Ingrid Carlqvist: Not reactionary enought for Red Pillers, because woman

A couple of days ago, our old friend Stefan Molyneux– the garrulous, absurdly misogynistic YouTube philosopher king — chatted for an hour with Ingrid Carlqvist, a Swedish, er, journalist who has found many fans in the alt-right for her hateful attacks on Muslim refugees.

But it turns out that the reactionary Carlqvist — the author of such thoughtful works of journalism as “Sweden: Death by Immigration” and “Sweden: It Is Considered Racism Only If the Victims Are Not White” — isn’t reactionary enough for the fellas in the Red Pill subreddit.

Why? Because they’ve convinced themselves that the fervid anti-feminist Carlqvist is actually a feminist, or at least so tainted by the feminist beliefs they assume she held in the past that no amount of yelling about feminists can save her.

Also, they’re mad that as a teenager in the 1970s she went home with guys and had sex with them. Even worse, she sometimes went home with guys and then … refused to have sex with them!

The gracious gentleman who calls himself worldnewsrager set out the case against Carlqvist in an interminably long posting to The Red Pill subreddit, largely based on a comment she made some 45 minutes into her interview with Molyneux.

As the two discussed what could be done to “save” Sweden from the eeeeevil Muslim invasion, Molyneux evidently suggested that a lot of men “have been so beaten upon by feminism for so long, I think, at this point, many view it almost like saving their enemies from the consequences of their enemies’ own misconceptions and hostilities.”

Worldnewsrager noted that this was a sentiment he agreed with, adding that he “wouldn’t piss on a SJW to put them out.”

But Carlqvist disagreed. “Her response to Stefan’s argument was staggering,” worldnewsrager reports. She urged the men of Europe — or at least the non-Muslim ones — to “save Europe.”

“And when you do,” she said,

you will also crush feminism! And the women, they will be soooooooo sooooo thankful and grateful for saving europe. for saving their opportunities of being women, and being equal, but not being feminists. And they won’t be feminists anymore. … You gotta save Europe for us, and leave the feminists to me.. I will deal with them.

It was at this point, evidently, that the steam began to erupt from worldnewsrager’s ears.

I had to stop the tape there. I mean WHAT!? …  This f**king lifelong feminist has come to realize how deeply and how irrevocably the philosophy she believed in and perpetuated has F**KED UP an entire continent, and the only thing this “strong, independent don’t need no man, free-lover” does is DEMAND men fix it. DEMANDS.

“Free-lover?” you ask. Earlier in the interview, you see, Carlqvist shared

stories from the mid-70’s of being a young free-lover and stringing various dudes along, and then denying them sex at the last minute and them ‘being okay with it.’ She actually referred to that ‘era’ as ‘really, the golden age.’ The golden age of Cultural-Marxism I’m sure. So, as far as i can tell, she was fully on-board with the whole “New Society” ideology until only the last few years. 

And now she wants men to clean up the mess she made by HAVING (or not having) SEX WITH SOME DUDES IN THE 1970s?

Now, this likely childless, husbandless, waste of good white skin

Yes, he really did just call her a “waste of good white skin.”

Now, this likely childless, husbandless, waste of good white skin actually, like tries to shame men into what? Getting themselves killed doing what can only be assumed to be deporting the suspected million muslim immigrants. or overthrowing the government. And for what? So she is protected from the consequences of her life-choices, that she only now, once it’s hitting her in the face, realizes might have been in err?

So much for equality, strength and independence, right? When the metal meets the meat, these Western ‘feminists’ abandon their principles as fast as they adopted them. And demand that another generation of men throw themselves in the grinder on their behalf.

Naturally, the men of the Red Pill subreddit responded to worldnewsrager’s lovely post by giving it many hundreds of upvotes. And in the comments they set forth their own, equally thoughtful, analyses of the Swedish Problem, and how terrible women like Carlqvist caused it with their free-loving feminism.

The always sensible GayLubeOil won himself a few upvotes for this small outpouring of wisdom, which came complete with a lovely racist metaphor for rape:

I feel like women have an almost Biological need to cause problems for men. The more problems they cause the more opportunities they have for assessing men’s problem solving skills. …

The problem is that feminism has made women not worth the prize. So now women can deal with the consequences of their actions up to and including getting culturally enriched by Mohammed and friends on the streets of Stockholm.

RojoEscarlata dropped some bio-truths:

just women for you, you can’t blame them for doing exactly what we expect them to do. Running to men when sh*t hits the fan is literally one of their evolutionary instinctive impulses. 

And followed the bio-truths with some history truths:

Feminism wasn’t created by women, it’s just one of the ugly faces of the multicultural disease that is Marxism, women just happen to be always the ones to fall hardest for the equality meme, like those bonobos communist f**kers. 

Wait, what? How do communist bonobos fit into all this? Alas, he offers no explanation, and ends with:

TL;DR: women vote was a mistake

snobocracy won himself dozens of upvotes with this medical metaphor:

Feminism is literally AIDS.

These Muslims aren’t a problem to deal with. They’re superstitious, uneducated, illiterate, dependant on welfare and generally plain dumb to boot.

But our civilizational immune system, which would usually round up these criminal immigrants, has been stunted by feminists who have convinced the world that any form of masculine energy and will to protect your family and nation is evil.

aiguo888 pointed the finger of blame at a rather familiar scapegoat:

Jews are behind this and this is their desired effect. They want to destroy the caucasian race once and for all, which is what inevitably will happen when local men aren’t having kids anymore and aren’t willing to fight for their countries.

Yep, that’s right: Jews did Muslims! 

FLFTW16 managed to work the c-word into his analysis. No, not that c-word. The other one. The one that starts with “c” and ends with “uck.”

Sweden no longer belongs to the men, so it’s not even their country to save. They have been dispossessed of their ancestral lands. 

At this point the comment veers off into an Ayn Randian paean to property rights, before ending with this:

At this point I feel that Sweden ought to be forced to continue their program until they are utterly destroyed. The example of their hubris must serve as a reminder to uncucked European peoples to take better care what they advocate.

trudatness set forth a conspiracy theory so immense that, well, ok, I didn’t read the whole thing. With my glazed-over eyes, though, I did manage to spot references to globalists, well-funded feminists, academic postmodernism, and Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

And this bit, about Carlqvist:

So of course all this sh*t is miles over this feminist c**t’s head. All she cares about is being able to dress like a floozy and lead betas orbiters on for her own purposes. Only when that reality gets disrupted – her lizard brain now says FEMINISM BAD. She’s able to piece together that feminism is bringing Islamic fundamentalism to Europe and that is counter to her personal whims. She doesn’t have clue one on how to solve it … Her go to method of whining and getting thirsty SJW idiots to carry her water isn’t working. … Now she’s turning to Red Pilled men to do it. Same method, different target.

For our interests, we don’t really care if she and other women of her ilk dress like a floozies and play head games with dudes. We can handle that sh*t. Its the shattering of western society that has most of us concerned.

Well, all righty then.

Or should it be “alt-righty then?”

iLLprincipLeS was a bit more concise.

His comment was also the worst thing I’ve read on the Internet for some time, and I devote a good portion of my life to reading terrible things on the Internet. You may just want to skip it.

Ha, save yourself you f**king strong independent female!

I will piss in your mouth when you ask for some water while you are lying on the ground in the blood dripping from your own p***y that was just raped by the ones you brought in with your Refugees Welcome signs.

Perhaps even more astounding than the comment itself is this realization: iLLprincipLeS sees himself as one of the civilized ones.

When these guys go on about saving “civilization” from the “barbarians,” this is what they think is worthy of saving.

H/T —  r/TheBluePill

If feminists get their way, this will be illegal!

Fellas! I don’t know if you know this, but we’re living in an, um, let me be sure I have this right, a “totalitarian regime dictatorship of forcing social justice and politically correctness.”

That might seem a little bit farfetched, at least to you blue pill people. But I read about this dire new development in the Kotaku In Action subreddit — where Reddit’s GamerGaters mostly hang out — so it must be true.

The post linked to INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of this terrible SJW totalitarian regime dictatorship: a picture of some dude holding up a parody of a “I need feminism because … ” sign designed to show just what mean, mean meanies those feminists really are.

Totalitarianism in action

I’m pretty sure that every red-blooded heterosexual man knows just what he’s getting at here!

I mean, if some hot babe walks by me, and I, as a thoughtful and considerate man, offer her a nice compliment on her appearance by, say, yelling out “hey, titty girl, show me your titties” while making kissy sounds with my mouth, the feminists are all like, “why the hell did you do that, what’s wrong with you, you living piece of crap.”

You see how they get you with the guilt?

BUT, ok, so some other babe walks by, and maybe she’s not really my type, and I think to myself, well, I’m not going to make the mistake of complimenting her on her titties and get yelled at, especially since her titties are nothing to write home about.

But, you know, I don’t want to be rude and simply ignore her, so I yell out “woah, what’s wrong with your saggy-ass titties, you should get a doctor to look at those cuz I sure don’t want to!”

