a voice for men antifeminism grandiosity mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA paul elam we hunted the mammoth worst writing in the history of the universe

We Harnessed the Male Utility to Feed You

Man building civilization: The early years
Man building civilization: The early years

Even though I run a blog with the deliberately ironic title “We Hunted the Mammoth,” I’m still regularly amazed by how eager men who’ve accomplished nothing of value in their entire lives are to claim a kind of vicarious credit, by virtue of being men, for everything good that we humans have accomplished here on planet earth.

Consider this astoundingly un-self-aware bit of almost literal we-hunted-the-mammothing from a recent A Voice for Men post, written (very, very badly) by Peter Wright and Paul Elam:

antifeminism beta males creepy douchebaggery heartiste kitties men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny rape sex shit that never happened vaginas worst writing in the history of the universe

Feminists! Terrible news! “Heartiste” has been having sex with you!

There’s no good way to illustrate this post so here’s sleepy Maru in a box.


Lady feminists! I have some terrible, terrible news for you from pickup artiste Heartiste, the would-be God Emperor of Poon. Apparently he and his pals have been having sex with you all.

alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males bad boys beta males evo psych fairy tales heartiste MGTOW misogyny PUA worst writing in the history of the universe

Yo, dudes: Alpha males are a myth, according to actual experts on wolves

Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)

Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:

a voice for men chivalry douchebaggery evil women grandiosity I'm totally being sarcastic johntheother misogyny MRA oppressed men sluts vaginas white knights worst writing in the history of the universe

JohnTheOther: the Aurora heroes aren’t heroes. KEYWORDS: calculus of death, vagina, drug addled slut

Children: Not worth saving, apparently.

JohnTheOther, blabby videoblogger and Number Two at A Voice for Men, has now weighed in with his own, slightly tardy, manifesto on the Aurora shooting and the evils of supposed male “disposability.” I didn’t read the whole thing – seriously, dude, OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS – but a few things stood out when I skimmed it. For example, this lovely passage, which seems to be a longer and fouler version of that ill-advised tweet from the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto that I mentioned in my last post.

Our mainstream, which is to say, our corporate media – that which bends and fawns for access to the corrupt elected officials and modern robber barons of corporate statehood – is telling you, young man, that in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat.

But Mr. TheOther is having none of it:

The instinct – expressing itself variously as chivalry or as fatal self sacrifice — is just one more that no longer has any discernable benefit. It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another.

Sorry, kids; sorry, old ladies; sorry “drug addled sluts” — you’re on your own. Apparently, in a truly civilized society, no one ever looks out for anyone else. Altruism is for barbarians and Bill Bennett!

Here’s JtO’s stirring conclusion:

Those three men are not heroes, they’re just dead. The calculus of death, where one life is traded in celebration for another by preference of a vagina, is pathological and regressive. It must be recognized as the sickness it is. Those who lionized these men, whose fatal and unexamined instinct led to self-destruction; those who held them up as a heroic example to follow, are cordially invited to go first — or to go fuck themselves.

Charming as always, Mr. TheOther.

In the discussion of Mr. TheOther’s post in the Men’s Rights Subreddit, AVFM’s Paul Elam expands on the whole they aren’t heroes” theme, arguing that we need to retroactively strip away the hero status of the three men who died protecting their girlfriends — because they died protecting women.

$MONEY$ a voice for men antifeminism disgusting women evil women grandiosity matriarchy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men worst writing in the history of the universe

MGTOWer: most women are “shined, shaven social-succubi … desirous of everything and deserving of nothing.”

Shined, shaved and delivered

Oh, joy! A Voice for Men has now published what is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever written by a human being. Here, from an article titled MGTOW re-understood, is what some dude named Russ Lindquist calls his “ode of MGTOW.”

When in the course of widespread misandrist tyranny, it becomes necessary for men to dissolve the social solder, and reverse the spiritual mutilation which has stuck and imperiled them, so inequitably, to the whines and whims of women. These men must, perhaps, reinvent the wheel of free-association.

Oh MRA dudes, don’t even try to write fancy. Clearly, you can’t handle fancy.

