 |
| If you don't have one of these, you're screwed. |
Others are speculating on what it all means for men like them, and the ladies they think are filthy whores.
Like a lot of those who've convinced themselves that the end is of civilization is near, our Happy Bachelors seemed kind of stoked at the notion of everything going to shit. Because, you see, clear-sighted, no-nonsense dudes like them will obviously thrive in the tough new environment, while wimpy females and those who love them will be forced to beg for scraps from their new MGTOW overlords.
The perhaps appropriately named recluse sees some hope in the economic collapse of towns like Flint Michigan:
[E]xtreme social poverty ... will end frivolous bullshit like catering to the feminists or princess mentality ball busting bitches.
Apparently when mens jobs get harder they begin to get more efficient and genuinely self protective.
This is how manginas can be transformed on a wholesale basis.
Wholesale transformation? Uh oh. I don't know exactly what recluse is getting at here, but it doesn't sound good for the manginas of the world.
Still, there is hope for you, ladies.! Well, for some of you. Not many, I'd guess. To be perfectly honest, ladies, if you're reading this blog here, you're probably not on the list.
As boogyman explains, after the shit hits the fan,
Quality wives, widows, and virgins will be looked after by good men just like in the Biblical days. Thug lovers, welfare mothers, and feminists will have to fend for themselves (Daddy government will be MIA). The laws of the jungle will sort everything out in short order.
So get that last bit of thug-loving in, gals, while you still have a chance.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
That law of the jungle thing only works if you keep women away from the guns.
ReplyDeleteI love it. MRAs are always pretending they're firmly grounded in the real world, but they have to constantly fantasize about things like the apocalypse so that they have an escapist fantasy in which they're not worthless pieces of shit.
ReplyDeleteSilly Elizabeth. Women can't shoot guns. We'd menstruate all over the barrel.
ReplyDeleteDespite being a non-virgin feminist who isn't married to anyone, I anticipate doing quite well in any "law of the jungle"-type situations. I know a bunch of hippies with guns and black belts. :)
Aren't these the same guys who bitch about having to hunt mammoths and wrestle tigers in the caveman days for the benefit of women? And they're looking forward to the post-apocalypse, when they'll have to (presumably) wrestle zombies and hunt mutants to protect women?
ReplyDeleteSilly Elizabeth. Women can't shoot guns. We'd menstruate all over the barrel.
ReplyDeleteThis one time, at NRA camp...
Seriously though, this whole fantasy betrays a profound split from reality: humans are social animals. We survive in groups or not at all. "Rugged individualists" don't exist except in someone's imagination.
I would imagine thugs and the people who love them lovers will be quite well positioned in any Apocalyptic-type scenario.
ReplyDeleteY'all do not want to know what image popped into my head when you said that Ozy.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure that "using gun as dildo" contradicts very strongly with "always treat a gun as if it is loaded." See, this is why women are bad at guns.
ReplyDeleteHide and Seek-- Depends. In the very short term, yes. If they're charismatic enough to acquire a group of lesser thugs, yes. But a lone thug is going to get his ass kicked by a group of betas and manginas who know how to cooperate and, y'know, grow food.
Or basically "what SallyStrange said."
:::I would imagine thugs and the people who love them lovers will be quite well positioned in any Apocalyptic-type scenario.:::
ReplyDelete^This. A salient point the Happy Bachelors seem to be missing.
see but here's what these guys fail to recognize.
ReplyDelete1) you can be an anti-statist and a feminist at the same time, they aren't mutually exclusive
2) Some feminists are card carrying members of the NRA, and they hunt, shoot etc
3) while men were busy hunting the mammoth or some other such bullshit during the caveman days women were busy gathering edible plants, roots, and berries which were generally easier access than the mammoth and therefore sustained the pre-agricultural people more often than did the meat
4) the reason modern humans crave social interaction is because our evolutionary ancestors survived by living in family groups and therefore those who are loners are going to be more likely to get killed no matter how good their personal survival instincts are
Ozymandias- If nothing else, the classic thug should have a head start on getting over the distaste of having to fuck people up in order to remain alive.
ReplyDeleteOr, to paraphrase what (my total dreamy crush of a) science historian, James Burke, said in 1978: A time will come when you must either lay down and die or make someone else die, and what in your quiet. suburban. life. has prepared you to make that choice?
I wonder how closely correleated MRAs are libertarians. They always seem to think that, at the end of the world, they'll be the ones who are the "fittest" and survive.
