On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a "provocation," and beating a woman's face in is "justice."

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.

On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react ... as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”

At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:

What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 

Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” -- though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”

The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:

I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.

 Piercedhead offered this take:

Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 

If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.

That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 

Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:

something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?

DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:

a brave man and a hero. 

There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …

It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) -- yes, that's how he writes his name -- took it a step further, saying that: 

the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.

Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan's comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)

What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 

What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 

Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

--

If you liked 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.

Virtual Women, Real Annoying

Probably not the woman of your dreams.

Hey fellas! Are you tired of dealing with actual women? Would you rather spend a nice evening at home chatting amiably with a tiny virtual woman who lives inside your computer instead? If so, would it be OK if instead of resembling any woman you’ve ever met in real life this tiny virtual woman instead acted as though she’d been designed by some dude who’s never actually spoken with a real woman? 

Also, I should add, if you chat her up cleverly enough, she’ll take off her virtual clothes and show you her virtual lady bits. 

If this all sounds like heaven to you, you may want to check out a little “game” called Virtual Woman Millennium Edition. A friend of mine found it on Download.com theother day, and naturally thought of me. The game, such as it is, allows you to create the woman of your dreams. As the game publisher, an outfit calling itself CyberPunk Software, put it: 

Virtual Woman users can build, talk, and compete against Virtual Women with full artificial intelligence. You choose their ethnic type, personality, location, clothing, etc

By “compete against,” the game makers mean, basically, that you chat with her until she either tells you to fuck off (you lose!) or she takes off her clothes (you win!). Sex, evidently, is something that women own, and the point of dating, for guys at least, is to sweet talk – or wheedle, or con -- the ladies into giving it to them. Women “win,” by contrast, when they force guys to listen to their inane blather without giving the poor schmucks even a glimpse of their titties. (I’d like to think that when my dates take off their clothes we both win.) 

I played the game the other night – or at least as much of it as I could stand. The first time, the game crashed before the conversation started. The second time, I played as a raging misogynist and offended my date by calling her a “whore” and a “cunt,” and she left in a huff. The third time, I chatted long enough to convince my date to remove her top. At which point real life asserted its demands, and I set the game aside, never to resume it.

Let’s just say that the conversations I had with each of these imaginary women were something less than sparkling. The woman who eventually took off her top blathered happily away about her hair for a few minutes, then segued into a conversation about how she hated going to new supermarkets because she wouldn’t know where to look to find the milk. She was shallow, silly, and self-absorbed, a virtual incarnation of every sexist stereotype of modern womanhood.  In other words, she seemed to come straight from MGTOW central casting. My “conversation” with her only lasted a few minutes, but it seemed to take forever. If real women were like this, I think even I would consider Going My Own Way. 

As one review on Download.com put it:  

the girls are just plane stupid, they … keep repeating themselves over and over again, and allot of what they say makes no sense, I say something to them, and they asked me some silly question that makes no sense, once I said what to one about something stupid it said that made so sense, just to see what it would do, and it said ( why are you so worried about me being what?) and it did that with other things I said to it too, its stupid, don't waist your time with this. 

That pretty much hits the nale on the hed. 

So many questions:

Were the makers of this game deliberately trying to make the women as annoying as possible, or do they think women are actually like this? Was the inanity of the conversation a bug – the result of shitty artificial intelligence programming  – or a feature? Probably a bit of both. 

More to the point: who could possibly enjoy a game like this? You’d have to have a pretty low opinion of women to be able to put up with the game’s casual misogyny. But if you hate women that much, why would you want to spend your evening talking to an imaginary woman about shopping and hair? 

Perhaps that’s why the publisher seems to have abandoned the game; the latest update on its web site is from 2008. 

As I’ve pointed out before, a small but significant number of “mansosphere” men are eagerly looking forward to the day when sex robots and/or “virtual” women will give men what they see as a real alternative to real women, thus putting supposedly spoiled “western” women in their place and destroying feminism to boot. One of the many fatal flaws in this scenario is that the only people who seem to be interested in making sexbots and VR women are guys who have no fucking clue what actual human women are like. But, hey, if it gets these guys out of the dating pool, that’s pretty much good news for everyone.

