So a bunch of the regulars on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit have their collective knickers in a twist about dudes getting called “pedophiles” just for saying they think 14-year old girls are hot. Because that’s “ephebephilia,” dontchaknow, not pedophilia! And besides, thingsarebad argues
Normal heterosexual males will generally have sexual attraction for pubescent females of child-bearing age, from puberty till they start to get old and gross (late 20s, early 30s usually haha).
Is it just me or are dudes who get indignant when people don’t carefully distinguish between ephebephilia and pedophilia just really really creepy?
Is “the right to lust after underage girls without having to feel icky about it” really a Men’s Rights issue? Why this preoccupation with 14-year-old girls, on r/mensrights and Reddit generally?
It seems the evil feminist-controlled media is ignoring a critical aspect of the Hurricane Irene story: the monster hurricane’s effect on the intrepid Man Going His Own Way who calls himself MarkyMark. More specifically, the effect it had on his radio listening pleasure.
MarkyMark, who lives somewhere on the East Coast away from the areas most impacted by Irene, was settling down yesterday to listen to a rebroadcast of Glenn Beck’s radio show. But alas, his favorite radio station chose instead to simulcast the local news station’s coverage of that pesky hurricane instead. Even worse, there were actual women involved!
It’s obvious that some anchor babe is overseeing all the coverage, coordinating field reports, etc. Man, those bitches are ANNOYING! They have shrill voices. They have an arrogant, know-it-all attitude, not to mention filled with their own self importance. …
I was like, enough already! I wanted to serve these news bitches a big, steaming cup of STFU. I’m serious! I have my radio off … now, because I just don’t want to LISTEN to these obnoxious wenches. I may put on the sports station, or I’ll tune in a station from the Midwest; that way, I don’t have to listen to INCESSANT Irene coverage. … I’m like ENOUGH ALREADY! Leave it to women to create drama where there is little or none.
Women! I hear ya, Mark! Hearing them talk about weather is even worse than hearing them talk about shoes! Al day long today today it’s been bla bla, storm surge, bla bla, flash floods in Vermont, bla bla, four million without power, bla bla, 19 deaths. Enough! What drama queens!
And all MarkyMark wanted to do was to listen to Glenn Beck, a man who is not at all a drama queen in any way whatsoever, nope!
I’ve been reminded why I no longer own a TV-these OBNOXIOUS, arrogant, know-it-all, self-important anchor babes. If they had some basis for the arrogance, that’d be one thing; if they actually KNEW WTF they were talking about, I could understand it. What I cannot tolerate is arrogance with no basis. I guess these chickes believed all their feminazi programming in college-silly girls…
Damn chickles and their fancy-pants college educations. You might as well try to train a chimp to wash cats!
Oh wait, they did that. Bad example, Never mind.
On a more serious note, I hope all Man Boobzers in the affected areas (and everyone else, for that matter) made it through Irene ok.
Well, Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party is back, and you may notice a few changes. First, the bad news: Tiny Bunny and Small Dog are on hiatus. The Good News: I’ve moved on from Xtranormal to a real animation program, Muvizu, and am now using actual human beings for the voices.
This episode takes us to scenic Los Angeles to meet a fellow calling himself John, who offers some reflections on North American white women. He’s not fond of them. Apparently he’s much more fond of African and Latin American women. It’s not clear if any women of any race are fond of him and, if so, why on earth that would be. I found John’s little monologue on the blog Boycott American Women.
Playing the of John from Los Angeles, or at least his voice, is Jack Rose. Big, big thanks to Jack for an excellent job, and on very short notice.
Here’s the somewhat edited version of John’s monologue I used in the video:
Many of the stupidest women i have ever met were white females from North America. Truth is, white north american females are really like the old Ford clunkers our grand-parents used to buy: they are unreliable, expensive, rather grotesque, and dangerously unpredictable.
White women are truly pigs. Can we expedite the caliphate so that they get the come-uppance they richly deserve? …
Ask any man who was stupid enough to marry one of these pigs and you’ll see exactly where I’m coming from. they have emotional problems, are deviants, amoral and just flat-out nasty; plus, they really are overweight, smelly and ill-mannered.
Only losers marry white females. The tragedy for american women is that they’ve bitched their way right out of the marketplace. Men want something better and the rest of the world offers that. bye, bye, whiney-vagineys; the jig is up and men are looking elsewhere.
Tiny Bunny and Small Dog are trying a new look this week, or however long it’s been since the last one of these. It’s a crass attempt to appeal to space aliens.
This time the horrible misogynist quote comes from an anonymous confession on the web site Group Hug , a site devoted to anonymous confessions. In it, a Nice Guy argues that dating is all about “give and take.” Thanks to Denia for posting the link in the comments!
The full quote can be found below the video. (I did some teensy edits to it in the video.)