ReplyDeleteAnarchy must sound great to people who think they have nothing to lose. (And who think they could hold onto anything they could take. Considering MRAs almost never identify as Alphaholes, their little fantasy seems just sad. Like a toddler stomping a foot and saying, "You'll be sorry.")
"3) while men were busy hunting the mammoth or some other such bullshit during the caveman days women were busy gathering edible plants, roots, and berries which were generally easier access than the mammoth and therefore sustained the pre-agricultural people more often than did the meat"
ReplyDeleteActually it's been proven that our ancient relatives hunted in groups, like, the entire tribe hunted as a group. You can't really take down a mammoth with "just" the boys. Men being stronger doesn't mean shit against a mammoth. We likely outsmarted giant prey and set traps for them.
@keiko44 - "women were busy gathering edible plants, roots, and berries"
ReplyDeleteYeah - and those things caused the cavemen to get diarrhea!
HA!
Good grief ScareCrow-if I had not seen your photo, I would think you are a 12 year old boy who is less mature than my 12 year old nephew.
ReplyDelete@ScareCrow "Yeah - and those things caused the cavemen to get diarrhea!"
ReplyDeleteOkay number 1, I didn't actually say that, Briget did. I thought by putting it in quotes you'd see that I was QUOTING someone but I'm clearly expecting too much here. Use your eyes and brains together next time.
As for your reply. Really? That's all you got? Was that even coherent? No.
@bridget
ReplyDeleteThere are feminists and conservative/right-wing women that post on conservative blogs and frequently they have problems with these MRAs because these MRAs post there too. One of them ( Whiskey ) was banned from Pajamas Media last year.
@tawaen
These guys expect that anarchy and chaos will come, like many members of apocalyptic cults, but most of them want it after their death because they are coward and don't want to live in a place were there is chaos.
How exactly is one who maintains a brutal force based fiefdom not a thug? It seems to me that thug loving girls (if such exist) would thrive in and enjoy such a set up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, my welfare mother has a chest full of guns and enough canned food to last for years (the woman has greenbeans canned in glass jars from her '94 harvest). Apparantly MGTOW do not understand that poor women, particulary rural and immigrant poor women, actually have far better basic skills in these areas. They have years and years of experience. I suspect these MGTOW have never actually been poor and never seen the badass survival skills that poor mothers deploy every day to live and feed their kids. Post apocolyptic living? Fools, poor women already do these things. These rich people fantasizing about being poor remind me of Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain. They romanticize what they have not lived and do not understand.
Sidenote on anarchy: Anarchy as a political theory does not equal for chaos or free for all battle royale. Most anarchists believe in coperation and valuing other people. There are even socialist anarchists. Anarchy=no state/no government. I does not necessarily mean egoistic survivalism. While I think anarchy as a political theory has a number of shortcomings, I do not want to see anarchy portrayed in stereotypes.
@keiko44
ReplyDeleteThis is true--our ancestors did set traps for large animals, particularly before weapon technology became very advanced (a lot of early human's tools would have required literally walking up to the mammoth and stabbing it, which I could see ending badly). One of the ways they hunted was by driving herds off of cliffs. Strength was pretty irrelevant.
Before that, humans were mostly scavengers using crude tools to harvest the meat from already dead animals.
(Thx early-human-anth class! And I never thought this knowledge would come in handy!)
Tarma says "No knowledge is ever wasted." Choco although how come they never talk about the digging stick?
ReplyDeleteJust to chime in as well, on the issue of hunter-gatherers...as I recall, it has been fairly well established both through historical research and through anthropological observation of extant hunter-gatherer tribes, that with a few notable exceptions (the Inuit, for example), the vast majority of the nutrition consumed by the tribe comes from gathering, er..female work.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the meat-acquisition, while more highly valued (perhaps because of it's relative rarity), contributed far less to what was actually being eaten.
Plus, as many people have pointed out already, it's not like a group of women, properly trained and prepared, would actually be any more incapable of bringing down a mammoth or finding their own food. Especially if modern weaponry was still available.
The power differentials between Mammoth-->Group of men and Mammoth-->Group of similarly armed and trained women would hardly be different at all, from the mammoth's perspective.
avpd, there is a difference between anarchy and anti-statism. I personally believe that our country would be better without the government and I am a feminist who probably agrees with a lot of what you say.
ReplyDeleteAnd who is to say that women did not assist with the mammoth hunting back in the day?
ReplyDeleteNature is full of examples of female hunters in the predator class.
"They romanticize what they have not lived and do not understand."
