Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum

 

This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I've borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!

The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).

The Something Awful folks have gathered up quite a few of his most intriguing posts, and many others of equal value. Head over there now and enjoy. 

Guys, you're not helping: The Dear Woman video

 

The video above, which has been making the rounds of the manosphere, is one of the creepiest and most off-putting things I’ve seen since watching Dogtooth a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I take that back: Dogtooth was much less creepy and off-putting. I was so repelled by what I saw in this video that it literally took me several tries to get through the whole thing. And no, it’s not some weird misogynistic rant by the likes of Bernard Chapin. Oh, no no no. The misogynists of the world are as repelled by the video as I am, though for radically different reasons. Titled “Dear Woman,” the video was actually put together by a couple of self-described “conscious men” who think they’re doing a great favor to the women of the world.

To which I can only say: Guys, stop it, you’re not helping.

If you can stomach it, the video is worth watching in its entirety. If not, here’s what you’re missing: The video is the work of a couple of New Age gurus -- Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks, Ph.D – who, with the help of a little gaggle of guys, have written a little manifesto “apologizing” to the women of the world for all the bad shit done by men to women over the centuries. Or, as they put it:

I feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.

The first step in “making amends,” evidently, was to gather together a group of men – some of whom seem to have been roped into it in the middle of a garden party -- and to somehow convince them to read out loud the entire text of this manifesto. (The full text is here, but it's much creepier when it's read out loud.)

There is something about this manifesto, and the men reading it, that is so “off” that it may well make your skin crawl, and make you wonder how many of the men in the video have dead bodies secreted away in the crawl spaces under their homes. A female friend I showed the video to could only make it through the first couple of minutes before switching it off in horror; one commenter on Metafilter reported that it “made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and not in a good way. Eeew.”

The creepyist, skin-crawliest part of the video has to be the section in which the assembled men talk about women’s bodies:

I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we worship each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, and I respect that your body belongs to you. …

I honor your capacity to listen to your body and its needs for food, rest and playtime.

I feel confident that I speak for many when I say "ewww." Somehow I’m reminded of Saturday Night Live’s hot-tub-loving “lovers.”

It’s worth pointing out that the written manifesto refers to men and women “nurture[ing]” one another’s body; apparently no one noticed that the dude reading this passage in the video had turned nurturing into “worship.”

As one commenter on Metafilter put it:

“We worship women" sounds like something Buffalo Bill would have said if he had a PR agent. My guess is that they're sickos who seem really earnest at first but it turns out that they're actually trying to collect used tampons for onanistic purposes or something.

So what is it, aside from all this worshiping, that makes the video so creepy? Part of the problem is that these “conscious men” are, in their own way, as patronizing and sexist as any manosphere dudes “mansplaining” about how all women only want to fuck alpha guys. Women, in their view, are inherently peaceful earth-mother types. “I commit now to … honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine,” the guys tell us. “I honor your deep connection to the earth.” 

The manifesto is overflowing with this kind of shit. No matter how “New Age” these guys think they are, these are some truly ancient, and quite thoroughly retrograde, notions.

But that’s just what makes them wrong and misguided. What is it that causes viewers to pick up that whole serial-killer vibe?

I think the answer to this can be found in a book called The Gif tof Fear by security expert Gavin de Becker. The book attempts to explain why our intuitions about creepy people are so often correct. There’s a good reason you feel uneasy around certain people; that’s your unconscious picking up on real, if hard to pin down, signals of danger.

De Becker also lays out some of the techniques predators use in an attempt to allay the suspicions of those they’re trying to victimize. One of the sneakiest? The unsolicited promise, which often means the very opposite of what is said. When someone tells you, out of the blue, that they “aren’t going to hurt you,” it’s often a very good sign that that’s exactly what they’re going to do. When someone feels the need to tell you, apropos of nothing, that he “honor[s] the beauty and integrity of your body” and “respect[s] that your body belongs to you,” you may well want to run screaming. 

Even more than the unsolicited promises, I think it’s the unsolicited apologies in the Dear Woman video – so similar in intent to unsolicited promises -- are a large part of what is setting off alarm bells in so many viewers. When a young guy in the video takes personal responsibility “for dragging you into … wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them,” that’s just plain … weird, given that (unless he’s some young despot I’ve never heard of) he’s not actually responsible for any of this.

