I’m pretty sure this isn’t how birth control actually works.
You might think that Pickup Artists, dudes obsessed with sexing up the young fertile lasses, would be huge fans of contraceptives – which, after all, are what makes their particular lifestyle possible. But some prominent PUAs are about as enthusiastic about contraception as a Pope.
In the case of the charming fellow who calls himself Heartiste, I mean this literally. In a recent posting, he quotes approvingly from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 Humanae Vitae dissing contraceptives for allegedly demeaning the women that use them. Paul suggested that contraception may cause men to
lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.
I’m no Pope, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.
Dudes! Watch out! This pretty lady is falsely accusing you of something-or-other.
Feeling nostalgic for any of Man Boobz’ classic trolls? Here’s our old friend Anthony Zarat, now a regular Reddit Men’s Rightser, explaining some things about the ladies of today. Note: In order to understand what he’s saying, you need to know that when MRAs talk about “proxy violence,” they mean women calling the police on a dude, which women of course only do when men are completely innocent, because men are always innocent. (Also, in MRAland all police are men, and White Knights to boot.)
I like that he complains about women being “narcissistic,” then invents his own definition of “character” that applies to his own little obsession.
Cats: Also lovers of extravagant, world-destroying luxury
Apparently Paul Elam, head boy at A Voice for Men, felt that his last 1500-word opus on the evils of female consumer spending wasn’t verbose enough. So he’s put up another 1500-word rant on the subject that adds nothing to his already pretty substance-free argument — except for a lengthy preface in which he pats himself on the back for being SO BRAVE enough to confront the ladies with the uncomfortable TRUTH that they are destroying the world with all their lipstick and fancy shoes and hats made from men’s balls and whatever else it is that those silly world-destroying gals are always buying.
Gosh, no one’s ever said anything bad or even so much as joked about materialistic women before. Congratulations, brave Paul, for blazing this trail of truth! (At least Anita Loos had the good taste to be utterly hilarious in her satire.)
Oh, and speaking of useless crap (and this is a bit of an awkward segue here): MAN BOOBZ T-SHIRTS ARE 40% OFF TODAY! Yes, again!
To take advantage of this NEW ONE DAY SALE, go to the Man Boobz store on Zazzle and enter the code 12DAILYDEAL3
Remember, fellas, if you buy a shirt, it’s a necessary and utilitarian purchase, something to wear while you are hunting the mammoth, or fishing with your $4600 fishing rod, or typing out world-saving rants about how awful ladies are.
Ladies, if you buy a shirt, it’s nothing more than world-destroying vanity. Women should wear rags.
But hey: what better to make rags from than a nice Man Boobz t-shirt? Now in four delicious, world-destroying flavors: Mammoth, Cartoon Mammoth, Cupcake, and Cock Carousel! Loads of other Man Boobz swag on sale too, at 15% off.
—
EDITED TO ADD: Check out the comments for Elam’s post to see a brave commenter named Amanda politely but relentlessly tearing Elam’s article to shreds. Among other things, she links to a Slate article that suggests, based on several European studies and some admittedly “quick-and-dirty spreadsheet calculations” by a Carnegie-Mellon researcher, that men and women in developed nations have roughly similar “carbon footprints,” with men a slightly less “green” than women.
The responses to her comments, like Elam’s post itself, rely heavily on ass-data and lots of essentially meaningless thetorical huffing and puffing. Like this bit of blather from Tawil:
You don’t honestly think that men in political power are going to make decisions detrimentally affecting the wanton consumerist desires of the women voters who put those same men in power, do you? If yes you clearly don’t understand who has the power. One move by a politician that detracts from narcissistic licence for females gets him voted out – by women. Same holds true for corporation CEOs – any move that would stifle women’s shopping behaviour or her budget would see the company go bust. (and BTW CEOs and politicians make up about one billionth of the total population of men… the rest of the men are laboring in back-breaking, soul-destroying occupations to make your life more comfortable princess).
Amanda quickly rebuts this and everything else thrown at her, reducing the regulars to blustery nonsense and toothless misogynistic insults — like this from Skeptic:
You’ve obviously never heard of pollution by proxy have you? Probably too busy shopping I guess.
Skeptic is also suspicious of any and all research from the evil gynocracy known as … Sweden, “probably the most misandric culture on the entire planet.”
Eventually Elam wades in and offers a response that he clearly sees as appropriately patronizing; he even uses the word “cupcake,” a clear sign of MRA hubris.
Your comment alone is polluting. It is feminism’s toxic waste that has already contaminated much of the planet’s intellectual purity. So while I will answer you, I do so with the qualification that along the lines of environmentally sound thought, it is like talking to a BP rep about good saltwater fishing.
As to why women cause more pollution I will have to tax your ideological mind with simple math.
Men earn about 80% of income worldwide. Women spend about 80% of income worldwide, a disproportionate amount of it on themselves. …
More blah blah blah, and then he winds up with this:
It is real simple, cupcake. Those who consume, pollute. Those who consume excessively pollute more.
Rinse and repeat till you figure out who consumes more, and who consumes more frivolous goods and services in the vanity economy.
BTW, producing Swedish research around here is like breaking wind and calling it perfume. More pollution.