ReplyDeleteI knew someone like this. Tons of talk about The End of The World and how he would survive and be a leader and blahblah blahity blah. Except, he was anything but a leader. He didn't want to get a job, would mooch off of his girlfriend who had to put up with his nasty psychoanalysis of her and her family, and refused to do anything. Yet his homelessness was him being a "rugged individualist", not a lazy ass.
"Apparently MGTOW do not understand that poor women, particularly rural and immigrant poor women, actually have far better basic skills in these areas. They have years and years of experience."
This, sooo this. Also, there's large parts of the world that have no electricity, clean water, and scarce food - The Apocalypse As Theorized By Dudes is a reality for quite a few people on this planet. People still manage to survive - not well, but they do. One person's "dire poverty in another country" is another person's "apocalypse".
My feeling is that if it takes dire poverty to prove yourself, there's nothing stopping you from giving up everything you have to live in poverty. You don't have to wait until the end of the world.
Just to chime in as well, on the issue of hunter-gatherers...as I recall, it has been fairly well established both through historical research and through anthropological observation of extant hunter-gatherer tribes, that with a few notable exceptions (the Inuit, for example), the vast majority of the nutrition consumed by the tribe comes from gathering, er..female work.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but it probably gave them all diarrhea!
HA!
Man, that never gets old.
> My feeling is that if it takes dire poverty to prove yourself, there's nothing stopping you from giving up everything you have to live in poverty. You don't have to wait until the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of MGTOW, that's exactly what some of them advocate, although it's generally based on the bizarre rationale that by not earning enough to pay taxes, they're going to deprive our evil feminist communist gummint of the revenue it needs to, you know, continue being evil.
Captain Bathrobe,
ReplyDeleteDamn you! I can't be laughing like that in the office. It will make my co-workers suspect that I'm wasting time commenting on blogs or something...
plus, you almost got coffee all over my computer screen.
@Captain Bathrobe - I'd like to chime in as well -
ReplyDeleteit has been fairly well established both through historical research and through anthropological observation of extant hunter-gatherer tribes, that with a few notable exceptions (the Inuit, for example, the vast majority of them...
... HAD DIARRHEA!!!
HA HAAAA!!
Well, there was probably more than one cause for the diarrhea, like chronic infestation by parasites, lack of sanitation, unclean sources of drinking water, etc, etc, and so on and so forth. No reason to scapegoat the berries.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is pretty likely that if a hunter was out hunting and saw some awesome food stuffs just lying around they would transition quickly to gathering. Because tasty food knows no arbitrary gender divisions.
My understanding, though I admit I don't know much about this stuff, is that women were generally gatherers and not hunters because they were pregnant and/or dealing with babies pretty much constantly. Hard to sneak up on a mammoth carrying a colicky baby.
ReplyDeleteI'm an archaeologist. Berries and veggies were absolutely important parts of the hunter-gatherer diet. Dependence solely on meat in most environments will maim you from malnutrition pretty quickly, and being maimed as a hunter-gatherer is basically a death sentence unless you have other people around to help you out.
ReplyDeleteHide and Seek, you're only partially right. The levels of disease that we might expect to see today do not really translate back to the world when everyone was a hunter-gatherer. The compactness of modern people has increased the ability of things like parasites to spread. Basically, imagine knowing only 100 people in your whole entire life, and spending the biggest part of your life with only about 20 of them, while simultaneously being able to move to a new, basically pristine area whenever the area you are in gets particularly nasty. Not saying that there was no disease but that there was far less of it than we have today.
David, no, absolutely not. If women were constantly pregnant and/or dealing with babies, nothing would have ever gotten done. Which is not to say that women were more important than men or that they did more than men, but that the dudes couldn't just leave their Quivering brood at home while they went off to hunt a mammoth, leaving the ladies to somehow wrangle 50 children while also trying to do basic things like process that mammoth for present and future consumption. If women had too many babies, they probably resorted to infanticide (because it is better to spare a baby than to no longer exist as a tribe, which is what it could come down to at times). Other than that, hunter-gatherers weren't completely ignorant about the process of sex and probably had poultices to block the cervix and a knowledge of herbs that could help prevent pregnancy or induce abortion, as well as social norms around abstinence that both men AND women followed.
thewhatifgirl: Ah. Well, I think I got those ideas from a book that was twenty years old, so thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteOf course my favorite speculative topic about ancient humans is the 10,000 year (or whatever it was) overlap when there were both neanderthals and cro magnons. Did they, you know, get it on? Did the neanderthals look at the cave art of the cro magnons and say to themselves, dammit, how come when I draw a buffalo it doesn't come out all cool like that? Why can't I get my spearheads as sharp as those cro magnons? Fucking stuck up snobs with their pointy spears and their fancypants buffalo drawings.