The “unsolicited promise” is similar to what de Becker calls “loan sharking” – offering unsolicited “help” in order to make victims feel obligated in some way to their unwanted helpers. In the manifesto/video, this “help” is abstract, but the strategy seems to be the same:

From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life.

 

Uh, who the fuck asked you to treat anyone’s heart as a “sacred temple?”

The manifesto/video is also filled with examples of “forced teaming,” another strategy favored by predators who want to convince their victims that they are in fact working together to do the very same thing:

I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.

(For a fuller explanation of some of de Becker’s ideas, take a look at this post on saying “no” on Captain Awkward’s excellent blog, which I’ve drawn on heavily here.)

But there’s something else about the video that adds to the sense that something is not right here: no matter how earnest all the men in the video are trying to sound, none of them (except perhaps the two ringleaders) seem to really believe the ridiculous things they’re saying. Instead, they seem to be, with varying degrees of insincerity, mouthing a series of essentially meaningless New Age platitudes – in short, simply saying what they think women want to hear.

No one is buying this bullshit, guys. Give it up.

--

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.

Earthquakes and Ideologues

A scene in Haiti, after its earthquake.

Sometimes The Spearhead, probably the internet's leading angry-man site, seems like a giant interactive game of "pin the blame on the feminists." When uprisings broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt , you may recall, W. F. Price -- head honcho at The Spearhead -- suggested that the unrest in both countries was a male reaction to the excesses of feminism and female power.

Now he's returned with an even stranger article, comparing  the current disaster in Japan with the very different outcome of last year's earthquake in Haiti-- and blaming women in general and feminists in particular for the far more lethal outcome in Haiti.

You might think that the staggering death toll in Haiti -- estimates range from 92,000 to more than 300,000 --  might have something  to do with the fact that it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with a weak and corrupt government and almost nothing in the way of intrastructure.  And that Japan's relative resiliance in the face of an even more powerful earthquake might have something to do with the fact that it's a wealthy nation -- the world's third most powerful economy, with a GDP per capita about 30 times greater than Haiti's -- with a great deal of experience in handling earthquakes.

But Price has a rather different, and highly peculiar, explanation: Haiti suffered more because it's a  "matriachal" country, unlike properly "patriarchal" Japan. Comparing  "matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster," Price writes that

in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, [while] Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. ...

Price goes on to argue that Japan is doing better by its men as well. While in Haiti in the aftermath of the quake, the UN and some relief organizations targeted aid towards women -- who tend to literally get pushed aside in the mad scramble for food supplies otherwise -- Price argues that

Japanese men ... have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.

Let's set aside for a moment that it is a tad early to be declaring, er, "mission accomplished" in the Japan crisis, especially with the specter of a nuclear reactor meltdown looming. Price is a man with an agenda, and he moves fairly quickly to his grand conclusion: The two disasters, he argues,

give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

Yes, that's right. Feminism is the party of helplessness, disease, homelessness and starvation. Anyone who's just made the argument he made really shouldn't be offering any opinions on the sanity of others.

Before we get into a critique of Price's argument, such as it is, let's pause for a moment to ask how his novel thesis was received by the Spearhead regulars. While a few commenters did take him to task for ignoring economics, others took his absurd argument and ran with it. (This is The Spearhead, after all.) Alucin declared,

Feminism is a crime against humanity. What happened in Haiti regarding food distribution will be repeated again and again as long as feminism prevails. Fighting feminism is something good people do on behalf of humanity. The men and women of Japan will get their lives back together again far more quickly than the matriarchal people of Haiti.

The future is patriarchal. It’s just a matter of which form it will take and when the West will re-masculate.

Epoetker took it a step further, adding a bit of racism to the misogynistic mix:

Haiti is a land of men who look like men but think like women. Japan is a land of men who look like women but think like men.

Rebel, meanwhile, found a grim humor in it all:

The Haitian case is proof positive that feminism is exactly like AIDS.
No matter how many die, feminism will be the last thing to die.
It was planned that way.