-- 

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.

Blah blah Scott Adams blah blah blah

Scott Adams' giant brain (Artist's rendering)

In case anyone is still interested, certified genius Scott Adams has written a little apologia (not an apology) for his recently exposed sockpuppet self-puffery. Actually, it’s not so little. It’s about a bazillion words long, and I couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing. But I rather liked Mary Elizabeth Williams’ take on Adams’ self-inflicted PR woes in Salon. Adams is turning into a nerdy cartoonist version of Charlie Sheen.

You know who’s a much better cartoonist? Kate Beaton of Hark, A Vagrant. This one of hers is my fave. Or maybe this one. This one’s good too. Also, this. Oh, I can’t decide.

OkCupid can read your mind

From OkCupid

Antifeminists regularly charge feminists like me with assuming men and women are the same. Which is a bit silly. I don’t know any feminist who assumes men and women are the same, whether the differences are due to biology (I can’t grow a baby in my belly) or culture (women are far more likely to while away their evenings reading or writing fanfic about Sam and Dean). I think the confusion amongst the antifeminists on this point stems from the fact that the specific things they think are different between men and women are often nothing more than sexist nonsense, and feminists can’t help but point this out.

No, if you want to see the ways men and women really are different, it helps to start with actual data rather than a bunch of retrograde sexist assumptions you pull out of your ass. The folks behind the OkCupid dating site have lots of data – users of the site fill out detailed profiles and answer countless questions about themselves in order to find others like them – and they know how to crunch it. Which means they can tell you with a great deal of precision what the men and women who use their site think about all sorts of things. Which is why OkCupid’s blog is so often a source of wonderment.

Take the latest post – thanks to Feministe for alerting me to it – which presents an assortment of creative charts -- like the one above, depicting some of the actual differences between men and women on the site.

Who knew that men who mention “poetry” in their profiles were more likely to be into rough sex than dudes who talk about “boating?"

And what about guys who are into both poetry and boating? There must be some. I mean, many of my favorite poems involve Nantucket, a small island reachable only by boat.

Most of the rest of the charts in the latest post don't specifically contrast men and women, but are interesting in all sorts of other ways. (You may have to change some of your assumptions about vegetarians.) If you want more on gender differences (not to mention intersting stuff on race), I'd suggest looking back through the OkCupid blog's back catalogue. Here's an interesting post on The Mathematics of Beauty. And then there's this classic, which is probably a big part of why the fortysomething women I know who've used the site have gotten so, so many messages from horny guys half their age.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I love the OkCupid blog

And so, I think, will you

--

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.

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. 

Scott Adams' Imaginary Friend

Scott Adams, meet Scott Adams.

Oh Scott Adams, why must you be so delightfully mockable? Regular readers may well remember the Dilbert dude writing a really douchey misogynistic blog post, and then defending that blog post in a highly patronizing and completely unconvincing way.

Now it turns out that everybody’s favorite misogynist cartoonist has apparently been posting pro-Scott-Adams comments on Metafilter and Reddit under the super seekret alias PlannedChaos. Today, on Metafilter, PlannedChaos fessed up to the sockpuppetry, admitting that he was Adams; according to Gawker, Adams has also confessed directly to MetaFilter founder Matt Haughey. 

In light of this revelation, I would encourage everyone to poke through PlannedChaos’ comment histories on both MetaFilter and Reddit. They are, of course, quite (unintentionally) hilarious.

On MetaFilter, Adams' sockpuppet praises Adams (that is, himself) as someone with "a certified genius I.Q., and that's hard to hide." He also boasts that Adams (that is, himself): 

turned a failing comic into a household word by transforming it from a generic comic into a workplace comic. He wrote a number of best selling books. He was one of the top paid public speakers for a decade. His website has earned him millions while no other comic property has done the same. One of his two restaurants was solidly successful. And now he's one of the most popular writers in the Wall Street Journal. 

