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. 

Take your robo-wives -- please!

Build your own what?

So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back ("Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task"), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.

Well, not me personally, but all the "women (and manginas) reading this thread" and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. "If these guys are "perverts" and "creeps" then shouldn't you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?" Spidey asked.

It's a good question, and I'd like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.

Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly.  Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:

It's because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him - sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you

Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about "used up vaginas" will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey's imaginary conversation with the ladies isn't over yet.

Now I am also sure most women will say "but these things are fake and they will never provide 'real love and companionship'". Well guess what? men don't want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it "real love" when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu

Let's just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let's try his next one:

As for companionship, men don't want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don't want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don't want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu

Yeah, same deal. Let's just move directly to his grand conclusion:

Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.

Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn't going to win any awards any time soon either.


--

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.

If you don't agree with me, angry dudes will kick your ass

Anyone who's seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle's late night soliloquy on the "whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies" he saw every night driving his cab. "Someday," he told himself, "a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

Of course -- SPOILER ALERT! -- what he really meant by "a real rain" coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.

Bickle wasn't the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their "mangina" pals in their proper place.

And we see it again and again in the Men's Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don't start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well,  kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn't pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren't very specific threats, but they're threats of violence nonetheless.

I ran across one recent example of this sort of "warning" in the comments to Paul Elam's piece on misandry -- or at least what he labels misandry -- in the Good Men Project's package on the Men's Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here's "Factory," responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:

Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?

In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.

And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.

Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.

We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.

And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.

And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.

Just like people like you are doing right now.

Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won't indulge in (but won't stop) -- forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a "weather vane" for male emotion -- but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will "feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done," but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks "society ... flat out DESERVES whatever is coming."

So, yeah, this is as much a "warning" as the hypothetical mafioso's reference to broken legs.

Naturally, Elam himself stepped up to second Factory's emotion, declaring that "[m]en, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent."

On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:

I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.

Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.

This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:

1) Source A says that p is true
2) If you don't agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.
3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that p is true.

This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = "you will give me treats now.")

Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:

You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.

I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.

MRAs sure are misandrist.

I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.

Me too.


--

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.

Bond in a Frock

Sean Connery would NEVER wear a dress.

The Men's Rights and MGTOW movements are about as hetero-focused, and simply hetero, as it is possible for any large, almost exclusively male, group to be. Sure, once in a while a stray MGTOWer will joke nervously about going gay, simply as a way to get some sex without having to touch one of those evil, stinky ladymonsters, but the chances of this actually happening are about as remote as one of those "ex-gay" ministries actually making someone "ex-gay." Still, most MRAs and MGTOWers profess a certain tolerance towards teh gey, at least when it takes the form of gay men; lesbians, not so much.

But once in a while this facade of (partial) tolerance cracks a bit and we can see some of the homophobic nastiness within. Like, for example, when Daniel Craig -- the current reigning James Bond -- puts on a dress for an International Women's Day video highlighting the many injustices the women of the world still face.

On The Spearhead, head spearheader W. F. Price introduces the video to the assembled masses with something of a shudder, describing it as "an unfortunate move that could result in career difficulties down the road" for Craig.

A number of Spearhead commenters are similarly horrified about Bond in Drag, but it is the commenter called Firepower who really brings the hatred up to 11, dropping one of the "f-words" and fantasizing about some quite literal gay-bashing.

The deliberate desecration of a cock-swinging MAN icon like Bond is a calculated, deliberate move – like putting lipstick on Javier Bardem in that stupid Haitina AIDS Liberal commercial.

ANY male that subjects himself to this feminizing humiliation by his enemies deserves feminizing.

Craig’s Bond is faggy anyway.
Sean Connery not only would’ve NEVER posed for these drag pics, he would’ve told the gay publicist to “sod off and suck my knob, mate.”
Then punched him.

This sterling analysis earned, at last count, 102 upvotes and only 6 downvotes from The Spearhead commentariate.

Here's the video in question:




--

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.

Armageddon me some quality wives, widows and virgins!

If you don't have one of these, you're screwed.

