running her hands through his hair. He’s still not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly, but it seems to have a hypnotic effect on him, and his penis. He pulls the maid to him.

The next minute and a half are a blur. “Curses!” he mutters to himself, as he realizes that, once again, the wily maid has lured his hapless penis into her vaginal cavity. But it’s too late. The penis has released its precious load. “Me han robado tu esperma,” she hisses. “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”

This, give or take a few of the details, seems to be how the author of the Rebuking Feminism blog imagines the events that led to the birth of Arnold’s love-child 14 years ago. Yep: in his version of events, it’s the women – both the maid, Patty Baena, and wife Maria – who are responsible for Arnold’s indiscretions:

Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold’s status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I’m sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity.

It’s tough, I guess, to be a freakishly huge, fabulously wealthy alpha male who wants to fuck everything in sight. But tougher indeed to be a beta:

As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I’m sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband.

Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina.

Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men…Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights.

Now all Maria and Patty need to do is sit back and collect the cash. Ka-ching-gle All the Way!

EDITED TO ADD: The author of the post has added a response to my post as a addendum to his original post. The gist of it:

Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.

The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys beta males evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny nice guys rape rapey the spearhead thug-lovers violence against men/women

On The Spearhead, it’s always women’s fault

It wasn't me.

A sex offender in Washington state who has spent most of his life behind bars, convicted of an assortment of different crimes ranging from check kiting to child molestation, is close to his release date. Not surprisingly, given his long history of preying on young girls, prosecutors are pushing for him to be sent instead to a facility for sexual predators, as a recent story on SeattlePI.com notes.

A state psychologist has described Donald “Theo” Holmes as a remorseless psychopath and a pathological liar who has managed to rack up an impressive array of crimes, many involving underage girls, during his stints outside of prison.  As the psychologist observed:

 “He uses women and children to feed his sexual desires, and he uses other members of society to supply him with money, clothes, and cars that make him look important and fuel the grandiosity which is an ingrained part of his personality. …

“He admits to multiple sexual conquests and is proud of the fact that he has 22 children and that he has had mothers and daughters … pregnant at the same time with his child.”

Holmes, for his part, simply describes himself as a “womanizer.” Apparently 12-year-old girls count as “women” in his world.

Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price uses this case as an example of what is wrong with, you guessed it, women.

Fathering 22 children is not easy even without spending so much time incarcerated, so one can only assume that his criminality had absolutely no ill effect on his success with women. In fact, it may have enhanced his love life.

Here again, we see that being a good man has nothing to do with one’s success with women, and often is an impediment. One of the big lies of feminism is that women will shower affection on well-behaved men, and have no desire for the low-life thugs of society. Sadly, this is not the case.

Perhaps the most important message we can get out there to young men is that there is little connection between what turns women on and what is objectively good for society.

I don’t know any feminists who think that women only go for “good” guys; indeed, the feminists I know spend a lot of time discussing (and trying to help) women who are or were involved with not-so-good-guys. Evidently the imaginary feminists Price hangs out with, though, are reincarnations of Victorians who assume all women are perfect little angels.

Price is bad enough. Do we have to look at the comments too? Yes, yes we do. Let’s start with the very first one, from Opus, who asked:

but is he really so bad [?]… there is nothing to suggest that the minors were anything other than enthusiatic. Whatever views one may have as to the age of consent, the girls were not infants or children but adolescents.

Yep, in Opus’ mind, sex with 12- and 14-year-olds is no problem, so long as we assume (based on nothing) that they were “enthusiastic” about it. Last I checked, this comment had  16 upvotes and only 3 downvotes, so apparently he’s not the only one willing to blame underage girls for being raped. Sorry, having “enthusiastic” sex with a career criminal many decades older than them.

Meanwhile, Anonymous Reader (in another heavily upvoted comment) takes aim at:

the state of Washington. There’s no way this guy could have spawned 22 children if he had to support them on his own. How many are on AFDC, WIC or other welfare programs, paid for by ordinary, working Beta men? Yes, this is a result of liberalism but it also is a result of feminism.

AFDC and WIC are, of course, intended to make sure that the children of poor women don’t, you know, starve to death.  Now, I’m pretty sure Holmes wouldn’t have given a shit if his kids all starved. But apparently neither would Anonymous and his numerous upvoters. Why exactly should the children – some of whom may well be the result of the rape of underage girls — have to pay the price for Holmes’ despicable actions?

Yes, you can blame liberalism and feminism for the fact that these children are being fed. That’s not a bad thing. The actions of Holmes weren’t the actions of a liberal or a feminist; they were the actions of a seemingly psychopathic  sexual predator who assumed, like many traditionalist men, that women and girls are put on this earth for men to use as they see fit.