@David
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm pretty sure the various varieties of humans were interbreeding...and upon checking, Wikipedia, the infallible Source, confirms this to be true. (Link)
And, I agree. I always liked fiction about that sort of thing, too. I think I recall one such novel that involved interactions with a tribe of pre-homo-sapien humans of the 'aquatic ape' sort. Can't remember anything else about it, though.
...in before Scarecrow posts another 'zing' based on whatifgirl's "berries and veggies"
I believe Ozzy Osbourne is part Neanderthal, as are a lot of people of European descent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I thought the current theory was that we chased our food down until it basically died of exhaustion...?
"Considering MRAs almost never identify as Alphaholes, their little fantasy seems just sad. Like a toddler stomping a foot and saying, "You'll be sorry.")"
ReplyDeleteAnd why they're against abortion, but also against paying child support. It's basically "I don't want to be a responsible adult, mommy. YOU do it for me!"
There's a reason that their idea of a "quality wife" is basically a mother they can have sex with.
Heh, yeah, I'm married to a man who is part Neanderthal. He even has a brow ridge. Here's a more reliable source for the interbreeding idea, though lots of archaeologists still don't accept it: http://www.archaeology.org/1007/etc/neanderthal.html
ReplyDeleteWell, Cro-Magnons are Homo sapiens sapiens just like us, and lived alongside Neanderthals for up to 40,000 years in some places. But Neanderthals really weren't as stupid as they've been portrayed - they actually had slightly larger brains, for instance. I'm working on a study right now where one of the things I'm trying to figure out is if they were smart enough to have complex floor plans like Homo sapiens sapiens did. And Homo sapiens sapiens didn't start making art (that we know of) in any sort of impressive amount or style until the time when Neanderthals were dying off. So as much as I hate to burst your comical bubble, Neanderthals were really almost just like us other than their slightly different anatomy. The idea of Neanderthals as bumbling brutes is all Victorian racism/speciesism.
But now that I've gotten off of the original subject entirely, my point was that things like cooperation and a lack of division of labor were really important to hunter-gatherers, and they would be important again if there was an apocalypse which only a few people survived. A lot of issues would be different - for instance, we know about the possibilities of agriculture now, while simultaneously having paved over a large portion of good farming land here in the United States - but the basic ideas would be the same. And these doods' "Me first, last, and always" attitudes would get them exiled or outright killed pretty quickly.
Also Neanderthals all had each other's memories, I know because Clan of the Cave Bear says so.
ReplyDeleteOk, I don't really know, but that is what the author says in Clan of the Cave Bear.
Tomb Raider Elizabeth said...
ReplyDelete"That law of the jungle thing only works if you keep women away from the guns"
Part of that law of the jungle thing is that guns are NOT indispensible self defense tools without cheap and ubiquitous ammo.
But then what woman needs a gun?
You all have no problem body slamming a guy nearly twice your weight. You prove it in the movies all the time.
Feminism is only as good as the money and guns that back it up.
That IS the 'law of the jungle'.
Apparantly EWME believes in the truth of the old saying "God didn't make all man equal, Sam Colt did."
ReplyDeleteSo, the "law of the jungle" also excludes tool use and intellegent utilization of resources? I suppose he thinks the jungle looks works like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJu4haeubRo&feature=related (or does that involve too much skill application too?)
Hi! New commenter here, just followed a link here and see there's a lot of enjoyable material!
ReplyDeleteOn survivalism in general: yes, groups win, individuals lose. And hey, not all men think that 'rigged individualists' are the heros; I'm a man, and I take (comic) offense at anyone here who says I have to believe in the lone-cowboy-with-a-gun survivalist myth! :-)
Or, to use a better example: there are guys who are just as downright misogynistic as your favorite radMRA's, and who yet have the undeniable brainpower to understand that these lone survivalist types wouldn't last long in any half decent post-apocalyptic world. My favorite one is The War Nerd on the Post-Apocalyptic World: you don't get much more misogynistic than that, and yet he's smart enough to understand what really might happen to lone cowboys after the Fall.
Great blog, by the way!
I was just thinking about this hunter-gatherer thing: don't forget there were places called "oceans" and saltwater flats in those days. The gatherers weren't just pickin' berries. They were gathering mussels, clams, crabs and all sorts of protein-rich edibles. Also kelp, seaweed--you name it. A beach would have been quite a comfortable place to rest, and salmon were still plenty.
ReplyDelete