The good fellows at the Happy Bachelors forum have gone all survivalist on us. Well, a bunch of them have. Some are posting tips on gracious postapocalyptic living: did you know that you can only safely drink your own urine once or twice in an emergency, because it gets more concentrated with nasty bad stuff as you get more dehydrated? The More You Know.

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.

With a Cherry 2000 on top

Silly poster! Melanie Griffith does not actually play Cherry 2000

Manosphere dudes, especially those waiting impatiently for the day when sexbots replace women,  could actually learn a thing or two from one of my favorite dumb 1980s films, Cherry 2000, which I happened to catch (for about the third or fourth time) the other night.

The film, set in a vaguely postapocalptic future, offers an update of sorts to a very old story: Boy meets robogirl. Boy has sex with robogirl in a puddle of water. Boy loses robogirl when her circuits short out because they're having sex in a puddle of water. Boy hires bounty hunter Melanie Griffith to escort him into the lawless Sector 7 to find him a replacement for his robogirl because her model (the Cherry 2000) has been discontinued.  Shit happens. Stuff blows up. Melanie Griffith kicks ass, pouts, and kicks ass again.

The movie sets up a stark contrast between the infinitely pliable and submissive Cherry 2000 sexbot and actual not-so-pliable women.  In one early scene, intended as something of a satire of the dating scene at the time, our hero and some of his pals go to a singles bar -- where, if they decide they want to get with a sexy human lady, they need to negotiate the terms of the sexual encounter with her and her lawyer, and fill out the appropriate paperwork.

We get to listen in on a couple such negotiations; the women in question are all portrayed as, er, pretty touch negotiators -- that is, bitches. One of the lawyers is portrayed by a young, pre-Matrix, Laurence Fishburne. At this point, I suspect most woman-hating, Matrix-loving manosphere dudes watching the film will jizz. in. their pants.

In fact, we get to see a lot of loud and obstreperous women in the film. In one memorable scene, a grizzled old junkyard owner asks his ornery young assistant for a favor:

GRIZZLED OLD COOT: Randa is going to fix us lunch, ain't you, Randa?

RANDA: [Indignantly] No. 

COOT: Well, then, you can just go shit in your hat.

Randa does not in fact fix anyone anything. Manosphere dudes will probably be happy to learn that later in the film -- SPOILER ALERT! -- she's shot in the head at point-blank range.

Anyway, long story short: after (barely) surviving assorted assaults from Sector 7 baddies with the invaluable assistance of the ornery Melanie Griffith, our hero is forced to choose between saving her or the robogal he's devoted the whole movie to finding. Naturally, being a robot-loving idiot, he chooses Cherry 2000 -- then, after heading off with her in tow, he realizes that she's sort of a simpering moron, and goes back to rescue the real woman. Cue happy ending.  (Well, happy for everyone except for sexbot-coveting manosphere dudes watching the film, who will probably rush off to their favorite MGTOW forum to denounce the filmmakers as evil manginas.)

The moral of the story? Even the complete idiots who made this incredibly stupid movie realized that real women -- with opinions and ideas of their own -- are preferable to adoring sexbots.

--

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.

Ruthless Lady-People: Short-haired, smelly, muffin-eating lady-people

Women not only eat muffins -- they decapitate them!

Over on an angry-man site that would be called The Pearhead if you removed an "S" from its name, a fellow named Alcuin has a few complaints about the ladies. Let's listen in, shall we?

Western women are ruthless. They will destroy a family with a lifestyle divorce, and ruin her husband without thinking of their lives. ...

Ah yes, the old lifestyle divorce. There's little that Western women enjoy more than a nice divorce. Well, aside from accusing men of rape, and playing slutty dressup, and going to work:

They will accuse a man of rape when he did no such thing so they can get revenge for hurt feelings or to cover their own infidelity. They will dress like whores, then accuse men of being perverts and of sexual harassment. They will take all the cushy jobs and complain when men refuse to take the shit jobs, but act like “boys” instead.

But Alucin is just getting started. It gets worse:

They will cut their hair short, get fat, avoid shaving (their legs? their face?), smell, and then complain that men go for Asian women or none. They will take advantage of manginas for years, and give nothing in return for such dog-like loyalty. They will take jobs away from men, and become lazy, useless muffin-eaters.