And so maybe I’ve just saved her life from the breast cancer. But do I get any thanks for it? No.

HEY SJW’S GEORGE ORWELL WOULD BE PROUD OF YOU.

NOTE: This post contains

Modified image from the documentary “Seeking Asian Female”

Paul Elam may have sort of abandoned his Men’s Rights lady hatin’ website A Voice for Men — he announced his retirement from the Men’s Rights movement back in March — but his longtime fans will certainly be relieved to hear that he has not given up the lady hatin’ that made him the internet-famous man he is today.

But now he’s working some racism into the mix.

On his An Ear for Men YouTube channel, Elam seems to be setting himself up as a sort of Mr. Lonelyhearts for lady’ hatin men, providing tips on how to “screen out loser women,” how to deal with “problem women — we used to call them ‘bitches,'” and how to get rage-spittle out of your beard.

Ok, I made that last one up.

In his latest video, Elam has decided to take on yet another kind of problem women — SPOILER ALERT: Asian women — warning Western men of the dangers of “shopping in Asia or some other country [sic]” for the supposedly more subservient “women we used to call Oriental till the PC police decided that, too, was an insult.”

Elam warns his viewers that any Oriental Asian woman “willing to leave her homeland to marry a guy she met on the internet” might just possibly have motives other than love.

To illustrate this point, Elam pastes in that famous clip from Full Metal Jacket in which a Vietnamese sex worker promises two American servicemen that she will “love you long time.”

Which brings us to this POP QUIZ

But the dangers of Asian women aren’t confined to those conniving young women just off the boat from Asialand. For there are Asians who live in the United States as well, and if you go for one of those you might end up with … brace yourself … MARGARET CHO.

Or you might get your dick lopped off.

No, seriously. Elam literally warns men considering “going Asian” that they might end up with someone like “feminist idiot and unfunny comedian Margaret Cho,” or “Twitter fembot Suey Park,” or even Catherine Kieu Becker, a California woman, originally from Vietnam, now serving life in prison for cutting off her estranged husband’s penis.

Apparently Elam thinks the best way to keep American men from fetishizing Asian women is to convince them that the Asian (or Asian-American) gal of their dreams might literally lop off their dick or — possibly even worse — tell them a feminist joke.

But I can’t completely hate Elam’s video. I mean, sure, it’s a racist, misogynistic mess, and Elam’s gleeful grin makes my skin crawl. But if it convinces even one of his fans to leave Asian women alone, it may actually do the world a teensy tiny little bit of good.

Hideous lady monster, totally Would Not Bang

Famously lady hating garbage site Return of Kings has published another one of their helpful posts outlining simple ways that women can drive away the sort of guy who takes dating advice from, well, Return of Kings.

In the post, titled “30 Signs That An Eastern European Girl Isn’t Relationship Material,” regular RoK contributor Jean-Batave Poqueliche provides a handy guide to all sorts of things that RoK Red Pillers see as red flags.

I’ve adapted some of my favorites into my own list of 8 Ways Eastern European Women Can Send Roosh Fanboys Running for the Door. Happily, many of these suggestions should also work for non-Eastern European women as well.

Throw your clothes (and possibly your birth control) on the floor

Poqueliche warns his readers to avoid women who are messy.

If you go to hers and … you discover that she has clothes on the floor and everything is out of place, beware. She is careless and has probably the same behavior towards sex and protection.

Let’s just set aside the irony of seeing this statement on a site run by Roosh V, who, by his own admission, had unprotected sex with multiple women over the course of several years even though he thought there was a good chance he had HIV.

The good news here is that women can scare off a Roosh fanboy by simply throwing some dirty socks on the floor.

Buy a few condoms

Apparently Roosh and his fanboys are more terrified by women who are so loose that they own their own condoms than they are of having sex with a woman they barely know without condoms.

Have friends from other countries

This, according to Poqueliche, is a sign that a women “likes foreign culture, ergo she is partial to a foreign knob that is not designed to be static.”

Wait, penises can generate static electricity? I should have probably read the manual a little more carefully.

Tell your date you prefer poetry to firearms

Poqueliche warns men not to date any woman who’s

repulsed by the idea of violence, manliness, or weapons.

She does not understand that a man could fight for his family, enjoy masculine hobbies or knows how to shoot. She wants a progressive man that reads poetry and is not ashamed to cry.

Do bawdy limericks count?

Learn enough about pickup artistry to know when some dude is trying it on you

Poqueliche tells men to shun any woman who

calls you out for escalating, not by playfully delaying it but putting it in words in the “I know what you are doing” way.

Alternately, you could simply work “player” or “pickup artist” or “you’re one of those creepy jackasses who reads Roosh, aren’t you” into your conversation, as that is also a sign to them that YOU KNOW.

Show your bellybutton

As Poqueliche sees it, this is a big slutty tell, and “generally the mark of an especially childish and irresponsible girl.”

Weirdly, RoK’s graphics-master chose to illustrate Poqueliche’s discussion of this important topic with a picture of a woman baring her belly in such a way that … her bellybutton is not actually visible.

Which raises the question: Do RoK readers actually know what a bellybutton is? Is it possible that Roosh and his readership come from some far-away planet where they reproduce by, I dunno, laying eggs, or cell division, or publishing crappy eBooks?

Be older than 25

RoK readers regularly express deep disdain towards women who make it past the quarter-century mark without snagging a man, declaring them unfit for serious relationships. So you’ve got that going for you.

Unfortunately Roosh and his fanboys are still totally willing to “bang” spinsters in their late 20s and up. Sorry old gals! While they don’t want to marry you, Roosh’s fanboys will still pester you for sex, especially since, as Poqueliche sees it, you decrepit old hags are basically easy pickings with

usually a higher notch count and some kind of a despair for a cock that comes with a prospect of relationship.

Henri here feels a similar despair, though in his case he hungers not for sex but for tuna fish

Oh, wait, is that a can opening?

Cut your hair short

If you’re unable to ward off Roosh’s fanboys using any of the tips above, you can always CUT YOUR HAIR, something so terrifying for Poqueliche that it conjures up images of French villagers shaving the heads of women suspected of being Nazi collaborators in the aftermath of D-day.

No, really. You can practically hear him shudder as he asks

Why would a man want to have sex with something that looks like an underfed woman that got sheared just after the locals found out she slept with the occupying army?

Short hair: apparently the most effective form of creep-repellent after pepper spray.

In today’s slightly delayed Memeday post, we’re going to be looking at the “selfish feminist” meme, a variation of the good old “hypocritical feminist” meme that’s based on the notion that selfish, spoiled women adopt feminism in order to score equal pay without equal work — and in the greatest crime against humanity ever known — without ever having to pay for dinner.

Apparently you (cis) gals get a day off every month to tend to your bleeding whatevers?

Once in a long while, the mememaker will throw in a literary reference, like this one namechecking the heroine from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.

But mostly the dudes making these memes seem to be peeved that (allegedly) feminist women are (allegedly) making them pay for dinner without “putting out” afterwards.

For some reason, the makers of these “selfish feminist” memes often put their words into the mouths of real and recognizable women who would never actually say such a thing.

Sometimes they use pictures of favorite feminist targets like Anita Sarkeesian …

… and Rebecca Watson:

Other times they use feminist celebrities, like comedian Janeane Garofolo

And actress/activist Ashley Judd:

Actually, they seem just a teensy bit obsessed with Ashley Judd and her alleged refusal to ever pay for dinner:

Apparently, the deviously feminist Ashley Judd also manages to avoid paying for her fancy purses as well.

Yeah, Ashley Judd has a net worth of $22 million, at least according to Celebrity Net Worth. I’m pretty sure she pays for her own handbags.

Not only that, but the allegedly selfish Judd — and yes, at least some of the angry mememakers know that the woman in the meme is Ashley Judd and not just some random angry lady feminist — now devotes much of her life not to acquiring handbags but to humanitarian work. Here’s how Wikipedia sums it up:

Ashley Judd’s humanitarian work has revolved around AIDS. Judd has travelled with YouthAIDSto places affected by illness and poverty such as Cambodia, Kenya, Rwanda, and many others.

Inspired by her travels, which allowed her to witness the life of the poor and uneducated, she has since become an advocate for preventing poverty and promoting awareness internationally. She has met with political and religious leaders, heads of states, diplomats, and leaders on behalf of the deprived to convey the message to those who have the power to bring about political and social change. Judd has also narrated three documentaries for YouthAIDS which aired internationally on the Discovery Channel, in National Geographic, and on VH1.

In 2011, she joined the Leadership Council of the International Center for Research on Women(ICRW).

Other organizations Judd has been involved with include Women for Women International and Equality Now, along with other non-governmental organizations that direct attention to social, educational, health, economic, cultural and financial funding of the unfortunate.

So, yeah, she’s actually paid for a lot of people’s dinners.

Tomorrow: The worst “selfish feminist” meme of them all!

Lucy is not impressed with your meme

Yesterday, we took a look at some completely ridiculous “Selfish Feminist” memes, based on the premise that women adopt feminism because that way they can reap all sorts of nifty benefits without having to work as hard as men, most notably the FREE DINNERS they constantly con poor schmucks into paying for. (Allegedly.)

