Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Pee-ple Power

Future revolutionaries?
On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in ... calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue "manosphere" memes -- doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can't get laid! marriage sucks!  -- in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the "Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation" would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.

To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the "misandry bubble"  is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was

a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife ...  As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.

I've been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.

But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, "exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted," he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:

We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.  However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly.  Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.

So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save "millions ... from wrenching misfortune" is a "a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry."

This solution?

Urinal flyers. 

Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from "misandry" is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss  ... go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with "a professional appearance and clean format." He calls this campaign "URLs @ Urinals."

I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be "I piss you not.")

Here's his explanation:

Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals.  When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level.  Every man taller than 5'2", whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time.  ...

If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come.  Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal.  The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted.  Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day. 

Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as "piercing the Matrix." You know, like in The Matrix.

All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately "jolting" posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won't win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even "World's Greatest Grandpa," but, hey, if they're printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here's one:



And another one, perhaps my favorite:



Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit -- who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men's Rights Movement post -- has already come up with a few of his own slogans:

The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?

Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It

Why do men die younger than women?It's not just biological.The truth may surprise you.

Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere

All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men's restrooms of America. "Which could," he explains,

plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.

Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.

Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.

Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:

Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, 'feminists' will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation.  Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men's rooms to inspect for evidence of 'misogyny', to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as 'male supremacist' appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is ... .

Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for

that action is futile as due to the viral nature of 'URLs @ Urinals' they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted.  They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women.  But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.

So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I'll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.

108 comments:

  1. I think that's a great idea, bringing in more men might move the MRAs out of their SCUM phase.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe those guys will google like the fliers suggest, read a bit, think "this is stupid" and google again. And find Man Boobz! One can hope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?

    Well, and since originalist/bigot Scalia has repeatedly said that it never protected women, we are left with the idea that Marshall had it 100% ass-backwards when he said that every word in the Constitution should be assumed to have meaning. Apparently, none of the words in that document mean a damn thing.

    Unless ... Jay Hammers is (gasp!) spouting garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I know anything about the graffiti on men's room walls, expect someone to write "for my cock" or something similar beneath the first flyer within an hour of it going up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How did your brain not explode trying to read that Bubble thing? I tl;dr'd after the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, how dare men mention that men have problems too. Feminists seem to get pissed because it threatens all the focus being on the female victim status. That's why when it comes to feminism, discussing gender issues is terribly one sided. That's why it's called feminism to begin with and not humanism.

    Have you read this piece of writting, David?

    Guilt by genitalia

    http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1007/1007thomasguilt.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is priceless.

    The ref to Neuro-Linguistic (not "Linguisting") Programming comes completely out of left field. So: given NLP's basis in treating psychological disorders, what does our Futurist have to say about grandiose paranoid delusions?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The ref to Neuro-Linguistic (not "Linguisting") Programming comes completely out of left field. So: given NLP's basis in treating psychological disorders, what does our Futurist have to say about grandiose paranoid delusions?
    He might tell you to quit clouding the issue with facts
    OR maybe he knows kung fu...... and a few other Chinese words.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere"

    Exactly where does it say a woman who has a drink purchased for her is obligated to do squat for the person purchasing the drink?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women. But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance."

    What a delightful cacophony of mixed metaphors. Are feminists playing black jack? On a pedestal, for some reason? No, they're speeding up! While carrying a crumbling burden.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Elizabeth,

    Obviously not on that sign. That is the point. She'll lead you to believe you have a chance if you buy her drinks, but we all know she is not obligated. This is just enlightening the men so they can save a few bucks when they go out.

    I love this campaign! I think they should use QR Codes on the posters so men with smart phones can scan them in and get all the info they need online. I think ManBoobz's site should be included so they can see how mens' issues are so readily scoffed at.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Elizabeth said:

    "Exactly where does it say a woman who has a drink purchased for her is obligated to do squat for the person purchasing the drink?"

    I agree 100 percent. But the thing is, there are too many women out there that have the mentality in thinking if a guy doesn't buy them drinks or dinner, he is a cheapass that's not worthy to her time and presence. The fact of what doesn't make her a cheapass gets pulled under the rug.

    Yet most of these same women are all in for equal pay or against any privilege they imagine a man has.

    If that's not female chauvinism/supremacy, what is? This form of sexism is socially acceptable. This can be defined as social female privilege.

    Feminists may say they are against such chivalry, yet I don't see any passion or aggression from feminists that fights against this type of privilege as they do towards male privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The self-delusion of these bombastic tools! Go ahead, plaster your stickers and posters above the urinals; but don't stop there. Post some flyers above the toilet paper roll so the crapping gents will also be enlightened. I'm sure the cleaning staff will appreciate more shit to scrape off the walls.

    And no, I don't think we wimmenz want to invade your pee space and look for the offending flyers. We don't really care about you mens righters at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Katz said:

    "We don't really care about you mens righters at all."

    That pretty much explains the feminist movement. The right's for men always come last

    ReplyDelete
  15. So basically the two of you have a rejoinder of "we assume X about the woman."

    Witman: A woman who accepts a drink is not leading a male on-she is accepting a gift given to her that a male has no obligation to provide her. And if we all know that a woman has no obligation to put out for a $2 beer, there is no reason to put it up on a wall anywhere. Only a stupid male needs a reminder and so either you or this person who came up with the slogan thinks men are idiots.