That's right. You heard him. Women will actually CUT THEIR HAIR SHORT just to torment the men of the world with its shortness! Yet they will REFUSE to shave the hair off their legs! Which are FAT and STINKY! Also MUFFINS! They EAT MUFFINS! I'm not sure if this is supposed to be some sort of lesbian innuendo, or whether Alucin is referring to actual literal ingestion of delicious blueberry muffins, but I don't care. Either way, MEN ARE CLEARLY BEING OPPRESSED!

Why does writing this blog always make me so hungry? First, it gives me a craving for cupcakes, and now for muffins, the cupcakes' more demure cousin, the Cathy to its Patty. .

--

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.

Godwin's Law, upside-down and backwards

Meet Stu. Stu hates feminsts. But he hates manginas even more. You might even say that Stu hates manginas the way Hitler hated Jews. No, I'm not comparing Stu to Hitler. He happily compares himself to Hitler in this comment on A Voice For Men.

Phew, I’m glad you [Paul Elam] said feminist hating is an honorable and viable political act because I certainly hate them. ... The real object of my hatred are those that enable these people. The ones that are actively engaged in creating the environment of misandry that we live in now.

For those people, career feminists and manginas, my hatred would be on par to Adolf Hitlers hatred of a super rich gay jew who was raping his arse. Out of these, I hate career manginas the most. There would be no mercy for these arseholes if I could be dictator for a day, they would soon be living what is left of their lives in extreme misery.

Emphasis added. This comment, Hitler and all, got more than three times as many upvotes as downvotes from the assembled mob site's readers. Of course, Stu's comment is in response to a post titled "The Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever," which means that these upvoters are people who enjoyed a post titled  "The Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever" so much that they stuck around afterwards to compliment the author, so, you know.

This, by contrast, is the sort of comment that gets downvoted on A Voice For Men, and which inspires the post's author, Paul Elam, to tell the commenter "fuck that, and fuck you. Let me say that again. Fuck you."

EDITED TO ADD: When I posted this piece last night, that second comment had virtually no upvotes; you had to click a link to even see it. I hope at least a few of the upvotes it now has were from the regulars on that site.

Another heartening sign: the critical response Elam's "Rape ... whatever" screed got on the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit. His response to the criticism is rather telling. I'm generally not a fan of the Men's Rights subreddit, as you might imagine, but there are some decent people who comment there and it is much less hateful than almost all of the other MRA/MGTOW/etc sites I regularly read.

--

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.

Could it be ... Muslims?

Secret Muslim operatives.

So who invented feminism? If we're to believe the conventional historical accounts, it was invented by a bunch of ladies. But all good misogynists know that ladies can't invent their way out of a paper bag, so obviously it was some dudes who did it. Some Men's Rightsers with a conspiratorial mindset have suggested it was the evil Rockefellers, deviously using feminism as part of their plot to depopulate the world. (Presumably because feminism encourages lesbianism and abortion, not necessarily at the same time.)

Over on the brand new* mgtowforums.com, avoidwomen offers another possibility: Islam! Avoidwomen is essentially asking and answering the classic conspiracy theory question "Cui Bono?" -- which, if I remember correctly, either means "who benefits?"or "where's Bono?" (My Latin is a little rusty.) Let's try to follow the logic here:

I have to wonder if the Muslims had a role in planning feminism in many countries around the world? No violence would be needed, simply outbreed the feminists! It's no surprise that Islam is the least feminised and strongest patriarchal society and religion. It will become a world religion and a major society in as little as two decades! Women will be treated under Islam as men are under feminism. Frankly, I don't care about women and neither do millions of oppressed men. It may sound unfair, but the reality is you can't have "equality" without oppressing men and destroying society. It's a fact that the strongest patriarchies are the ones that breed the most and become the dominant society. Matriarchies become weak and die out in a couple generations, as was the case in the past.

Makes sense to me. I just wonder how Bono fits into the equation.

Some commenters agreed; others didn't. AussieSteve, for one, welcomes our future Muslim overlords:

I fully expect Australia to become Muslim in my lifetime. I don't dread it. ... I should be old enough by then that it shouldn't affect me too much, I don't drink a lot. I'm sure I'll be able to cope without my daily glass of Bundy rum.