For some reason, half of the memes involved actress/activist Ashley Judd, who isn’t really a selfish person at all.

You may recall that one of the memes was captioned “Why I need feminism? Sounds better than ‘selfishness.'”

Well, here’s another one using that little tagline that somehow manages to be creepier and cringier than all the rest of the “selfish feminist” memes all together.

Wait, what?

Yep. In the mind of whoever made this meme, women not shaving their armpits is somehow a … selfish act, presumably because “ew, women with hairy armpits.”

Note to dudes who think this meme is somehow clever: What someone chooses to do (or not do) with their body is really only your business if you happen to own that body. Given that, you know, slavery is illegal and all that, the only body you own is your own body.

Women don’t owe it to men in general (or to you in particular) to shave their armpits or any other part of their body, pluck their eyebrows, keep their weight within the parameters you prefer, and so on and so on.

No, dudes, you are not obliged to find women with armpit hair attractive. The flip side of this is that women aren’t obliged to give a rat’s ass what you think of their armpits, or any other part of their body.

How did Queen Victoria slip past the evil patriarchy?

Men’s Rights Activists have scored yet another major victory over the imaginary feminists who live in their heads. On Facebook today, the moderator of the A Voice for Men page asks a question that no straw feminist can answer:

CHECKMATE FEMINISTS, in your FACE, there were QUEENS, where is that EVIL PATRIARCHY NOW???

Well, pretty much where we left it. Apparently AVFM’s Facebook admin has never actually bothered to read anything feminist scholars have ever written about patriarchy. Or even a dictionary definition of the word.

Because, guess what, AVFM admin? “Patriarchy” doesn’t actually mean that women have zero power or influence in society, but rather that men (as a class) hold much more power in society than women (as a class).

Here are a few definitions of “patriarchy” I found on the internet with a couple of basic Google searches:

“control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”

“a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it”

“a society in which male members predominate in positions of power. … The more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position”

You will notice that all these definitions include qualifications to them: disproportionately, largely, more likely.

While the term patriarchy does describe societies in which women as a class are subordinate to men as a class, feminist historian Gerda Lerner has noted, it “does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence, and resources.”

In other words, feminists are indeed aware there was a Queen Victoria.

But ask yourself this, AVFM admin: How did she get the power she had?

While royal succession can be weird and complicated, the basic rule — and it’s a pretty patriarchical one — is that when the king dies, the job goes to the oldest legitimate son.

Princesses are promoted to Queen only if there are no legitimate male heirs. The job goes to a woman rather than some less-directly related man because, within the largely patriarchal structure of the monarchy, preserving the bloodline is more important than making sure there’s always a man in charge.

In the case of Queen Victoria, Wikipedia notes,

She inherited the throne aged 18, after her father’s three elder brothers had all died, leaving no surviving legitimate children.

So three guys had to die for her to get to the front of the line.

The existence of queens doesn’t prove that patriarchy is a myth; it just shows that patriarchy is more complicated than the simplistic caricature that antifeminists like to pretend is what feminists believe.

Patriarchy is never the whole story. There have been, and still, a number of other power structures in society and culture that intersect with patriarchy in complex ways. Feminists have been talking about these intersections for decades now — that’s what intersectional feminism is.

But MRAs aren’t actually interested in the details of feminism. After all, straw feminists are a lot easier to debate.

“Provocation” is no excuse for abuse

So the execrable Andrea Hardie — Twitter abuser, violence-threatener, Canada-embarrasser — has been pondering a deep philosophical conundrum: “Do some women benefit from being slapped around?”

If you have even the slightest familiarity with Hardie — known on the internet as JudgyBitch and/or Janet Bloomfield — you probably won’t be shocked to discover that her answer is yes.

You might be a little surprised that she considers herself, at least hypothetically, one of these women.

“There are all kinds of reasons I don’t cheat on my husband,” she explains, “but an important one is that I assume he would beat the sh*t out of me if I ever did. And I would bloody well deserve it.”

While Hardie insists that her husband “has never hit me in any context that wasn’t erotic and consensual” or even acted in a threatening manner towards her, she tells her readers that she “very much assume[s] that he would, and further, that in certain situations, he should.”

Cheating on her husband would be one of these “certain situations.” Being “disrespectful” of him in front of other people would be another. As she explains:

There are many things I would simply never dream of doing to my husband, because I assume I would get a slap or worse, if I did. All of those things are linked to respect. To be clear: all of this comes from me. Tim has never said “Don’t ever think of doing x because I will hit you.” … I just feel that he would, and he would be perfectly justified in doing so. There are a multitude of reasons I wouldn’t be disrespectful of my husband, especially in public. The possibility of taking a well-earned beating just happens to be one of them.

But unfortunately, Hardie claims, not all women are as well-behaved as she is.

I don’t go around inviting my husband to slap me by screaming at him in public or humiliating him by flirting with other men. But lots of women do. How much of domestic violence is caused by women pushing men into hitting them because that level of domination is familiar, and in a f*cked up way, deeply erotic for the women?

Yep, she went there, conflating consensual kink with men “beating the sh*t” out of women to punish them for their “disrespect.”

“[S]ome women do benefit from being slapped around,” Hardie concludes. “Some women crave it.”

She isn’t the only MRA who has tried to erase or complicate the clear distinction between consensual BDSM and domestic abuse. Youtube bloviater Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan has suggested that many abused women “demand” their abuse, which Straughan thinks can lead to “scorching” sex. Anti-domestic-violence crusader turned domestic-violence apologist Erin Pizzey describes situations in which both partners are violent as “consensual violence.”

It’s not hard to tell the difference between violence in, say, sports and violence in real life — hitting someone in the face is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, if you’re a professional boxer in the middle of a boxing match; it’s not acceptable to just go down the street punching random people who annoy you.

So is it really that hard for Hardie and other MRAs to tell the difference between, say, consensual spanking and “beating the sh^t” out of your partner? I don’t think it is. As you may recall, Hardie made clear early in her post that she understands this distinction quite well, telling us that her husband “has never hit me in any context that wasn’t erotic and consensual.”

The point of this phony “confusion” between consensual kink and domestic violence is to support an old victim-blaming narrative in which male violence is considered an excusable response to deliberate provocation from women who, in many cases, secretly love being beaten.

“For lots of women, submission to a violent man is a bonding experience,” Hardie writes.

[I]t’s incontrovertible that many women find violence erotic and even comforting. How many women feel this way, but have no way to articulate it, and thus end up provoking violence that can easily get out of hand?

Even more perversely, Hardie goes on to suggest that, when things do get “out of hand,” the abusive men are also somehow victims of the abuse they themselves inflict on their female partners.

Sure, Hardie says, women “may provoke more violence and anger than they intend, and thus end up getting really hurt.”

But men suffer as well, she writes, from being “provoked” into inflicting “violence [that goes] well beyond what is beneficial or wanted.”

Should men be punished when they’re “provoked” into beating their partners? I doubt it will come as much of a shock to discover that Hardie says “no.”

Oh, hitting women should still be illegal, she says. But, she insists, female “provocation” should be seen as “a mitigating factor … [e]ven to the point that provocation results in dismissed charges.”

How much “provocation” would be required to dismiss charges against a man who pummeled his wife so badly that he broke her nose and knocked out some teeth? Could this be considered a justified response to her cheating on him? To her flirting with other men in public? For her being late with dinner two nights in a row?

Hardie’s “logic” here is the same logic abusers themselves use to justify their abuse, spiced up a little with disingenuous references to kink.

Men who punch women for being “disrespectful” towards them don’t deserve that respect. Neither do the women who excuse this abuse.

He’s not a piece of swole meat

Increasingly irrelevant Men’s Rights garbage site A Voice for Men has decided that now is the perfect time to weigh in on a two-year old Huffington Post piece titled A Gentleman’s Guide to Rape Culture.

In a post also titled A Gentleman’s Guide to Rape Culture, a self-described “warrior and philosopher” called Bad Dima boldly takes on what he thinks feminists mean when they talk about rape culture. From its blunt opening sentence (“F*ck you c*nt”) to its final paragraph heralding the eventual arrival of sexbots, Dima’s post is a Men’s Rights instant classic.

Dima begins by attacking a definition of rape culture that is literally not anyone’s definition of rape culture. “Rape exists, even amongst animals, but there is no such thing as Rape Culture,” he boldly declares. “There is no systematic effort to teach men to rape women.”

Huh. That’s not what rape culture is. Dima’s “rebuttal” is a bit like someone declaring that there are no birds — after defining birds as “potatoes with wings.”

So what is the real meaning of “rape culture.” In Transforming a Rape Culture, Emilie Buchwald defines it as

 a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself.