Let it be clear that a man has a right to go his on way. Therefore, let modern men acknowledge and accept – as tearfully as they might – that far too many women, for far too long, have far too well assumed the role of nothing but shined, shaven social-succubi who reflect all of mens vices yet none of mens virtue. Further, these succubi (desirous of everything and deserving of nothing) can offer men nothing but the role of a masochistic self-indentured-servant: he is to work a job he hates; he is to earn money that she spends; he is to live far less comfortably; he is to die far sooner.

A big shout-out to all the “shined, shaven social-succubi” reading this now!

Let each man reject this poisonously pink proposition; let each man end, in whatever way he sees fit, the misandrist fem-anesthetization that is, now, generations old; let each man choose, instead, to live a life of self-direction, self-control, self-reliance and personal responsibility–even if such self-respect means that he must wholly abandon such soul-striping social roles as, for example, womyn’s unpaid bodyguard, womyn’s unpaid moving-company, womyn’s unpaid therapist, womyn’s unpaid accountant, womyn’s financial-lust-object.

I’m sorry, I only made it about a third of the way  through this paragraph. I’m sort of stuck on “misandrist fem-anesthetization.”

Men deserve better than these “womyn” are offering. Men have a right to go their own way.

Please, please, please just GO already. Don’t tantalize us like this, you Men Going Their Own Way! JUST GO.

a voice for men antifeminism grandiosity homophobia hypocrisy johntheother MGTOW misandry misogyny MRA music video worst writing in the history of the universe YouTube

Working in the quote mine, going down down

“I’ve found another incredibly dopey statement from JohnTheOther!”

So our blabby friend JohnTheOther has an especially blabby piece up on A Voice for Men at the moment. Its ostensible subject: the pure eeeevil of unnamed anti-MRAs who misrepresent the World’s Greatest 21st Century Human Rights Movement –  the Men’s Rights Movement, that is – through the eeevil practice of “quote mining.”

I didn’t read the whole thing. Mr. TheOther is not what you’d call an efficient writer. Here are a few quotes mined from the article more or less at random that I think will give you a good idea of his, um, style:

Biology, or indeed, evolutionary theory is not really the topic of this discussion, rather it is provided here as example of a rhetorical practice increasingly common among opponents of a small but growing human rights movement. …

 The developing practice in opposition to human rights, of quote-mining goes beyond pathetic, into the realm of craven, futile depravity. …

However, it seems that no matter how many times it is explained that a thing formed from (bad) ideas – an ideology, and a group of people, identifiable by sex, are two distinct things, gender ideologues continue to conflate them. …

I don’t know if any of this makes any more sense in context, as I didn’t read the context. Let’s continue:

A year ago, I wrote an article focusing on the necessary public repudiation of violence, and the responsibility of open opposition to those who advocated or promoted a climate of acceptable violence, including those who openly advocate murder, such as a group of swedish feminists, and eugenics advocates on the squalid radical-hub. Statements from my original piece were quoted by at least one amoral zombie, and reframed to present my view as one which called for violence.

Of course, the author of those yellow pixels might not have realized that the original article, along with it’s unambiguous opposition to violence was posted on a site with substantially higher traffic than his own. The craven and stupid dishonesty of the quote-miner was apparent to all but a few, blinded by their own ideological goggles.

Oh, wait, I think those last two paragraphs were supposed to be about me. And I think they were supposed to refer to this post of mine, which took a look at a post of his that defended A Voice for Men’s “outing” of a group of Swedish feminists that the AVFM crew had decided, on the basis of a brief video promoting a theatrical production, were “murder advocates.” His post contained the following (unedited) paragraphs.

That’s right manboob, identifying a group of self-declared murder advocates to the public is more important than protecting those murder advocates from the consequences of advocating murder.

In the truth-is-fiction world of Futrelle’s mind, the men’s right advocates calling for public identification of a hate organization have been transmogrified into promoters of violence.

And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate. That’s what you’re defending, David.

In my post, I quoted the final paragraph; here I have included the two preceding grafs to give it a bit more, what’s that word, context.