NOTE: I didn’t set out today to write yet another post about The Spearhead. But I read Price’s post and sort of had to say something. My next post will have nothing to do with The Spearhead. I promise.

EDITED TO ADD:  Picture credit: Zampieri, “God reprimanding Adam and Eve,” detail;  photo G. Piolle.

Categories
antifeminism evil women idiocy internal debate manginas marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead western women suck

W.F. Price: A Daisy Picking Mangina?

I'm onto you, all women!

MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.

Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:

We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?

Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,

a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …

If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.

And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:

[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …

Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.

So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.

On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.”  Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:

The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..

 [I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)

Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.

W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.

Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.

Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!

Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit the spearhead vaginas western women suck

The Royal Scam

Do you like my hat? No, I do not like your hat.

I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over  Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,

but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?

Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:

Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.

Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.

But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:

Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!

Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!

So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that

promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.

Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.

But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:

Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.

The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.

What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.

Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)

While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”

To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:

The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.

Equality in marriage = oppression of men.

I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.

And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .

—

*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.

UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.

Categories
antifeminism life before feminism that's not funny!

Life Before Feminism: When a Woman’s at the Wheel …

Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers regularly lament what they see as the baleful influence of feminism on everyday life and popular culture. So it’s perhaps worth reminding people what things were really like before modern – that is, second and third wave – feminism.

Second-wave feminism was in its infancy in 1970 when this charming Goodyear ad was shown on the first broadcast of Monday Night Football.

Obviously, the whole “women drivers suck LOL” attitude lives on — in the form of countless dumb jokes, demotivational posters, YouTube compilations, you name it.

But none of that shit hits on the same visceral level as this ad. I think that’s partly because of the smug, patronizing tone of the narrator of the Goodyear commercial, and the hint of contempt that slips into his voice when he mentions the possibility of a mere woman taking the wheel. I think it’s also because to whomever made the ad—and presumably a great number of those watching it — the idea that women are awful drivers is simply considered an incontrovertible fact; the ad isn’t even trying to be funny.

Indeed, this deliberately cutesy vintage Volvo ad, while equally sexist, seems fairly innocuous  by comparison. (My only question is why that poor woman seems to have married her father.)

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women feminism men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny precious bodily fluids sex sluts vaginas

Don’t Trust Any Vagina Over Twenty-five

Marilyn Monroe, 8 years past her expiration date.

In the spring, a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. And, at least if he’s straight, vaginas. Even if this young man happens to be a not-so-young man, and one who is defiantly Going His Own Way and thus theoretically immune to the vagina’s siren song. At least that’s the case with one regular over on the Happy Bachelors forum who recently set forth some intriguing theories on vaginas. Specifically, vaginas older than 25. What “Superbad” calls his “Golden Vagina Rule” is pretty simple: “Don’t trust any vagina over 25.” As he explained in a recent thread:

Social commentary written (or spoken) by a woman whose vagina is over 25 years old can be considered mostly bullshit. Null and void. And here is why. You cannot expect a woman, whose primary function is to make babies (aka attract men), to be anything but bitter or dishonest after her eggs and looks start to go. …

And why is this? According to Superbad,

when a woman’s sexuality declines (whored out, dried up vagina, menopause, postpartum depression, psychologically-induced frigidity, insanity, etc.) that she starts blaming men and talking a lot of hate and nonsense.

Just a few quick notes here: Female sexuality is not a finite resource; you cannot use it up by having sex on a regular basis. Nor do vaginas dry up like dead flowers when a woman passes the age of 25. Generally speaking, when a woman is interested in having sex with you, and you don’t just shove your dick in her without so much as a “how do you do,” lubrication is not a problem. If it is, for whatever reason, you can purchase bottles of lubricant at the local drug store. (This is also, FYI, how people are able to have butt sex.) Also, the average age of menopause is 51, not 25; though many believe menopause kills libido and “dries up” the vagina, this is probably a myth.

Oh, and also: mocking women for aging and/or suffering postpartum depression is not just a douchey thing to do, it’s practically psychopathic. Yes, physical beauty fades – eventually – for women and men alike. But having a complete and utter lack of empathy for your fellow human beings is an unattractive quality at any age. Speaking of unattractive beliefs, let’s continue:

The down side of people living longer, is that most women are going to be ugly for vast majority of their lives. That is obviously going to breed resentment and animosity. A woman’s time in the sun is brief. A man becomes more powerful with age. But a woman never gets any prettier. … Feminism has become a way for the uglier, older, less-fertile women to CONTROL young, virile girl’s orgasms and their sexuality.