Whichever way you look at it, the answer is always the same: feminism is a religion of death.
Feminists are death worshippers.

That leaves very little hope for the future.
Life is so short and we worry too much. And it’s so futile.
One day we will all be Haitians. LOL!!

A note: These aren't a couple of weird comments I've "cherry picked" to give a distorted picture of the discussion. In fact, these comments got anywhere from 20 to nearly 70 upvotes from Spearhead readers, and almost no downvotes. There were many other comments, also heavily upvoted, agreeing with these general premises. If you don't believe me, go take a look yourself.

Numerous other commenters, I should also note, offered frankly racist interpretations of "the tale of two earthquakes," blaming the greater scope of the disaster in Haiti on what one commenter called its "largely negro, largely indolent society." While some objected to the racism, many clearly racist comments got numerous upvotes from the Spearhead crowd.  (The comment I just quoted got 60 upvotes and 20 downvotes.)

Getting back to Price's argument, let's try to unpack the various layers of bullshit here. First of all, Haiti is no matriarchy. Yes, women often head up households there. But they don't run the country, by any measure.

Life in Haiti is no picnic for men, but women have it even worse; as one human rights group noted in a recent report, "Haitian women experience additional barriers to the full enjoyment of their basic rights due to predominant social beliefs that they are inferior to men and a historical pattern of discrimination and violence against them based on their sex. Discrimination against women is a structural feature in Haitian society and culture that has subsisted throughout its history, both in times of peace and unrest."

Rape is a constant threat, and, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times notes, it "wasn't even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago. ... Before 2005, rape was considered an offense against honor, or "crime of passion," meaning it was a minor infraction in which the perpetrator would go free if he agreed to marry his victim."

The earthquake only made the situation worse for women. Rapes are especially widespread in the camps that sprung up in the wake of last year's earthquake. Instead of "tak[ing] care of their families and communities," as Price would put it, many Haitian men have instead preyed on women and girls, sexually assaultng them and stealing their food and other supplies. This is not, to put it mildly, a country suffering from an excess of feminism or female authority.

No, Haiti is in dire straits mostly because of its extreme poverty. Anyone looking at the history of natural disasters can plainly see that they tend to cause far more chaos and misery and death in poor countries than they do in rich ones: In highly patriarchal, and poverty-stricken Pakistan, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake killed an estimated 75,000, though the quake there was an order of magnitude weaker than Japan's.

I'm not sure why I feel the need to remind readers of these basic points; the absurdity of Price's arguments should be immediately obvious to anyone not blinded by misogyny. Sometimes I wonder if Price even believes all of the shit he shovels. Stupidity would be easier to forgive than that level of cynicism.

--

If you appreciated 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. Thanks!

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Lady Killers

Feminist Training Camp

There's only really one rule to follow if you want to get upvoted on The Spearhead: make sure you say something hateful about women! If you follow this rule, you can say almost anything you want, no matter how completely batshit insane it is, and still get a couple of dozen upvotes. Works every time!

Consider, for example, this peculiar wisdom from one fellow calling himself Anonymous age 68, taken from a long, rambling comment that, the last time I checked, had 35 upvotes and only 11 downvotes. Take it away, you lovable old kook:

For 45 years, the man-haters who run this country have been saying privately they want to kill most men. I read MS. in the 80?s, and it was there. In recent years, they have shushed the stupids who have been saying it publicly, but you can be sure they are privately saying, “NOT YET, STUPID!” ...

Killing large numbers of men is the only one of the original feminist goals which has not yet been achieved. And, all the other things they have done to men were directly or indirectly in the original lists.

I subscribed to MS magazine in the 70?s and 80?s, until my stomach would not take it any more. They told right out in there, their original goals. The world cannot be safe until most men are terminated.

I tried to tell other men, who treated me like s**t. “Why do you worry about things like that? This is the USA, and nothing like that will ever happen. ...” 

Exactly what the Jew leaders told worried Jews in the 20th Century.That worked out real well.

Just in case you didn't subscribe to Ms. in the 70s and 80s, and you're wondering what the other original feminist goals were, here's the whole list:

1) Buy comfortable shoes
2) Create Lilith Fair
3) Kill men.
4) ???
5) Profit!


--

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.