Of course, a couple of paragraphs by themselves are still kind of “out of context” I guess. Since I am pretty sure no one would like it if I simply pasted in the entire post from JtO here, I will instead direct you to his original post, here. You may make of it what you wish. I rather doubt that you will see it as a clearheaded treatise of nonviolence. Especially with that line: “And what if they get killed David?” (Which you can read in context above, or, again, in his original post. Let me link to it a sixth time here, just to make sure you know how to find his original words in context. Oops, that’s seven times now)

Interesting that a master debater of Mr. TheOther’s caliber somehow forgot to provide even one link to the controversy he was referring to, so people might be able to see for themselves what had happened, and judge his claims accordingly. I wonder why that might be?

I’ll skip the next bit in Mr. TheOther’s latest post, in which Mr.TheOther suggests that an opponent of his might have taken a quote of his out of context in a way that  makes him look racist and homophobic. But since he offers no links to the actual discussion, there’s no way of judging whether this particular quote-mining claim is true. (Perhaps this discussion on the Men’s Rights subreddit could shed some light on it?)

In any case, if we put this particular discussion in a broader, er, context, there is certainly ample evidence of homophobia amongst the A Voice for Men crowd, as I have pointed out here and here. (Protip: If you want to convince people you are not homophobic, you should probably not feature a video mocking “lesbo-bos” in the sidebar of the site you help to run.)

Anyway, this next bit of his definitely has something or other to do with me:

Bottom feeding quote miners indulging in snarky feats of futrelian deceit likely do win rhetorical brownie points, at least when seen through their own ideological goggles. But they are cementing their own a public persona which will wear about as comfortably as klan robes do at a NAACP meeting. The altered landscape this movement is building is not someday, it is now, and it is coming faster all the time.

Uh, dude, my last name has two L’s in it. It should be “Futrellian deceit.” If you’re going to turn my name into a slur, at least spell it correctly.

For individuals in opposition to human rights of men and boys now, whether through lying, repetition of old, false dogmas, or the craven tactic of mis-represented and mis-attributed meaning, the comfort of a formerly one-sided monologue is over. The public squirming we see in attempts to render MRA voices silent or apologetic will escalate before it abates. But that’s okay.

Hey, Mr. TheOther. If you really want to prove my “futrelian” or even my “Futrellian” deceit, how about this: provide specific examples of me taking something you or some other MRA has written out of context in a way that distorts its meaning.

For your convenience, you can find all the Man Boobz posts that reference you here and here.

And for anyone who now has the song “Working In the Coal Mine” stuck in their head, here’s the Lee Dorsey original:

antifeminism evil fat fatties grandiosity homophobia manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny narcissism penises PUA reactionary bullshit shaming tactics worst writing in the history of the universe your time will come

Get in mah belly, Heartiste!

Apparently the Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy has discovered our little blog:

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Uh oh! I guess he’s not a fan.

The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel.

U mad, bro?

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit.

Dude, I don’t know if you know this, but most Americans are, you know, fat. WE ARE LEGION!

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit.

This has got to be the most ridiculously verbose version of “yeah, well, you’re a fatty” I’ve ever seen.

Oh, but it seems like we’re all about to get our big comeuppance:

The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Yeah, except that I’m pretty sure that “I hate you, you fat fatty” isn’t a Truth that matters a lot to anyone but you and your maladjusted fanboys.

Also, dude, you call yourself “Heartiste.” There is literally nothing more dopey than that.

a voice for men antifeminism block that metaphor grandiosity I am making a joke MRA paul elam worst writing in the history of the universe

A Voice for Men takes the last gravy train to Clicheville

Over on A Voice for Men, Paul Elam is knocking the clichés out of the park! In a post about … oh, something about feminists being about to get their big comeuppance, who the fuck cares, all his posts are pretty much the same at this point, he explains how the mean feminists’

gravy train is about to derail, and that right quickly. One set of wheels is already off the track. … the choo choo is hittin’ poo poo.

That’s right, the metaphorical feminist gravy train is metaphorically derailing into a metaphorical mountain of metaphorical poop.