At this point I feel I should remind Mr. Bad that the word “virile” actually means “manly,” in a general sense; more specifically, it means “capable of functioning as a male in copulation.” If you are interested in women with such capability — hey, let your kink flag fly! – there are several options available to you. (One of them may involve the purchase of equipment; they will all involve the lube I spoke of earlier.)  If this isn’t what you want, you may wish to reword your post, and perhaps any dating profiles you may have put up on DoucheMatch.com or PlentyOfCompleteFuckingAssholes or wherever the fuck you may have put them up, so as to ward off any possible confusion on this point.

Superbad continues:

If you think women hate men; trust me, they’d just assume [sic] claw each others eyes out. And here is where a happy bachelor differs. Older men don’t feel the need to compete with younger men. Older men feel a bond with younger men. It is our duty to teach them and pass down any knowledge. We live in a world where the enemy is no longer a bear or tribal war. The enemy is packaged as pretty as a peacock: MARRIAGE. It is a way to sell the old vagina.

Yuck! Send that old hag to Carrousel!

Let’s try to work out the logic here. According to Superbad, marriage is a dastardly plot by evil feminists to bind men to vaginas over the age of 25, and presumably the women hosting them as well, who by definition are dried-up, whored-out ugly monsters (both the women and the vaginas, presumably).

Feminists are also trying to “CONTROL” the sexuality of young, fertile (yet also virile) women/vaginas, presumably by keeping them from having sex with … Superbad, who, as a Man Going His Own Way, doesn’t even want to be with women in the first place?

The ideal world, evidently, is one in which men of all ages get to have sex with under-25 vaginas (and their women), and are free to reject outright all women/vaginas older than that. In order to accommodate men of all ages, of course, these young women/vaginas will have to have sex with lots of different men. This will, of course, make them, by Superbad’s reckoning, “whores.”

Forget the old virgin-whore dichotomy; in Superbad’s sexual utopia all women/vaginas will pass through three stages: starting out virgins, they will, for a brief period in their late teens and early twenties, be whores; then, after the age of 25, they will be consigned to the whore-heap of history and become hags.

Superbad has it all figured out.  And, as he explains in another comment, these poor gals will have no one but the feminists to blame:

[N]on-fertile women (read: ugly, old, bitchy) are always mad when they see young girls worshiping our cocks… old habits die hard. women are lazy. feminism requires women to get off their fat asses, work, and compete with smarter/stronger beings. most get a taste of “feminism”: working retail and getting fvcked/chucked monthly… and then end up online, looking for a “real man”. but, unfortunately, all the boys that the last generation of femi-turds raised are wimps. so, ladies, here is the game plan. get on your knees when young (so we can rent your mouth and vagina) and THEN, later, wise up, get angry, and MAN UP… and live alone with your cats. Feel free to get online as an old bat and “school” us men. LOL

Yes, Superbad has appended a “LOL” to the tail end of his comment, as if it were some sort of Internet-age equivalent to the more traditional Q.E.D. (Pro-tip: It’s not.) Still, his comments did make me LOL a little, or at least chuckle quietly to myself. Not with you, Superbad. At you.

NOTE: If you didn’t get that reference to “carrousel” earlier, perhaps this scene from Logan’s Run will jog your memory:

Categories
antifeminism MRA oppressed men sex vaginas

>Alone Again, Naturally

>

Choose “none of the above.”
The blog A(n)nals of Online Dating is, like a lot of things involving online dating, both hilarious and horrifying at the same time. The blog catalogs the highly ineffective habits of the most clueless and/or offensive would-be romancers online. I’m sure there are terrible female daters out there as well, but the blog mostly focuses on the dudes, many of whom are not entirely dissimilar from the sorts of guys I write about here all the time: angry, undersocialized misogynists who desire women (or at least their vaginas) as much as they hate and fear them. Luckily for the women of the online dating world, most of these men make their odiousness so plain that it is unlikely they will ever score even a single date.

Here are a few of my recent favorites.

Bachelor Number One I’ll call the Master Debater. He sent the following missive to at least one woman online, hoping, apparently, to spark a little discussion, and perhaps a little romance: 

I love to debate. I feel that Im very good at it. I see the Feminist Movement as a CIA funded political agitation mechanism. Many men feel that the Feminist Movement is anti-male, but I feel that its anti everybody. It hurts everyone that comes into contact with it.

My question to you is, would you be able to offer a rebuttal to what I just asserted without resorting to personal attack 
Able, or willing? I think any number of potential respondents would be more than able to offer a critique without resorting to namecalling. But what would be the fun of that?

