Category: men who should not ever be with women ever

Red Piller: Don't be any more angry at women for their behavior than you'd be at a dog for chewing things up.

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date December 1, 2013
183 Comments on Red Piller: Don't be any more angry at women for their behavior than you'd be at a dog for chewing things up.

This dog: Clearly superior to Red Pill Redditors

Oh, Reddit! Why must you be so Reddity? As a reminder of how deeply shitty Reddit can be even outside the confines of the Men’s Rights and Red Pill and related subreddits, consider the following comment from AskReddit, in which a RedPiller responded to another comment trying to summarize the “Red Pill Philosophy” for those unfamiliar with it.

Cyralea, a dedicated Red-Pill popper himself, took issue with the notion that Red Pillers are angry. (Gosh, why would anyone think that?) “Some are, certainly,” he wrote. “Particularly former betas who are recovering and are just discovering the nature of the world.”

But, he added,

The philosophy follows that one shouldn’t be any more angry at a women for her behaviours than one gets mad at a dog for chewing things up. We encourage self-improvement and self-respect in light of this newfound information. Some men use the knowledge to pursue sex, but others use it within their relationships/marriages. Alpha behaviours lead to healthier, stronger relationships. The women we date end up more satisfied in the long run, so both parties benefit.

I think it’s easy to get distracted by the angry people in /r/theredpill. There has been a recent influx of subscibers, so there’s been a little more angst than usual. The philosophy absolutely doesn’t hinge on anger though, though the language used may suggest such.

Emphasis added. As of this moment, this comment has a net 7 upvotes, 11 upvotes and 4 downvotes. That’s right: 11 Redditors saw this comment suggesting that women are like dogs who chew up sneakers and thought, “I’d better reward this bit of timeless wisdom! UPVOTE!”

In a followup comment, Cyralea tried to explain why the word “bitch” pops up so frequently on the Red Pill subreddit. Amongst Red Pillers, he noted, “bitches” is

literally interchangeable with “women”. It does not have the negative connotation when used there, again the same way 4Chan uses “fag”. I can understand how this seems aggressive.

Oh, “bitches” is like “fags.” Well then, no problem, use the word all you want, my dear fellow!

The mods removed this followup comment (though it’s still visible in his comment history). Apparently, in AskReddit, explicitly comparing women to female dogs is fine, and will even win you some upvotes, just so long as you don’t actually use a word meaning the same thing.

Thanks to a reader for pointing me to this very Redditty discussion.

a woman is always to blame beta males evil sexy ladies hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic laidnyc men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA sluts

How slut-shaming transforms dirty cheeseburgers into sex gold

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date November 27, 2013
233 Comments on How slut-shaming transforms dirty cheeseburgers into sex gold

One sexy cheeseburger

Longtime readers of Man Boobz will have noticed that most of the pickup artists and “game” gurus I write about here are also vociferous slut-shamers.

This might seem a little odd and, well, counterproductive, in that you might expect that men who enjoy having no-strings-attached sex with a large number of women would in fact be kindly disposed towards women who enjoy having no-strings-attached sex with a large number of men.

antifeminism divorce evil fat fatties evil sexy ladies evil short-haired women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy rape culture reactionary bullshit red pill straw feminists

Manosphere blogger: “Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.”

Beta male oppressed by feminism.

Does anyone read newspaper comics any more? Does anyone even remember reading newspaper comics? One of the worst of the bunch is a mawkish little one-panel strip called “Love is …,” with a simple formula: a little drawing of a plump, happy, naked couple (minus sex organs), with a caption starting off with the words “love is.” The more popular strips were turned into greeting cards. I actually have an oil painting someone made of the Love is couple that I found in a thrift store for $1.47. The caption: “Love is … letting him win once in a while.”

The strip began in 1970, and the creator turned it over to the current writer and artist in 1975. I have no fucking idea how on earth he can come up with a new “love is” caption every day. His life must be some kind of existential hell. He must spend hours just staring out the window looking for inspiration. Love is … a dog taking a shit, no. Love is … a fat guy waiting for a bus … no. Love is … sitting alone in my underwear wondering what has gone wrong with my life.

Anyway, the reactionary Manosphere blogger Dicipres has decided to do a similar thing with the phrase “feminism is.” Only without the little naked couple. Here are some of his captions-without-pictures.

Feminism is a morbidly obese, sexually promiscuous, short-haired, tattooed, cussing beast whom no man can ever love or trust.

Feminism is a family which hates itself.

Feminism is a line drawn inside your home between you and your wife.

Feminism is a woman furious over ‘rape culture’ and who masturbates while fantasizing being beaten and raped. …

Feminism is a woman who cannot be loved anymore since she hates the domineering man she lusts and sexually despises the submissive man she likes.

Feminism is alimony and every other weekend

Feminism is a son hating his father

Feminism is equality as the only measure for progress of a society …

Feminism is a demographic annihilation due to low birth rates

Yeah. I don’t think any of those are going to work as greeting cards.

And what do these guys have against women with short hair?

antifeminism boner rage consent is hard creepy evil sexy ladies evo psych fairy tales female beep boop grandiosity it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape culture reddit straw feminists virgin shaming

Men’s Rights Redditor explains the mate choice process of the human female, and also why she won’t pay for dinner

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date November 25, 2013
447 Comments on Men’s Rights Redditor explains the mate choice process of the human female, and also why she won’t pay for dinner

Stuck-up females waiting for men to bring them dead animals for dinner.

So over in the Men’s Rights subreddit, the fellas are doing their best to address the burning Men’s Right issue of “date inequality,” or, as one recent poster put the question,“Hey feminists. How come men are still expected to pay for dates?”

I’m pretty sure that feminists aren’t the ones expecting men to pay for dates, so I’m not sure why feminists should be held to account for something they’re not doing, but in any case, the Men’s Rightsers don’t seem much interested in hearing explanations from feminists. No, they’re rather offer their own theories.

Enter a new convert to Men’s Rightsism called MrKocha, who enlists the aid of SCIENCE to offer his own explanation of this terrible date injustice:

creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA sexual exploitation

A creepy expat in Southeast Asia explains why money = tits and how this makes exploiting poor women for sex ok

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date November 24, 2013
583 Comments on A creepy expat in Southeast Asia explains why money = tits and how this makes exploiting poor women for sex ok

The sexiest man alive?

Over on Random Xpat Rantings the terrible excuse for a human being who calls himself Xplat sets forth an intriguing proposition: for men in search of sexy times, having money is the equivalent of a woman having tits.

In other words, it’s not absolutely necessary for a man to have big bucks to garner the attention of the opposite sex, just as it’s not absolutely necessary for a woman to have something in the tit department in order to garner the attention of men, but it helps. A lot.

Oh, by the way, the title of the post in which he sets forth this theory is “ALL women are inherently gold diggers down to their pussy juice.”

Let’s let him explain, in his own icky way:

antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? attention seeking demonspawn doubling down empathy deficit evil fat fatties mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men playing the victim PUA reddit rhymes with roosh

Roosh V, trolling for page views with deliberately offensive posts, finds some supporters in the Men’s Rights subreddit

The glamorous life of an internet king

So our old friend Roosh Valizadeh seems to have fully embraced the Matt Forney school of misogynist internet celebrity, posting over-the-top offensive posts in a transparent attempt to gin up controversy and blog traffic. And it’s working: he’s brought an avalanche of well-deserved hate down upon himself. But don’t worry: he’s still got some supporters — not only on his own blog but in the Men’s Rights subreddit.

The post that’s been keeping the servers hosting Roosh’s Return of Kings blog busy lately is a guest post by Tuthmosis with the title “5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder.”

a woman is always to blame evil old ladies evil sexy ladies evil women marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men patriarchy playing the victim reactionary bullshit

Dalrock on why men should avoid women who’ve wasted “a lot of courtship” and “used up their most attractive/fertile years.”

Woman with surplus courtship

Dalrock, a manosphere traditionalist with a great love of charts and statistics and other accoutrements of SCIENCE, has managed to figure out a way to stretch “don’t be so picky, ladies, or you’ll get old and ugly and no man will ever want you” out to 1500 words.

Here are a few of them:

advocacy of violence antifeminism creepy doubling down douchebaggery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit

How not to get banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date November 17, 2013
134 Comments on How not to get banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit

banad

Let’s say you wake up one morning and you decide, for some reason, that you’d like to make it your goal for the day to get yourself banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

If you’re a feminist, it’s not hard. I managed to get myself banned there some time ago and all I had to do was … well, I’m not exactly sure what it was I did. Actually, I’m pretty sure I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, Reddit-wise, other than argue with the regulars there. It’s possible I may have engaged in some light sarcasm. So maybe try that.

If, on the other hand, you hate women, all you have to do is … well, again, I’m not sure. Because earlier today, as one friend of Man Boobz pointed out on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit, a dislikeable fellow who calls himself sciencegod posted an elaborate, graphic torture fantasy to the Men’s Rights subreddit. I’m posting it below as a thumbnail; click to see it full size, but TRIGGER WARNING because it’s very graphic.