After a few more paragraphs of this poopery, Elam offers up a bit of inspiration for his troops:

[T]he times they are a changing. The worm is turning and lies are burning. Their whole house of cards is about to go up in a puff. What you are seeing is just the desperation that comes with them waking up to it.

Believe me, it does my heart good. Just to see their frantic scrambling to point the finger at me and my brothers, while they comically pretend our sisters aren’t standing right next to us, every time one more their lies bites the dust, is an absolute highlight in my day.

Must be time to crank up the action around here.

And then he really kicks it into high gear:

Keep your eye on the ball, boys. Put the pedal to the metal.  Wake up and smell the coffee, feminists, because the shoe is on the other foot now!  We’re burning the candle at both ends  — because when the going gets tough the tough get going. What goes around comes around. Feminists and manginas, you made your bed, now you’re going to have to lie in it. The tide’s beginning to turn, all you gender ideologues and your lackeys at the SPLC, and it looks like there’s a new sheriff in town! Remember, nice guys finish last. And it ain’t over till the fat lady sings!

Ok, that’s not really Elam any more. That’s just a bunch of random clichés borrowed from Steve’s Cliché List, with some references to feminists and manginas and the Southern Poverty Law Center shoved in here and there.

Huh. I think I just figured out how Elam writes his posts.

EDITED TO ADD: For whatever reason, this post is no longer up at AVFM; here’s the Google cache version. Read the comments there too; quite a little shitstorm going on there.

antifeminism grandiosity MRA reactionary bullshit worst writing in the history of the universe

Is MRA blogger Christian J. incoherent by accident — or on purpose?

Is Christian J., the blogger behind What Men Are Saying About Women and the inventor of the infamous MRA two-dot ellipses, the worst writer in the manosphere?

I submit to you this sentence from a recent post of his:

One cannot falter to flatter, condone and encourage women more than by recommending and suggesting that the recommended path they have to follow will eventually, somehow, within a particular length of time, will meet with their euphoric predictions.

It’s hard to even know where to start with this hot mess of a sentence. Strunk and White famously exhorted writers to “omit needless words.” Christian J’s writing seems to consist almost entirely of needless words, some merely redundant, others simply wrong: they don’t actually mean what he thinks they mean. Meanwhile, Christian J. manages to confuse even himself with his pointlessly convoluted sentence structure – hence that second “will” towards the end.

Does Christian J’s sentence make more sense in context? A tiny bit. Here’s the whole paragraph:

Feeding the endless lies to women is ofcourse a main passion for feminists, as they believe that they are the epicenter of all wisdom and sage advice. One cannot falter to flatter, condone and encourage women more than by recommending and suggesting that the recommended path they have to follow will eventually, somehow, within a particular length of time, will meet with their euphoric predictions. Meanwhile they have waited in vain for decades for it to eventuate but it never appears to arrive. Feminists and women generally, will ofcourse never admit that they are on the wrong road in trying to fulfill their “mommy track with the picket fence”, dream. They are of the opinion that regardless of what they do, how they behave or what they promote, everything will eventually come their way automatically..

As far as I can tell, the point of his post is merely this: feminists have been telling women they can “have it all” – a career and a family – but really most women want to have kids and work part-time at best. Also, dudes don’t like feminists:

What the feminasties do not tell, is that there is actually a preferential scale that men generally follow to find a partner of choice. One would hazard a guess that being attached to a feminist would be missing on that list altogether or be down amongst the crippled and lame as they suffer from the same..

That’s almost poetic at the end there, with the “lame” and the “same.”

This bit is simply baffling.

[F]eminists want women out in the workforce so they can continually keep changing the rules, knowing that they have a lot of women out there who would in most situations, condone their actions. They can also guarantee that some level of that income will come their way and also ensure that funding and privileges will keep flowing while they have politicians by the balls.

So feminists want women to work so that they can get money from the government?