“Rape culture” refers to a culture in which rape is normalized to the extent that one in five women is a victim of rape or attempted rape; in which the whole world forgot for many years that Bill Cosby had been accused of rape by several women until a comedian brought it up in his act; in which a self-described “human rights activist” declares that

there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

In case Dima is unfamiliar with the website he’s writing for, that last quote is from AVFM founder Paul Elam, raging about women who drink at bars and go home with men yet expect the seemingly decent and friendly men they’ve been enjoying the company of all evening to, you know, not rape them if they aren’t in the mood for sex.

Dima develops his critique further by declaring the author of the Huffington Post piece — a man — to be an

asswipe … the worst kind of human being there is – a hypocrite, a gender traitor, and feminist quisling. Have you considered getting gender reassignment, because we men don’t want stand next to you while pissing anymore.

While “rape culture” is a big lie, according to Dima, there is one form of culturally sanctioned sexual assault that is all too real:

Have you ever heard the word “swolesting.” It’s the phenomenon weightlifters experience of women groping their swoles (swollen muscles) as they move through a crowd. 

Hey, dudes, what were you thinking getting all swole like that? It’s like you were asking for it!

Sorry; that was Swolesting Culture talking.

Dima then goes on to mansplain that the real reason women don’t like rape is because they don’t want inferior rapist DNA in their babies:

The reason why rape is considered such a crime, and why women feel such a revulsion for it, is that historically, the rape of a woman had a very real chance of leaving her carrying a child of inferior DNA and without any parental investment on the part of the rapist. 

He then explains that paternity fraud is just as bad as rape:

The equivalent crime for men is paternity fraud, in which a man is deceived into making a parental investment in a child that is not his. … males are divided into two classes – DNA-providers and resource providers. The females get impregnated by DNA-providers while using resource-providers for parental investment – from the female perspective, what’s not to like about that deal. 

After telling us that women don’t want bad boy rapist DNA, Dima informs us that women DO want it after all. And that’s why there are rapists in the first place!

Women select for anti-social traits in their bad boy DNA-providers (ask me for papers), and strangely enough, most rapists come from amongst the bad boys. So, by their sexual preference for bad boys, women play a role in perpetuating the very thing they say they fear and hate.

Oh, and women are basically human-sized versions of little yappy dogs that yap at everything:

Did you know that the smaller breeds of dogs were bred as alarms for travellers? You would carry the yappy little dog with you, and when you set up camp, the dog would alert you to any dangers by yapping. Women are like little yappy dogs, bred to alert men to hazards. In the absence of danger, the dog will yap at anything, its instincts no longer relevant. 

Dima then informs the ladies of a bit o sad news for them: he personally isn’t going to lift a finger to help them if they’re ever in danger.

As a damsel in distress, the vast majority of men are conditioned and indoctrinated to assist and keep you safe, even to the point of sacrificing their lives. Not me, 23 cents in the dollar is not worth risking my life for.

Wait, so the wage gap is real, now? Most MRAs insist — often quite indignantly — that it’s totally fake, an evil feminist myth. Apparently it becomes real any time an MRA figures out how to use it in an argument against a feminist.

When I see a woman in distress, and I feel my protective instincts kicking in, I remind myself of the pervasive misandry amongst women: that women see men as little more that labour saving devices, support mechanisms, bodyguards, and beasts of burden. I remind myself just what sh*tty people women can be, and then the protective instinct moment passes, and I get on with my life.

Er, how often do you run across “women in distress,” dude? Do you live next door to Rapunzel’s tower?

Also, women are apparently not fully human.

As men, the kindest and most generous thing we can do for women is to leave them to their own devices. Only by denying them any male support will they be forced to become fully actualized human beings.

But I guess it’s good for women that they’re incompletely human. Because that will take a little bit of the sting away when they are eventually REPLACED BY SEXY LADY SEX ROBOTS!

This might take a few generations, but the time of sex robots is coming, and when it does, the full scope of how little most women bring to the table will be revealed. I am confident that the vast majority of men will give up on relations with women if their sexual needs are otherwise satisfied. This will provoke an existential crisis for women.

Dima ends his post right there, which seems a little, well, abrupt. Is is possible the robots got to him?

We may never know the answer to that question. Or care, actually, so never mind. I’ll just stop here too.

Sex and the City will EAT YOUR SOUL

Never let it be said that Men’s Rights activists can’t accomplish great things. Oh, sure, in what the old fogies call “the real world” their victories are pretty much nonexistent; they can’t even manage to organize conferences for themselves two years in a row.

But online, their brilliant strategy of “running around being dicks to everyone” has been an amazing success, causing numerous websites to shut down their comments because they were so sick of all the MRAs gumming them up with endless blather and abuse.

And now it appears the Men’s Rights movement can claim another victory: They have knocked the IMDb rating of the show Sex and the City down more than a point!

Take that, show that ended its run twelve years ago, but that MRAs and other manosphere dudes can’t stop talking about for some reason!

A statistical analysis by Walt Hickey of the data-driven site FiveThirtyEight suggests that men are swarming the IMDb profiles of shows aimed at women in order to give them low ratings.

One of the shows most obviously affected by this new form of cyber-activism is Sex and the City, a show despised more less equally by MRAs, MGTOWs, Roosh, and right-wing mass murderer Anders Breivik.

As Hickey points out, women collectively rated this show at 8.1 out of ten. But so many men gave the show bad ratings that they were able to drag the final score down to 7, which, as Hickey notes, is a below-average rating for the site.

And we’re not talking about a handful of statistical outliers taking down the score. More tha 78,000 people have rated the show. So there are thousands if not tens of thousands of guys out there taking out their anger at women by downvoting one of the most influential recent TV shows aimed at women — often, I would guess, without ever having watched an episode.

It’s a man’s world on IMDb, where, Hickey notes,

[s]eventy percent of IMDb TV show raters are men, according to my analysis, and that results in shows with predominantly female audiences getting screwed.

Why is that? It’s not just that men outnumber women on IMDb; they are also far more likely to give shows not aimed primarily at their own gender terrible ratings. As this chart shows pretty clearly, the more a show appeals to women rather than men, the more likely it is that a man will rate it a rating-killing one star.

“The overall effect of this imbalance is profound,” Hickey notes.

Among shows with 10,000 ratings or more, the average rating of the top-100 male-skewing shows was 8.2, while the average rating of the top-100 female shows was 7.4.

Is it possible that shows aimed at women are just objectively worse? Hickey thinks not. “Everybody watches crap,” he points out. “Men, women, everybody.”

Women may watch more than their share of terrible reality shows like “Say Yes to the Dress,” he notes. But they didn’t make up much of the audience for Beyblade, which, Hickey notes sardonically, is a show based around spinning tops. Spinning tops that fight each other.

Nope. The real reason for the difference is that men are far more likely to poop on the ratings of shows aimed mostly at women than women are to poop on shows aimed mostly at men.

Women rated only two shows appreciably lower than their male raters did. Men, by contrast … well, just take a look at this chart that Hickey put together:

Are the men who make up the Angry Man Downvote Brigade all card-carrying MRAs? For the most part, probably not. And I haven’t run across any evidence of organized IMDb downvoting anywhere in the manosphere (though I haven’t looked all that hard).

But if you’re a dude who literally devotes his evenings to giving crappy ratings to TV shows that women tend to like — just to show those ladies what’s what! — I think that makes you pretty much a de facto MRA. The MRAs should send you a little thank you note, at the very least.

Dad, what did you do in the culture wars?

Son, I gave The Mindy Project a one star rating on IMDb. 

EDIT: Hickey made that last chart into a handy gif:

Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women https://t.co/cc6DsQf7hi

My point, in one gif: pic.twitter.com/GWKFr9Cv36

— Walter Hickey (@WaltHickey) May 19, 2016

Thanks, Katz, for the link!

EDIT 2: My favorite misogynist response to Hickey’s post:

@WaltHickey every show is aimed at women. Women drive media and advertising. They've sabotaged the culture.

— THE Chris Coon (@Coondawg68) May 19, 2016

Unconvinced cat is unconvinced

In today’s episode of Memeday, we look at some antifeminist memes that, well, just aren’t very convincing. Is this really the best you guys can offer?

All the memes here, except for the first one, come from a Facebook page called Math 3 Feminists.

I’m sorry, Math 4 Feminists. What can I say? I’m a feminist; numbers confuse me.

So let’s look at some of these unconvincing arguments, shall we?

Feminism is bad because … Lena Dunham is ugly and has no skills:

We’re off to a bad start here. Say what you will about Lena Dunham, and people have said all sorts of things, some fair, some not so much, but … really? Shes got “no discernible skills?”

Dunham wrote, directed and starred in an award-winning feature film by the time she was 24. She created (and produces and writes and stars in) an HBO series that just finished its fifth season. She’s a bestselling author.

Meanwhile, MRAs stick captions on pictures they find on the internet and call it activism.

Feminism is bad because … sometimes young women get really drunk;

Uh, dudes, I see your “young woman in rainbow stockings passing out drunk in the street” and raise you one “drunk dude in cape leaping through a window.”

… and one “drunk dancing dude jumping off a boat.”

Feminism is bad because … if being a woman is so terrible why is there Caitlyn Jenner?

Yeah, that’s not how any of this works, you transphobic asshats.