Misogynists attack Daniel Hernandez for saving Gabrielle Giffords' life

Daniel Hernandez

I made the mistake of posting my previous post about the failure of empathy in the reaction of many misogynists to the Arizona shootings without first stopping by The Spearhead. There, below a post lauding the heroism of Daniel Hernandez, the gay congressional intern who ran towards the gunshots to assist the fallen Giffords and literally save her life, I found some comments even stranger and more vile than the others I have quoted in my last post. Instead of lauding Hernandez' lifesaving act of heroism, they attacked him for helping a woman.

One commenter calling himself Traveller put it this way:

The “hero” saved a female politician, Democrat, probably some sort of feminist getting affirmative action at stellar level, and following some sort of feminist agenda. That “hero” probably until that day went around breaking the legs of working men who hesitated to pay 99% of their income to a feminist government.

Lower down in the thread, Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) went further, saying

When men STOP being stupid arseholes and STOP saving the lives of ‘women andchildren’ THEN the women might notice how much we do for them.

In some ways Hernandez is also a traitor to men. IF he had just stood by and let this woman bleed to death because he was ‘afraid that she might accuse him of sexual harassment for touching her when she was unconscious’ and then been willing to take the heat of the lies and hatred and bile that women would throw at him for doing so? THEN he would have contributed to remedying the situation. And we would have one less female politician passing hate legislation against men. A net GAIN for men. ...

Hernandez did something akin to a Jew helping a Nazi SS officer who will gladly throw him into a gas chamber. How is this ‘heroic’?

A few comments down, anonous agreed that:

The best thing any man can do is NOT step up to the plate and act heroic, but simply shrug ones shoulders at a time of crisis and say, ‘not my problem’. Whilst walking off to the nearest strip joint.

Men coming to the aid (especially of women) only get demonized anyway (Titanic anyone?) and never get a given a break in feminazi countries like the us/uk/aus. ...

When men start being indifferent to wimmin ... will men be truly free.

On The Spearhead, readers can upvote comments they like and downvote those they don't. All of these comments had multiple upvotes (the latter two getting a dozen or more each) and only a handful of downvotes. 

--

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.

Manwiches

So I've been trying my best to make sense of a strange, turgid, conspiratorial post over on Rebuking Feminism, a blog run by a fellow calling himself Bwec who sometimes comments here.

This doozy of a sentence, loaded down with strange quasi-Marxist jargon and missing a couple of commas, will give you an idea of what I'm up against:

When females are the primary means of resource production themselves, when they own the means to male production (and thus transference of male resources without a fair social contract between men and women in marriage and thus divorce) plus own the means of human production i.e. total control over reproduction and conception the Matriarchy and dream of female supremacy will be complete.

The gist of it seems to be that, uh, women are taking over the world.

But there's one paragraph that suggests that women have an even more evil agenda than merely lording it over us men. If I'm reading it correctly, Bwec is suggesting that the ladies want to ... eat us.

If males served no other purpose than as food after mating she would surely consume us. It is this aspect of female nature which has been obscured as of late but men have known it since the beginning of time.

Yes, instead of wanting to make us sandwiches, they want to make us into sandwiches!

If this is true I would like to assure all female readers of this blog that, while I have good taste, I do not taste good.

Trogdor005 goes ghost

My new favorite commenter on the Happy Bachelors Forum is a fellow calling himself trogdor005, who pretty much lives up to his name, offering blunt misogynist rants with all the subtlety of a caveman. A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts. So here is the first in a new series, "The Wit and Wisdom of Trogdor005."

Today's topic: "Going ghost." For those not conversant with the latest in angry-man slang, this is a term adopted by the manosphere that's basically a variant on Men Going Their Own Way -- that is, disengaging from women and as much as possible from society itself. A man who goes ghost is, of course, a ghost.  Here's how you use it in a sentence: 

That creepy douchebag who lives alone in the basement apartment and scowls every time a women walks by is a ghost.

Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a woman who mocked the whole "ghost" notion:

I admit it, every time I read about some guy in the manosphere declaring that he or other men are going to go ghost, I laugh. I laugh real hard. When I have nothing else to laugh about because it feels as if nothing is going my way I think of those men, I laugh, and I am instantaneously cheered up.