Let’s move on to Bachelor Number Two, a guy I’ll call Mr. Optimistic, a fellow who actually thinks he can cajole twentysomething women into having hot sex with him by, among other things, suggesting that women over 31 are unfuckable monsters. (Hint: With  few exceptions, women under 31 will eventually be women over 31.) In his dating profile, Mr. O explains that ladies messaging him should be: 
reasonably tall …  passionate and intelligent so as to be good company, sexually liberated, and attractive – really attractive, fat chics need not apply (hehe, I’m so self-amusing). 
Evidently they need not be sticklers for correct spelling or grammar. Mr. O goes on to explain that he wants a woman who earns her own living, but doesn’t mind him bossing her around. As he puts it, he wants someone: 
Capable of holding a steady job but without making it your #1 priority – since it could interfere with our sexual activities. …  If you can accept that I’m responsible for taking charge and my decisions will be final, don’t take yourself too seriously and thinks the world of me.
He wants a gal who is family oriented, but open to threesomes:
Family oriented but not anytime soon … open to spontaneous sexual activities (you know, outdoors sex, the odd 3-some with a cutie we pick up somewhere or one of your girlfriends), likes the outdoors (nudity optional), and doesn’t complain when I go fishing with the guys.
And she can’t be in a hurry about the whole family thing. After all, he wants a few good years of fucking before his wife hits the age of 31 – what he says is “the expiration date for most women anyway.”  She should be: 
ready to have children only after 30 and proving yourself to be a faithful wife and a loving woman, prepared for the duties of a good mother, have class and know when it’s time to speak up and when it’s NOT the time to do so, instead of a stuck-up naggy b!tch who can’t shut up, sociable, know how to please the sexual drive of your partner (little things such as giving me a call when you’ve gotten a new set of sexy lingerie to surprise me), and know that gifts are little treats and rewards, and not a never-ending desire to be pampered.
 ‘
Interesting how quickly his disquisition on family values turns into kvetching about “naggy b!tch[es]” and then, just as quickly, into the tritest of sexual fantasies. In any case, he explains, while she should be willing to spend money on lingerie, she should otherwise be a thrifty sort with

good spending habits, no ridiculous credit card debts and a sense of home economy; I’m not planning on changing my excellent lifestyle, and I plant to eventually be able to give my children an excellent education – and that’s not possible without good savings and planning. This will also help teaching them to earn their own achievements, respect their parents, and not be spoiled brats.

Also, no pets:

You should also understand that pets are simple money pits that only serve as something lonely women occupy themselves with so that they don’t have to connect with their husbands.

But hey, he’s not picky:

I’m attracted to all kinds of women, redheads, brunettes, black, white, latinas, you name it, as long as they’re attractive. Not attracted to fat women, and that includes the infamous “curvy” (a word that used to mean actual curves, not fat), and “a few extra pounds,” regardless of your supposed “inner beauty.” Sorry 🙂

The final smiley really nails it for me. If I were a woman – and a few years younger, and not so fat, and bisexual, and into outdoor sex, and both debt- and pet-free, and willing to put my life into the hands of a guy who can’t spell the word “chick” — I’m sure I’d be begging the guy for a date.

No mystery, these guys.
It’s hard to compete with Mr. Optimistic here, but Bachelor Number Three, the guy I’ll call No Beefcake, comes pretty close. His strategy for winning over the ladies? Ranting about how women on Plenty of Fish are a bunch of delusional fatties.  


I can honestly say the selection on here is mostly scary to me. I have no problem with single moms or girls that are other than stick thin. But for real, if you are gargantuan and just gross … please don’t waste your time with me. 

I’m no beefcake but I am healthy and I am getting tired of creepy girls wondering “where all the good men are” when its clear that they have either been eaten by those same girls, or are in hiding for fear of being mistaken for a 7-11 corndog. I am not Arnie, nor would I want to be but I do have biceps and a fairly flat stomach, if you have a massive muffin-top and can’t take care of yourself why set yourself up by hiding behind deceptive photo angles? Just because you have cleavage does not mean you have nice boobs. We’re gonna find out eventually, why lie now? Every woman’s profile says they demand “honesty”, how many actually offer it? Self delusion is not attractive, except to the worst quality guys.

Biceps, a “fairly flat stomach,” a raging hostility towards women. Is that all this fellow has to offer? Not by a long shot! Did we mention that he owns his own home?

I am a homeowner with a couple of promising careers, a well developed intellect, a decent body and a serious disdain for drama, game playing and bullshit. Therefore I do not feel the need to “capture your attention” with something artificially witty and intriguing. How about you show me that you have what it takes to hold an intelligent conversation for ten minutes, or that you actually care about your future, and could be entertaining and fun for me as well?

So, do you have what it takes to hold an interesting conversation with No Beefcake? Possible topics include: 
1) home ownership and why it is the backbone of the American Dream 
2) why so many women are fat fatties. 
The ball’s in your court, ladies.

PS: Here’s the Gilbert O’Sullivan song that I stole my title from.
— 
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.