Wait, what was that right before the Wall Street Journal bit? "One of his two restaurants?" Boy, now I want to find out the history of that second, non-successful restaurant.  What went wrong? Did people not hunger for Ratbert’s Ratburgers? Did it have a rotating floor like Hank’s Look-Around Café?

Also, in what can only be described as GIGANTIC FUCKING IRONY, PlannedChaos also mocked another commenter for allegedly having an "imaginary friend."

On Reddit, PlannedChaos was similarly sycophantic towards, er, himself: 

If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has lots of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how the idiot mind is wired.

It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.

And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but apparently not enough of a genius -- "certified" or no -- to engage in sockpuppetry without totally giving himself away. Just sayin’.

If you have even the slightest doubt that PlannedChaos is indeed Adams himself, this comment on Reddit from a year ago should lay those doubts to rest immediately:

The people here who are objecting to Adams' fiction about evolution clearly have some reading comprehension problems. A careful reading of the actual book will give you a different opinion.

By the way, Adams has said the book was designed using hypnotic methods (he's a trained hypnotist) and it is intended to generate strong opinions, and even some weird amnesia about the content itself. You can see the amnesia and cognitive dissonance in full display in these comments.

Hmm. Reading comprehension problems. The people who disagree with Adams don’t understand him. Where on earth have I heard that before?

Oh yeah.

Oh, and in his final comment on Metafilter, Adams suggests that his sockpuppetry was all a bit of fun. In other words, like Pee-Wee Herman falling of his bike, he meant to do it. I think I may have heard that somewhere before, 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.

On Strike. Also: kitties.

It’s not hard to find misogyny on manosphere sites. Hell, on some sites, like The Spearhead or MGTOWforums.com, it’s hard to find a discussion that’s not overflowing with misogyny. 

What is hard to find, sometimes, is misogyny that is interesting. As I poked around on the regular sites today the misogyny all blurred together into one giant mass of "I've heard it all before." Here, it's: women are all dirty whores. There, it's: those damn bitches will get their comeuppance when we Go Our Own Way. Yeah, yeah. Tell me something I don't know. 

So I’m going on strike today for better misogyny. 

In the meantime, I present: a cat trying to jump onto a dresser. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that cats can also do this.)

Maybe I'm just being cranky. There may well be some genuinely interesting misogyny I missed in either or both of the threads I linked to above. If you find some, feel free to post it in the comments.

-- 

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.

Female action heroes: An abomination

Most 12-year-old girls are not superheroines.

One of my favorite dopey complaints from the Men’s Rights crowd is that action movies featuring ass-kicking women are “unrealistic” because real women are too dainty to do all that ass-kicking shit. On The Spearhead today, W.F. Price aims his withering contempt at the new film Hanna: 

The ass-kicking chick flicks are getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on. In “Hanna” a girl is raised by her father to be a vicious killer somewhere in the arctic. Hanna is played by Saoirse Ronan, an Irish girl with a sweet smile who looks about as tough as a bunny rabbit. Nevertheless, we are supposed to suspend disbelief and accept that this waif is capable of breaking necks with a single blow.

Even worse, in the trailer for the film, young Miss Ronan is depicted doing … pull-ups!  “In general, women can’t do pull-ups,” Price complains, “and the vanishingly few who can don’t look much like Saoirse Ronan.”

Price does have a point. Real women can’t do the things that female action heroes do in films. Angelina Jolie may be a deeply scary woman, but I’m pretty sure she can’t take out entire boats full of trained assassins by herself, or jump from truck to truck on the highway to escape pursuers in cars, as she did as super seekret double (triple?) agent Evelyn Salt. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Sarah Michelle Gellar has never really slain even a single vampire. And there is no such thing as an indestructible cheerleader.