It got some downvotes, and the mods deleted the comment. But it didn’t occur to any of the mods, evidently, to actually ban this user from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

Because obviously anything he might ever have to say on the subject of Men’s Rights is much more worthwhile than anything I might ever have to say on the subject.

I asked the mods why they felt it necessary to ban me when they wouldn’t ban someone like sciencegod, and here’s the response I got back:

sillymod [M] via /r/MensRights/ sent 51 minutes ago We don't answer to you. You have zero influence through which to get a discussion out of us. Goodbye.
This is pretty much the answer I get whenever I ask them anything. I could ask them if they thought the sky was blue and they’d send me the same response and probably put something in the sidebar saying the sky was red.

Ironically, elsewhere in the Men’s Rights subreddit today I learned this:

nigglereddit 6 points 1 day ago (19|13) They don't actually think we hate women - if they did then they'd be happy for us to prove it every time we spoke in public. No, the problem is the opposite. They know we don't hate women. They know we're right. And the only way they can stop people from hearing and agreeing is to censor us.
Huh. Where on earth might I have gotten the impression that there are MRAs who hate women?

Oops. There’s that sarcasm again. When will I ever learn?

antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? evil women internal debate ladies against women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA NAWALT reddit

Men’s Rights Public Relations: Don’t call all women crazy bitches, even if they totally are, because feminists might catch you.

This quote from the Men’s Rights subreddit was featured on the Against Men’s Rights subreddit a week ago, but I can’t resist reposting it here, since it’s such a marvellous distillation of Men’s Rights LOGICS at work.

That’s right: while we of course agree that women are all crazy bitches, we generally don’t like to say that sort of thing out loud, at least here in this subreddit, because our actual opinions are so foul they discredit us every time we say them out loud in public and the evil feminists cherry-pick our statements and reveal to the world WHAT WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

And jabberwockeysuperfly won himself 60 upvotes for that wondrous bit of SUPER STEM MANLOGICS.

Later in the discussion, our dear old friend Pecanpig clarified that even if there are some women who aren’t crazy bitches, they’re definitely a bunch of bad … oranges?

Orange you a strange one, Pecanpig.

creepy dawgies empathy deficit evil sexy ladies evil women evo psych fairy tales hypergamy irony alert mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny

“Rex Patriarch” explains why women, like dogs, are incapable of love

Post author By David Futrelle
Post date November 11, 2013
409 Comments on “Rex Patriarch” explains why women, like dogs, are incapable of love

Is it love — or do they both just like spaghetti?

The charming Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Rex Patriarch has written up a short treatise entitled “Women Are Incapable of Love.” (He’s also posted a video by another MGTOWer making the same point, but we’ll just ignore that for now, because I didn’t bother to watch it.)

Anyway, here’s Rex’s argument, such as it is:

Look guys, women are like pets.

Do pets love you?

No, of course not but they do feel the warmth which is the love you may have for them. At a minimum you are their meal ticket. That in of itself is why they stick around.

Same same with women. As long as you are their meal ticket they “love” you but the very moment you can’t provide for them. The very moment they find a better deal, find some higher status.

Watch how fast that “love” goes out the window.

The reason being is it never was there to begin with. It was just something they were telling you to keep the goodies coming. Up until they could find something better. If they can.

The thing is men can love women all they want or none at all but don’t expect them to love you back in the same measure. They simply do not have the ability.

What’s interesting about this argument, insofar as anything about it is interesting, is that he’s not just, you know, wrong about women. He’s also wrong about pets.

Now, anyone who’s bonded with a pet certainly feels that their pet loves them back. (Or at least some pets do; I’m pretty sure the turtle my brother had as a kid didn’t really love anything other than worms.) Still, some skeptics insist that we’re just anthropomorphizing when we look at our pets and see love in their eyes.

But researchers are increasingly seeing harder-to-dismiss signs that animals may have emotions remarkably like our own — and that they can indeed feel love. By scanning the brains of dogs, Emory University neuroeconomics professor Gregory Berns has found that dogs and humans are alike in some key ways:

All in all, dogs and humans show striking similarities in the activity of an important brain region called the caudate nucleus. So, do dogs love us and miss us when we’re gone? The data strongly suggest they do. And, those data can further move humanity away from simplistic, reductionist, behaviorist explanations of animal behavior and animal emotions and also be used to protect dogs and other animals from being abused.

You can read more about his research, and what he sees as its implications, here.