Better than spending an evening with Firepower, I suspect.
I’ve heard tell that some Pickup Artists aren’t actually misogynistic pieces of shit. Unfortunately, I keep running across guys like Firepower here, whose blog I discovered only yesterday, and purely by accident (though evidently I’ve quoted him off the Spearhead a couple of times before)
Here he is doing some wonderful PR work for his fellow PUAs, defending them (and himself) against accusations that they treat women like “disposable blow-up dolls.” Not so, says Firepower:
Life is tough for dudes in our evil misandryarchy. Even dudes who just want to help littler dudes find themselves blocked by evil women.
Take, for example, the sad tale of a public-spirited MGTOWer who calls himself TheDisgruntledGentleman, and his thwarted attempt to join the Big Brother/Big Sister program. No, not the TV show, or the creepy dystopian leader/voyeur from 1984 — the mentoring program that pairs adults with at-risk kids. Let’s let him explain:
Women Oppressing Men With Scanty Attire in the 1920s
I haven’t had the patience to go through the discussions that developed in the wake of the Men’s Rights Subreddit’s historic winning of the prestigious King Dick of Fart Mountain Subreddit of the Day award yesterday. But I did read enough to come across this little exchange, in which a heroic Men’s Rightser confessed how touched he was that someone outside the Men’s Rights subreddit had noticed the bold, brave activism of Reddit MRAs.
And then someone pointed out some other things he’s said a couple of days ago.
NWOslave, is that you?
Actually, I doubt it; NWOslave has an account under his own name there. But great minds do think alike.
I’ve found my new favorite Men’s Rights Redditor. Brand new, really, as gonemgtow’s account is only two days old. This comment, his very first, is so loopy — yet also so true to manosphere ideology — that I can’t help but suspect that it’s an inspired hoax — and possibly even the work of one of the old banned trolls here. (I have one in particular in mind.) If not, wow.
I’ve taken the liberty of breaking his wall o’ text into readable paragraphs. Enjoy. Oh, if you’re at work, don’t read this out loud, as it starts off with a bang, NSFW-wise.
You’re not fooling anyone, evil makeup-wearing girl!
On MGTOWforums.com, Marcus20 offers a dire warning for all of his fellow Men Going Their Own Way who may not yet be Going Their Own Way thoroughly enough.
This is a gender war. Some men don’t know there’s a war. But almost every man feels something is wrong.
Some men who know there’s a gender war haven’t identified all of the weapons that are being arrayed against them.
One of these weapons is a wyman’s make-up.
Make-up is an unconventional weapon, and it’s often unrecognized as a threat.
That’s right, fellas. These women will stop at nothing to deceive and control you. Even if that means resorting to (gasp!) eye shadow.
Oh, Reddit, not again. So about a week ago, a woman posted what seemed to be a heartfelt and sorrowful confession to r/confession with the self-explanatory title “I cheated on my sweetheart of a husband for 3 years with my violent, abusive ex. This is the one secret I am taking to my grave.”
Now, r/confession purports to be a subreddit devoted to helping out those who confess their wrongdoings, and the sidebar warns potential commenters not to be abusive: “No personal attacks, we are not here to make people feel bad.”
As everyone reading this blog no doubt already knows, feminists have hailed the Pentagon’s decision to open combat jobs to women, which will allow women the same opportunities to serve as men. The decision is also a backhanded acknowledgement that, for all intents and purposes, women are serving in combat today already. (Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth lost both of her legs in combat in Iraq – but officially, what she was engaged in wasn’t combat.)
I think we men can all agree that the REAL problem is those damn women’s libbers
So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
I haven’t been keeping up with The Spearhead of late, but a commenter here drew my attention to the sort of timeless wisdom I’ve been missing from the Spearhead gang.
In this comment, DW3 offered his thoughts on how to combat the evils of single motherhood. The solution involves putting single moms in workhouses. To be more specific, in sex-workhouses — that is, whorehouses.
I think there should be whorehouses for single mothers to work at, to pay their debts to society. Such a system would kill several birds with one stone.
There would be safe and legal access to prostitution, presumably reducing the drugs and violence associated with the way the trade is currently practiced.
It would allow single mothers to learn the value of getting up and getting to work on time, so that they might aspire to a different career.
It would assist traditional families in steering their daughters and nieces and sisters in a different direction, with a very visible and well-known consequence to ignoring the families’ advice.
It would allow single mothers to give back for all the resources they consume, and ideally it could replace child support on some sort of sliding scale of pay for the workers. Perhaps starting at $50 paid per client, less $20 per child more than 1. That way, a single mother with 3 kids could still get $10, and more than that would be inclined to try to hide off the grid the way divorced and separated fathers now have to.
I have my own opinions about whether choice single mothers cause more harm than divorcees, but for this proposal I suppose that they should be treated differently. Divorced women would surrender their children to the father and have to pay half their whorehouse earnings to support the family, however they would get the full $50 regardless of the number of kids.
Perhaps the whorehouses could charge $80 for providing their services, with a modest 20% discount for married men who proved they had a family to support.
DW3 prefaced this comment with a line in which he notes that this idea might be a bit much even for the regular denizens of The Spearhead. But no one actually took issue with his proposals. Indeed, Lyn87 (a Spearhead regular I’ve written about before) noted that he’d had similar thoughts on the matter himself.
Since men are responsible to pay for the children that women they have sex with choose to bear (that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother), then it stands to reason that:
Money paid to support a child = the obligation a man incurs by having sex with the mother.
Since having sex is enough to legally entitle a woman to a man’s money if a pregnancy ensues and she elects to give birth, shouldn’t taking a man’s money legally entitle him to have sex with the mother if he has not already done so?
Fair is fair, right?
My Modest Proposal: a single-mother-by-choice who takes public assistance should be required by law (as men’s financial obligations are), to have sex with any man who can produce a 1040 showing that he paid taxes in the past 12 months (at least once for each child).