Categories
a woman is always to blame antifeminism dark enlightenment evil SJWs evil women grandiosity hate speech heartiste imaginary oppression literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA none dare call it conspiracy oppressed white men paranoia PUA racism rape rationalization hamster reactionary bullshit red pill your time will come

The West is like a stupid white girl who goes home with a black guy: Heartiste and his racist fans warn white "ethnomasochists" of the danger of "ebola laced black men."

"The result -- racial pride dwindles." Nazi propaganda poster that would not be out of place on Chateau Heartiste
“The result — racial pride dwindles.” Nazi propaganda poster that would not be out of place on Chateau Heartiste

Not content with simply being a misogynist piece of poop, the “game” guru Heartiste is also, among other terrible things, a flaming racist given to hyperventilating about the alleged civilization-destroying powers of people with skin darker than his – and the alleged naiveté of white people who aren’t as racist as he is.

In one recent post, Heartiste awarded “freelance comment of the week” status to a racist rant posted on his site by someone calling himself Anton Chigurh, who thinks Western countries are being wimpy about ebola because they don’t want to offend Africans and seem racist.

“Chigurh” made his, er, argument in possibly the most racist manner imaginable:

Categories
boobs heartiste men who should not ever be with imaginary women ever men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny post contains jokes post contains sarcasm PUA red pill sexy robot ladies

Heartiste hails great leap forward in sexbot technology. Bonus: anatomically improbable kissing and boob simulators!

Oriental Industries' new "Dutch Wife" sex dolls: Cannot be distinguished from real women (if you've never seen a real woman).
Oriental Industry’s new “Dutch Wife” sex dolls: Cannot be distinguished from real women (if you’ve never seen a real woman).

 

Over on Chateau Heartiste, everyone’s favorite racist pickup artist gasbag Heartiste excitedly reports on the a giant leap forward in the ongoing “Sexbot Revolution” – a Japanese company has a new lifesize sex doll that looks slightly less creepy than the creepy sex dolls now on the market.

Heartiste quotes a Daily Mail article on the dramatic new development, because where else would you turn for important news in science and technology other than the Daily Mail?

Orient Industry say their new range of dolls, made from high quality silicon, are so realistic there is very little to distinguish them from a real girlfriend at first glance. …

[A]dverts in the media boast that anyone who buys one will never want a real girlfriend again.

Thoughts in my head respond that the potential girlfriends of the world will not be heartbroken at the news that dudes who can’t tell the difference between a giant rubber doll and a real woman will be leaving the dating market.

Heartiste, however, is delighted, writing:

Categories
antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? dark enlightenment gaslighting homophobia internecine warfare literal nazis lying liars misogyny MRA oppressed white men paul elam racism straw feminists transphobia TROOOLLLL!! twitter

#EndFathersDay: Trolls being trolls, or "black propaganda" designed to tear apart feminism?

Not actual feminist
Not actual feminist

You all got the memo about #EndFathersDay fiasco, right – the phony “feminist” hashtag, seeded and spread by 4chan trolls, that aroused so much consternation on Twitter the other day, and that took in so many who’re already given to thinking the worst about feminism?

It would be nice if we could just dismiss this whole thing as trolls being trolls – no harm, no foul. But there’s a bit more to it than that.

For one thing, the troll campaign worked. At least on some people: While feminist writers quickly rushed in to point out that the whole thing was an antifeminist hoax, more than a few in the right-wing media were taken in utterly.

Categories
advocacy of violence all about the menz alpha males antifeminism dark enlightenment domestic violence emotional abuse empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies evil wives excusing abuse mansplaining marital rape men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA rape rape culture rapey red pill

Free Northerner: "The concept of marital rape creates the trauma of marital rape." And spouses who say "no" to sex are sinners.

Just because she says  "I do," it doesn't preclude herfrom saying "no" ever again.
Just because she says “I do,” it doesn’t preclude her from saying “no” ever again.