I say, bring it on. I want to sit on my porch quietly laughing at bitches in burkahs as they cry about how men didn't come to their aid when the muslims rose to power and kicked their feminist pedestal out from under their big fat arses.

Dontmarry points out the inconvenient fact that avoidwomen's main goal -- avoidingwomen  -- won't exactly help fertility rates in the Western world either. But he still blames feminsts, manginas and overeducated women who are, er, riding the "bad boy cock carousel." 

Men going their own way also contributed to the low fertility, but hey, it's better to be unmarried and childless than to be raped financially and have the state attempt to break your spirit at every turn.

Moreover, we merely reacted. Feminists started the problem; women exacerbated it, cheered on by manginas. Women, too highly educated for their own good, prefer to delay marriage, chase their careers, and ride the bad boy cock carousel. Gradually, time catches up with them, and they wonder 'why are there no good men left'?

Clearly, Islam is devious indeed.

--

* Just a little non-sarcastic note here: The newly formed mgtowforums.com is basically a replacement for the old MGTOW proboards forum, which was recently taken down by the proboards administrators, apparently because of complaints from a feminist blogger. (There's more on what apparently happened here; the comment I'm linking to is apparently a cut-and-pasted comment from that blogger.) Obviously, I do not approve of people taking down sites they disagree with.

--

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.

Rapist babies and internet threats

How the hell did I get mixed up in all this?

The manosphere is in an uproar about a public service TV ad from an anti-violence group that portrays a baby boy as a future rapist. Some MRAs are attempting to refute the ad's implication that improperly socialized men are prone to violence by posting and upvoting ... violent comments and veiled threats online. And apparently some non-veiled death threats as well.

A few days ago, you see, W.F. Price, head honcho at The Spearhead, wrote a critical piece about the endeavors of one Josh Jasper to draw attention to sexism in Super Bowl commercials; Price also pointed out that Jasper, CEO of the Riverview Center, a nonprofit serving domestic violence and sexual assault victims in Illinois and Iowa, had put out an earlier commercial that, in Price's words, "impl[ied] that baby boys are all potential rapists."

Despite the source, that's actually a more or less accurate description of the ad, which depicts a happy little baby boy as a future rapist. I'm just not quite sure why that's so objectionable; after all, every baby, male or female, is a bundle of possibilities, some good, some bad. (Hitler was once a happy, gurgling baby.) The point of the ad is that parents can have an effect on how their kids turn out; if you raise your son to be a violent, misogynist asshole, he may well end up a rapist.

As much as I agree with this basic sentiment, I'm not going to defend the ad. It's terrible. Generally, I'm not a fan of using babies to make political points -- it's trite and manipulative, to begin with. And in this case, it's worse than that: portraying a baby as a future rapist seems rather hamfisted, given that babies are often victims of abuse themselves. 

Judge for yourself; here's the ad.




All this said, the flaws of the "rapist baby" ad in no way excuse the response it's gotten from some of the more hotheaded in the Men's Rights Movement and the manosphere in general. On his website, Peter Nolan declares that the ad "promote[s] hatred of male babies"; on The Spearhead,  Poester99 goes even further, accusing Riverview Center of "promoting violence against baby boys." Which is, of course, completely absurd. (Even besides that, as Jasper has pointed out on his blog, the Riverview Center serves male victims as well as female ones.) It's hard to know if the people spouting this nonsense honestly believe it, or if they are using the baby in the ad even more cynically and opportunistically than Jasper is.

Unfortunately, the MRA reaction has gone well beyond simple rhetorical overkill. A number of comments on The Spearhead, many of them with dozens of upvotes, are essentially threats -- some vague, some not-so-vague -- against Jasper himself. duke writes that:

Mangina creeps like Josh Jasper should suffer the same fate as Nazi sympathizers after WWII-taken out and shot after a five minute trial.

Avenger adds:

If men really were as violent as he claims they would have shut him up long ago. One good beating and this mangina would never open his mouth again.

Firepower, meanwhile, goes after Jasper's ... first name:

So long as males tolerate sissified males named “Josh” – pissing even on our SuperBowl – these gender traitors will only feel encouraged to increase their anti-male slurs.