    Nick: A male who goes to a bar and does not buy a woman a drink is not going to be thought of as cheap by the woman automatically nor does it negate her right to demand equal pay for equal work even if she does think that. Nor does it mean that any other area where a male has privilege because of gender is wrong for her to work to eliminate because she thinks the guy who asked her out on a date but refused to pay for it, is cheap.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You've always had "your" rights, pal. Some of you just got a little pissed because you're not the big kings of the hill anymore and buying the little lady a girlie drink doesn't guarantee you some instant nookie.

    By the way, who or what exactly is forcing you to buy the damn drinks and dinner? Just don't.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Elizabeth,

    Are you offended that this will prevent women from swindling beers from men or just that it may prevent rape by enlightening some Neanderthal as to how wrong what he has in mind is?

    If the slogan does not hurt anyone and, in fact, might prevent a crime, what is your issue? You think it is stupid? Great retort!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Katz

    Women care what is in the Men's washroom:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hamilton/article/817080--mouth-shaped-urinal-removed-from-hamilton-eatery

    ReplyDelete
  19. You've always had "your" rights, pal. Some of you just got a little pissed because you're not the big kings of the hill anymore and buying the little lady a girlie drink doesn't guarantee you some instant nookie.

    How can I be pissed off not being the so called kings of the hill no more when I was born in 1981, dumbass? These types of comments I hear from women like you always make me laugh. They are so illogical and dumb. I was never born and never existed back in the times when men were the so called kings of the hill.

    It's like saying that just because the Japanese were mean to the Americans generations ago, we must now all criticise Japanese people in American society about the past if they complain about discrimination against them in the present.

    Obviously, this is racism. But in a skewed feminist point of view, its not sexism to criticise men in the present when they complain about a present issue for what other men did generations ago that had nothing to do with them.

    Taking about always having our rights? That pretty much explains that we have little rights right there as we always get put down in guilt and shame from what happened in the past when we complain about our issues in the present.

    “By the way, who or what exactly is forcing you to buy the damn drinks and dinner? Just don't.”

    I never said that I am being forced. But in a wide social crowd, if I was to say that I don’t owe women shit on a date, there would be people left, right, and centre telling me that I am a cheapass that doesn't deserve a woman. The fact that's its female privilege is because this behaviour is 100 percent socially acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not really the same thing, Witman. Flyers with fairly bland messages vs. a butt ugly urinal that says "piss in the WOMAN's mouth!" Extremely tacky and bad taste, dontcha think? I don't think even a strip joint would have anything so gross.

    If they had toilets in the women's restrooms designed like a man's face ("pee and poop on the man!") I would support men's groups to have them removed as it would be equally offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @nicko81m

    "How can I be pissed off not being the so called kings of the hill no more when I was born in 1981, dumbass? "

    Obviously your male privilege is showing :)

    Seriously though, best sentence ever!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am not offended-I think that there is no reason to have something like that up on the wall because it is a given that no woman anywhere has any obligation to do anything outside of saying "thank you" when a man buys her a drink.

    And I find it telling that you think men are either that stupid or that violent to think they have the right to rape a woman over a $2 beer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nicko: You need to find a new crowd or go after a different type of woman. That is not 100 percent socially acceptable; going "dutch" is more the standard of the day; also, if you're making verbal statements like "I don't owe women shit on a date," you may want to tone down the hostility when out in public, it tends to be offputting to most women.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Might have something to do with Australia-most of the men I have met from there get offended if I mention that a woman should pay for the date if she does the asking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Elizabeth,

    Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Women only drink $2 beers when they are paying for it themselves. When somebody else is footing the bill it can get quite high.

    And yet you suggest that women do not flirt to get drinks. This is such a crock of horse shit I'm having trouble believing you believe it. Flirting is an implicit contract (non-enforcible) for some type of sexual attention. There are a lot of men who don't know this and will keep trying. We are here to help those men and free them from the bonds of the flirting female.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Nicko: You need to find a new crowd or go after a different type of woman. That is not 100 percent socially acceptable; going "dutch" is more the standard of the day; also, if you're making verbal statements like "I don't owe women shit on a date," you may want to tone down the hostility when out in public, it tends to be offputting to most women."

    If it's not 100 percent socially acceptable, why isn't it condemned in the same category as men expecting sex on a date? Why aren't women socially ostracised for having such demands?

    If women are making verbal statements like " I don't owe men sex on a date" they may need to tone down their hostility when in public.

    But of course, female privilege again. It's acceptable for a female to act hostile towards things that many men may want but it's not acceptable to be hostile towards things that many females may want. Instead, we get the response: you will never get a woman with that attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nicko: Well, okay, you finally said what your beef is. You figure x amount of dollars entitles you to x amount of sexual services. The answer is obvious; hire a sex worker. You state exactly what you want and you pay an exact price; no guessing how many drinks equals a blow job.

    So do women still "owe" sex on a date, even if they pay their own share of all expenses, down to the last quarter in the parking meter?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Katz

    I never said that women owe men sex or whatever if men pay for their drinks. In fact, these women owe men nothing as these men are dumb enough to buy them drinks.

    But never mind

    ReplyDelete
  29. nicko81m,

    She heard what she wanted to hear and now she can't unhear it. It's like this all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Right, Nicko and Witman, buying her a drink will not get you anywhere. Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however -- that charms women's panties right off. And since, as you so insightfully noted, women flirt with you for no other reason than to con you into buying them booze -- you know, the world's most precious and valuable commodity -- it wouldn't hurt for you to say to every woman who flirts with you: "Knock it off right there, princess! If you want to fuck, fine, but I ain't buying you shit! That means no free bum wine, and if you use my bathroom after I'm done, I expect you to contribute to the electric bill and the water bill. Also, to pay for the wear and tear of the toilet seat. I ain't paying for your bathroom privileges, princess!" I guarantee, after a gem like that, she'll want to be your slave forever.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm just confused by the idea that anyone would think that a format normally associated with "for a good time call .... your mama!" is a good one for disseminating serious advice. Isn't taking advice from bathroom graffiti generally considered a bad idea? So this is admitting that they are targeting those w/o any sense at all. I know they tried bathroom advertising PSA stuff a while back all over the place, and it seems to have wisely disappeared. Yes, captive audience, but you shoot your message in the foot when you use this format to get it out.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "feminists barging into men's rooms to inspect for evidence of 'misogyny'"

    I would venture a guess the walls of men's rooms already have misogyny on them and always have, yet feminists aren't barging in to "inspect" it. A pathetic cry for attention if I ever saw one.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "feminists barging into men's rooms to inspect for evidence of 'misogyny'"

    As if women never actually have to clean men's rooms when the joint is closed.

    But I'm still tickled with the idea that men will show us horrible feminists something when they have sex with sex robots. It's a good idea, honestly -- takes them out of the breeding stock so, whether misogyny is nature or nurture, they will have less and less influence over the next generation.

    I guess the pee posters are their start at "recruiting" (like teh gheys!).

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Amused

    "Right, Nicko and Witman, buying her a drink will not get you anywhere."

    Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out?

    I see a little panic at thought of losing a female perk! You girls have been lobbing out shitballs for 60 years and you get offended when we hand out umbrellas. Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked. We're just helping them deflect a little shit while they're at it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I think that's a great idea, bringing in more men might move the MRAs out of their SCUM phase."

    MRAs are in a Society (for) Cutting Up Men phase?

    Are you serious?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked."


    Feminists are strong, independent women. Or that's what we've heard ad infinitum.

    So I will gladly let them try to live up to that standard, with or without me.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out?"

    Because you say it as if women are trying to make you think that buying them a drink will get them into bed.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If a male goes to a bar, what on earth obligates him to buy a woman a drink? Perhaps in my parents' time that might have been the case to get a little something something but nowadays go on craigslist or AFF or whatever and find a chick there-just remember to be careful that she is not insane.

    And YES there are perfectly sane women on those types of websites who want nothing more than a slap, giggle and tickle. So the whining over the buying of a drink seems misplaced and rather illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Why can't you understand that we already know this? Why is it so offensive to you that we make sure the word gets out?"

    What's offensive, Witman -- besides the sheer stupidity -- is that you have to "get the word out" that (oh, horror!) them uppity bitches won't put out for a swig of beer. Your own language suggests that certain segments of society still cling to the idea that buying a woman a drink entitles a man to sex, maybe even the use of her uterus for his reproduction. What's offensive is this drivel that if a woman merely makes eye contact and smiles, is merely friendly, then she's entered into a "contract" whereby she gets a drink and he gets her body, her services and control over her life. It's offensive to me as a woman AND as a lawyer. What's offensive is the mind-boggling complaint that flirtation constitutes some elaborate con for booze, combined with interpreting everything short of the most blunt and scathing rejection as "flirtation", combined with vociferous complaints about said blunt and scathing rejections as being unnecessarily cruel. For God's sake it's not that hard: don't treat women as commodities that you buy; take "no" for an answer; appreciate friendliness and civility, even if you want more; understand that we don't want or expect your generosity, but if you do decide to be generous, be sincere about it and don't act like a douche; you are not being "oppressed" just because you spent money on your haircut, your clothes, your bus ride to the bar and your drink, yet didn't get laid.

    I see a little panic at thought of losing a female perk!

    What perk? Half the time, that drink may have roofies in it, anyway -- and I'll stick by my radical feminist conviction that being drugged and raped isn't a perk, even if you bought the best roofies on the market and they cost you a lot of money. The other half of the time, the recipient is expected to repay for that drink -- in ways that are worth a lot more than what that drink actually cost. There is a price a woman is expected to pay for those "free" drinks, and in my opinion, it is entirely too high.

    You girls have been lobbing out shitballs for 60 years and you get offended when we hand out umbrellas.

    Not having sex for beer = shitball? If that kind of belief isn't a manifestation of entitlement, I don't know what is.

    Our message is not to hate or hurt women, we want men to leave them be just like they asked.

    Nope. That's not the message. Had it been the message, it would have conveyed the idea that -- for the millionth time -- you should just take no for an answer. Rather, the message is: "Them bitches got so uppity, they won't even fuck you for a drink. Join other angry dudes who think this is a huge injustice and a gross violation of our inalienable right to put our penises in any female we find desirable. Learn what you can do to put them in their place."

    We're just helping them deflect a little shit while they're at it.

    Rejecting your advances in a nice way isn't "shit". Dashing your hopes of getting into someone's pants isn't "shit". That's normal human interaction. When you whip out a thick wad of cash and buy champagne for everyone with the intention of shoring up your own ego, women refusing to believe you are a big shot isn't "shit" -- it's just a normal and expected outcome of posturing. Treating every woman who has a conversation with you as a busted fraud who was only being friendly in order to take your $5 and give you blue balls -- that isn't "deflecting shit"; it's pure insanity, and any man who follows that strategy is guaranteed to end up like George Sodini.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The only people whining about it appear to be those who are in danger of losing their free-night-out privilege.

    Flirting and touching are ways that women get men to buy them drinks. This happens as a natural part of our biology. Nothing obliges us to buy drinks and that is our message.

    BUYING THAT GIRL A DRINK WILL GET YOU NOWHERE! Save your money and get a prostitute. At least she will shut up and leave when you're done.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The only people whining about it appear to be those who are in danger of losing their free-night-out privilege."

    Being pestered by douchebags isn't a privilege. Nor is that night ever "free".

    "Flirting and touching are ways that women get men to buy them drinks. This happens as a natural part of our biology.

    Oh, so women have a "hard-wired" drive to obtain ... alcohol? Why? Because it's more likely to cause birth defects at conception? Jesus Christ, why don't these people read an actual textbook.

    "Nothing obliges us to buy drinks and that is our message."

    I don't think there is anybody you believes you are obliged to buy a drink. What we dispute is your belief that buying a drink entitles you to sex.

    BUYING THAT GIRL A DRINK WILL GET YOU NOWHERE! Save your money and get a prostitute. At least she will shut up and leave when you're done.

    I would think a prostitute costs more than a drink, but hey -- I'm sure you know this market far better than I. But then, by going to a prostitute, a misogynist does all the other women in the world a huge favor.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Prostitutes (in the long run) cost far less than those few drinks.

    Few drinks might lead to a second date ... all the way to marriage. Two kids, two cars, dog, big house and then the proceeds of your work go to her when she decides to trade up.

    No the prostitute is one that you can trade up weekly. If you only see a prostitute as often as you "see" your wife, the cost differential is enormous. You can even go with the high end prostitutes and still save money.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The prostitute is less likely to give you a disease than some bar skank that puts out for drinks.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm disappointed at the lack of Blogger profiles for the majority of your readership, David. It makes it harder for me to troll. :/

    ReplyDelete
  45. " . . .it's pure insanity, and any man who follows that strategy is guaranteed to end up like George Sodini."---Amused

    Most men don't end up like George Sodini. So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however -- that charms women's panties right off

    You feminuts seem to talk about entitlement issues a lot but I never hear you idiots direct the criticism at women when it comes to entitlement. Why is that? Oh that's right, today’s feminists are one sided bigots.

    Let's face it; women are the biggest offenders of chauvinism in 2011. Why is this? Because they simply get away with it. It a man even dares to call out on it, he will likely get belittled.

    There are women everywhere that actually believe a man is not to the same standard/worth as them unless he opens his wallet. Women are the biggest offenders ever of poisoned entitlement issues. That's the total irony of the feminist stance when it comes to whining about males having entitlement issues.

    Yet the chauvinism even goes deeper. We will get threatened with rejection from the almighty pussy if we show hostility towards such atrocious behaviour against men. Even that we have every god damn right to have hostility towards such behaviour.

    And all of this is socially acceptable. Women (the so called under privileged gender) can get away with such sexist, chauvinistic, behaviour at any place and any time. When it comes to dating, women get a pussy pass for nearly all forms of sexist behaviour.

    To sit here and tell me that males are the privileged gender is friggin hilarious.

    I will never pay a prostitute, let alone, I would never pay a woman anything in the mentality that I owe her some financial burden because of my gender. I don’t owe women shit. I am perfectly entitled to have this stance. Yet, me as a man is likely to get shamed in the dating scene to have such a mentality while women can be highly aggressive towards having their stance of not owing men anything.

    Fuck you!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Amused - 'Being pestered by douchebags isn't a privilege. Nor is that night ever "free".'

    I hear that. Especially the types that lose their minds when you turn down their advances.

    ReplyDelete
  48. They are just devaluing pussy below the $2 beer mark into the realm of having to throw in a toaster if you open an account with them.

    Men need pussy like we need a cactus in our ass.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Being massively angry assholes with entitlement issues, however -- that charms women's panties right off . . . "

    It often does.

    Regards of it's "politically correct" or "sexist" or not to agree with it, there are a lot of aggressive and angry men that get women's attention. And women keep coming for them for years and years until they slowly realize that they are jumping in the fire for them.

    Sometimes like attracts like. More than you think.

    I had a relative that married a man that was a real prick. I'll call her Haley here. Nearly every friend I had thought it was the wrong move. He was a violent meathead that could really done damage to her. She wasn't a saint herself during the course of the marriage, and even provoked and attacked him as well.

    Needless to say, I was dead set against them even thinking about matrimony in the beginning but it wasn't my call. Her ex-husband even called me when they got engaged and asked for my blessing. I said no and protested by not showing up at the ceremony.

    She consciously sought him out. Just like many other women seek men like this out for whatever the reason. It happens.

    When the divorce was getting finalized she admitted to me that no one, including myself, could have convinced her from steering away from him. This is one of many lessons that would chip away at certain feminist notions about many women and how they behave, as well as motivations. Haley picked this brooding asshole on purpose and all the "she was a victim" of his abuse during their marital life was not the complete picture. And she was abusive, too. I wasn't happy about Haley's choice but there was nothing I could ultimately do.

    Angry, aggressive men do attract women. The real question is what are feminists doing about this in order to prevent it?

    ReplyDelete
  50. So would you say that aside from being a masochist, Haley was also emotionally and physically abusive?

    This means (according to feminist logic) that this pattern of her abuse toward him would justify him slapping her around so long as he used the love side of his hand. It seems like they had a symbiotic relationship.

    Question: Did Haley then go on to date/marry another brute?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Angry, aggressive men do attract women. The real question is what are feminists doing about this in order to prevent it?"

    Nothing. Feminists - especially these days - contribute nothing noteworthy to anyone. Although they do an awesome job diverting funds to protect vulnerable women in inner cities, for example, in order to drum up rape hysteria on college campuses and secure moar funding for moar of their stupid bullshit.

    C'est la vie, right?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Question: Did Haley then go on to date/marry another brute?" ---witman

    It took her many years to get pattern out of her system. It was in her late 30s, actually.

    Some women learn the hard way. Or even don't learn at all.

    "So would you say that aside from being a masochist, Haley was also emotionally and physically abusive?"

    I would say yes. She often started fights with him.

    Even by her own admission, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nick, I removed your idiotic, pointless post.

    Back to the issues at hand:

    Some women are drawn to horrible men.

    Some men are drawn to horrible women.

    When the first thing happens, you guys blame the woman. When the second thing happens, you also blame the woman.

    It seems to me that while those men and women who are drawn to horrible people certainly make their lives worse because of it, it is the people who actually do the bad shit who are primarily, overwhemlingly to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shit! Now my post doesn't have context!

    ReplyDelete
  55. If feminists want feminism to be seen as a legitimate movement that's supposed to about GENDER EQUALITY, they need to start showing as much hostility towards female privilege as they do towards male privilege.

    Until then, it's validated to label feminists as a group of idiotic bigots.

    Equality means equal criticism. Start showing it instead of just blaming men for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  56. nicko81m,

    I like the term Chauvinist Pigs. That's what they are and no amount of harping will change that fact. You even try to mention equality here and they'll jump down your throat like you said they should be obliged to give you a blowjob for a beer.

    Notice how it was the irrational Feminists here who brought up the she doesn't owe you anything argument and then harped on it until they believed that was what we were saying.

    Lie, repeat, repeat, REPEAT, REPEAT, Chauvanist, MISOGYNIST, RAAAAAAAPPPEEEEE!

    ReplyDelete
  57. And then they lose their shit like a shit collector with amnesia!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Witman, it's pretty much the social norm in western society for women to believe they are above men. We hear so often that women complain about having it hard to find a decent man. In other words, it either means that these women believe they are better than most of the male population or most men are evil.

    That's another facet of female chauvinism that seems so prevalent in today’s society. This type of attitude is acceptable and the norm. A woman can even express such things on national TV and not be looked down upon.

    Men are stereotyped in being domineering control freaks. I see a lot of irony in that as women seem to express so much these days that if you are not this or that or if you dare to criticise their shitty behaviour, you wont get the golden pussy. It pretty much means that if you don’t follow their rules and do as they say, no pussy for you.

    If that’s not domineering behaviour, what is?

    There is actually a book named female chauvinist pigs. One of these days I will pick it up

    ReplyDelete
  59. Nick, I would think based on you other posts, you would prefer to have a prostitute since the issue of money is very straight forward rather then with the average woman at the bar.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Why would I get a prostitute when I am not even willing to buy a female chauvinist ONE DRINK to begin with?

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Female privilege"? Heh.

    A few days ago, I read about Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. Naturally, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1916, there was furious opposition to him from a bunch of people who claimed -- are you ready for this -- that he was only being nominated to the Supreme Court for his background. That is, simply for being a Jew. Now today, most of us see this is utterly ridiculous. Brandeis was an eminent jurist and scholar, and a man whose professional and personal reputation was above reproach. There had never been a Jew on the Supreme Court. Every member of the Supreme Court at that time was of English, Irish or Scottish descent AND Protestant. In fact, in all the history of the Supreme Court up to 1916, there had been only four Justices who weren't both (1) of English/Irish/Scottish descent and (2) Protestant. And all four of those met at least one of the two criteria. And yet, at a time when there had never been a Jewish Supreme Court Justice, and the President and the overwhelming majority of Congress were Anglo-Saxon Protestants, a lot of people believed that Brandeis' nomination represented Jewish encroachment on the government. And they felt that Protestants of English, Scottish and Irish descent were being oppressed, denied opportunities which were rightfully theirs, while Jews were being privileged over everyone else. It completely escaped them that at a time when one HAD to be "English" and Protestant to have any hope of holding political and judicial office, the people who served in government -- they were being put in those positions for their background. In fact, if you were to go back in time and point this out to them, they would angrily argue that all those Justices who came before Brandeis were qualified to serve, and therefore could not possibly have been appointed because of their ethnicity or religion. Simply put, people who were the "default" race, the "default" ethnicity, and the "default" religion saw anything less than total control of everything as oppression and loss.

    And now it's the same thing with women's liberation. Men's rights are seen as women's privileges. Men's-righters speak of women being "allowed" to vote, work outside the home, go to school. Whenever a woman obtains a high-paying job or a high-ranking post, they deem her to have obtained it because of her gender, no matter how supremely qualified she is -- because in their mind, that place by default goes to a man; but tell them that at a time when women could not vote, work or participate in government, male politicians, judges and college professors got ahead thanks to their gender -- and they will vociferously deny any bias. And of course, they see any sharing by women in good things that traditionally belonged only to men as acts of oppression and subjugation against men.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Who is they? Please don't presume to think what regular people are thinking.

    You may wish to step outside your mansion and have a look at how real people live. The plebs suffer from your delusions of oppression. Here's a hint, most of your "liberated" women are working in low paying service jobs. They aren't all aristocrats like yourself.

    Every law that passes to dethrone your patriarchy just makes life shittier for the average person. Laws about equality (protected in the Constitution) are passed by useful idiots to the detriment of the plebs. We all toil under this oligarchy run by rich people like you.

    You aren't just oppressing and subjugating men, you are providing a false feminist utopia to the plebeian.

    ReplyDelete
  63. My apologies, I realize that you are not an aristocrat.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Most men don't end up like George Sodini. So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about."

    Most men aren't MRAs, either. Those of us who live in the real world tend to keep a sense of proportion about things.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Nick, it appears to me that you view women as only going after men for money and using sex as this means.

    Going to a prostitute removes the ick factor of a woman using a male to obtain things she desires through subterfuge and instead makes the interaction straight forward-she provides sex, you provide the money. No messy involvement beyond the physical act.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "I think that's a great idea, bringing in more men might move the MRAs out of their SCUM phase."

    "MRAs are in a Society (for) Cutting Up Men phase?

    Are you serious?"

    Yup. I think that Men's Rights activists have some valid complaints, but like Ms. Solanis you haven't moved beyond being angry and hating the way things are to joining together to deal with the systemic causes of your complaints.

    For example, the jailing of fathers who do not pay court ordered child support sets up a precedent which should be frightening to anyone who owes money, it should be changed. But instead of focusing on the legislators and people who have the power to change it, you focus on women and mothers.

    I'm very interested to see what y'all are going to accomplish once you get your shit together. I think, like feminism, it's going to make our society better across the board. Unless, of course, you just spend all of your energy yelling about skanks and bitches, that probably won't change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hide and Seek -

    Don't hold your breath on seeing a (politically) organized Men's Rights movement.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "You even try to mention equality here and they'll jump down your throat like you said they should be obliged to give you a blowjob for a beer."

    I like the way you continue saying things like this about everyone here after I engaged you and a bunch of other guys here at some length. If you insist on misrepresenting the other side entirely, no one is obligated to engage you because you will not engage in kind. When people stop bothering with your arguments it's because you're not making them in good faith, and I'd suggest your characterization above is a good example of how bad faith you have behaved here. I did not jump down your throat, and yet you keep on misrepresenting your opponents and their general beliefs.

    This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and then insisting that those talking to you are being irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @M,

    I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief. You don't understand that I do not hate women. I love women! I am a humanist and I think everyone should have equal rights. EQUAL RIGHTS under the God, The Constitution, The Law and everything!

    My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen. If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it, but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear.

    Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!

    ReplyDelete
  70. "My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen."

    Women have loaded gun and "the system" is telling them that all men are boogeymen.

    "If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it,"

    So this loaded gun is not a metaphor?

    "but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear."

    It is dehumanizing to men to be painted as being all rapists. But where is all this killing?

    "Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"

    So, to recap: women have guns (not clear if they're metaphorical or literal), "the system" (presumably feminism, not the patriarchal culture that feminism was a response to) teaches women that all men are rapists, so women kill men, and soon there will be a genocide against men because of this.

    Witman, it sounds like you think women are terribly dangerous to men. That's really scary. Women are attacking men, or they are about to. They are dehumanizing men so much that it seems like a genocide against men is possible.

    Is there any non-violent way to head off this looming threat? Concentration camps for ladies, maybe. Other than that, though, things look pretty dire. According to your own reasoning, you'd be insane not to mount some sort of preemptive strike.

    You heard it here first, folks: the cold war between the sexes is about to go hot.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @SallyStrange:

    The gun is both literal and figurative. And you darling have nothing to offer but satire and sarcasm which does not help the situation in any way. It just further dehumanizes legitimate people with legitimate grievances.

    Please be quiet while the adults are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  72. How would you feel if you found an unjust law/belief and some man just patted you on the head and said "There, there, just go to sleep, it's all part of your imagination"?

    Just show me any man anywhere that got away with murder (or even assault) by claiming that his IP was abusive. Just one! I can show you several cases where women get away with MURDER on that claim. They can even shoot a man in the back of the head while he is walking away "How dare he walk away from her Highness?" How about shooting him in the groin and then killing him. Were all the jokes about John Wayne Bobbit some sort of nervous laughter?

    You sure put the laughter back in slaughter!

    ReplyDelete
  73. "I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief."

    You are doing the same thing to others but only see it being done to you. Sounds like...a pattern?

    And in response to it being done to you, you mischaracterize everyone who disagrees with you. Yet when a feminist does that it's something wholly different, something *more* unfair?

    I have engaged you honestly. You don't get to say that a mere mention of equality means all the feminists here will jump down your throat.

    I don't believe you hate women. I do, however, maintain that if you genuinely believe that you are a "second-class citizen" and that women have all the rights at your expense, you are not honestly engaging the world beyond your own personal biases and personal interests. The world is not that simple.

    "Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"

    Men are *not* being dehumanized by feminism or by feminist-informed structures. First of all, feminism is not the dominant ideology of the world any of us live in. But more importantly, we live under a system that attempts to dehumanize *everyone* in some ways, and accomplishes different feats of alienation with different classes of people due to how they are situated within a complex and often-oppressive system of socioeconomic relationships. To focus only on those aspects that impact the classes *you personally fall in* is not humanism. It is not even anti-oppressionist. It is simply misguided, because it cannot begin to dismantle the causes of our various oppressions and disadvantages.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Amused said:

    “but tell them that at a time when women could not vote, work or participate in government, male politicians, judges and college professors got ahead thanks to their gender -- and they will vociferously deny any bias.”

    This doesn’t make sense. In your logic you are saying that any man can be judges, college professors. Sorry to break this to you but only the men with the skills who had what it takes could be in these positions. Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

    On the other hand, there are cases these days that women will get chosen over men in positions due to the guilt of keeping women back in the past. And/or employers want to avoid getting accused of being biased against women which may lead to a law suit. Reverse discrimination is very alive and well against men at this day and age simply because of what happened in the past. Men get constantly punished and put down because of what other men did generations ago. This type of extreme sexism gets given a pass when it comes to political correctness.

    Elizabeth said:

    “Going to a prostitute removes the ick factor of a woman using a male to obtain things she desires through subterfuge and instead makes the interaction straight forward-she provides sex, you provide the money. No messy involvement beyond the physical act. “ In other words, you are telling me that I owe women some financial burden because of my gender. You are pretty much on the same band wagon as the women who expect men to buy them drinks, except that you are telling me that I have to pay in another way (prostitution)

    Yep, female chauvinism is very alive and well.

    ReplyDelete
  75. http://www.torontocriminaldefence.com/casesnew.php?id=EkFEZZyEEywemvaKry

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Those of us who live in the real world tend to keep a sense of proportion about things."---Sam

    And what might that be?

    ReplyDelete
  77. You are the one complaining about having to buy drinks in order for a possible result of sex from a woman. If you want a sex act without having to buy a drink, there is a straight forward alternative with the added bonus of reasonable expectation of lack of STDs.

    Or you could just not be an arrogant, sexist dickhead and then you could get sex for free from a girlfriend.

    The choice, little one, is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  78. " . . .but like Ms. Solanis you haven't moved beyond being angry and hating the way things are to joining together to deal with the systemic causes of your complaints."---Hide And Seek

    Your tone sounds pretty angry, eh?

    BTW, I'm not a MRA, so your point is moot. And, course, even worse is that the anger in the MRM isn't validated by you, so you obviously don't take their positions seriously.

    Feminism as a grasp on hatred than the MRM, that's for certain.

    "But instead of focusing on the legislators and people who have the power to change it, you focus on women and mothers."

    Anyone that continues that debacle is somehow complicit, legislator or woman, regardless. If they are directly involved in any sense.

    ReplyDelete
  79. That being said, most MRMs are nothing like Solanis. What a poor comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Satire is pretty much the only sane response to someone who seems to genuinely think that women are plotting a violent gender genocide against men.

    ReplyDelete
  81. And if you're going to complain "that's not what I said," well then perhaps you should try using language that's a tad less hyperbolic next time.

    Not to mention the logic error--

    All genocides begin with dehumanization of a group

    Men as a group are being dehumanized

    Therefore men should watch out for a genocide against them.

    This logical fallacy has a name, I just can't remember it right now...

    It's the same logical fallacy Nixon was using when he decided to portray marijuana as a "gateway drug" to heroin. Most heroin users start out using MJ, therefore anyone who smokes weed will become a heroin user. It doesn't follow.

    Why did you use the word "genocide," anyway? What were you thinking of? What would a genocide against men look like? Would women keep men around as slaves, or would they just freeze their sperm and kill them all? Inquiring minds want to know! Your brain sounds like a very exciting place.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @SallySrange:

    You deflect the statement: Name any point in history where the dehumanization of a select group of people did not end in, at least, the attempted genocide of those people.

    You ridicule in your response, because you cannot justify the dehumanization of the male in society.

    ReplyDelete
  83. http://amysrobot.com/files/dv_ad.JPG
    http://www.politicalcowardice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/respect-girls-1.gif

    Where are the "Don't hit boys" or "Respect Boys" camaigns? Tell me we are not dehumanizing our sons at a very young age! These posters are put at the height of a young boy. Treating boys like they are born without conscience and "Awaiting Instructions" is unconscionable!

    Shame on you! Shame shame shame!!! You support his one-sided BS, shame on you! <- there is your shaming language!

    ReplyDelete
  84. You cannot feel the shame because that boy who will learn to be beaten by women is justice in you minds.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Shame on you! Fuck! I am annoyed!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hey, let's just make them wear "Don't Rape!" signs on their chests! You irk me professor ... I am irked! (from the movie Bolt)

    ReplyDelete
  87. witman, you realize that guys in the manosphere, especially mgtow types, constantly reduce women to their genitalia, either by suggesting that all they have to offer men is their vaginas, or by simply calling them "cunts."

    Women are sexually objectified all the time in this way. How is this not dehumanizing?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Also, witman, you just posted 5 comments in a row. 2 in a row, fine, it happens; 3 in a row, pushing it; more than that and I will just start deleting them. (This applies to everyone.)

    ReplyDelete
  89. Elizabeth said:

    "You are the one complaining about having to buy drinks in order for a possible result of sex from a woman. If you want a sex act without having to buy a drink, there is a straight forward alternative with the added bonus of reasonable expectation of lack of STDs."