You will note that Elam relies on that 80% figure we discussed in my post on his previous women-are-destroying-the-world rant. You know, the 80% figure that is repeatedly endlessly in media accounts, invariably unsourced. Because it is not actually based on any real research, as the Wall Street Journal recently discovered? When asked for the source of this, he finds … yet another media mention of the figure, without a source given for it.
Paul Elam, master of ass data, is completely unaware that he has lost the argument, and acts as if he’s won some grand victory.
Actually, that’s pretty much how he acts every day.
—
Time for that gif again. You know the one. But the T-shirt sale is real. And I’m not being sarcastic about Elam being completely and utterly owned by Amanda.
Paul Elam, head misogynist at A Voice for Men, is mad at the ladies again, his wrath provoked this time by an overheard conversation in a local coffeeshop between two women talking about recycling, and how the world would be a greener place if women were in charge.
Elam seems to take deep personal offense at any suggestion that men aren’t the absolute best at every single fucking thing, so he quickly scurried off to his computer to bash out a 1500-word screed that began with him insulting the women as bobbleheaded “latte lappers who were more likely than not completely clueless about how a single thing on the planet with a moving part works,” moved into high gear with some not altogether wrong (if rather trite and woman-blamey) critiques of the diamond and fur industries, and wound up with a stern warning that WOMEN ARE DESTROY9ING THE EARTH WITH ALL THEIR SPENDY SPENDING!!1!!!
Like women, cats are sneaky creatures, up to no good.
So over on MGTOWforums, the regulars are pondering the age-old question – should these committed women-avoiders deal with their continued desire to stick their penises in the women they’re allegedly avoiding by resorting to prostitutes?
In the midst of a lively discussion on the advantages of “going pro” over trying to pick up a “bar hog,” one regular by the nom de internet Xtc sets forth some thoughts that, for a moment at least, seem to transcend the usual MGTOW crudity and bitterness.
“I don’t think it’s really about sex,” he writes. “I think what a lot of people are looking for is love, respect, and intimacy – which you can’t buy.”
Why, that almost seems like an insight!
Alas, in his very next sentence he spoils the moment by returning to the standard MGTOW narrative of female perfidy:
I think what put me off women altogether was the realisation that you’ll NEVER get [love, respect, and intimacy] for real. It’s sad and sobering, but that’s the way it is.
Thinking that the attention of women validates you as a person collapses once you realise they are attracted to the worst qualities in the worst men.
Thinking that the attention of women equals affection, intimacy, or love – collapses once you realise they will leave you in a second if they sense any weakness or if a BBD [bigger better deal] comes along. Then you’ll realise that the meter was running all the time, whether this was clear at the time or not.
Women are like a bitter medicine that you force yourself to swallow because you believe it is doing you good. Once you realise it’s a quack remedy, and the whole thing is a scam, you’re free to spit it out and never partake again.
That leaves you with sex alone, which is really rather easy to come by.
If women really and truly are “attracted to the worst qualities of the worst men,” why aren’t they lining up at these dudes’ front doors?
It’s hard to parody Men’s Rights Activists, because no matter how ridiculous your parody is, there’s a good chance that some MRA out there has already said, or written, or sung, something even more ridiculous already.
Not that long ago, a bunch of Man Boobz regulars set out to parody the bizarre, and often inadvertently surrealistic, posters that have been popping up on MRA sites like A Voice for Men and Artistry Against Misandry. It was hard, but I think some of us managed to come up with posters that were even uglier and less coherent than the originals. I especially liked these two, from (respectively) Cliff Pervocracy and Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III.
On his newish blog Return of Kings, pickup-guru-turned-philosopher Roosh V has come up with yet another way to justify his creepy obsession with women a lot younger than his hairy self: he compares them with loaves of bread.
When a loaf comes out of the oven (puberty), it’s warm and delicious. You can’t help but stuff yourself. (18-24 years old)
When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)
If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)
If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)
The lesson in this? Live next to the bakery.
Well, that was creepy as fuck.
Also, he seems a bit confused about when puberty actually happens. Or he just doesn’t want to state outright that he’d really rather be “dating” 15 year olds.
“So,” you’re probably thinking to yourself, “I’ve heard a lot of pointless uninformed speculation on the Petraeus affair, but I haven’t yet heard what that PUA douchenozzle who calls himself Heartiste thinks about it all.”
Well, we’re going to rectify this tragic situation right now. Despite not understanding even the most basic facts about the scandal – he refers to “Generals Petraeus and Allen and their Lebanese immigrant, faintly masculine mistresses,” even though the only “mistress” involved in all this seems to be Paula Broadwell, who isn’t of Lebanese descent — Heartiste has produced a 2500-word opus on the subject, with pictures and a graph. So let’s just take a look at the highlights.
Over on A Voice for Men, headquarters of the Greatest Super Awesome Human Rights Movement of the New Millennium, the regulars are troubled by those who make jokes and other unkind remarks about small penises, noting that this sort of body-shaming can wound the self-esteem of its targets and “has fostered a growing penis enlargement industry praying [sic] on young mens distorted perceptions of normality and worth.”
As a result, the AVFM regulars have vowed to set a higher standard of behavior for themselves, and not resort to easy body-shaming when arguing with, or talking about, women.
Ah, just kidding. They tried to see who could come up with the worst way to tell a woman she has a giant vagina.