Feminism is bad because … feminists hate stay-at-home mothers:

Weird, Math 4 Feminists dudes, because the only people I see attacking stay-at-home mothers on a regular basis are, well, MRAs and MGTOWs and assorted other internet misogynists. Like in the meme below, which I found … drum roll .. on the Math 4 Feminists Facebook page.

Feminism is bad because … women didn’t serve in the military equally in a war that ended two decades before feminism as we know it began:

Also, fellas, just FYI, Tom Hanks didn’t actually serve in the army in World War II. He was in a movie about it.

Feminism is bad because … Detroit:

Er, what? Are you just putting up pictures of random things and blaming feminists for them?

All I can say to that is … THANKS OBAMA!

Famous actor name of Brad Pit

Over on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, the MGTOWs are MGTOWing it up like nobody’s business, trying to get to the bottom of what is perhaps the essential question of our age: When will mom bring down the pizza rolls?

Sorry, I mean: “Will feminism ruin society?”

The answers range from “it already has” to “IT ALREADY HAS” to “women … have to be harnessed like mules and forced to live out their lives in a way that doesn’t totally f*ck everything up and revert us back ten thousand years, otherwise we’re f*cked.”

There are so many gems that it’s hard to know where to start, so let’s start with the OP, Broken_Snowglobe, who plaintively asks: “Why do feminist think that they are oppressed?”

How is feminist formed / how girl think oppressed?

“Females have every right that a man has if not more,” Broken_Snowglobe continues, quickly revealing that he is a Man Going His Own Way Punctuation-Wise — a MGHOWPW.  Try reading this next, er, sentence in one breath:

Females over the years have gotten greedy because let me say this men let females have rights keyword (LET) what feminism actually promotes is a movement that is pushing for female patriarchy when in reality if this goal is accomplished society with crumble at our feet it will cease to exist down to its very root.

I got as far as “crumble.”

Females these days are entitled they talk about men such as brad pit saying and I quote “We never have to worry about rape from men like brad pit” the female mind operates on parasitical terms the rich man will be considered superior to common man while on the hand the common is inferior.

Well, it’s good he’s got an exact quote here, which I have enshrined in the demotivational poster above.

The picture I used for it was originally a gif,and I feel I should post it here now just so all the straight guys reading this realize just what it is that we are all competing with.

Famous actor name of Brad Pit in movie name of Burn After Readin

But females don’t extend this courtesy to those of us who are not named Brad Pit. Or those of us not named Brad Pitt, either, I suspect.

Females label all common man as “rapist” I’m sure not a rapist odds are you aren’t either.

Females are pushing for rights when they have more rights they have an organization dedicated to female rights and needs.

It is so unfair that females have an organization dedicated to female rights and needs when females DON’T have an organization dedicated to male rights and needs, and males are expressly forbidden by law from forming an organization dedicated to male rights and needs and, hold on, I’m being told that men are not actually forbidden by law from starting their own organizations so wait a second Broken_Snowglobe what exactly are you complaining about here, that males are too lazy and incompetent to start their own organizations and also I’m pretty sure that there are male organizations devoted to male rights and needs but that they’re generally tiny and embarrassing because you know MEN AS A CLASS ARE NOT OPPRESSED.

Plus they have all marriage rights house half of you’re things etc….females are the devil and I encourage you to avoid them as much as possible. P.S Hide you’re monies friends or females will take that as well.

Just don’t hide your monies in a dirty sock because then mom, sorry I mean some other female that you’re banging, will find it when she’s doing your laundry!

Now it is certainly possible that Broken_Snowglobe, who has been a Redditor for all of one day, is actually a troll.

But this possibility has evidently not occurred to any of the regulars in r/MGTOW, or at least not to any of those who have replied to Mr. Snowglobe’s comments. Mostly because they agree with him.

Teflon0819, who has been a Redditor for far longer than a day, offers a serious and sincere response to Mr. Snowglobe’s possibly not so sincere wail of male anguish that helps us to understand other key issues with regard to feminists and civilization. Like, for example, the ways in which the “female imperative” is similar to a certain genre of Japanese porn.

Feminism won’t ruin society, but the feminine imperative will. Feminism is just one of its wriggly little tentacles.

When I mentioned to my octopus friend that she and her fellow octopuses were being used to make a ridiculous misogynistic argument in r/MGTOW, she made pretty clear she wanted no part of it.

Happily for her, Teflon0819 quickly dropped this metaphor for a new one, writing in the very next sentence that

Feminism will continue to be exposed for the toxic cesspool of bullshit that it is, but society will ultimately only shun the superficial label known as “feminism”, treating the symptom instead of the disease.

And then — sorry, octopuses! — he returned to his earlier metaphor:

The feminine imperative will simply shed the corrupted tentacle and grow a new one with a new label that people will rally behind.

Sooner or later civilization as we know it will fall, and men will be left to pick up the pieces and build a new civilization. Which in turn, once well-established will be hijacked by the feminine imperative once again and be led to ruin.

Huh. Do you have any historical examples in which a civilization fell because of an excess of “female imperative?”

I think the male instinct to protect, provide and compete for women – which is a perfectly natural biological process – inevitably breeds a destructive entitlement in women that leads to the downfall of civilizations in a never ending cycle.

Oh, it’s a never-ending cycle, then? If that’s true, there should be a whole bunch of examples. Alas, Teflon0819 offers none.

Five_Decades, presumably drawing on his five decades of experience, doesn’t think feminism will destroy civilization as such. After all, he notes, we’ve “survived famines, plagues, wars, government collapses.”

But he does think that a lot of women will end up really depressed once they realize how much they suck.

I predict a massive rise in misandry and unhappy women because women who themselves do not have much to offer are constantly being told they deserve to have the best of everything (best men, best relationships, best kids, best careers, best incomes, etc) when back in reality only a tiny, tiny minority of women have the skills and luck to deserve those things. And when they get disappointed one too many times, I’m sure they will (as a class) blame men for it. But it won’t end society.

Zegy kind of agrees:

I don’t think we are at the point of total collapse yet but we are getting to the point were feminism/SWJ are trying to censor our speech using shamming tactics …

How is men shammed / how boy get censor

… using shamming tactics like micro aggressions, mansplaing, hell even our physical actions such as manspreading, will this ruin or society this little things I doubt it; because Great men will continue to invent new things and shape this world regardless but the average male is only get more and more controlled

Men will survive the tyranny of getting dirty looks, once in a very long while, when they take up more than one seat on the subway!

But it is RandolphTheWarlock who offers the only real solution that will enable us to rebuild our already collapsed civilization. It involves harnesses.

We’ll get to that in a moment. First, Randolph explains just how it was that the wily female has brought our civilization down. Women start off “absolutely batshit crazy,” he explains, but the West has made them even worse with all of its female-coddling and whatnot:

Put [women] in an environment like the West where they’re coddled and worshipped and never have to worry about f*cking up because there’s always someone there to bail them out, and they become … not just crazy, not just bad women, but bad human beings.

It has been reported that all women need to do to get bailed out is to sit down in the street and cry.

I’d contend that they’ve already ruined our society. I’m only 34, but in just the last twenty years I’ve seen the US transition from a prosperous Mayberry with only a few serious urban blights, to a degenerated patchwork of ghetto sh*tholes spanning the entire nation, with a subsequent decline in the quality and character of both genders.

As someone who is, well, a teensy bit older than 34, I would like to ask: Did you grow up in the Truman Show or something?

Never mind, because it’s HARNESS TIME!

Can’t touch this

Sorry about that. Anyway, now is the time when Randolph talks about the harnesses:

As it turns out, oppressing women is absolutely vital to creating and maintaining a civilized human society. They have to be harnessed like mules and forced to live out their lives in a way that doesn’t totally f*ck everything up and revert us back ten thousand years, otherwise we’re f*cked.

MGTOW dudes, just go start your own damn civilization on an island somewhere already. To help expedite this process, I’ve gone ahead and picked out several possible islands for you. Well, technically speaking, I picked them out for Roosh V, but he has yet to claim any of them. So now’s your chance!

You’re welcome!

H/T — r/TheBluePill

Dammmmmn Adolf, back at it again with the antifeminism

So Andrew Anglin, the lovable hateful scamp behind the Anime Nazi internet tabloid The Daily Stormer, seems to be going all Men’s Rights Activist on us. In a post last week, Anglin offered his own take on a rather old argument, declaring that women need to have the vote taken away from them — for their own good.

As Anglin sees it, “allowing women to vote is the behavior of a woman-hater,” because women — like the overgrown children they are — can be easily duped into voting against their own interests. By which Anglin means voting differently than he would.

In the Austrian election last month, Anglin reports with disgust, women were less likely than men to vote for far-right presidential candidate Norbert Hofer. “If women were not allowed to vote, Hofer would have won by a landslide,” Anglin sniffs.

As he sees it, Austrian women have “overwhelmingly voted for the invasion” of their once-proud white nation by not-so-white immigrants and refugees, who have repaid this bit of kindness from Austria’s women by turning around and raping them.