Free Northerner is a “Dark Enlightenment” blogger who describes himself as “a Christian and a reactionary monarchist from British North America” who,

after a period of red pill exploration … decided to embrace Christian masculinity. I am working to improve myself for God’s glory. My plan is to find a wife and raise a large family with traditional values.

If any woman ever decides to marry him – and I sincerely hope no one ever does — she should be aware that her Darkly Enlightened husband does not believe there is such a thing as marital rape.

In a recent post, Free Northerner set forth the essentially the same argument as his fellow reactionary Vox Day: that the marriage contract provides “sexual consent … for life,” and that those who argue for the existence of marital rape are thereby undermining the legitimacy of marriage itself. And then he adds some tweaks that make his terrible  argument even more terrible than that of Mr. Day. But we’ll get to those in a moment.

First, his basic claim:

Categories
boner rage creepy eek tattoos entitled babies evil sexy ladies evil ugly women mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patronizing as heck

Tattooed hate girls: Are tattoos on women an attempt to repel men? One misogynist says yes.

I don't think the Militant Baker cares if her tattoos are offputting to assholes.
I don’t think the Militant Baker cares if her tattoos are offputting to assholes.

Misogynists hate, hate, hate it when women get tattoos. They just can’t all agree on why. The standard misogynist line on tattoos for women is that they are all, essentially, “tramp stamps” – a way of broadcasting that the woman displaying them is a slut, a skank, a whore. You know the drill.

But the “alternative right” racist/sexist/homophobe who goes by the handle agnostic has a rather different take. In a post on his blog Face to Face, he argues that women with tattoos are actually trying to broadcast their Puritan prudery.

Tattoos, you see, are just plain ugly, and help to accessorize a dreary look designed to repel men.

Notice how those girls dress in drab, dark monochrome colors, wear no girly jewelry, and sport flat hair rather than Big Hair. Their sassy, sarcastic, even nasty attitude echos their off-putting look.

Fundamentally, they are part of the larger trend toward drab dressing, and its signal of reluctance to get loose. Their personalities are more anti-social, so they express the neo-Pilgrim style in a more antagonistic fashion than the less abrasive girls in their generation, but they’re both variations on the same theme.

The tattoo-bearers are likely to be man-haters as well.

They are also part of the larger trend among women toward fear of or hatred toward men. …

In such a climate, women will alter their appearance and demeanor in order to deflate rather than excite the male libido. They act like prey trying to give warning signals to potential predators. The tattoo chicks are only the extreme version of this widespread trend. Girls sure don’t look or act as cute and flirty as they used to in the boy-crazy Eighties, when they thought of guys not as predators but as conspecifics who they wanted to court with engaging mating displays.

“Conspecifics” simply means “members of the same species.” Agnostic loves to drop that sciency lingo in order to make his prejudices seem  smart.

Anyway, he continues by arguing that tattoos are especially offensive to pickup artistes and other “assertive” dudes.

Off-putting style also serves to filter out the more assertive and independent males, who would rather spend time on a girl who looks cute, rather than settle for one who’s all marked up or not willing to show anything at all. … By inking themselves up, girls ensure that only the guys who are willing to get walked over and slapped in the face will approach them. Why go through the long hassle of having your new boyfriend fixed when you can advertise that only the neutered need apply in the first place?

Ah, but this last bit is perhaps more revealing than agnostic means it to be. Tattoos are an affront to misogynists because they’re seen as too assertive, too masculine – a challenge to traditional femininity, and to men who prefer traditionally feminine women.

Tattoos on women make misogynistic men angry because on some fundamental level these men don’t think women have the right to decorate their bodies in a way that displeases men –or at least their kind of men. It’s the same kind of creepy, possessive anger that many misogynistic men show towards women who cut their hair short. It’s as if these men on some level believe women’s bodies belong to them, and not to the women themselves.

And that’s pretty unattractive.

Categories
antifeminism entitled babies evil fat fatties imaginary backwards land MRA oppressed white men racism reactionary bullshit that's completely wrong whitesplaining

New Manosphere theory: Cliven Bundy is being attacked because he talks too much like a black person

Cliven Bundy and pals
Cliven Bundy: Too black?

