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.

Days of Whine and Roses

The face (and torso) of evil.

Certain kinds of stories are like catnip to the Men Going Their Own Way crowd: Stories about rich airheaded women. Stories about golddiggers and giant divorce settlements. Stories about idiotic or incompetent women. So it's no surprise that the tale of Patricia Kluge and her not-so-successful foray into the world of winemaking has sent the fellows on MGTOWforums.com into full-on misogyny mode.

Kluge, you see, is the former wife of a media mogul, and her divorce settlement in 1990 netted her hefty alimony payments, which are variously claimed to have been either $1.6 million a week, or "less than $1 million a year."  The article linked to by the MGTOWers says she was rumored to have collected a settlement of a cool billion bucks and that the reported $1.6 million a week was just the interest on this vast sum. Who knows? It was a shitload of money. Plus a giant fucking mansion. Whatever the amount, Kluge has apparently blown through it all, spending huge amounts on ostentatious luxury crap and burning through tens of millions on her less-than-successful winery. Last month the bank repossessed her mansion.

So: this terrible woman was also a terrible businesswoman. Well, yeah. But to the fellows at MGTOWforums.com, her singular tale is a sign that women in general shouldn't be trusted with money -- or with anything else, for that matter. Chainlightning started off what turned into a veritable misogyny cascade by announcing:

Women should never have access to money. Look at what happened to the US since the 1960s.

Systems1082 saw Chainlightning's "women shouldn't have money" and raised him with "women shouldn't have the right to vote."

It actually goes back to 1920 when women were given the right to vote. They have learned they can vote themselves other people's money.

Stonelifter took it even further, suggesting that some women don't ever deserve the right to live:

i don't understand why men don't engage in more murder for hire

He followed this innocent little query up with a reference to the evil feminist Karl Marx and his followers at "some college in Berlin."

it goes back to about 1870 so so when marx decided tearing down Western civilization was best achieved on many small fronts and women would be one of them. Cultural marxism was tied up into one neat package in some college in Berlin during the 1920's but the idea to have women voting to fuck everything up came to marx at the tail end of his life

XTC pretty much trumped everyone by taking it back to the source: that bitch Eve.

It goes back to the garden of Eden when Eve screwed us all over.

So there you have it. Eve ate an apple, Patricia Kluge blew through money she didn't really deserve to have. Therefore, women are evil.

Um, have you MGTOWers ever heard of Nicolas Cage?

(Note: Before you tell me that Nic Cage earned his money fair and square, I ask that you sit down and watch The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider, National Treasure, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Face/Off, and Con Air. Then get back to me. I will allow that he did a pretty good job in Kick-Ass.)

(Note 2: By "some college in Berlin in the 1920s," Stonelifter was of course referring to an assortment of Marxist theorists associated with a research institute that started in Frankfurt, not Berlin, in the 1920s, but which achieved its greatest influence after it moved to New York in the 1930s because of, you know, Hitler.)

--

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.

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.

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

From Paul Elam's site.

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

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

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

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


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

The money quote:

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

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

And then make them clean up the mess.

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

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

Key quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results of a poll on Schopenbecq's site.

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

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

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

More misogyny:

Anglobitch: Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

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

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

Heretical Sex: Never Date Western Women

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

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

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

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

Only satanists would trash motherhood. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffragette Set

As depressing as the election results were, at least to those of us in the Daily Show demographic, just think how much worse they would have been if women didn't have the right to vote! You know, like these dudes, and this gal, and this dude wish were still the case.

So celebrate that tiny little silver lining by taking a look at these horrifyingly amusing anti-suffrage cartoons, and just remember, the assholes drawing them lost.

QuoteOTD: Whatever terrible shit men do, it's all women's fault. Their sexy fault.

The quote of the day today is a long and rambling one, so buckle up. It's from a comment on The Spearhead, by a fellow named Snark, which was enthusiastically highlighted by the Schopenhauer-loving, Age-of-Consent-Law-hating theantifeminist on his creepy blog. The theme of the post? Whatever nasty, violent, bad shit men do is all the fault of hot young women, who control men through the power of their evil sexiness.

Before settling into his argument proper, Snark gets one little point out of the way: he's not talking about feminists, who are, he says, generally too old, or, if young, too "neurotic and/or ugly" to control men with the promise of sexy sex. No, Snark is talking about hot young women, who control men without having to resort to feminism. Oh, feminism is evil. But pretty girls are evil squared. So let's begin:

There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.

Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.

Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. ...

Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.

Hmm. So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins. And just imagine how much worse World War II would have been if he'd actually had two balls, instead of just the one! Let's continue:

The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.

Poor men are stuck between their rock-hard dicks and a hard place:

The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.

Oh, and the way those ladies dress!

[T]oday we are subject to the new phenomena [of] ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. ...

The pink wurlitzer? Do you mean ... this? Never mind. Onward:

Our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.

How Women Rule the Universe

And what set all this in motion? The bikini? The Wonderbra? Nope:

[T]his was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote.

The vote! That sexy, sexy right to vote.

Not that this argument, such as it is, deserves a rebuttal, but if men are naturally nonviolent, and women are the cause of their violence, why do gay men get into fights?

Quote of the Day: Women's Suffrage = Lost Faith in Manhood.