The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor.

This post MAKE TROGDOR MAD! So he banged out a response.  He began by showing off his hard-won font-size-modification and smiley skills:

Then he moved into the meat of his argument:

The bottom line is men can avoid women entirely and there is NO FORCE on Earth that can force us into "marriage" or even a "relationship" with a woman minus a gun to the head. Even if the Guv'ment succeeds in somehow "forcing" men to get married, we as ghosts know what makes you bitches tick and can simply become unemployed intentionally, become fat stinky slobs, treat you very nicely/well, or more devastatingly effective, say the words "I love you" and cause you to instantly lose ALL attraction for us and be miserable in your Guv'ment arranged "marriages" ;D ... The icing on the cake is that, when you inevitably file for "divorce" after years of unhappiness/New Cock Urge it is YOU who will pay US men "alimony" and "child support" since we were unemployed during the "marriage" hahahahhahaha ;D

Yes, you heard it right ladies, even if the government gives in to your dastardly desires and actually forces men to marry you, they can defeat you without lifting a finger, literally, except when their fingers are needed to shove food into their mouths.

Trogdoor005 then rallied the troops with some stirring rhetoric:

Men are winning the "gender war" and there is NOTHING the wimminz can do about it ... The matriarchy needs a steady supply of manginas/husbands to feed the system and keep it running, a ghost is the anti-thesis of the mangina/husband and therefore MUST be discredited, silenced, and destroyed.

Many of us men will go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives, meanwhile many of these same Femini-nazi bitches will end up with cats and vibrators in their old age.

Here's where Trogdor005 went wrong: plenty of non-elderly women have cats and vibrators already.

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.

Wasn't that an Adam Sandler movie?

Ladies, watch out! Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do. All it requires is a little bit of fake-gay marriage on his part.

Imagine if two straight men got legally hitched (emphasis on straight). No expensive ceremony, no grueling engagement process, just signing the contract. Then, they go on and live their separate lives as bachelors. Because of their legally married status they ... Cannot get remarried legally. This means if they get married with a women, come divorce time she will be unable to legally claim any of his property as they are not legally married. Bigamy and polygamy is illegal so all marriage contracts signed after the first are not recognized as valid by a court of law.

Oh, you sly dog you. Such a clever idea. And so original!

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

Could it be ... Satanists?

Feminist witches have captured Jack Nicholson!

Today's tasty helping of antifeminist crackpottery comes from Len Hummel, courtesy of henrymakow.com. In an article titled, for reals, "Satanists Seduce Women With Wicca," Hummel asks:

Are you aware of the close connection between feminism, lesbianism, wicca, and goddess-worship? It is rampant and getting worse by the minute.

Vast numbers of women today have been seduced into the occult, satanism, and various forms of witchcraft and wicca by the evil spirits behind those movements and feminism. ...

Consider these insights from a Christian researcher who has investigated these very disturbing developments among modern-day feminists: ...

"Much of what is currently published under the guise of New Age "enlightenment", is nothing less than Old Age doctrines of nefarious invisible hosts. As in antiquity, so in modern times, those who practice paganism are guilty of worshipping "devils"...

Further Reading: The Worst of the Men's Rights Movement

From Paul Elam's site.

Here are links to, and brief excerpts of, some of the worst posts by Men's Rights activists and/or antifeminists I've run across in doing this blog. These are not random comments by random MRAs; they are all by people who have a history in the MRM. In most cases, they are fairly prominent names, at least within the online MRA community. A few of these posts will be familiar to readers of this blog.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking quotes out of context, I urge you to read the originals. As you'll see, none of these quotes are any more justifiable "in context" than they are here on their own.

If anyone out there has seen worse, please post a URL below. Conversely, if any of these posts have been publicly challenged by others in the MRM, I will happily post links alongside the original.

I am also taking nominations for a follow-up post, The Best of the MRM. Post URLs below.


Let's start with Paul Elam's charming "Bash A Violent Bitch Month" Post

The money quote:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Immediately after this quote, he claims he's not "serious" about this, though apparently only because "it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers." My post on the subject is here. Here's another piece by Elam full of fantasies of violence against women.

Another by Elam: Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!

Key quote:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

This post from Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men's Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have "ladies nights," suggests that men may have to take up arms to win their, er, struggle:

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely.  But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. 

I wrote about Hollander's call to arms in If at first you don't succeed, shoot people.

And speaking of angry men and their guns, here's a post from Citizen Renegade, a Pick-Up Artist (PUA) site popular with MRAs: Game Can Save Lives It's about George Sodini, the misogynist killer who gunned down women at a health club a year ago. "Chateau" suggests that all would have been well if Sodini had learned how to be a Pick-Up Artist:

If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.

Actually, Sodini had taken at least one class from Don Steele, author of "How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35." The comments to Chateau's article are scarier than the article itself. For selected examples and commentary, see here.

Another from Citizen Renegade: Owning a Dog is Training for Owning a Woman

[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.

Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.

Other MRAs don't seem to be much interested in adult women at all. MRA Jay Hammers, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, has taken down his blog, but its worst moments live on in Google's cache. Perhaps the worst of the worst: Age of Consent is Misandry. Key quotes:

Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.

Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.

This post did get some criticism in the MRM. Here's one discussion.

And here's Hammers again, accusing other MRAs of being "pansies." 

One of Hammers' biggest defenders has been an antifeminist blogger by the nom-de-net of Schopenbecq, who is equally obsessed with the age of consent and what he sees as the superior attractiveness of teen girls. Here's one of his posts on the subject, which argues:

The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14.

In this post, he mocks any man who doesn't think Heather Locklear's 13-year-old daughter is hotter than Locklear herself:

Results of a poll on Schopenbecq's site.

Here, he argues that feminism is a "Sexual Trade Union," and seems to suggest that increasing the age of consent from 12 was bad thing :

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

More misogyny:

Anglobitch: Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. ... Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Heretical Sex: Never Date Western Women

Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. ... I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don't date them, don't marry them, don't have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.

Henry Makow has gotten too loopy for most Men's Rights activists to consider him as one of their own. But he remains one of the internet's most influential antifeminists. Here are some quotes from his classic in craziness How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media  (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. ... Nicholas Rockefeller told [producer Aaron Russo] that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. ....

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of  providers also destabilizes the family. 

Only satanists would trash motherhood. 

The fellows at the Manhood Academy have also gotten a lot of criticism from MRAs. It's not altogether clear why, since their ridiculously retrograde views of women are no more ridiculously retrograde than many of those I've quoted above. The key Manhood Academy text is a 135-page pdf called The Principles of Social Competence, which is full of stuff like this:

While women and children often lack the capacity to grasp the inner workings of authority, they still have an instinctual, positive response to it. Authority brings chaotic, aimless things, people, events and circumstances into a state of good order. ...  Masculinity is properly expressed in the form of authority.

You know what I said above about reading the originals? Don't bother in this case.

Speaking of women as children, who could forget this classic, from "ramzpaul" on The Spearhead: How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization, which posited:

Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.

I wrote about the piece, and reactions to it, here.

More Worst Of links to come! The Men's Rights movement produces fresh awfulness each and every day.

EDIT: Deansdale's Blog has weighed in on this Worst-of list and is surprisingly positive about the whole thing. Oh, not my post -- he hates my post, and me -- but the original MRA-n-pals posts. Elam's "Bash a Violent Bitch" post? "What’s the problem with this article? Nothing, really. ... Elam has some insightful observations about the nature of women in our contemporary cultures." Roissy's post about misogynist killer George Sodini? "What’s wrong with this article? Nothing."And RamZpaul's How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization? "There are valid arguments supporting his claim. It’s not PC, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong." 

He even sort-of defends good old Henry Makow and his bizarre conspiracy theoryies:

Actually this is not so crazy. You don’t believe it, that’s fine, but show me why this is soooo unacceptable. He states lots of things: some of them obvious, some of them researchable. But it’s not so radical.

 The only people he doesn't defend? The Manhood Academy guys. Apparently saying horrible, horrible shit about women is perfectly acceptable in Deansdale's vision of the MRM, but saying horrible, horrible shit about women while also calling other MRAs "manginas," as the Manhood Academy guys do, is totally BEYOND THE PALE!!!