“It is women who are perhaps suffering most from this invasion,” Anglin declares.

They are the ones getting raped the most (little boys are also victimized regularly). They are being murdered more than men. They are much more likely to get robbed on the street. …

[I]f you support women’s suffrage, you also support the mass rape of our women by Moslems.

But it’s men, not women, who are ultimately responsible for this mess, Anglin suggests, because women don’t really know any better. And how could you expect them to? They’re just women.

If someone gives children explosives, knowing they will blow themselves up, because of some weird and nonsensical moral system, who is responsible for the deaths of the children?

The children? Or the adults who gave them the explosives?

Just so, if someone gives women the right to vote, knowing based on easily available statistics that those women will vote to get gang-raped by Moslems, who is responsible for these gang-rapes?

And who then is the hater of women: the one who enables the gang-rapes by allowing women to vote for gang-rapes or the one who prevents the gang-rapes by disallowing women to vote for gang-rapes?

Ultimately, Anglin suggests, the blame for women suffrage should be laid at the feet of … wait for it … THE JEWS. Feminism, Anglin declares, is a central “part of the Jewish agenda.”

Later in the post, Anglin elaborates further on what he calls “the diabolical Jew-feminist agenda,” warning his readers that

the Jew concept of feminism has been at the core of the destruction of our society, both by empowering emotional women to dictate social norms according to female morality and by disempowering men, forcing them to adopt female values and become impotent and weak.

Anglin even manages to work in a mini-rant on the alleged inability of feminist men to score with the hot babes. Like a lot of alt-righters, he seems to have trouble distinguishing real life from cuckold porn.

I have never met a male feminist who was successful with women. In fact, the opposite is true: beta white knight cucks who shill for feminists tend to be completely incapable of getting laid. If they ever do get a woman, she is simply leeching them for resources while having sex with other men.

Naturally, Anglin turns to tired evo-psych fairy tales about our caveman ancestors in an attempt to back up his Cuck Theory of male feminism.

Just as men are attracted to tight butts and big breasts, women are attracted to power and an ability to dominate. This is because that is what protects them and their children.

All human behavior is based on evolutionary biology.

Naturally Anglin can’t help but throw in a weird but standard evo-psych apologia for rape.

A sensitive guy has a value of absolute zero in the natural world. If ever a sensitive man existed in the natural world, and somehow managed to land a hot babe, he would be immediately attacked and killed and his woman would be taken by a powerful man. And the woman would be happier for it, because she would be better protected by the man who stole her, and given stronger children by him.

Yeah, women just love it when men murder their partners, then kidnap and rape them.

Somewhat ironic, isn’t it, to see this argument coming from a guy who thinks we should deny women the vote — in order, supposedly, to protect them from rape.

But Anglin remains sufficiently in touch with reality to know that women’s suffrage isn’t going away any time soon. “We are not actually going to ban women from voting,” he writes.

In order to do that, we would have to have control of society, at which point we will just abolish the concept of democracy in its entirety.

Spoken like the true Trump fan he is.

Nothing to be ashamed of

Over on The Red Pill subreddit, the Red Pillock who calls himself 1Ronin11A comes so close to asking the question that could shake his Red Pill world to its foundations. That question is: Why do we Red Pillers hate and fear the women we have (or at least want to have) sex with?

Instead, he decides to ponder what he calls “the supposed contradiction that results from our simultaneous disdain for sluts but willingness to still have sex with them,” which he declares is not really a contradiction after all, because, well, they’re sluts, duh! 

“We Don’t Hate Sluts; We Just Recognize Their Low Value,” he declares in the title of his thousand-word post, apparently forgetting that “disdain” is in fact a synonym for “hate.”

So let’s break down his stupid argument, shall we?

As 1Ronin11A sees it, the essential problem with sluts is that they don’t understand the basics of sex economics — pussyconomics, if you will. Instead of hoarding their sexual assets like Scrooge McDuck hoards gold, thus increasing their value, these women just give sex away!

Sluts aren’t just women with “too many sexual partners,” 1Ronin11A declares.

What really makes a slut so despised is their disregard for their own inherent value, and the fact that they give it away so freely.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, something inherently valuable to men. Men have built and destroyed great empires and many lives in pursuit of the sexual pleasures of beautiful women. We assign (often foolishly) great value to sex. We view it as something worthy of conquest, of effort, and acknowledge that women have the right to withhold it for only the men that have proved themselves as deserving of it. 

Well, at least he’s acknowledging a woman’s right to say no, a concept a lot of Red Pillers have a great deal of trouble with.

Instead, a slut gives that value freely to many different men based on fickle “feelz” and fleeting emotions. In doing so, her sex becomes less valuable because it’s given so freely.

While women are the gatekeepers of sex, Ronin11A goes on to argue (or, rather, assert), men are the gatekeepers of commitment, which is

the one thing men have control of. This makes the White Knight, the FriendZoned, the Nice Guy, the male equivalent of the slut. Why? Because … the White Knight/Nice Guy offers all of the commitment, without making the woman prove herself first as a quality woman. In doing so, he reveals that his commitment is of little value since, surprise, it’s given so freely to any woman that walks by. …

Unsurprisingly, women get very upset by the manner in which men treat sluts while remaining oblivious to the fact they treat White Knights/Nice Guys with the same disregard and disdain.

I haven’t run across a lot of women who disdain men because they have too many female friends. When women complain about “nice guys” — as 1Ronin11A would know if he paid attention to what women actually say when the topic comes up — it’s generally because these alleged “nice guys” expect to be rewarded with sex for their alleged niceness.

“As men, we don’t hate sluts,” 1Ronin11A reiterates,

we simply recognize their offering as low-quality and low value, and unworthy of commitment. We use them for the easy sex that they are, just as women use the Nice Guys as emotional tampons and ATMs for free drinks.

The irony is women understand this, even if it’s on a subconscious, almost biological level. It’s why they never date the Nice Guys until their physical currency begins to wane. It’s why they get so upset when they’re pumped and dumped or called sluts, as they recognize they’re being accurately identified as being disposable and of low value to high-quality men.

1Ronin11A’s argument is an old one, and one that only makes sense if you buy into his basic premise — that sex is a thing that belongs to women, and that commitment is a thing that belongs to men.

If, instead, you see sex as activity that women, or at least a substantial portion of them, actually enjoy, the entire ideological edifice of Red Pillism falls apart. The women that Red Pillers call sluts have sex with the guys they have sex with not because they’re sexual discount outlets, but rather because they want to have sex with these guys, and these guys want to have sex with them.

That sounds like a win-win situation to me, not some kind of terrifying vagina market collapse.

It’s amazing how much more sense the world makes when you assume that women are human beings.

But that’s one fact that Red Pillers can never admit. At its essence, Red Pill ideology is all about denying the basic humanity of women in an attempt to keep them shamed and subservient. That’s why Red Pillers get so worked up about feminist attempts to get rid of the stigma attached to the word “slut.”

As if on cue, 1Ronin11A ends his excursion into Slut Theory by ranting against the slut walks of recent years, which he describes as

the social equivalent of unions, essentially trying to lower the standards bar while raising the asking price simultaneously. If the value of slutty women is artificially raised, girls won’t have to try so hard to be feminine, charming, actually got to the gym to maintain an attractive figure.

“Artificially” raising the “asking price” of “slutty women?” Uh oh!

Red Pillers may not-so-secretly hate the “sluts” who are willing to have sex with them, but they’re absolutely livid about the “sluts” who won’t.

Fixed that for you

So I recently checked in on some of the more popular white supremacist hashtags on Twitter and found a bunch of lovely, lovely memes. For a moment I considered poking my eyes out, but then I thought, hey, why not have a contest instead?

So here are some of the memes I collected. Vote for your favorite — by which I mean the one that makes you want to poke out your eyes the most. And remember, when considering white supremacist memes, unreadability and incomprehensibility are pluses!

The Chart of Great Unreadability

Wilhelm Reich Said a Thing

Hollyjew Squares

Who are Jew? Who who, who who?

Er, why is there a kitty?

Why is there a car?

Whiggers and Mixers

NOTE: This meme is so terrible I’m not going to post it, though you can see it by clicking on the kitty below

2001: A White Odyssey

The Programmer, Programming Away

Vote for your fave!

Brock Turner: Misunderstood martyr?

I find it hard to read about the Stanford rape case for more than a few minutes at a time. The whole thing is so grotesque and awful that I literally start twitching in anger and frustration and have to stop reading.

It took several tries for me to make it all the way through a three-and-a-half minute video from Buzzfeed in which a young woman read excerpts from the deeply unsettling letter the victim read to her attacker in court, and it left my stomach in knots.

Last night, a reader pointed me to what he said were some particularly egregious comments about the case he’d run across on Roosh V’s forum from a fellow who calls himself, perhaps appropriately, the Lizard of Oz. I finally forced myself to read them this morning, and found myself twitching again.

The Lizard is as angry about the case as I am. But he’s not angry at “poor wide-eyed fearful [Brock] Turner,” for violating an unconscious woman, or at the judge for giving Turner only a six month sentence (of which he will likely only serve half).

No, he’s angry at what he describes as “a society full of psychotic princesses and their despicable white-knight enablers which treats its young men as worthless roadkill.” And he’s angry at the woman who was violated for speaking up on her own behalf with what he sees as a suspicious eloquence.

Yes, that’s right. He’s mad at her in part because her letter is too well-written for his taste, complaining that the “emotionally dishonest” document “is a self-consciously literary text written in the hysterical tones of contemporary serious female fiction.” In another comment, he denounces her letter as “literary attention whoring from the first word to the last.”

His comments are worth looking at in some detail, if only as a sort of case study in the ways in which misogyny and rape culture can not only destroy a person’s basic human empathy but also their ability to see the facts right in front of them.

As The Lizard sees it, the only crime here is that a “drunk and confused teenage boy” had his “life …. destroyed” just because he failed to notice that his sex partner had passed out.

The idea that this is a “light sentence” is a tragically misplaced one. In reality, the guy’s life is ruined forever. He will be registered as a sex offender for the remainder of his life. He is an eternal pariah and outcast. All because this slut decided that a few moments of drunkenness were enough to destroy a man’s life for good.

The Lizard has somehow convinced himself, through a rather tortured reading of the victim’s letter, that she “liked” being violated by Turner.

This slut went to the party because she wanted to get drunk and cheat on her boyfriend. She obviously wanted this athlete guy to f**k her as she admits in this key passage from the “victim letter” which you need to parse correctly through its lawyerly wording.

Here’s the passage in question, in which she admits no such thing. (I’m putting quotes from her in blue to distinguish them clearly from his.)

And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet, fine. His guilt did not depend on him knowing the exact second that I became unconscious, that is never what this was about. I was slurring, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place

The meaning of the passage is pretty transparent. She’s not saying she consented. She’s saying that she was clearly, obviously, unquestionably “too drunk to consent.”

The Lizard has a somewhat different take.

In other words she’s admitting she was by no means unconscious when he started “fingering” her which she herself said she “liked”. This kid is now supposed to be a “rapist” because in his own drunkenness he could not figure out the exact moment when the equally drunk girl passed out? Really?

Yes, really. It doesn’t matter what “exact moment” she passed out, you stupid sack of garbage. If you stick your fingers into someone who is passed out, that is rape. If you stick your fingers into someone so drunk they’re on the verge of passing out, that is also rape.

The Lizard puts the word “liked” in quotes, as if it is a direct quote from the victim. It’s not. If you search her statement for the words “like” and “liked,” you won’t find her saying anywhere that she “liked” what Turner did to her.

Here are some of the things you will find. (I will put the words “like” and “liked” in italics.)

A paragraph in which she describes taking a shower in a hospital after several hours of being poked and prodded and examined for evidence of rape.

After a few hours of this, they let me shower. I stood there examining my body beneath the stream of water and decided, I don’t want my body anymore. I was terrified of it, I didn’t know what had been in it, if it had been contaminated, who had touched it. I wanted to take off my body like a jacket and leave it at the hospital with everything else.

A paragraph in which she describes how she learned what happened to her that night in the time between her last memory of the party she was at and when she came to hours later on a hospital gurney.

This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me. That’s when the pine needles in my hair made sense, they didn’t fall from a tree. He had taken off my underwear, his fingers had been inside of me. I don’t even know this person. I still don’t know this person. When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me, this can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information.

A paragraph in which she addresses Turner for trying to excuse his actions by claiming he was too drunk to know what he was doing. An excerpt:

Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

A paragraph in which she discusses one way in which the sexual assault has affected her:

I can’t sleep alone at night without having a light on, like a five year old, because I have nightmares of being touched where I cannot wake up, I did this thing where I waited until the sun came up and I felt safe enough to sleep. For three months, I went to bed at six o’clock in the morning.

So where does the idea she “liked it” come from? Not from her, but from Turner. In her letter, she recalls reading a news account of the evening’s events:

In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings.

Speaking of the word “like,” The Lizard’s comment received fifty “likes” from Roosh V forum users. Here they all are:

MiscBrah, Horus, n/a, BallsDeep, GlobalMan, KidA, Samseau, Captainstabbin, spokepoker, Genghis Khan, RoastBeefCurtains4Me, Burt Gummer, Tokyo Joe, bigrich, gajf77, Comte De St. Germain, Mr. Scumbag, getdownonit, Renton1875, H1N1, Benoit, Chevalier De Seingalt, J. Spice, DJ-Matt, debeguiled, Neo2, Grodin, PUA_Rachacha, VincentVinturi, arafat scarf, Professor Fox, godzilla, Roadrunner, UroboricForms, B TAHKE, MMX2010, yfc4, Grizzles, Ocelot, TooFineAPoint, Polo, DeltaSmelt, Dismal Operator, Gmac, Geomann180, mpr, tradman, Avarence, dies irae, Matrixdude

In a followup comment, The Lizard begs a fellow forum member who actually sees the incident as”obviously a real case of rape” to have some empathy — for Turner.

Please try to think about this in actual human terms and understand what happened here. The idea that a young kid’s life should be ruined forever because of this incident is disgraceful.

It’s not long before The Lizard sets forth a conspiracy theory to explain just why the victim’s letter went viral. Weirdly, it involves Donald Trump.

I can tell you why it went viral:

1. They need this to make up for the loss they took on lyin’ Jackie Coakley in the UVa case — a loss they’re still smarting from.

2. It’s needed as payback for TRUMP — pretty much the fact that he still dares to exist.

Unbelievable. The Lizard concludes:

There is serious evil afoot here. But it’s not in the actions of one drunk confused kid — the evil is in our society and the hysterical extremes it has reached in pandering to female lies.

In a series of followup comments, The Lizard informs us that white men can’t rape:

“Rape” victims are few and far between, and real rapes, violent drag into the bushes rapes, are vanishingly rare on college campuses, and not committed by young white male college students.

That women apparently love — no, LOVE — having sex behind dumpsters:

What I know for sure is that women go to parties and get drunk because they want to f**k; and women, especially when they are drunk and horny, LOVE the idea and the excitement of having sex in public locations to an extent that most prudish men and white-knights can never understand.

That he’s pretty sure the victim didn’t write her letter, because reasons:

I did not believe when I saw it, and I believe less now, that it was written in full by “Emily Doe”. It bears all the marks of a far more experienced, ideological, and nastier hand.

I cannot prove, but strongly suspect, that this document was written in part or in full by Michele Dauber, the Stanford Law professor who has been primarily responsible for coordinating the propaganda campaign in this case.

Several commenters on Roosh’s forum, to their credit, take issue with The Lizard’s arguments, such as they are.

And then there is the odious piece of human garbage who calls himself GlobalMan — who may be a man we have met many times before, since“GlobalMan” was for years the internet moniker used by the extremely odd and terrible person better known as Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c).

Here is his take on the situation:

Wow. If [Turner’s] account is indeed accurate and true, not only is this the furthest thing from rape there could ever be, but it is also quite scary that men have to now worry about roving pairs of violent white knights intruding on any public lustful escapades with a willing and enthusiastic lover because they’ve been trained to view all males with natural virility as a threat to public safety.

What you have is in fact actually a sweet and beautiful scene, two young drunk kids slipping and falling and going at it right where they fell. Not too long ago in history someone would have walked by these kids and smirked, passing by with a smile at the thought of young lust. Now such a scene is cause to use violence to restrain the male and send him off to the gulag for societal castration.

A disgusting and sad outcome if there ever was one.

A “sweet and beautiful scene.” That comment got more than a dozen “likes” from the Roosh V Forum crowd.

I’m twitching again.

Matt Forney, with two heads. I honestly don’t know why I made this. 

Yesterday, longtime GamerGate bete noire Gawker Media filed for bankrupcty. On KotakuInAction, Reddit’s main GamerGate hangout, the regulars cheered what they saw as Gawker’s long-deserved demise:

Of course, Gawker isn’t actually dead. Bankruptcy gives the company some financial breathing room as it tries to deal with the $140 million in damages a court ordered it to pay former wrestler Hulk Hogan after Gawker idiotically posted a sex tape involving the oversized human.

Still, the GamerGaters celebrated this “victory,” perhaps none of them harder than the odious embarrassment to humanity known as Matt Forney.

This overgrown Cabbage Patch doll is a man well acquainted with media failure — after all, he’s the former “editor” of  reactionary gaming site Reaxxion, Roosh Valizadeh’s hilariously inept (and quite short-lived) attempt to cash in on the GamerGate fad.

(You can read more about Mr. Forney’s illustrious career at Reaxxion here, including the time he posted a GamerGate manifesto that, unknown to him, was almost completely plagiarized from an old John Birch Society newspaper ad, with the words “John Birch society” replaced by “GamerGate” and “Communist” replaced by “SJW.” No, really.)

But Forney didnt let his bittersweet memories of the utter failure of Reaxxion stop him from taking to Twitter to “rub [Gawker’s bankruptcy] in the faces” of Gawker writers and editors by sending them harassing Tweets. He was so proud of what he called his “quality sh*tposts” that he collected them in a Storify,

Let’s just say that Forney is no Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

Here are some of the Tweets he sent to male employees of Gawker Media. You may notice a theme here.

In his Storify, he declared these last two Tweets virtual “TKOs.”

Forney took a different tack with women. You may notice a theme here, too.

Many of his Tweets were responses to self-deprecating jokes and sarcastic comments from Gawkerites, which led to an assortment of cringey failed zingers like this one:

And this one, in which Forney reminds us that in addition to being a failed Twitter comedian he is also a raging semi-Nazi.

Some of Forney’s Tweets were just puzzling. Is this Tweet suggesting that its recipient commit suicide, or take a lovely relaxing bubble bath?

And here he worked in a cultural referent that ceased to be fresh roughly half a century ago:

When Gawker employees took a few seconds of their time to block him on Twitter, Forney did a little victory dance, which inevitably took the form of more uninspired Tweets.

It’s a bit odd that someone who looks and acts more like an overgrown baby than any other adult human I can think of would consider this a brilliant insult.

For the purposes of this post, let’s just pretend that all MRAs are named “Frank Thompson.”

On the Men’s Rights subreddit yesterday, I found this inspiring report from the front lines of the Men’s Rights struggle — the struggle of MRAs to annoy pretty much everyone they ever talk to.

Yes, it is of course true that some men get breast cancer. I’m pretty sure, though, that yelling at breast cancer fundraisers isn’t the best way to help these men.

Is Heartiste channeling Charles Manson in his response to the Orlando shootings?

You probably haven’t been wondering what profound conclusions the racist pickup artist who calls himself Heartiste has drawn from the horrific tragedy in Orlando. But I’m going to tell you anyway.

The first? That Omar Mateen was a pretty cool dude.

Don’t get me wrong. Heartiste is a Trump-worshipping bigot who wants not only the “jihadis” but their families “targeted for kebab removal,” as he’s charmingly put it.

But he also thinks that Mateen is ALPHA AF. As he wrote in a post today:

Chicks dig jerks, especially cute chicks in the prime of their fertility who could have non-jerks if they desired them.

And Mateen scored at least two such “‘chicks.”

The allure of the alpha male — note I did not say admirable man — over women is unmissable. … History is replete with female accomplices of alpha male killers whose charms could not be resisted.

Well, not quite as replete as all that. A look through Wikipedia’s vast list of the world’s serial killers suggests that it is far more common for male murderers to have male accomplices.

Lest it go under-reported, Omar’s first wife is a true hottie, and he has kids from multiple women.

Lest Heartiste forget it, Omar Mateen’s first wife reportedly fled from him only a few months into their brief marriage, apparently in such a hurry that she left virtually all of her belongings behind. She settled secretly in a city 1500 miles away from her husband so he wouldn’t be able to find her.

ALPHA. And if you don’t like it, don’t blame the messenger. Blame the massengil.

Even by the standards of bad puns, that last bit makes no sense whatsoever; it’s only funny if you think that all references to vaginas and their supposed perpetual stinkiness are inherently hilarious, because girls are icky amirite fellas high five! For a guy who professes to be some kind of smooth Lothario, Heartiste seems to get squicked out by vaginas awfully easily. (Also, it’s spelled MassengiLL. You’d think someone who is himself a massive douchebag would know that.)

Heartiste’s swooning over Mateen’s alleged alphatude is more than a little creepy. But not as creepy as the conclusion he drew in another post he put up today — that the Orlando massacre might be the first step in a “needed cleansing” of our decadent culture. 

Men from aggressive, foreign tribes, full of passion and conviction, have begun targeting the culture and lifestyle centers of their post-tribal enemy … They have identified the softest underbelly and are eviscerating it with a vengeance. This means liberals — r-selected rabbits — will bear the brunt of violent Diversity. We are careening into the rabbit holocaust, when everything liberals believe and hold dear will be under mortal threat, and they will die or scatter to the protection of their warrens.

This may be a needed cleansing.

Yep, he really did write that.

After all, it’s rabbit ideology that got us to where we are: besieged by malcontents and barbarians, and making high-minded rationalizations for welcoming ever more of them to lay waste to the rabbit-optimized Elysium fields of grass that is always fresh and green.

This “cleansing,” in Heartiste’s view, could be brutal indeed.

Millions more Americans … could die at the hands of Diversity and the Effete Elite would not surrender their open borders globalist race-mongrelizing agenda.

But there’s a happy ending, of sorts, to Heartiste’s fractured fairy tale — one in which the cavalry, in the form of  right-wing authoritarians, rides to the rescue of the remaining Americans.

The solution will be, as always, a forceful taking of power by the K-selected wolves, to save the rabbits from themselves.

And of course Heartiste sees himself as one of the wolves.

I can’t help but notice that Heartiste’s apocalyptic fantasies are strikingly reminiscent of the similarly apocalyptic, similarly delusional fantasies of a fellow by the name of Charles Manson.

I don’t make this comparison lightly. But consider this:

Manson orchestrated the grotesquely brutal  Tate/LaBianca murders in hopes of triggering a race war — which Manson and his gang would ride out in a secret hideout in the desert. This was all part of what he famously called “Helter Skelter,” after the Beatles song.

Manson assumed that blacks would win this race war, but would be unable to run what remained of the country. Manson and his pals would then step up and take control themselves — thus transforming Charles Manson, the head of a rag-tag group of hippies who fed themselves out of garbage dumpsters, into the supreme ruler he’d always wanted to be.

Replace Manson’s references to “piggies” with Heartiste’s references to “rabbits” and “wolves,” and the fantasies follow a similarly addled logic. In Manson’s fever dream, the blacks — whom he hated — would carry out the “needed cleansing” of a decadent white civilization; in Heartiste’s fantasies. the hated Muslims will play a similar role.

Like Heartiste, many of those screaming the loudest about the allegedly evil Muslims hiding in our midst don’t really want the carnage to stop. In the short run, it means more converts to their hateful ideologies; in the long run, they dream of their own versions of Helter Skelter. That’s one of the reasons why this election is such a critical one — why Trump and Trumpism need to be soundly defeated.

Creamy!

It’s time for another episode of It Came From the Comments I Don’t Let Through, in which I post notable comments by drive-by commenters that I think regular readers here will find, er, instructive.

Today, a heaping pile of homophobia from a fellow identifying himself as Reg Handford. Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then let’s begin.

I know what you want.

We’re off to a bad start here, because pretty much everyone who’s ever said this to me has not known what I want at all.

A society run by feminists and powered by lesbians, where the feminists have the gays under their thumb so that they say exactly the right words and visions on the media they control.

Here’s what a lesbian-powered society might look like, with the lesbians represented for no good reason by totally adorable dogs.

Mr. Handford continues:

Control is placed on judges and educators and professors who know they must obey your ideological dictates or suffer savaging in the media.

The people you attack are meek limp men, ‘guilty’ whites, and christians confused about their religion, praying for forgiveness, lol.

Well, actually, the people I write about tend to be raging bigots; that’s kind of the point of the blog. Most of them aren’t actually what you’d call “meek,” unless, say, calling women the c-word online is a form of meekness I just haven’t heard about.

Indeed, Mr. Handford’s comment was a response to my recent post about The Daily Stormer celebrating the Orlando massacre for supposedly “secur[ing] the election for Trump.” “And the best part?” the Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin added. “Nothing of value was lost. Fifty dead homos.”

Again, I’m having a little trouble seeing how this counts as “meekness.”

Gays have already hijacked the rainbow; the populace is so stupid that they think gays own the rainbow. Really!!! That stupid!!!

Technically, the rainbow is co-owned by the gays and Skittles.

The mistake you are making is that you are attacking males, whites and christians so intensely that they have no more cheeks to turn; they have no choice but to fight back.

Yeah, the guys I write about aren’t exactly turning the other cheek. Nor are they all guys. Or white, or Christian.

Personally I will fight you to the end of life, to hell and back, in words, pictures and vitriol, until I am able to see your ideology discarded in the toxic wastebin of history.

Vocabulary.com defines “vitriol” as “language so mean-spirited and bitter that it could eat through metal.” Clearly the language of a great and noble human rights movement!

Let me help you understand gaiety. Lets get down and dirty on that.. Gaiety advocates the

Ok, Reg, let me cut you off right there. What follows is a puerile description of sexual acts that are often performed by gay men, straight women, and straight men. The word “weenies” is used.

That’s All It Is. Nothing more. Just the Pride of unsanitary acts. That is who you are worshipping. Too stupid to know what an anus is for.

Says someone who seems to use his own anus as a storage place for his head.

The next bit is a little unexpected.

As for Trump, his books emphasize safety, and economic changes to improve living standards. Solid ideas. He passes no comment on butt-worshippers. But he has no plans how we can crush gay propaganda. And that is the issue of the era. So he is a wimp.

Donald Trump: Tool of the Butt-Worshipping, Lesbian-Powered Elite.