Well, I was wrong. I thought that Heartiste would be the first Manospherian to come to the defense of fallen Fox News hero Cliven Bundy. Nope. Turns out it was W. F. Price of The Spearhead, who blamed Bundy’s fall from grace not on his crude racism but on the fact that the white rancher with the guns and unpaid bills … talks too much like a black person.

No, really.

Here’s Price’s argument, such as it is:

Categories
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.
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?

Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame abortion advocacy of violence antifeminism domestic violence evil sexy ladies evil women harassment hate men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA not-quite-explicit threats not-quite-plausible deniability paul elam playing the victim rape rape culture taking pleasure in women's pain terrorism

Paul Elam of A Voice for Men: In His Own Words

Paul Elam on 20/20
Paul Elam in a web-only clip from the 20/20 segment that never ran on television.

Paul Elam, the founder and primary animating force behind the website A Voice for Men, is probably, for better or worse, the most influential figure in the Men’s Rights movement (or, as he prefers to call it, the Men’s Human Rights Movement).

Elam is also a fierce misogynist with a penchant for angry, violent rhetoric full of only-slightly veiled threats. But don’t take my word for it. Perhaps the best way to get to know Mr. Elam is through his own words.

So here are some of Elam’s thoughts on a variety of issues, taken from postings on his own website.  I have linked each quote back to its source on A Voice for Men.

Categories
antifeminism creepy evil fat fatties evil single moms evil women feminism gloating ladies against women men created civilization men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny not-quite-explicit threats only men pay taxes apparently oppressed men patriarchy patronizing as heck sunshine mary taking pleasure in women's pain women's jobs aren't real your time will come

Amanda Marcotte takes down Sunshine Mary; Mary digs her hole deeper

sunshine

So Amanda Marcotte has some thoughts on Sunshine Mary’s post about feminism allegedly reducing women to nothing more than sex objects:

Why should women want the attention of men who see them as nothing more than unpaid servants and semen toilets? …

The alternative to having a hateful misogynist around who expects you to clean up after him, accept his ranting about how women are a repulsive subhuman class whose only purpose is service to men, and to masturbate him without any hope of sexual pleasure yourself is simple: Not being with such a man. As many feminists can tell you, there’s a really pleasant alternative: Men who like women and like to hang out with us and aren’t just tolerating us in exchange for sex and housework.

But what if, as manosphere men (and antifeminist women like Sunshine Mary) like to gloat, you can’t find a man?

Being alone is better than being with a man who thinks you’re part of a degraded class put here to serve him. No matter how much misogynists may rant, they can’t get around this inherent problem in their philosophy, which is that “alone” is always a superior alternative to their company.

Sunshine Mary has responded with a post that basically argues, well, but men don’t like you, you fat slutty feminists — take that!

One of the core pillars of feminism seems to be trying to control how men think about women.  We want to be seen as smart, so by fiat order we’ll command men to see us as equally intelligent.  We want to be seen as having the ability to be sexually promiscuous, so we’ll command men to hold a positive opinion of sluttery.  We want to be seen as beautiful at 200 pounds, so we’ll command men to find us hot despite our obesity.

But it doesn’t work.  Men don’t like slutty women for anything other than sex, as the last comment thread here rather conclusively proved.  Men don’t find fat women attractive.  Men don’t like bitchy, loud-mouthed mannish feminists.  Men don’t care about women’s supposed careers.  All the commands in the world will only cause men to keep their opinions quiet, but it does not change those opinions.  All the attempts in the world at resocializing men to like what feminism has turned women into will always fail because it works against the natural order of things.

Now this is just nonsensical and, you know, not true for all but a backwards and rather assholish subset of men. But it’s what follows that’s really chilling — not chilling because it reflects reality, but chilling because it suggests how punitive and self-hating Sunshine Mary’s philosophy really is.

She argues that feminists find the Manosphere “scary” because manosphere misogynists won’t do what feminists want them to do.

It is scary to imagine that men will stop doing what they are told by women to do.  It is scary to feminists in particular because, instead of being dependent on one man like I am, they are dependent on men as a group to fund them.

Men pay the majority of taxes in the United States.  Without men’s taxes, student financial aid for Women’s Studies degrees will dry up.  Without men’s taxes, baby mamas will starve.  Without men financing it, women who are being placed into corporate leadership simply as a response to affirmative action and who then quit these jobs after a year to write tear-filled articles in the Atlantic about work-life balance, demanding even more subsidies from men to ensure that women never need to suffer the consequences for their stupid choices, will cease.  I only have to manage my husband’s opinion of me in order to secure his provisioning; feminists have to control all men’s opinions of them in order to secure their provisioning.

Yep, that’s right. Sunshine Mary believes that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and so must depend, essentially, on appeasing men in order to survive. She thinks she’s lucky because she only has to appease one man, while women who actually, you know, earn a living have to appease all men. Because they’re not really earning a living. They’re just playing at earning a living because the men of the world are nice enough to humor them.

But don’t make the men mad, Sunshine Mary warns, because then you’re screwed!

And she seems rather pleased that she can make this threat from what she percieves as her position of relative security.

How fucked up is that?

Categories
alpha males antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? douchebaggery gullibility matt forney men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles PUA red pill TROOOLLLL!!

Is the disgusting manosphere blogger LaidNYC actually the disgusting manosphere blogger Matt Forney?

The real Matt Forney. Is he also LaidInNYC?
The real Matt Forney. Is he also LaidNYC?

So, I’ve written about the terrible “game” blogger LaidNYC several times already because the fellow is such a reliable purveyor of terrible what-the-fuckery — what with his weird fixation on the alleged value of his sperm, his creepy obsession with underage girls, and his overall awfulness as a human being. I have wondered, from time to time, if the fellow isn’t simply a troll, but I’ve kept on writing about him largely because his readers — and other manosphere bloggers — seem to take him utterly seriously.

Today, though, I just noticed a post from Matt Forney — a Manosphere blogger who is himself a deeply terrible person with a history of trollery and sockpuppeting — who seems to be dropping big hints that LaidNYC may not be who he seems. In a post reviewing an”ebook” by LaidNYC — insofar as a 13 page collection of platitudes obviously banged out in a few hours can be considered a book of any kind — Forney writes:

There are bloggers who take weeks, months, years to get into a groove, honing their talents to the point where their posts become must-reads. And then there are guys like LaidNYC who come exploding out of the gate, writing stuff so good you swear they’ve done this before. LaidNYC is on my top tier of bloggers because his writing is not only brutal and honest, brimming with verisimilitude, but his prose style is hilarious as well.

The fact that he so effortlessly sends feminists into shrieking hysterics is proof that he’s doing things right.

Emphasis mine.

He ends the “review” urging his readers to send LaidNYC some real money for his ridiculous “book.”

So is Forney — with that bit about “stuff so good you swear they’ve done it before” — basically admitting that he is LaidNYC? If so, this wouldn’t be the first time he’s written an enthusiastic review of one of his own, er, books under a different name.

I suppose we’ll find out.

In any case, I’m not sure if it matters much if LaidNYC is a genuine “game” blogger with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he believes every word of it, or a troll with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he wants to piss off women and feminists and maybe con a few gullible followers into sending him money while he’s at it.

And whether or not LaidNYC’s noxious “advice” is meant seriously, manosphere dudes are lapping it up regardless.

Matt Forney and LaidNYC — who may or may not be the same person — have learned that you can get attention by saying terrible things. Congratulations. What an amazing accomplishment.

EDITED TO ADD: Well, on Twitter, for what it’s worth, Forney denies it all.

I did manage to find an audio interview with LaidNYC here. You can compare it to Forney’s voice on his podcast here. At first I was thinking that while the voices are similar, it wasn’t a match: LaidNYC was a faster talker with a higher voice, etc.  (It’s hard to tell, in part because LaidNYC’s voice in the interview is poor quality, over the phone.) But then I skipped ahead to about ten minutes into Forney’s podcast and now I’m not sure. The voices are awfully similar (and frankly, not terribly alpha-sounding). Any thoughts?