In the end, Christian J. “argues,” more traditional-minded women suffer:

Meanwhile, and as we have seen time and time again, it’s those women who want to make a different life for themselves who are still marginalised and berated. They have to be seen to be doing the feminist’s bidding, even if it is at their own expense and that is what this is all about. As we have witnessed right from the beginning, the feminists have a standard FU response aimed at anyone who dares to think or act differently to their demands and it’s this girlthink that is basically causing all the problems. So the ball is in the girls court but they fail to pick it up and run with it, meanwhile feminists are screwing their lives even further into the ground..

What on earth does that last sentence even mean? Christian J., mixing metaphors with impunity, has substituted clichés for thought.

Does it really matter that Christian J. can’t write his way out of a paper bag? Well, yeah, it sort of does. The incoherence of his prose reflects the incoherence of his ideas. Christian rails against the allegedly evil influences of feminists, but he never makes clear what exactly they are doing that he finds so objectionable. Nor does he ever explain exactly how feminists are harming “those women who want to make a different life for themselves” by, apparently, being stay-at-home moms. And of course he provides no real evidence to back up any of his points.

In short, Christian J. merely repeats a number of MRA talking points, stitching them together with overblown, incoherent prose heavy on clichés. A lot of MRA writing is like this: long on rhetoric, short on specifics, covering up its lack of substance with with obfuscatory rhetoric. Is this a deliberate strategy to conceal the MRM’s lack of real grievances? In most cases, I don’t think so. MRAs, for the most part, don’t know that they’re saying nothing. They think they are making arguments, when in reality they are having tantrums.

antifeminism I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA the spearhead worst writing in the history of the universe

The Spearhead on Lady Lit, Part 2: Poetry Slam!

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, dude poet extraordinaire

The fellows at The Spearhead are still talking about lady literature — by which I mean, why ladies totally can’t write for shit. This time, they’re taking on the lady poets.

Contrasting a poem by former US poet laureate Kay Ryan with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Kubla Khan, The Spearhead’s W.F. Price proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that men are the best poets. And then Price takes it one step further, contrasting a video of Kay Ryan’s reading of another of her poems with Dylan Thomas’ passionate (if slightly overripe) reading of his “Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.”

While I can’t take issue with Price’s methodology here – comparing a couple of random poems by a female poet most people have never heard of (but who apparently represents all female poets ever)  with legendary poems by two of the world’s most famous poets – I wonder about his choice of male poets here.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Dylan Thomas? Sure, they wrote some awesome dude poems, for their time. But they’re long dead, Daddy-O, and we men of today demand poetry that speaks to our lives. Who better speaks to men today than the tag-team of Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J from the Insane Clown Posse? And which of their poems speaks to men today better than their most famous work, “Miracles?”

Here are some selections from this fine piece of work — and because, by Price’s rules, any poem by a person of a particular gender obviously represents all poetry from people of that gender, this wonderful little poem represents all male poetry. (Not to mention all poetry written by insane clowns.)

We don’t have to be high to look in the sky

And know that’s a miracle opened wide

Look at the mountains, trees, the seven seas

And everything chilling underwater, please …

Pure magic is the birth of my kids

I’ve seen shit that’ll shock your eyelids

The sun and the moon, and even Mars

The Milky Way and fucking shooting stars

UFOs, a river flows

Plant a little seed and nature grows

Niagara falls and the pyramids

Everything you believed in as kids

Fucking rainbows after it rains

There’s enough miracles here to blow your brains

I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay

It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away

And then, in this poem’s most famous lines, Shaggy 2 Dope (or perhaps Violent J, I can’t remember which is which), takes on the miracle of magnetism:

I see miracles all around me

Stop and look around, it’s all astounding

Water, fire, air and dirt

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist

Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed

But as wonderfully as these lines read on the printed page, it is Insane Clown Posse’s performance of this poem (which they have set to music) that really brings home how motherfuckingly miraculous these two poets, and by extension all men who have ever written poetry, really are. So here is that performance:

As yet another great male poet, MC Hammer, once put it: “You can’t touch this!”

But, just to be fair, here’s some chick reading her dumb poem:

Picture of Samuel Taylor Coleridge by Jason Towers, from here.

%d bloggers like this: