All out of context

As the herpes and hypergamy discussion (which also erupted here) reminded (almost) everyone, statistics can be wildly misleading unless you know at least a little bit about the context. I got another reminder of that recently while poking around on a site called NationMaster, a site that aggregates stats about the world found in the (very useful) CIA Factbook and other sources and makes them a little more user-friendly.

Which isn't always a good thing. As we learn from this contextless factoid I  found festooned at the top of one page:

Yeah. I think if you really do like kids, you might want to think a little about why half the population in Uganda is under 15 before planning your move there.

You mean coitus?

The post-coital Dude and Maude

Let's take a break from misogyny for a moment to take a look into the wild and wacky world of homophobia. Sexy, sexy homophobia. By which I mean this attempt, by homophobe-con Robert George and two colleagues to explain why only heterosexual penis-in-vagina sex counts as real, proper sex:

In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.

So: No gay sex. No lesbian sex. No blow jobs. No dry humping. No finger-fucking. No pegging. No happy endings. 

If you're interested,  Alas, a blog's Barry Deutsch offers a detailed critique of the paper in which this wondrous quote appears over on FamilyScholars.org; George et al reply here.

All this talk of coitus reminds me of one of my many favorite exchanges in The Big Lebowski, between Maude Lebowski and The Dude:

MAUDE: Do you like sex, Mr. Lebowski?

DUDE: Excuse me?

MAUDE: Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus. Do you like it?

DUDE: I was talking about my rug.

MAUDE: You're not interested in sex?

DUDE: You mean coitus?

MAUDE: I like it too. It's a male myth about feminists that we hate sex. It can be a natural, zesty enterprise. But unfortunately there are some people--it is called satyriasis in men, nymphomania in women--who engage in it compulsively and without joy.

DUDE: Oh, no.

Talk dirty to me, Maude Lebowski!

(Thanks to Amanda Marcotte's twitter and alicublog for alerting me to George's crazy quote.)

Feminist cat ponders how idiotic the herpes and hypergamy discussion has gotten

(Note: In cats, tail-lashing is not a good sign.)

On Herpes and Hypergamy

Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap.

Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.

An extraordinary number of men in the "manosphere" -- whether they're wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way -- have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn't go on) behind the closed doors of America's bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there -- at least the straight ones --  are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.

So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called "hypergamy."

The term refers to the practice of "marrying up"in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren't merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They've combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap -- variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.

And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide -- by which I mean fuck anything that moves -- these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.

Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this  (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.

This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven't seen any yet.

But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some "21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men." (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC's press release on the survey can be found here.)

Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling,  he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women -- you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing -- it's simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I've put the key parts in bold):

Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. ...

Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:

* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.

You'd think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn't you?

Hello, Men's Rights Redditors!

I just noticed that someone posted a link to this blog on the Men's Rights subreddit under the title "Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones..."  I would happily respond to this bit of idiocy in the Men's Rights subreddit itself, but, alas, the moderator there has banned me because I have the subreddit listed in my "Enemies List." The ban seems a bit silly. I discuss things with people in my "Enemies List" all the time, and they're free to post here the same as anyone else.

But I have a question for you Men's Rights Redditors. Since I can't ask it there, I'll ask it here, and you can respond here: What have I ever said on this blog (or elsewhere) that is in any way an example of feminist "extremism?" I challenge you to find a single "extremist" statement here, or a single example of misandry. (Note: Saying "oh, the whole blog is extremist" or "it's obvious you're an extremist" something along those lines is not an answer; it's a way of begging the question.)

If I really am some sort of extremist, it should be quite easy to find specific examples of this extremism.

Boycott? Make that a MANcott!

Judy Chicago brings vagina to the table. Via lolvantgarde

Careful readers may have noticed a new blog in my Enemies List, a promising up-and-comer in the world of nutbag misogyny. Yes, I'm talking about BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN, a blog whose purpose is clearly stated in its name. So why should we fellows boycott -- sorry, BOYCOTT -- AMERICAN WOMEN? Oh, our blog proprietor has got himself a little list:

American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children. ...

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

So yeah, it's pretty much the standard-issue anti-American woman crap. And for the most part the posts so far -- little missives (allegedly) from different guys explaining why they hate American gals -- haven't been terribly imaginative.

But there are occasional sparks of wonderful nutbaggery. Like the little word-portrait evoked here by John from USA:

So many American woman seem to think that all they need to do is bring their vagina to the table and that I will just give them whatever they want

Vagina? Table? Paging Judy Chicago!

In case you were wondering, ladies, John assures us all that he does "not have a small penis!" But too bad, ladies, he's taken.

A post from someone named James laments that American women have become

a spoiled, non compassionate sex that I have seen de masculinate their spouses

Mark from the USA, meanwhile, seems to have something of a hair fetish:

Many foreign women have much nicer body shapes, more feminine traits and a lot still have nice long hair, opposed to the boyish low-maintenance short cuts that most American women get by their mid to late teens and never grow back.

Damn those hair-cutting sluts! Also, Mark seems like he's really not into the whole "communication" thing.

I'm looking for a foreign spouse too, and would NEVER accept an American woman. I don't even care what country she's from or if we speak a mutual language. In fact, I'd probably be happier with her if we couldn't even understand each other, than some American bitch constantly nagging and ragging at me in English.

I don't think I'll be boycotting American women any time soon. But I'll be coming back to this blog for sure.

Applied Slutonomics: The Vaginal Supply Curve

Vaginal supply and demand.

Apparently sluts aren't simply, you know, dirty whores. They're also sadly lacking a real work ethic. And no wonder, because sluttery is evidently as easy as falling off a log. Onto a bed. Naked. At least according to someone calling himself Reality 2010 on The Spearhead's message boards.

[I]t takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement. 

Sluts are apparently also in need of a refresher course in economics. They don't appear to understand the basics of supply and demand. By giving away their pussy too readily to too many men, they are decreasing its value!

There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.

As you can see from the helpful diagram here, increasing the supply of vagina -- that is, moving the vagina supply curve from S0 to S1 -- both decreases the price of vagina and increases the amount of vagina consumed, bringing us to a new slutquilibrium.

I mean, come on, ladies, that's pretty basic Slutonomics.

It's a good thing that vagina is a renewable resource, or else we'd all be fucked. Figuratively, not literally.

Rapists are apparently being oppressed by the term "rapist."

Well, here's a new one. Apparently rapists are being oppressed by the evil misandrist term ... rapist. Or so says a poster calling himself ReluctantNihilist in the upstart MENSRIGHTSMOVEMENT subreddit on Reddit, a tiny little discussion forum (with 12 subscribers) for those who think the regular Men's Rights subreddit has become a hotbed of radical feminism. Here's his argument:

The prefix "-ist" means "one who believes in". ...  It is a belief system. A misandrist demonstrates a pattern of behaviors that exemplify misandry.

Does a person who commits a rape necessarily believe and engage in a pattern of behavior of rape?

No.

There are a couple of problems with this analysis, starting with the fact that "ist" is, uh, not actually a prefix but a suffix. And that it can simply mean "one that performs a specified action." Believing may not have anything to do with it: a "typist," for example, types; he or she doesn't believe in an ideology of typing. Nor does an "ist" have to do something repeatedly: an "arsonist" is someone who burns shit up, whether that's once or a hundred times. Our ReluctantlNihilist is evidently not much of a linguist. But let's set aside these little qualms and continue with his post:

The proper term for someone who commits a rape, or even several, is a raper. "-er" means "one who takes part in". Determination of whether that person would qualify as a rapist is another matter.

The use of the word "rapist" rather than "raper" is misandrist doublespeak, because even though women rape, too, we know that the term "rapist" is only applied to males. 

Uh, I think the term is used for female rapists also. There just aren't that many of them.

This misandrist doublespeak is subtle but effective. Calling someone a rapist insinuates they have committed multiple rapes and, if set free, they'll do it again and again. This only fuels rape hysteria.

The more accurate and less emotionally-charged term is:

Raper.

Actually, it's a fair bet that someone who rapes once will rape again; one study of "undetected rapists" -- that is, rapists who hadn't been caught, which is to say the overwhelming majority of rapists -- found that they admitted to having assaulted, on average, roughly 6 victims each.

But let's set this aside and ask the big question: why exactly should we give a fuck about hurting the feelings of people who rape other people? If "ist" is good enough for Stalinists, philanthropists, proctologists, and, yes, even nihilists, it's certainly good enough for rapists.

ReluctantNihilist, I am demoting you to a ReluctantNihiler.

MRAs on Julian Assange: No consent, no problem!

Apparently some Men's Right Activists have no trouble believing the rape accusations against Julian Assange. They just have trouble giving a shit about rape.

Over on the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit, the regular crowd was discussing an article about Assange. One of the allegations against Assange is that he raped one of his accusers in her sleep, without wearing a condom. (EDITED TO ADD: According to her account, she had told him explicitly the night before that she would not have sex with him without a condom, and had in fact refused unprotected sex with him when he'd tried it that evening.) As the article recounts the (alleged) incident:

She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.

When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: "I am wearing you."

This response got high-fives from some of the Men's Rights redditors. One quoted Assange's (alleged) remark, then added "Nailed it." Eight upvotes for that comment, no downvotes. Another quoted the same remark, and added "LIKE A BOSS." That got upvotes as well.

So apparently, to some MRAs at least, raping a woman in her sleep is A-OK, just so long as you've got a witty one-liner at the ready when she wakes up.

Antifeminazis

Well, here's an interesting pic I ran across on teh Internets. MRAs talk about feminazis all the time, but, gosh, here are some anti-feminists who actually are Nazis.

A little Googling reveals that Sniper Records is a White Supremacist record label. I'm not going to link to it. You can find it on your own, if you are so inclined.

Campus creep out

Damn you, accursed temptress!

In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as "creepy," for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:

Whenever I'm on campus, I'm eyed by the security guards. Not because I'm dangerous, but because I'm MALE.

Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.

Let's stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you've accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you're otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren't going to give you a second look. Either you're lying, or you're imagining things, or you aren't telling us the whole story.

Back to the comment:

What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I'm not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they're HOT.

Uh, ok, that's not actually true. Unless by "a LOT" you mean "a tiny number." But it is an ... interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase "I'm not saying that women are asking to be raped" is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook" was a bad sign.

On with the rest of the comment:

And since I'm not HOT, I'm automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I'm also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.

Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I'm not: a criminal!

Ok. Let's break this down. You "respect women," yet you complain about them "taunt[ing] ... men sexually," and assume that "a LOT" of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You've "NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women," yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you're happy to call feminists "hags," a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.

I don't know. Could it be that women -- and, heck, maybe even a few security guards -- find you creepy because, uh, you're walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?

Just a guess.

EDITED TO ADD: More on the "creep" issue here. 

No misogyny today, just a grumpy cat in a Santa hat I found on Flickr

It's the end of the world as we know it, but dudes feel fine

Serves you right for being a lady, lady!

In a discussion of Britain's financial troubles on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a dude calling himself rebel managed to tease out some good news in the prospect of complete financial meltdown: the collapse of civilization might just serve to put the wimminz in their place!

Let's face it: feminism was possible only through oppulence [sic]. The richer the country the worse it got.

Now the opposite is happening: we may have to suffer not being able to buy that new pair of shoes, but women will become less arrogant when they will have to live on bread crumbs.

I say keep them starved, skinny and obedient. Civilization is harmful to men: it causes women to go haywire.

If the economy tanks, men will be the winners.

"Oppulence?" Apparently, in the brave new post-civilization world, correct spelling will be a luxury we can no longer afford.

EDIT: Screencap for those not registered at Happy B:

All the single mothers

It's the one in the middle that's the problem.

Fellas, be careful out there, lest you run across the single gravest threat to modern man, and probably civilization itself: the single mom. These money-hungry, baby-hungry monsters will seduce you and abandon you, after extracting from you the magical substance that allows them to pop forth babies that you will have to pay for forever. Young or old, straight or lesbian, they all want your sperm and your money.

At least that's the argument of a dude calling himself The Fourth Planet on the LoveShack.org message boards. I've put some especially good bits in bold.

[T]he time has come to look at male sexuality as a weakness that makes men vulnerable to all kinds of predator. It's a sexual vulnerability that makes you prey to baby mama or baby-hungry women. ...

Your sexuality is tolerated only when it's necessary to provide young women, long past menopausal women, lesbians, single mothers by choice ... with children. In other words, only for as long as it serves women's needs to satisfy their baby urges. ...

Women's sexuality gives them, and the state, almost unlimited power to control men. As long as women are free to use their power of sex to exploit men, then all the things we resent in women will continue and get worse.

Our weakness for pussy is ... being used to destroy us. ...

You must reject single mothers because she represents all of the things that destroy men, our children, our families, and our communities. ...

Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man's resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man's child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That's because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.

Damn those sneaky, sexy ladies and their sneaky, sexy sexiness! If only there was a way to get rid of all desire altogether.

Love-shyness and the perpetual resentment machine

She's so smug, that Mona Lisa!

Reading Love-shy.com, a forum for self-described incels (that is, the "involuntarily celibate") and other "love-shy" guys, is a depressing experience. On the one hand, there are a lot of guys there who are genuinely hurting due to social awkwardness, depression, and other serious maladies that would be better treated by a psychiatrist and/or a good therapist than by talking to other equally miserable guys on an online forum.

And on the other hand, there is so much seething resentment among the regulars, not only of those women who have rejected them but women in general. The complaint is always the same: women only like "bad boys" and thugs, and refuse to date "nice guys." That is, guys like those who post on Love-Shy.com.

In one recent, fairly typical, thread, an unhappy "nice guy" reports that a girl he had a crush on (and who, a year ago, had turned him down) is now pregnant:

And she lists herself as single [on Facebook], which means that she was knocked up by some loser. That could have been MY kid; instead, I'm left here wondering why she followed the stereotype, when I thought she was so different.

I swear, all women are the same. They ALL follow the same patterns. Even someone who considers themselves an outcast or eccentric themselves, they ALL follow the same patterns. Her boyfriends were always extremely good looking, too.

This is another example of a woman who is nerdy/geeky, and doesn't like the nice guys. Pathetic, really pathetic.

So her crime is that ... she is attracted to guys that she thinks are, er, attractive? Instead of a self-described "nice guy" who seems to think she has a duty to be attracted to him, and who is obsessive enough to still be nursing a grudge about her rejection of him a year earlier?

Others pipe up with their support:

This should be of no surprise to you. She clearly is a quasi-eugenicist that deemed your genes unworthy of propagation. She subsequently mated with another guy who had desirable genes so that she could have the best possible offspring. Classic eugenics, classic female hypergamy.

Yep. Women who are attracted to the attractive are "eugenicists," essentially little Hitlers at heart. "Classic female hypergamy," by the way, is basically a fancy way of suggesting that all women are essentially gold-diggers and/or alpha-dog seekers, going for men who are older and richer than they are or otherwise at the top of the heap. Get used to the term: MRAs, MGTOWs, and Incels use it constantly. (I should probably add it to my post on the lingo of the "manosphere.")

Another commenter picks up on the "women are eugenicists" theme:

If a woman is ever talking to you and the words "nice" or "sweet" comes out of her mouth, you then know that she would rather see you hanging dead from a rope before dating/sleeping with you. She wouldn't give you 2 dollars to save your life.

Women are not just turned off by nice, sweet guys. Women hate and despise them. They want them dead, they cannot stand undesirable genes.

A third puts it equally bluntly:

If you're ugly, women want you to die of a horribly painful death, and she would LOVE to torture you so that you suffer as much as possible.

Still another pipes up with a story of being similarly "victimized" by his "oneitis" -- that is, the girl he's completely obsessed with:

She always says I'm a lovely sweet guy. We also have loads in common, in terms of values, interests, etc. Now I know these are all the kiss of death. Girls don't really want these things (sweetness, kindness, loveliness). They want to spread the alpha male genes. ... I am the victim of classic female hypergamy too. She's with a doctor!

Meanwhile, another suggests that the OP is probably better off on his own, given that most women are lying, cheating whores:

you are used for attention whoring when the bad boy did all the fucking. Just get over asap man, can you imagine what would happen if she were your wife? More than likely she will cheat. Todays sad reality is if you are a shy, introverted guy you will always feel the threat of cheating even with your wife every fucking day of your life.

The only healthy thing in the whole thread? The OP reports that he's deleted the pregnant ex-crush from his Facebook friends list.

You know what? Life is unfair. Love is tough. Some people are better looking than other people. How many guys want to be Don Draper, minus, perhaps, the constant boozing and fairly regular assholism? Probably every man who watches Mad Men, and then some. How many look like Don Draper? A tiny fraction of a percent of the former group. There's a hilarious eposide of Between Two Ferns, Zach Galifianakis' fake chat show, in which Zach confronts Jon Hamm, the actor who plays Don Draper, with the fact of his astounding handsomeness:

Zach: "Does it make you sick when you look in the mirror to see how handsome you are and to know that people are disfigured? And don't you think you should think that?"

Jon: "I ... I've really never thought of it that way."

Zach: "You never thought, hey, uh, why is Jesus so cruel?"

Jon: "Well, I've thought that."

If it's any consolation, she can't really act.

So, yeah, some people have advantages in the world of love and sex. Attractive, outgoing, happy people generally fare better than unattractive, shy and unhappy people. (And it's not like the guys on Love-shy.com are all unattractive -- or that they have any great sympathy for women who aren't hotties.)  But even the beautiful people get their hearts broken sometimes. No one can simply have whoever they want. No one is entitled to have another person fall in love with them, or even just into bed. That is up to the other person. (See Hugo Schwytzer's recent post "the right to pursue, not the right to have," for more on this.) 

Yes, there's a difference between being rejected once in a while and being rejected all the time, or being simply so terrified by rejection you never even try to approach anyone. If you're depressed, desperate, awkward and needy, as many of the "love-shy" seem to be, you're going to repel most if not all of those you're attracted to. This fucking sucks. But it's life. The solution? Get some help, and get your shit together. Get your depression treated. (I've been on antidepressants for years; it's changed my fucking life.) Get your social anxiety treated. Talk to therapists abut your issues. Get lots of exercise. See a sex surrogate if necessary. I'm not saying any of these things to be insulting. I'm saying them because they will actually help.

Some things you shouldn't do? Embrace your (hopefully temporary) datelessness as a fucking IDENTITY. Spend all your time on a message board with others who've done the same thing. Cultivate your resentment of women for rejecting you, and receive validation from other guys for doing this. (Guess what? Just as most women can sniff out your desperation, they can also sniff out your resentment, and it's not an attractive quality.)

Or, finally, to assume that things are oh-so-easy for women seeking love and sex. If you're not aware of the problems women face in the world of dating, you're just not paying attention. Are there women who are always (whether they like it or not) followed by a small herd of lovesick men? Yes. Are there women who are 30-year-old virgins? Yes to that as well. Love is tough, but demonizing the opposite sex isn't good for anyone: you're creating a perpetual resentment machine.

And it won't get you laid.

Women Are ... Part 5: Romance is Dead Edition

Earth girls ARE easy!

Part 5 in a ten quadrillion part series. What today's entries lack in coherence they make up for in vehemence. And general crackpottery. I've bolded some of the best bits.

Women are: dumb cowards happy to open their legs to space aliens.

Females do not understand and are unwilling to participate in war or power politics on an international level. The classic female response to war is to lie down and fuck whichever MAN wins. If the Nazi, Arabs, Huns, Romans, Tutsies, English, or space aliens win the next war it won't matter to the female mind. If they kill her father, brother, and husband it won't matter to the female mind. She is happy opening her legs and breeding with a winner.

Women are: Feminizazis?

These socialist, feminizazi, ball breaking c@#ts can go jump off their lesbionic herstory produced bridge and hopefully the goddess will welcome them into feminazi distopia where they will get 70 virgin boys, 14 year old (that’s the way those teachers like em) and 70 slutty girls, so they can lap each others worn out slut produced disease pouches.

Women are: Sexified diseased blobs of flesh

American women were whores 40 years ago, they became sluts 30 years ago, 20 years ago they were free prostitutes, 10 years ago, they became walking Sperm banks / Mobile Sperm Units, and today they are a sexified diseased blob of flesh waiting to infect their next encounter with their contagious excretions. They are a grotesque form with female organs without any spirit of femininity – a polluted and decayed creature! They are totally ruined by their own hands… minds!

Romance is dead and whores killed it!!

Air conditioning for women: A terrible injustice

Fuck those bitches. They didn't invent air conditioning!

How to win friends and garner dozens of upvotes in the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit: Bash out a barely coherent stream-of-consciousness rant suggesting that women are ungrateful bitches because they don't mine coal, and didn't invent air conditioning or hunt mammoths. Of course, no one posting in the Men's Rights subreddit has done any of those things either, but apparently everyone with a penis gets automatic credit for them.

Here's the post, from some dude called TheGrendler:

We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don't have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?

Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?

How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.

We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.

Shame on you,

You hedonistic, narcissistic, sociopath metastasizing cancer.

Whatever happened to live together die alone?

Damn you ungrateful sluts for enjoying air conditioning, despite the fact that it was invented by a dude! (Probably. I didn't check.) Only dudes should enjoy things invented by other dudes! Jonas Salk was a dude! Only dudes should get the polio vaccine! How do you like your polio, you fancy-shoe wearing bitches!!!?? You should have thought of that before you went and didn't invent the motherfucking polio vaccine!!!

And you can just forget about reading any motherfucking Dostoevsky! Only dudes can read Dostoevsky! You filthy whores stick to Jane Austen!

Sorry, I got carried away.

WTF is an MGTOW? And other weird acronyms and lingo.

Not the real MGTOW logo.

For newcomers to this blog, here's a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you'll encounter here and in the "manosphere" in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you'll see most often here:

MRA: Men's Rights Activist
MRM: Men's Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men's Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as "men's rights." Unlike the original Men's Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men's Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men's Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men's rights per se; they are opposed to those who've turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking "independence" from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date "western women" and some try to avoid women altogether. As one MGTOW site puts it:

It is basically a statement of independence, and irrelevance - men declaring themselves free of the social expectations of women and western culture as a whole, because both have come to hate men. ... 

Men basically have most of the rights we need, as long as we treat women like they have the plague.  ... If the only way men can avoid "oppressing" all these strong-as-men-but-oh-so-fragile-when-offended princess wannabes is to steer as clear of them as possible, a lot of men are quite ready to do that.

Some other terms and acronyms you'll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. Perpetually dateless guys, though the term "involuntarily celibate" seems to place the blame for this situation on the women who aren't dating these guys rather than on the guys themselves. For those incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. (There are a few female incels, in which case reverse the genders of everything I've said above.)

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them -- e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they've come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: "not all women are like that." Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes -- known as "Game" -- that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on "game" online, though PUA is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old female ploy of "playing hard to get."

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with "foreign women," a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of "Ameriskanks" and other WW.

Hey, where's my comment?! Hint: Spam filter

If you post a comment and don't see it up on the site immediately, that means it's been caught by Blogger's overactive spam filter, which unfortunately I can't shut off. Unless your comment is incredibly foul or otherwise violates my fairly liberal comments policy, I will un-filter it as soon as I see it. Sometimes this will happen quickly, sometimes slowly. I'm not always online.

If your comment is posted and then later vanishes, that means I deliberately deleted it. But unless you've posted something truly awful, or spammy, or you're among the tiny number of those I've banned (which can be counted on one hand), this isn't going to happen to you.

All the problems in the world -- solved!

Adam Smith: Legendary Cockonomist

Sometimes mean people criticize Men's Rightsers for complaining endlessly on the internet without offering any real solutions to the problems they complain about. Well, the meanies can't make that criticism any more. Because now we have what is essentially a solution to all the world's problems, in the form of a five-point "agenda for Nice Guys" set forth by a fellow called genepool on NiceGuy's MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Forum. It starts off with a bang:

Elimination/reduction of welfare and government's socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don't pick you shouldn't get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children.

You may have to read this one twice to understand all the nuances. Anyone having trouble with the cock-centric economic theory here should get out Adam Smith's Wealth of Cocks and remind themselves how the Invisible Handjob of the market really works. I quote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their cocks. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their hard, throbbing dicks, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of our cunts.

Cocks are led by an invisible handjob, or maybe a blow job if she's drunk, to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, to advance the interest of the society. And possibly to stick it in her butt if she's a real slut.

Let's skip point 2 for a moment to quickly cover the last three: 

Privatization of marriage. ...  I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?

Damn you, genepool! You have foiled my plans!

Exactly. Any man who wants to put his dick in a woman who is not his wife, or to perhaps rub it on a Double Whopper at the local Burger King, should be free to do so.

The remaining two points: Legalization of prostitution, and limits on child support for rich dudes. Both total no brainers.

But it is point 2 that is genepool's truly visionary notion:

Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You're rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn't kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won't do that out of altruism. You need [incentives]. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it's consensual, it's win win and it should be legal.

Win win? Something this brilliant deserves at least four wins. Win win win win. A solution to nice guy loneliness AND the Holocaust! Imagine Anne Frank, sitting quietly up in that attic, scribbling away in that diary of hers. What if she could have gotten on the internet and snagged herself a sweet, shy pedophile in, say, New Jersey? That's at least slightly preferable to a death camp, right? Problem solved!

Genepool, you are a genius.

Hey ladies!