Over on A Voice For Men, meanwhile, MRA elder Paul Elam insinuates that Jasper, far from being a sissy,  is a violent "alpha puke" -- and calls on his fans to dig up dirt on him:

This man deserves consequences for his actions.

Some history on Josh is known. We know he was a marine and we also know that he was a Los Angeles police officer. Two areas for sure where the capacity for violence is a plus. Add to that the fact that he was on a Domestic Violence task force and this bad apple starts to stink a little more. ...

Anyone want to take any bets on whether this alpha puke ever busted heads as a cop, simply because he could? It leaves one to wonder - especially given the intellectual violence he is so obviously willing to inflict on male children - just what sort of skeletons are in this douche bag's closet.

If they are there, I would love to get my hands on them and rattle them together for the world to hear.

And on Men-Factor, antifeminist blogger ScareCrow (who used to regularly post comments here) posts the email addresses of The Riverview Center's mostly female board of directors, urging readers to "vent your anger" on this "bitch-hive," adding "I aim to destroy it."

I don't have the patience or the stomach to sort through the comments on the YouTube page for the ad to see what other vile shit has been posted there.

I can only hope that most of this violent language is just standard internet tough guy  talk, and won't result in real violence in the real world. Even if you believe that Jasper's ad commits a sort of rhetorical violence against male babies -- which I think is a ridiculous reading of the admittedly idiotic ad --  it does not justify actual violence against anybody.

EDIT: I should have let this one sit a little before putting it up. I've made various changes to strengthen and clarify my argument.
--

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.

"I don't hate women. I just want them all to die bitter and alone."

Non-haters also gonna hate.

The "Rant you very much" section of NiceGuy's MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] forum is the place for commenters to post stuff that they think might be too crazy and "out there" for the forum's other sections. Given what else is posted over on NiceGuy's -- the stomping ground of a fellow named Nightstorm and his wild fantasies of moustrap vaginas and leech women --  this is a tall order indeed.

NiceGuy richbansha tried his best to live up to these high expectations with a recent rant titled "Why not hate?" Why bother to pretend that we don't hate women, rich asks his fellow NiceGuys, when this won't actually do us any good? As for him, he admits his hatred up front. (I've taken the liberty of bolding some expecially ranty bits in the quote below, and adding a paragraph break.)

Do I "hate women"? You bet your ass!  ...

[T]he most common reason why one of us will deny the possibility that we hate them  is not not look bad. Is there any doubt that they don't hate YOU or that those listening in wouldn't just as soon see you violated? ... No matter what you do, you can still expect the most inconscionable treatment at the hands of AW [American Women]. If the response to both kindness and cruelty are identical, what is the reason for such a lopsided favoritism for appeasement?

When saying that you want to rape and cut up a woman with a band saw is met with the exact same reaction as saying you want to want to buy them a drink, what ... is the incentive to not be hateful and violent? We have seen for ourselves that refraining only makes you are more likely target for hatred and violence. ... So when a stinking cavern gets out of hand why not pulp her? You know you want to. Does anyone really think that stopping yourself or saying you would stop yourself will make it any easier on you?

In a followup post, he blames it all on the alleged tendency of women to adore "bad boys" and treat kind, considerate nice guys -- richbansha apparently thinks he is, or at least was, one of them -- like dirt:

My fate was decided in 7th grade when that girl said I had cooties. ...  If you ever got a "P" in the box on your report card that says "Respects the rights of others" then you are a marked man. ...

I have suffered far more for the things that I had nothing to do with than any active and intentional infraction that I ever committed. ... Who do skanks even call the cops on? Violent meth dealer Bf who routinely beats her and impregnates her or the honest, hardworking auditor who pays for the meth dealer's offspring? Is it any wonder that I think dudes should get on the good side of that equation?

The "good side," of course, being the side of of the girlfriend-beating "bad-boy" meth dealer.

So, yeah, that's what a rant on NiceGuy's looks like.

More interesting to me than the actual rant, though, are the responses of others in the forum. TheDude suggested he tone it down a bit: 

So you think that violence may be the answer when there are thousands of cops who would love to beat your ass because you "disrespected a lady?" I think talking about it on this board just makes us a target and it is bad advice.

In other words, the voice of reason in this discussion frames his advice in entirely self-interested terms: Don't attack women because then cops will beat your ass. Don't talk like this on the forum, because it makes MGTOW look bad.

And then there are those who chime in to say they didn't hate women ... but. There is always a "but." A couple of the "buts" are fairly mild and inoffensive. the american, echoing the famous Dr. Freud, notes

I don't hate women. I just don't understand their thought processes.

Our friend Yohan goes a little further (bold in original):

I am not hateful or violent, but I am highly MISTRUSTING against all and everything a Western female will ever tell me.

It's not only about my past, it's about the present legal situation in feminist countries, which encourages females of any age to consider men of any age, even young boys and old people, even your own father as nothing but trash except for quick money supply.

About hate, it should be said, hate is really bad for your health cousing heart problems, stomach problems etc..

And then there are ... these. Richard Cranium blames those evil Sufragettes (and the manginas who loved them) for it all:

It's not a matter of hating women per se, it's hating what they've become, or more specifically what manginas have let them become. As has been stated here & elsewhere, the day we let them out of the kitchen and let them vote was the day it all went to hell.

Big R takes his non-hatred to a whole other level:

I dont hate them either. I want them to live to see how lonely and suicidal they,ll become when they find out all the men have dumped them forever in the feminized world. I want them to live and suffer without men or the attention they receive from us. ...

I have turned out just a little vengeful towards women for the treatment I have received from them throughout my life. Just seeing an AW maybe lying on the sidewalk after a drunken suicidal depressive drinking binge after being dumped and cheated on would brighten up my day.

Our friend Yohan obliged this last wish by posting a photo of a drunk woman lying on the floor in what appears to be a pool of her own urine, with a friendly little note advising Big R to "have a nice day."

So very considerate, these Men Going Their Own Way.

--

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.

The Spearhead: You don't have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

Don't ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead

These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I'm sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there's one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that "a site called mamboobz.com" won't quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men's rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren't all MRAs and I don't identify them as such. That's not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to "a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry." Another added, "I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt."

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.

Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?

Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn't talking about me. He's talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he's a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan's posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad's threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I'm not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal "debate." Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
- being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
- is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here's what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here's what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how I'm the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some "interested third party with deep pockets" wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won't interfere with what I write in any way, I'd like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.


--

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.

.

Beware the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs!

The denizens of the Happy Bachelors forum, always alert for possible threats to their Happy Bachelorhood, seem to have discovered a new one: Evil feminists "enslav[ing] men through forced marriage."

That might sound a bit like the plot of an old episode of Futurama, but apparently the threat is all too real. Artbunker sounded the alarm in a recent posting:

What if women and manginias in power pass a law to make men marry with women?

Hear him out, guys:

[M]ore and more guys are truly waking up to the no marriage to Western Women concept. It's a small but growing fact. We already know feminist have made it harder fro Eastern European women to come over here and probably in other countries as well.

If they can get laws passed for that how much longer till they start going after single men? How much longer till they want to make sure single women with kids are paired with single men for "the betterment of the children?" because the single man makes a good wage to support her and her family.

Why would this be necessary, you may ask. Aren't there a lot of simps and manginias doing this already, of their own volition?

Sure there still a lot of simps and manginias that dont mind doing this already without a law sure. But we know these women really want guys who have the economic power to provide them the lifestyle they want. A lot of simps and manginias today cannot provide that for them .They want the guys with the big checks whom they know wont chose them.

Yes, all the fantastically wealthy movers and shakers who spend all their time trading stories about how evil women are on the MGTOW message boards of America.

Longshot39 suggested one (somewhat familiar) way to resist the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs:

A man with any sense could still refuse to marry, at least in the traditional sense. Just get another MGTOW friend and marry them, like was said in another thread. Even if a person were required by law to live in the same house, having your friend as a roommate would still be a HUGE improvement over being forced to marry some womb turd with little thuglits.

To be sure, not everyone on the Happy Bachelors forum is convinced such a danger is imminent. The always logical spocksdisciple responded:

There won't be forced marriage, as women want the earning power of the beta but 'gina tingle factor of the thug/bad boy. Instead what the gov't will do is simply start to garnish the wages of single men with selective taxation and "fees."

And if any men resist the New Girl Order by not earning enough, well, naturally they'll just be forced into labor camps:

These labor camps would come into existence under some economic pretext set up by gov't. One such pretext is that unemployed or underemployed people(ie men) of a certain age range say 18-40, would be very useful to the government as labor for various federal projects. ...

Of course women would be exempt because they'll have some beta or stooge on standby for marriage and they would claim "gender oppression" should women be inducted into such camps. ...

These camps would be run under the auspices of FEMA and would be painted to be "emergency support facilities", note that some form of this type of forced and indentured labor already as come back in the form in prison chain gangs which were all but abolished by the 1950s-60s but made a comeback in the late 90s.

But hey, still beats being married -- amirite, fellas?

All joking aside, I feel that one thing we can all agree upon here at Man Boobz is that the fine gentlemen at Happy Bachelors should not be marrying anyone any time soon, either voluntarily or as a result of evil feminist legislation. So I ask the women reading this post now to pledge publicly, in a comment below, that they personally will not marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even if they are required by law to do so.



--

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.

The ugly diva crisis ... solved!

She's out of your league, pal!

You may recall a little ditty from days gone by called "If you wanna be happy." The song, the one hit of one-hit-wonder Jimmy Soul, was a song with a message for men in love. That message? Well, if my mere mentioning of the song hasn't already gotten it stuck in your head, let me remind you of its basic thesis:

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

Why is this? Well, put simply, pretty women are entitled bitches who will ruin your life and break your heart, while ugly women will be so grateful for your attention that they'll treat you well and prepare meals in a timely fashion:

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her and then she starts
To do the things that will break his heart

But if you make an ugly woman your wife
A-you'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ug-a-ly woman cooks meals on time
And she'll always give you peace of mind

By "piece of mind," I believe Mr. Soul is referring to "blowjobs."

But, alas, this simple formula for male happiness has been rendered ineffective. And it's all the fault of evil manginas. A fellow called Lincoln, posting on NiceGuy's MGTOW forum, reports that these dastardly woman-worshipping half-men have upset the old order by actively pursuing ugly women and making them think they're all that. The horror! All this mangina attention has given

even the most ugliest man faced mountain beasts [an] overinflated sense of their own self-importance, and the net result is the most repulsive, vile, and ill-tempered skanks you could ever meet. Even now I can't understand it, I can't even look at these women much less want to bang them, but there it is. It's already a given that the really attractive ones will of course behave the same way, but if even the ugliest ones behave like prima donnas, who's left?

It seems an unsolvable dilemma. But Lincoln believes he's found a way out: amputees.

The ideal is to find a beautiful woman that no mangina wants. it's possible, but they usually have some kind of trait that puts men off for sometimes the fucking stupidest reason. One example was this one armed woman I knew of once. She had lost her arm in a car accident, and she was the sweetest, most kindest girl you could have met, but for some reason guys weren't lining up the door for her. Stupid. If I ran across her again I wouldn't hesitate to ask her out.

Love will always find a way.

If you now need to get "If you wanna be happy" out of your head, this ought to do it:



--

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.

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.

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.

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.

How to blame feminism for everything: Airport Lesbians Edition

Gropes for everyone!

So I had been assuming that the creepily intrusive new airport screening procedures -- you know, the whole "let us look at you naked or we'll grope you" thing -- was the fault of a government willing to trade away our last vestiges of privacy for an illusion of security. But apparently, it's feminism that's to blame. And lesbians. "Rex Patriarch," a blogger who is definitely going his own way, suggests that the new procedures are the "final result" of feminism gone bad:

Look who now runs the TSA, a bull dyke control freak. Look at who works for TSA, bull dyke control freaks and mangina white knights. This army of control freaks was created by feminism. Feminism is not about equality it is about upsetting the natural order creating female superiority through the abuse of men which then mutates into government superiority through the abuse of men and women outside the system.