Mr. Anonymous 174618126 says:
You want a good guy to fall in love with you. Guys want some hot tail. That’s the game. You give and take, we give and take. It’s impossible for two people to even co-exist happily without this give and take process, let alone have a good relationship. So every time you tell me “Uh? I’m more than just a piece of ass, I’m—-” I don’t even hear the rest. I’m well aware you’re not just a piece of ass, you cunt. If I thought that, I wouldn’t talk to you and try to get your consent; I’d just take you. But to give the famous line “I’m more than just a piece of ass” is pretty much the same as saying you’re not interested in even entertaining the idea of us sleeping together. And that means you’re not worth my time or any man’s time.
I’m being fair. Women like you don’t want a man, you want a slave. Someone you can command to bark, sniff, and roll over. Something you can play fetch with. It would be the same thing if I came over to your house, forced you to give me head, and left. I don’t want to be a slave and you don’t want to be my bitch. So why is it so difficult to meet me half way?
I’m so sick of this shit. So very very sick. If you’re not interested in me then don’t fucking talk to me.
Mr. Anonymous 174618126, I feel safe in saying that no one who has read what you just wrote will ever want to talk to you.
You’ve got to give the Spearhead men credit for one thing: vivid imagination. Browsing through the comments on a recent W.F. Price post on marriage in Asia, I ran across a whole host of little gems, all of them eagerly upvoted by the assembled mob.
Asian style whoring here in the U.S., which is inevitable anyway as the world “flattens out” and we become more third-world as China becomes more first-world.
In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.
You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.
Makes you wonder if the primarily Female university attendees aren’t intentionally being sold a “bill of goods” regarding the value of their university “education”.
So young women are being convinced to go to college, even though college education for women is useless (because, you know, they’re women), so that in a bad economy they’ll all start giving handjobs in barber shops to pay off their student loans?
Who exactly is doing this convincing? The American Association of University Women? The Illuminati? Uncle Elmer?
Lets be blunt here for a mo. How many men do you think would even bother talking to todays women if she did not have tits and a pussy ? How many women do you know that you could spend many hours or days with engaged in interesting conversation or leisure persuits?
Spearheaders, sparkling converstationalists all. A regular Algonquin Round Table, with the part of Dorothy Parker played by some random internet misogynist who can’t spell the word “pursuits.”
Gem #3: Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), offers up some reflections on his life as an Australian expat alpha dog in Germany. And some thoughts about, um, agriculture?
Because I am alpha with a great track record of being a “father and husband” and I have the ability to earn money I have women lining up to have a chance of marrying me. It is good to be at the top of the tree for a change. Shame the tree is about to fall but I am ok with that too. Those below me will cushion my fall.
As my new business venture fleshes out over the next few years I see the following happening. Men will band together to corner the income generation for many areas and they will insist on the “women as chattel property” marriage contract if any marriage at all…..men will exert their dominance in all things that are useful and productive in a competitive environment where they operate outside “guvment control” and the assets they corner will provide women galore.
I am with Angry Harry on this one “men farm cattle and sheep, why not women?” Women have always been “attracted” to the one they think will pay for them. Since we were living in caves. Women are no different today than they were 10,000 years ago. It’s just that we had a highly dystorionate PR system telling us “sugar and spice and everything nice” for a few generations.
And no, “dystorionate” is not a real word, at least in any language I or anyone else on planet Earth is familiar with. Google it, and see.
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Reading “Anthony Zarat’s” recent comments here fantasizing about a future in which men and women consort with virtual reality lovers rather than one another and “drift into separate and rarely interracting species, each of which will prosper more by the absence of the other,” I began to wonder if there was anyone out there with a more jaundiced view of heterosexual relationships than the typical MRA?
And then it occurred to me: the non-married male-female cartoonist duo behind The Lockhorns.
You’ve seen The Lockhorns, haven’t you? It’s a daily single panel cartoon that runs in about 500 newspapers – who even knew there were 500 newspapers left? – and that, according to the strip’s website “gently spoofs the state of marital bliss, poking fun at the foibles of both partners.”
That’s the nice way of putting it. More accurately, the cartoon depicts a sort of existentialist hell on earth. Locked in a loveless marriage, Leroy and Loretta Lockhorn stare at each other with heavy-lidded eyes and almost perpetual frowns; they pick endlessly at each other’s numerous flaws.
Leroy is a bald, overworked schlub who seems to resent every minute of his pathetic existence; only rarely does a smile grace his face, generally when he’s either ogling a pretty girl or contemplating drowning his sorrows in booze. Loretta is a drab, shrewish housefrau whose only real pleasure seems to be trying on new dresses. They unite only in their shared hatred of all that is new and confusing, like the underwear-baring clothing styles of the youth of today.
Happily, they have no cartoon children.
In any case, after reading through a bunch of recent Lockhorns cartoons I had a little brainstorm. While neither The Lockhorns nor MRA misogyny tastes good in itself, the combination of the two could very well be magically delicious.
So I’d like to introduce to you the latest in interactive cartooning: The MRAhorns. I’ve posted a batch of recent Lockhorns cartoons below, sans captions. Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to write up some appropriately MRAish captions for them. Bonus points if you’re able to use the exact words of a prominent MRAer, or even one of this blog’s dedicated trolls. Whoever comes up with the best caption wins one internet.
Truly, the most heart-wrenching thing about rape is that those courageous souls who make jokes about it are sometimes made to feel a little bad about it on the internet.
I found this illustrating a typically incoherent rant about “The Aphrodisiac of the False Rape Claim” on What Men Are Saying About Women, the blog of the infamous MRA double period. Whoever made it needs to stop making Demotivational posters because he doesn’t understand how these posters are supposed to work. Or how to communicate a coherent message to other human beings using language.
A reader alerted me to this post on a very interesting blog I haven’t written about before. Regular readers of Man Boobz may find some of these, er, arguments to be a bit familiar:
Our culture is absolutely fucked up. Girls and women hold all control of sex. … [F]rom the first interest in girls, we’re expected to pursue them, and they’re expected to reject us. …
I’m a perfectly healthy man. I’m stronger than a lot of other men, more intelligent, more competent, I think I’m reasonably good looking, and I’m very well endowed. None of that matters though. Somehow, women go for men that fail on a comparison on multiple accounts. …
There are things like rejecting a woman, or pretending to be uninterested that make her even more interested. … Women subconsciously measure a man’s performance in bed by his dancing and posturing. If only they knew how fucking stupid and wrong they are.
I don’t know what happened with me. I’ve always had a strong sex drive, but I got fucked over socially. I wasn’t even “in” in the reject crowd. All girls rejected me, and most rejects rejected me. People made fun of me, laughed at me, picked on me, and all the girls that I lusted after were either repulsed by me, or didn’t know who I was. Even the girls that were “friends” with me, wouldn’t have sex with me. Meanwhile, they went around whoring themselves out to whatever man played this fucking dumb-ass social flirting game. They [crude sexual remarks redacted —DF] like the dirty little whores they are. I’ve been available my whole life, but the only person that ever chose me as a mate were paid prostitutes, and my wife, who is emotionally and mentally fucked up beyond comprehension.
On the surface, this reads like almost every “nice guy” lament I’ve ever seen on the internet. Oh, it’s a bit more bitter than most, but this “nice guy” hits all the right notes: like the Holocuast-trivializing “nice guy” we looked at last Sunday, he complains that women get to actually choose whom to have sex with; like the “nice guy” Redditor we looked at Monday, he still holds a grudge against former crushes who chose to go out with (and have sex with) guys who weren’t him.
The difference? For one thing, this new guy is a bit more self-aware than most “nice guys,” in that he doesn’t actually describe himself as “nice.” For another, he is (or at least claims to be) a sociopath. As might have been immediately apparent had I quoted these comments, which immediately follow what I quoted from him above:
This is the reason I don’t care about people. Why the fuck should I? Everybody [wears] a mask. I want to rape and murder people, and I pretend I’m “normal.” Normal people wear a mask where they pretend they’re friendly and honest; whereas, they’re really deceptive, insecure, and emotionally hostile.
This posting comes from Sociopathworld, a fascinating blog written by a sociopath who is basically trying to explain to non-sociopaths how people like him or her think, to clear up misconceptions about them, and to help sociopaths themselves deal better with their disorder. (The author of the blog didn’t write the comments above; they were sent in by a reader.)
For those not intimately familiar with abnormal psych, “sociopathy” (often used synonymously with the term “psychopathy”) is a term commonly used to describe what is known clinically as Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). The blogger at SociopathWorld quotes a journal article that gives this useful capsule description of psychopaths as people
characterised by an absence of empathy and poor impulse control, with a total lack of conscience. … They tend to be egocentric, callous, manipulative, deceptive, superficial, irresponsible and parasitic, even predatory.
So are “nice guys” a bunch of sociopaths? Well, no. They may be egocentric – like the “nice guy” on Tumblr who compared his lack of dates to the Holocaust. They may lack empathy – like the “nice guy” Redditor who couldn’t feel sympathy for a female “friend” who had been raped. They may be manipulative – hoping that by being excessively “nice” and doing favors for women they will earn themselves some sex.
But they lack, among other things, the impulsiveness and routine deceitfulness that tend to characterize real sociopaths. Sociopaths can be deceptively charming, but very few people would ever describe them as nice. (Indeed, if anything, it’s pickup artists that act the most like real sociopaths; indeed, I’ve heard “game” described before, I think accurately, as an attempt to get guys to think and act more like charming, conscienceless sociopaths.)
So why do “nice guy” laments make them sound so much like sociopaths? I think their egocentricity and their almost total lack of empathy are key. “Nice guys” get crushes on a lot of girls and women, but these crushes often seem to have nothing to do with the objects of these intense feelings: the “nice guys” have whipped up a romantic and sexual drama in their own head, and simply projected it onto some convenient romantic object . The “nice guy” Redditor was once obsessed with his female “friend” – but when she was raped he did not react as a true friend would, with sympathy and sadness. He responded with a callous “she had it coming.”
Combine this lack of empathy with a sense of wounded entitlement – I DESERVE a cute girlfriend! – and you have a recipe for a pretty noxious stew.
“Nice guys” may not literally be sociopaths. But sometimes they think and act in some pretty sociopathic ways.