I had no idea that women's suffrage was still so controversial. Apparently it is, at least to the guys at the Spearhead, and to the blog Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt. Without further ado, the quote:

Woman Totally Ruining Everything

Women's suffrage may have been the first major event that said, "don't trust men". In other words, it was the beginning of the lost faith in manhood. It sent the message that men were inept to handle worldly affairs and when men gave women their vote, it kicked things up a notch by reinforcing the mindset that men were indeed inept little boys who can't figure anything out or get anything done without a woman's guidance. Had the men held their ground and the women held their faith, I believe any unsettling political/economic conditions would have improved.  It is similar to our faith in God.

I should point out that the author of this fine piece of analysis is a woman. Some women are idiots. Into the Enemies List she goes.

Hey, fellas! Let's just take away their right to vote!

Oh dear. The Men's Rights movement often seems like a giant He Man Woman Haters Club. But generally the cleverer of the MRAs go out of their way to deny outright misogyny. Oh, we don't hate women, just feminists. We don't want to take away the legitimate rights of women; we just want equality, with neither side getting special rights at the expense of the other.

But then there's this dude. In a recent post on the popular men's rights blog The Spearhead, a guy calling himself ramzpaul argues, with utmost seriousness and sincerity, that women should be denied the right to vote. Let me repeat that: he argues that women should be denied the right to vote.

The post is titled "How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization," and, yep, he means it. (He's also got a version of the rant up on You Tube. He sort of reminds me a bit of Stephen Merchant, if Stephen Merchant were an insane American reactionary woman-hating freak.)

It's a weird, rambling diatribe, but after some swipes at Cultural Marxism and Google (which offended his sensibilities by mentioning the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment on its home page), ramzpaul gets to the heart of his, er, argument. Borrowing some odd notions from a 19th-century anti-suffragette Madeline Dahlgren, he argues that allowing women to vote divides the sexes, creates discord in the family, and destroys marriage. He wraps it all up thusly:

The people opposed to female suffrage proved to be right beyond their wildest predictions. As Google was celebrating the 19th amendment, a British newspaper detailed the boasting of a 26 year old woman who claims to have had sex with 5,000 different men. If Madeline Dahlgren were alive today, I am sure she would have understood the connection between female suffrage in the West and the decline of civilization.

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

I'm not even going to bother to refute any of this, which is so mindbogglingly stupid it refutes itself.

But what's even creepier than this little essay is the response it got on the Spearhead: 191 comments, at last count, mostly offering enthusiastic assent. Yep. Almost everyone there agreed with every word of this nonsense. Here are a few of the choicest nuggets, all of which were massively upvoted by the denizens of The Spearhead:

Womens’ suffrage, unbound by corresponding responsibility has helped the west to become what it is today. Bankrupt and heading into ruin.

For the first few hundred years of this country men held the top wrung of political authority. They discussed with their wives what would be in their best interest as a family, not what was in the best interest of a giant socialist goal. The government was subordinant to them. Now a days the government holds all the power, the women answer to Big Daddy Guv and men are subordinant and accountable to everyone. Women’s sufferage has not improved anyone’s lot in life.

Women have been given too much power. And what have they done with they squander it. Create unnecessary laws. If women didn’t vote, the country would be different. There wouldn’t have been same sex marriage. Men wouldn’t be cheated out of their own homes and children. There would have been a lot more native born people here. No abortion.

But it isn't all the fault of the evil wimmenz:

While feminism and women are largely responsible for the collapse of the West, men had a role to play as well. Feminism would have never taken root and grown if it weren’t for the scores of beta males who just gave in to the demands of women and feminists. We men should have put our foots down and said “No”, but we gave in to the pussy power. Thanks to that, we have the situation we’re in now.

Another commenter made the same point a little more, er, bluntly:

It is amazing how men become manginas where some pussy is present. When you discuss some topic about the relationship between sexes and you try to introduce MRA arguments, you have the women AND THE MEN against you. ... This is the problem of the West: there are no men anymore, only little babies that are scared of Mommy getting angry with them. Feminism has revealed the true nature of women: “ME!ME!ME” and the true nature of men “PUSSY!PUSSY!PUSSY!”

Amazingly, a few women actually agreed with the article as well:

A repeal of suffrage would appeal to those “very few responsible women” the most. It wouldn’t shock them, as they are already discussing it seriously. I’d be grateful to give up the vote if all of the Girl Power types had to give up theirs, as well.

And again, from the same woman:

Here’s the practical reason why female suffrage doesn’t make good sense: When men vote in favor of their own economic interests, the women attached to them benefit. When women vote in favor of their own economic interests, they are more inclined to divorce their husband, so the men do not similarly benefit. Money should flow primarily through the husband, then everyone gets enough and the marriages are stable.

Oh, a tiny handful challenged this craziness, but they were downvoted into oblivion. I had to click a little link to see this comment, from someone calling himself barsin:

This is the laughable lunatic fringe of the far-far right wing that unfortunately always tries to attach itself like a disgusting parasite to any movement for men’s rights, eventually killing it. No reasonable human being even a conservative would touch this poisonous shit you’re spewing with a ten foot pole.

Yeah, what he said. At least that last bit. I'm rather in favor of the Men's Rights Movement self-destructing through its own idiocy and insanity.

EDIT: Just to point this out to anyone who doesn't get it: By talking about a particular bunch of MRAs who think that women shouldn't be allowed the right to vote, I am not suggesting that every single MRA, or even most of them, believe this. But the response to the Spearhead article does pretty clearly indicate that there are way too many of them who do believe it. 

There are several discussions of this article now taking place on Reddit. Check them out.