Actual message sent to a women identifying herself as a feminist on an actual dating site, by someone who evidently thought it would totally charm her into hopping in bed with him:

Against my better judgment upon seeing the ‘f’ word, I read your profile in full.  I generally eat feminists for breakfast. My favorite meal is a third-wave feminist with a sprinkling of postmodern-pretentiousness (2% caramel version)— quite the delicacy. Anyway, we have absolutely fuck-all in common, I can’t see us ever getting along, and the sex would probably be some sort of power struggle for dominance. I honestly don’t even know why you bother with feminism.

Nothing turns the ladies on more than condescending hostility! I found this on A(n)nals of Online Dating, a treasure trove of interpersonal internet douchebaggery. (Thanks to Amanda Marcotte for alerting me to the existence of this site.)

Sharing is caring!

Hey, Man Boobz fans. This little blog of mine, three months old, is starting to reach critical mass. But I could use your help. If you enjoy what you're reading here, please post about it elsewhere! Some of you guys are tweeting or Facebooking posts of mine, and I appreciate it -- a lot. I've added a little "Share This" button that makes it extra E-Z to post to all sorts of social networking sites. (It would be especially great if any Redditors here could submit some of my posts to some relevant subreddits there.)

And if you do click that little Share This button, you can have this conversation with a friend:

You: Today I helped make Man Boobz bigger!

Friend: Wait, what? Did you bake John Travolta a pie or something?

You: No, silly. Not that kind of manboobs. Man Boobz, the blog!

Friend: OMFG you are so cool!

I thank you in advance!

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks, Reddit submitters! And tweeters!

Johnny's Turn to Cry

Boo fucking hoo.

As many of you have no doubt noticed -- what with the literally dozens of news stories and op-ed pieces on the subject that have appeared in the media in the last week or so -- incoming Speaker of the House John Boenher is a bit of a weeper. While some have scoffed at his public crying jags, quite a few people, including some who don't like his politics at all, have stepped forward to defend his right to cry.

Women have been especially quick to jump to his defense, at least when it comes to the crying thing. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus announced that she wanted "to celebrate the lachrymose speaker-to-be and hope that he helps make the world safe for public crying." Rachel Maddow devoted a whole segment of her show to a defense of his shows of emotion -- while pointing out that while Boehner has been moved to tears by the plight of American schoolchildren, his policies will inevitably result in massive budget cuts for education.

But the most, er, original interpretation of the whole crying thing comes from one commenter on NiceGuy's MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum, who sees this female defense of Boehner's  right to cry  as ... an evil female plot to make him look bad. As Phloridian put it in a recent posting:

By now many of us have become aware of the crying episodes of John Boehner who is soon to become the next Speaker of the House.

Women all over the media have been insisting that it is alright, but snickering about it covertly. The piece on 60 Minutes has virtually doomed any chance of becoming President and he is beginning to become a laughing stock.

This is why women are not to be trusted. They will encourage men to cry, and expose their vulnerabilities all in an effort to weaken the man. That's what's being done here and it sickens me.

Women are devious creatures indeed! It makes me want to cry.

Masculine inadequacies drive women nuts! Also, turtles.

Notice they are only attacking him, not her. Clearly, turtles are misandrists!

Sperm: It's What Women Crave!

They want your sperm.

Remember that scene in Dr. Strangelove in which General Jack D. Ripper starts ranting about a  "international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?" Gen. Ripper, of course, was worried about the purported evils of fluoridation. Also, he was a fictional character. But now the "manosphere" has done him one better. A recent post on the Muslim Patriarch blog suggests, with utmost sincerity, that women never truly love men -- they just love our most precious bodily fluid. Sperm. 

Yep. Fellas, apparently we're nothing but giant sperm repositories to the ladies. So what evidence has the Muslim Patriarch, aka Samvel Arshavir, got for his novel theory? He claims that his wife seems to treat him worst after the two of them have sex, when his "sperm reserves" are largely depleted. (Emphasis added.)

On the days immediately following an ejaculation, my wife loses all love and respect for me. She treats me like garbage. ... I used to think that I have done something wrong for her to so suddenly lose all love for me. ...

When I finally understood what was going on, when I understood that it all depended on the amount of sperm stored inside of me, I saw the humor in this love that everyone talks about. ... Her love is just a way that nature tells me I have a lot of sperm in my reserves.

Arshavir notes that he hasn't exactly done the scientific experimentation to prove his new theory. But he has made some careful observations:

My idea of 'sperm reserve' isn't related to anything that scientists say. It is something I have found with experience. If you ejaculate twice or more in one day, the next day your reserves will be around 10%. Women have two terms for this level: douche bag and loser. On day 2 your reserves will go up to 25%. Day 3 they will be at 40%. Day 4 at 50%. As your levels pass 50%, women will start respecting you and finding you attractive. At around two to three weeks of abstinence your levels will have gone to 90%. And when you get a wet dream ... you can then know that your levels reached 100%. The night before the wet dream you will be at your most irresistible-to-women phase.

As a former horny teenage boy, I respectfully must disagree with some of his calculations here: the male body seems capable of producing almost endless quantities of sperm upon demand.

But this is a question for the scientists amongst us to debate. Arshavir  has bigger fish to fry. His revelations about ladies and sperm have led him to question some of the most fundamental tenets of heterosexual love.