But here’s the thing, guys: All that crazy shit that male action stars do? Real men can’t do that either. Matt Damon is pretty buff, and I’m pretty sure he could take Angelina Jolie in a fight, but he’s not actually Jason Bourne. Christian Bale doesn’t put on a batsuit at night and run around town taking out baddies with his bare – well, gloved -- hands. Toby Maguire can’t swing from building to building, or stick to walls; if he were bitten by a radioactive spider, he’d need to go to the hospital. Arnold is not the Terminator.

Also, and I hate to be the one who has to break this to you, guys: professional wrestling is fake.

I know it might be tough to take all this in, guys, so here’s Captain Kirk fighting a very slow-moving alien monster on planet Not-Very-Far-From-The-Studio. Kirk has a little trouble with this one but in real life, I'm pretty sure William Shatner could take down an alien monster, provided it moved as slowly as this one.

--

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.

Sex-ed for assholes. And non-assholes, too.

Note: Girlfriend pillows are not actual girlfriends.

Men Going Their Own Way have some problems with sex. One of the biggest? Despite their best efforts to totally and completely avoid women -- which some reason always seems to involve spending hours online every day talking about women -- sometimes it will somehow come to pass that hapless MGTOWers will find themselves actually having sex with a woman. As you might imagine, this experience may not be altogether pleasant for either party involved.  Indeed, in my most recent post, I quoted one poor non-virgin MGTOWer who declared that “having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn't join in and you can hardly tell the difference.”

What this young man has described is not “sex” so much as “really, really bad sex.” Fortunately, it can be prevented! The most obvious way, already hit upon by many MGTOWers, is to not have sex with women at all. If you despise and resent the entire female gender, it is probably best to not get naked with individual members of that gender. The women of the world will be happy to go along with you on this point, trust me.

But on the off chance that some MGTOWers might be willing to dial down their woman-hatred enough to actually contemplate sex with women, I would like to offer some tips on how to improve the experience for everyone.

First, to make absolutely sure that sex won’t come to resemble “humping a moist pillow,” make sure that your sexual partner is not, in fact, a moist pillow. 

This is a simple fix, and one that is often overlooked. 

If your partner is not actually a pillow but a live human woman, well, I will now give the floor to Ozymandias, who recently posted an extremely helpful list of suggestions in the comments here. Here it is again for anyone who might have missed it::

OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ GO!

So all the sex you've had with women, Zaku, has vaguely resembled fucking a moist pillow. I understand and empathize with your sadness about your sex life. However, young padawan, there are methods of solving this.

*Are all of your partners virgins or in high school? Virgins and high schoolers are terrible at sex, particularly if both are inexperienced. I personally was on my third partner before I was any good in bed.

FIX: Find your local cougar, slut or sexually assertive woman.

*Was your partner someone with sexual hang-ups? Slut-shaming often makes women think that enthusiasm makes them "bad girls", and ideas of men-earning-sex often make women think that lying there is their contribution to sex.

FIX: Have sex with feminists.

*Are you simply not that good in bed? This is a common problem among inexperienced men, and can lead to women not enjoying sex because it is not that enjoyable.

FIX: Learn the location of the clit (with an anatomy chart, if necessary). Listen to her instructions about sex. If she's moaning, KEEP DOING THAT. Try to give her at least one orgasm before you stick your dick in (be reasonable, if she's begging "stick it in me", go ahead, but it's a good guideline). Suck it up about the taste and learn to love eating pussy. Make sure you give her adequate foreplay (AT LEAST five minutes). Touch and kiss parts of her besides her breasts and pussy. Most of all, confidence and joy, confidence and joy.  [Editor’s Note: As briget has noted in the comments, if you really, really don’t like the taste of pussy, you can always use a dental dam; google the term if you don’t know what that is.]

*Was your partner very, very drunk? Bad sign. Sober people participate more.

FIX: If she's passed out or puking, don't fuck her.

*Was your partner freezing up, softly repeating "no, no, no", or otherwise clearly not enjoying herself? Then you may have had what is technically referred to as "nonconsensual sex," or by us Femicunt Queens of Nofunnington, "rape."