Mr. Patriarch's post was, ironically, inspired by a news story about India's (female) ambassador to the US being groped -- er, patted down -- by a female Transportation Security Administration screener. I'm not quite sure how that promotes female superiority.

Not-So-Beautiful Losers

Guys, they're hiring!

I'm beginning to suspect that the Happy Bachelors who populate the Happy Bachelors Forum are not quite as happy as they let on. Why is this? Well, when anyone suggests that their single status might in any way be undesirable, they don't brush the comment off like most of us reasonably well-adjusted unmarried guys do. No, they get mad. Really mad. And they start talking about "femhags," "fem-nags," bitches and hoes (not the garden implement).

Here's the thread in question. "analyzing" starts off the festivities by pointing to an email from a lovelorn 42-year old lass to an online relationship advice column:

Maybe I shouldn't have waited [to get married], because it seems like every unmarried guy in the age range I'm looking for (40 to about 50) is a loser of one sort or another. If the guy has never been married, he's either got commitment issues, or he's lacking in social skills, or he drinks too much or has some other unattractive qualities. If he's divorced, he's either angry at women or so desperate to find a new one that he wants to hook up before he even knows you.

This comment is like a red flag to the Happy Bachelor bulls, who release a torrent of abuse that inadvertently reinforces every negative stereotype in the woman's email. After a few comments lauding the superiority of young Thai and Filipina women over fortysomething American gals, spocksdisciple gets the woman-hating orgy underway. (I've bolded some of the best -- as in worst -- bits in his comment and some of the others.)

Women like this lack an essential quality to even begin to comprehend why they are such total failures in their relationships.

That essential quality is that of introspection and reflection, instead of asking what bad choices she's made and her role in making these choices, she goes on the typical female tirade about how it's the fault of all the men around her. ...

I see lots and lots of cats in her future and nothing else, I will enjoy the upcoming decades as more and more of these useless bitches end up alone and going stir crazy. I'm betting that many of them will end up abusing drugs or alcohol to make their pain bearable. I will laugh at them because even then they will not look inwards to see if they were in part responsible for ending up alone.

Marcus Aurelius commends what he sees as an excellent analysis, and adds his own thoughts:

[W]omen are not capable of introspection, its always someone else's fault. They don't realize that their being cum dumpsters, going for Alphas, and their hypergamy destroys their chance at landing a mangina. They don't have a beta male mangina...because...they overlooked them...and still are. I think you are right, these aging women that are alone will be screwed up mentally. ...

Women just don't know what to do with themselves. ... Coming home to a quiet and empty home for them...is like descending into hell because they don't know what to do once they get there. Men get hobbies. For them Its get drunk, or watch So You Think You Can Dance or the Bachelor...hahaha.....nothing goes on inside those heads of theirs.

I'm assuming he's not the real Marcus Aurelius -- I'm pretty sure the original Marcus Aurelius never used the term "cum dumpster."

Others contribute their own insights about women. In the process, Curiepoint explains why he never became a firefighter:

I find it an honor to be so offensive to the likes of women. After a lifetime of looking after everyone else, bowing and scraping for a meagre paycheck, and kissing the ass of a woman who voraciously consumed everything I had (two of them, actually) I am more than proud to stand in defiance of any woman's shitty personality.

I wouldn't piss on a woman if she were on fire. Chances are, that would amount to one huge, spitting grease fire, given how "hot" women are comprised mostly of blubber and cheap rayon clothing. ...

Women aren't worth the effort to work up enough spit to hurl at them. And, any man who would actually cave in to her demands deserves to burn right along side them. They are not men. Both barely qualify as being vaguely humanoid.

Lavastorm suggests that perhaps being a winner isn't what it's cracked up to be, based on the following (apparently typical) scenario:

So a "winner" is a "man" who follows society's pre-programmed path to self-destruction (gets married, becomes the wife's tool to keep up with the neighbors, works in a soul-destroying job, is destroyed by wife when she gets "bored," gets blamed for "destroying the marriage," is thrown to the gauntlet of dread judges, retarded pit bulls, and menopausing succubi who commence sucking his blood.

In case you're wondering: No, he never closes the parenthesis. He's Going His Own Way, grammatically.