When I have 10 days worth of sperm saved inside of me, when my wife wants to make love to me three times a day, it doesn't any longer make me feel good about myself, because I now see that it is not an accomplishment. It is not because I am an awesome guy. It is just her animal nature responding to my biology.

This knowledge has freed me from the biggest fraud of our age. The fraud that tells us men to seek happiness in a woman's love. What a joke.

Ah, but there is a complication here. Unlike sperm-loving women, Arshavir argues, men still can feel love for the ladies. True love, not just crude ovary lust. The only trouble is that those sperm-loving creatures don't really deserve our love.

Ours is the spiritual love for another being. Theirs is the love for our biology. Their love for our sperm reserves could have easily been a love for big muscles. In both cases it is a purely physical love--nothing that deserves our spiritual love.

So where can a poor fellow find true love today? Dudes.

And I now realize why men like W. S. Maugham become homosexual after delving deep into the nature of women. Once you know that romantic love doesn't make sense to women ... the next logical step is to find a man to love.

If you look for true love, you can only find it in another man.

Wait -- "another man?" Seriously? That sounds a little -- what's the word I'm looking for here? -- gay. Isn't this blog titled "Muslim Patriarch?" But don't worry. Our intrepid patriarchal blogger hasn't gone all gay on us. He is quick to add the obligatory "NO HOMO," in the parlance of our times. Love other men, but just do it in a totally non-gay way.

The idea of having sex with another man is utterly disgusting to me. The mistake of men like Maugham is that they fail to separate love from sex. ...

The correct thing to do as I see it is to save our deep, romantic and spiritual feelings of love for male friends, while maintaining sexual relationships with women. ...

Apparently, men are from Mars, women are for penis.

[A] man's romantic love is completely wasted on women. ... Had you used your love on another man, you'd have gotten a loving friend for life. With a woman, no matter how much love you spend on her, her love for you will be no more than your sperm-reserve levels. ...

A healthy culture would have taught us men to love other men, and would have taught us not to take women seriously.

This man's wife is lucky indeed.

EDIT: More on ladies and their sperm-love here.

Two "manosphere" blogs have now posted the contact information of Assange's accusers

Two influential blogs in the "manosphere" -- there may be more, I don't know -- have now posted the names and contact information of Julian Assange's accusers; I won't link to the posts. Clearly the purpose of doing this is to encourage harassment of these women. Disgraceful.

EDIT: Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments for now.

Women: Completely useless, or only partly?

Women: They can't even walk properly

Have you ever sat down to write up a little list of pros and cons, only to find that you can't think of any pros at all? That was the dilemma faced by a number of regulars on the grotesquely misnamed NiceGuy MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forums when the subject of "what women offer" to men came up the other day. Nightstorm introduced the topic thusly:

It just seems women cannot offer a man anything these days. The days of "well.. I have a pussy", just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.

Don't I know it! I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with the ladies that go just like this:

INTERIOR, FANCY RESTAURANT, EVENING

DAVID sits eating a delicious steak while his date, a SEXY LADY, picks nervously at her tiny salad.

DAVID: 

So why am I paying attention to you?

SEXY LADY

(brightly)

Well, I have a pussy.

DAVID: 

A pussy, you say?

SEXY LADY

Yeah. Right down here, in my pants.

DAVID: 

That might work with some guys, but that it ain't gonna work with me! Pussy just doesn't cut it any more! 

SEXY LADY:

But, pussy?

DAVID

(Holding up hand)

Meet Pamela Hand-erson -- the only pussy I'll ever need!

SEXY LADY quietly weeps.

DAVID
Oh, by the way, you're paying for dinner.

And ... scene!

Nightstorm, a fair and open-minded fellow, did concede that women had some good points, a few of them anyway, and set out to write up a list of pros and cons. First, the pros. Read this carefully, ladies. These are the only good things you bring to the table:

Pros:

Pussy
Emotional support (if its a decent chick) which can ranged from listening to you, to snuggling, ect.
Sammichs
Something cute to look at while they are young
A cure for lonliness

Yes, "lonliness." Spell-checking is for bitches and hoes.

Predictably, Nightstorm's "Cons" list was a lot longer. Some selected highlights:

Bankrupcy. A chick will cause your wealth to go DOWN. One of my cousins knew a guy who would literally be a millionare if his wife didn't spend.
Bitching. Yes, they nag and vex your soul to death when they do not get their little ways.
Manipulation and Control. What? You don't want to do the dishs for me? No sex tonight!!!
...
Loud. Women have high pitched voices, who's bright idea was it to use it all the time making screetching noises?
Trashy. Once they get what they want (marriage), then they stop working on themselves. Now they let themselves go.
Divorce. See Bankrupcy. Once you wake up to these ho's, they have alittle secret.. their taking HALF of what you own.
Cheaters. They will go sleep with other men if things don't work out with you, you don't mind.. right?
Entitlement. They deserve it all because they have been born with a pussy hole.
Dangerous. You can't be you around women. One false word and it could be jail time for you till the manginas say its enough.

Naturally, others piped up with their own observations. Not many "pros." Lots of "cons." Some found it hard to think of a single good thing to say about women. IHateRegistering summed up his feelings with an enigmatic one-liner, declaring women: "Reused and retreaded wares at government-mandated retail prices." (Uh, what?) Cherishthehate, living up to his name, concluded that women were more or less entirely useless:

I have let this question ruminate for the last couple of hours while doing other stuff. Basically I came up with nothing.

Pussy? Meh. ...  I once thought of trying gay just to get a decent blowjob. (jk of course :) ) ...

Companionship? Again, I have known very few women who you could have a decent conversation with that didn't focus on clothes, TV or their friends' love lives. ...

Women basically contribute nothing to a relationship, the onus is always on the man to keep them happy. If you ever ask a woman what she brings to the table in a relationship you will be mostly met with blank stares. It is a total non sequitur for them.

True, a couple of commenters did stand up to defend the virtues of women. Well, sort of. Seems like the ladies can be worth keeping around, so long as you keep them in check. As fschmidt put it:

I would like to remind the gentlemen here that most of the cons listed are the result of mistakes made by men, mistakes like giving women the vote. When properly managed, women are an asset.

Ah, giving women the right to vote. I always knew that was a terrible idea.

That and modern sanitation.

All I want for Christmas is low self-esteem

Ho, Ho, Hoes!

Don't let it be said that Men Going Their Own Way lack Christmas spirit. On the MGTOW message boards today hanzblinx asks the rest of the fellows to "suggest a holiday gift for my gf." Nothing fancy, just something that makes her feel special. Well, not that special. Actually, not very special at all:

OK I know the first answers will be..

apron
oven mitts
mop
dustcloth
g-string

but what exactly can I get my GF for Christmas for about $30 that would not inflate her ego too much? Is there a book? A CD? Anything?

Hmm. Given that she's dating a dude who hangs out on the MGTOW message boards, I wouldn't think there would be much danger of hansblinx's alleged girlfriend having an excess of self-esteem, or really any at all, but what sort of gift do you give a gal that will help keep her ego permanently deflated? A framed picture of a female friend you think looks prettier than her? Sexy lingerie several sizes too small? A "Does My Fat Ass Make My Ass Look Fat" bumper sticker? An "I'm a Cunt" t-shirt? A "Shut Your Whore Mouth" needlepoint kit?

Actually, that last one sort of rocks.

G.I. Jane, You Ignorant Slut

Typical female soldier, apparently.

So the fine fellows on The Spearhead have taken up the issue of women in the military.
DevilDog, a Marine, started off the discussion with a clear statement of his central thesis, that most women in the military are "USELESS ... god damn whores." Here are some of the highlights, by which I mean lowlights. (In this and following comments I've bolded the bits that grabbed my attention.) 

[T]he majority of the women in the military… ARE USELESS! … women cannot pass the PT standards for the average male, okay, so they lower em for women, many women cannot even pass the lowered standards, they don’t get kicked out though ...

These god damn whores walk around with an over-inflated ego because of this and think they’re GI Janes who can kick anyones ass… A lot of these girls are ugly as SH!T, but are given a lot of attention because we’re all horny and wanna fuck. We call ‘em desert queens, a 4/10 Female gets attention and thinks shes a 9/10..

You guys wouldn’t believe some of the stories I have: women getting gangbanged by 10 Marines, same woman who has a Husband and children. Women blowing officers for privileges, while her family is at home.. Believe me, IT’S RAMPANT. ...

Oh and SO MANY F***ING WOMEN CHEAT on their husbands while they’re deployed fighting in Afghan. Unfaithful whores.

We MEN have fought for thousands of years, and continue to fight and protect, then some fucking slut comes along and does 1/100th of the job we do, and is praised by the white knights, media, and general american population as a f***ing GI Jane empowered goddess and shit.

Taking up the contrary position was ... well, nobody. One brave soul stood up to say that, while he basically agreed with DevilDog's post, he noted that on a trip he made to an air force base that "I expected the women to look like blocks, but I was quickly disabused of the expectation. The women were overwhelmingly good looking." This small divergence from the majority view earned his comment 61 downvotes.

A few others weighed in with thoughts on women in the corporate world. According to Keyster,

There always seems to be a few decent women who “get it”, but typically most of them get very little done and stir up trouble when they try to work. Their blatant incompetence is always excused because they’re women. If you complain about them, you’ll be the one who’s punished. You have to tolerate them, cover for them and pretend they’re good at what they do.

39 upvotes for this bit of wisdom. Joe added:
  

I’m not in the military but I do work with a lot of women. ... [T]hey clearly do not have comparable problem solving ability or inclination. When it comes to figuring out how to go about something they’re terrible. Their strategy is always to bring more people in, have more conference calls, spend more time talking.

50 upvotes for this one. So women are useless in the military or in the civilian workplace. What about in the home? Nothingbutthetruth, thinking outside the box, suggested that if men were physically capable of giving birth "I am sure they would [do] a better job [as wives and mothers] than women as with everything."

So, in summary: women bad, men good, even at giving birth (if they could).

Oh, by the way, my title for this post is a Saturday Night Live reference. A really old SNL reference. Fuck, I'm old.

Also, if you decide to read the whole depressing Spearhead discussion, you will notice someone posting there as "David F." That person is not me.