FIX: Seek affirmative, enthusiastic consent. This is shown by her, for example, ripping off your clothes, chanting "yes", sucking your cock without being asked, etc. If you are confused if she is consenting, feel free to ask "do you want to (have sex, make out, have me suck your tits, etc.)?" If you hear words like "no" and "stop," STOP IMMEDIATELY.

OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ OVER.

Generally speaking, this is good advice for all inexperienced hetero dudes interested in improving their sex lives and the sex lives of their partners. (PROTIP: Improving the sex life of your partner will dramatically improve your sex life too.) With a few changes in wording to reflect different anatomies, as Oz herself points out, this is also good advice for straight women, gay women, gay men, trans men and women, bisexuals, and everyone else who is interested in having sex with some subset of their fellow human beings.

Just to reiterate one point: no one is a sexual expert from the get-go. There’s no shame in sexual inexperience. But it is sort of a douchebag move to blame the entire opposite sex for bad sex if you don’t know what the fuck you are doing in bed.  It takes some time, and some actual giving-a-shit-about-what-the-other-person-likes in order to get good at it. Generally speaking, if you like and respect your sexual partners, gaining this experience and expertise should be a highly enjoyable endeavor. Even if you don’t yet have much in the way of skills, a little bit of enthusiasm can go a long way. Also: you’re allowed to actually ask the other person what he or she likes and doesn’t like. This can prevent all sorts of awkwardness and encourage all sorts of fun sexy times.

Which brings us to another point worth reiterating: if there’s no shame in sexual inexperience, there’s no shame in sexual experience either. Sexually inexperienced women don’t know what they’re doing any more than sexually inexperienced guys do. So, guys, if you want to get with women who actually do know what they are doing, don’t look down on women for having sexual experience. If you’re a slut shamer, you basically have no right to complain if your partners are bad in bed. If you’re one of those dickheads who thinks women all become hags the instant they hit 25, or 30, guess what: you’ve ruled out having sex with the overwhelming majority of the women who are actually really really good at it. 

And while we’re at it: Taking the time to sit down and read about sexual techniques can speed up the process of getting good at sex enormously. If you don’t know how to find the g-spot, well, here you go.  You’re welcome. Lots more useful shit here and here, along with plenty of suggestions for awesome sexy-time book learnin. If you think you’re somehow above reading about sex, well, too bad: that’s what you’ve just been doing! 

If after all this you find that your partner is still lying there like a moist pillow, and you’ve ruled out sexual hangups, sexual inexperience and/or less-than-enthusiastic consent, there are a few other possibilities to look at: 

      1) She (or he) might be having libido problems because of depression – or due to side effects of depression meds – or for some other medical or biological reason. Time to see a doctor.

      2) She (or he) might be asexual. Some people just aren’t into sex. You’ll have to figure out yourselves what this means for your relationship. And that might mean: no more relationship. If you’re really into sex, and partner isn't, neither one of you is doing the other a favor by sticking around. 

3) She (or he) might actually be a selfish asshole. Selfish assholes tend to suck at sex. Try not to have sex with them. And don’t blame their entire gender for it. And if you're a selfish asshole, try not to have sex with anyone yourself.

Feel free to share your own tips (and links) in the comments. Learning more about sex and sexuality = good for everybody.

-- 

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.

Two Holes Don't Make a Right, and other somewhat baffling MGTOW slogans

Grace Jones will kick your bumper sticker's ass.

One of the quickest and easiest ways to make yourself look like a complete idiot is to festoon your car with an assortment of bumper stickers – preferably stickers that are belligerent, incoherent, and “funny.” (By “funny,” of course, I mean “funny only to people who share all of your social, cultural and political beliefs, and probably not even then.”)

Alas, the Men Going Their Own Way movement doesn’t have any bumper stickers of its own. Oh, sure, there are a vast variety of just plain sexist bumper stickers out there  (“If I wanted a bitch, I’d buy a dog”),  and you can even buy “I HEART misogyny” stickers on Cafepress. but there’s not much out that deals with the specific stupid concerns of the MGTOW crowd.

The good fellows on MGTOWforums.com want to change all that. Recently a batch of them began brainstorming about possible slogans for MGTOW bumper stickers. Womanhater started the discussion off with a doozy, managing to be both belligerent AND baffling to anyone who hasn’t already taken a sip of the MGTOW Kool-Aid:

Chivalry is Treason!

A promising start. Not all the suggestions that followed quite lived up to this standard. Quite a few were earnest and plodding, not very slogan-y:

When Was the Last Time You Treated a Man Fairly?

Single moms should stay single.

Some men live happy fulfilling lives, the rest get married.

Women and happiness don't go together.

Still, some of the more earnest attempts managed to be attention-grabbing nonetheless:

I don't believe any accusation of rape

Many others simply rehashed basic MGTOW themes:

We Are Men, Not Wallets

Marriage is for morons 

Alimony is Slavery

But a number of the suggestions contained the spark of creative loopiness that keeps me coming back to the MGTOW forums again and again. Take, for example, the surprisingly large number that managed to work vaginas into the equation, generally in a highly off-putting manner:

Give women the finger and not in a good way 

Excuse me, is that fish I smell?

Two holes don't make a right

This last one, while not without its charms, is a little puzzling. If you do the math correctly, women have seven holes, and men have six (or seven, if you include one very small hole). Up to three of these lady-holes (and up to two for men) may come into play in the course of routine sexual activity. (More advanced fetishists may use more holes, as this somewhat NSFW video illustrates; don't worry, it's not a link to a video of someone putting something in a man's seventh hole, because, OW!) I'm not entirely sure which two holes our sloganeer is fingering as the villains here. 

Quite a few of the suggestions seemed almost designed to baffle everyone outside the confines of MGTOWforums.com (and even some within it):

Don't blame me for 1920

Hammurabi was correct about women

Listen to Cato the Elder

For those playing along at home, 1920 was of course the year in which matinee idol Douglas Fairbanks married actress Mary Pickford, known as "America's Sweetheart," even though she was Canadian; it was also the year in which construction began on the Holland Tunnel between New York and New Jersey, thus setting the stage for the horror later known as the “bridge and tunnel crowd.” But I’m guessing the event our sloganeer is really concerned about is the passage of the 19^th Amendment, giving American women the vote, though, unless our sloganeer is quite elderly indeed, I’m not quite sure why anyone would be blaming (or crediting) him for the Amendment’s passage.

As for the other two, well, the Code of Hammurabi, the first king of the Babylonian Empire in the 18th century BC,  “mark[ed] the beginning of the institutionalization of the patriarchal family as an aspect of state power,” as historian Gerda Lerner notes. Hammy (as I like to call him) also invented the idea of “an eye for an eye.” And Cato the Elder? He said some nasty shit about women.You can look it up yourself. I'm lazy.

Other slogans weren’t so much obscure as just plain odd:

If the FDA screened pussy, you'd need a prescription to get it.

I'd rather have guns than gals.

A cow in the bed...but a freak in the courtroom!

And then there was this little riddle:

Q)Why don't women respect men?
A)Becoz a Mousetrap laughs at the Mouse

Uh, what?

Of all the proposed slogans, only one actually showed any real wit, this punny little contribution from Apeiron:

Better dead than wed.

Indeed, this one was so good I suspected it had to have been used somewhere before. And indeed it has been. A quick Google search showed that the UK anarchist group Class War used the phrase back in the 1980s on a poster protesting the marriage of Prince Andrew and Sarah “Fergie” Ferguson. Of course, that temporarily happy couple ended up separating after only six years, and divorced a few years after that.

Maybe slogans can change the world.

Scary thought.

Despite that risk, I would like to encourage the MGTOWers to make up some stickers of their own. Maybe some t-shirts, coffee mugs, and baseball caps as well.  Heck, put these slogans on everything you own. Seriously, anything that makes it easier to identify you, preferably at a distance, is more than welcome.

--

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.