    I am not sure if this is directed at me or not. But please tell me where I mentioned that this is about sex? The feminists in here seem to like putting words in men's mouth as a tactic to justify the shitty behaviours from women.

    My whole point as I have mentioned in here is that many women simply believe men are not to the same standard/worth as women if they don't open their wallets.

    Just to date a woman or make a woman interested, we are expected to buy them shit.

    "Or you could just not be an arrogant, sexist dickhead and then you could get sex for free from a girlfriend."

    Isn't it funny how feminists like David allow the word "dickhead" to be used, yet I can remember a while ago, he put a ban on the C word. Is that surprising from feminists? Not at all.

    Anyway, how about you stop being an arrogant sexist idiot and stop justifying sexist behaviour from women

    Calling a man an arrogant sexist dickhead for complaining on a stance against sexist behaviour from women is complete idiocy. But again, that's no surprise coming from feminists. You are nothing but an arrogant sexist bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ya, ya, I get it (multiple posts). I was irked, sorry for the breach of protocol.

    I do not use the C word ... ever! I don't even quote it. It's not a pissing match, we are comparing what men in the manosphere say and what is actual policy (law). We are justifying what goes on by indicating what some misogynist wants to go on. Apples to Oranges David, apples to oranges. How is that a policy shaper? How do you justify vilifying men/boys in the media and law (VAWA) because some "man" "thinks" women are C***s?

    ReplyDelete
  91. BTW, thanks for leaving my very irksome posts intact.

    ReplyDelete
  92. nick, your comment got spam-filtered and is up now.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Feminists whine, whine, and whine about the objectifying crap on women. Yet in this very thread, they attempt to justify women objectifying men's wallets

    ReplyDelete
  94. Elizabeth, thanks for the link. the comment got spam filtered but is up now.

    Interesting that the defense attorney in that case was someone named T. Pain. Presumably he was not allowed to use autotune in court.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "Feminists whine, whine, and whine about the objectifying crap on women. Yet in this very thread, they attempt to justify women objectifying men's wallets"

    Objectifying...objects? Okay, Nicko.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @Dr. Deezee: I think that would be unfortunate, but why do you think that is?

    @wytchfinde555:

    My apologies, I did not mean "you" personally, I have no idea what you personally believe (beyond what you have written). I can see how that would be confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I'd also like to note that I refrained from punching my wife in the face when she burned supper. This blog has been so cathartic for me. :0

    Just peckin a fought!

    ReplyDelete
  98. @Hide and Seek.

    Apology accepted, and thank you for being civil as well.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Nick, I have no idea what you are babbling about now.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Nick, I have no idea what you are babbling about now.

    Of course you don't, you're a feminist

    ReplyDelete
  101. In year 2011 in western society, do intelligent feminists even exist?

    ReplyDelete
  102. They do, and they laugh their asses off at morons like you. :D

    Thanks for the amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @doctresjulia,

    And such an insightful post from a prominent doctress as yourself. Is doctress a feminized version of doctor or some new profession?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Nick, if you could try to make sense then I would be able to respond. But you refuse to do so to anyone.

    My original point stands-there is zero reason or obligation for a male to buy a female a drink. Just as there is zero reason or obligation for a female to give a guy sex if he buys her a drink. It is not a case of "if you buy her a drink you will get no where." It is a case of "neither side is obliged to do either action."

    If you assume someone is thinking you are cheap for not buying a girl a drink, that is your problem. And for the few women out there you assume (as well) to feel they are entitled to being given free things because of their possession of a vagina, no one is forcing you to buy them anything. You can just ignore their existence.

    The whining you exhibit over this issue is probably why you are unable to be happy with a woman much less the gender.

    ReplyDelete
  105. It's quite safe to say that women should never accept drinks from a man at all. Specifically ones they are not already on an "official date" with.

    That has always been the rule my parents taught me to protect myself against men who think it "buys them something", men who react violently/badly to rejection, men who might drug your drink, etc.

    It's just not worth it to accept a drink from a man regardless of how honorable he appears in his offer.

    It's very, very common for men to become belligerent, accusatory, and demanding if you dare to accept the drink they've pushed on you just to be polite.

    The "politeness" (of accepting it to be nice) just really isn't worth a woman's safety or sense of well-being.

    As for the men...it's better to just ask a woman on a proper date (in the future) if you are genuinely interested in her and see/meet her out somewhere. It makes the man seem more genuine in wanting to get to know her and also makes the woman feel more inclined to NOT think he's a random bootyhound out trying to pick up chicks.

    That's a rule the women in my family have always followed (never "meet up with" a man who doesn't take you on a proper date) and there are plenty of men who understand and feel the same way in return. And they tend to respect you (as a woman) more for that.

    The ones who aren't willing to do that....well...count your blessings you didn't waste any time on him.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I have a simple one-step plan for any guy who wants to protect himself from evil women in bars who expect him to pay for drinks:

    Don't buy women drinks.

    That way, any women who simply wants to exploit you for drinks will go away.

    Note: If it's clear there's an expectation of drink-buying reciprocity -- that if you buy one round, she'll buy the next, that sort of thing -- then buying drinks is fine.

    Alternately, you could start start hanging out with the sort of women who expect each person to pay their own way on a date. Of course, there's a good chance these women will be feminists.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis