Category Archives: that’s not funny!
Every woman I know who’s tried online dating has gotten all sorts of weird and sleazy messages from guys, from crude sexual come-ons (“sorry for being forward but id love to cum on your glasses :)”) to terrible “sexy” jokes (“So ay girl, you looking for a stud? Because I got the std, all I need is u :)”) to fetish-tastic examples of Too Much Information (“I WISH I WERE A DOG SO I COULD SUCK MYSELF OFF”). (No, guys, appending a smiley face emoticon does not make it ok to be a grotesque douchebag.)
You always wonder what guys like this are thinking. With the dog lover at the end, it’s clear he was trying to rattle a woman who hadn’t replied to two earlier messages of increasing creepiness. With the others, I suppose they think there’s always a tiny chance that some woman out there is as desperate and horny and undiscerning as they are.
What’s stranger are those who lead not with sexual come ons but with blatant misogyny. Do men really think that women melt at the thought of dating a man who hates half the human race? Or are they just looking for yet another chance to mansplain their Men’s Rights bullshit to the world?
Here are a couple of examples of this strange and unsuccessful approach to winning over women which I found on the delightful and disturbing blog The Ladies of OkCupid, which documents the quests of three women searching for love online.
Sometimes the misogyny sneaks up on you, as in this OkCupid profile from a “laid-back” slut-shamer (who was clearly not an English major):
This fellow, by contrast, launches into the misogyny right from the start, suggesting that the woman he’s writing is exceptional, simply because she’s not stupid and illogical like the rest of her gender:
This “edgy” fellow tries to break the ice with some lovely rape jokes:
But the strangest one I’ve seen so far comes from this dude, who uses his OKCupid profile as an opportunity to mansplain why feminism is eeeeeevil:
Oh, and that list keeps going; it’s one hundred items long.
As Jasmine from The Ladies of OKCupid writes,
Delusional and repulsive takes on a whole new level with this one, because I really don’t think he’s kidding. He has every social media outlet known to man with all the same crap, and his profile is HUGE. So either he’s attempting to become the ultimate Canadian troll, or he really thinks there’s a woman out there who exists like this AND would be interested in him, of all people. Really? He offers little more than a receding hairline and an outrageous sense of entitlement in return.
To paraphrase Animal House, delusional and repulsive is no way to go through life.
Happily for The Ladies of OKCupid, and the rest of those ladies seeking love online, not all the messages are like this. For example, take this message about a basic but delicious foodstuff:
Also, the woman who got the message above about that thinking-outside-the-box use for her glasses? She stayed on OkCupid, and is now in a happy relationship with a dude she met there who is not a shitlord.
Always hilarious: painfully unfunny dudes explaining how women just aren’t funny. Over on Chateau Heartiste, the Heartiste formerly known as Roissy drops some (pseudo) SCIENCE on us all:
[C] hicks dig male status, dominance and personality as much as, or more than, they dig male looks. Men, on the other hand, dig beauty first and foremost, and a woman’s comedic timing, however it might make a man laugh, won’t stir his schnitzel if she’s a dog.
Since women don’t see a benefit from humor in the competition to attract men, their sex, on average when compared to men, has not evolved a strong cortical humor module. Women are better equipped to appreciate humor than they are to produce humor.
Apparently, if you use the same words that scientists use – like “cortical” and “module” – that makes it true!
But there is more to this Old Misogynist’s Tale. As Heartiste explains, it’s cruel humor that women appreciate most of all — in their lady regions. In other words, chicks like dicks:
[W]omen become sexually aroused by men who expertly wield the soulkilling shiv of sadism. …
Cruelty that is delivered with supreme confidence, bemused detachment, and eviscerating precision is catnip to women’s kitties.
Get it? Kitties = pussies = VAGINAS.
Ba-dump-tssh! Heartiste is on a roll.
So let’s see some examples of the sort of masterfully eviscerating humor that makes the ladies weak in their knees and gets their “kitties” excited. (Note: By kitties I am, like Heartiste, referring to vaginas. Exciting a woman’s actual kitties is better done with shiny objects and mouse-shaped toys.)
Anyway, here are some of Heartiste’s examples of cruel humor at its most exquisite, which he has helpfully rendered in dialogue form:
Me: Sweetcheeks, look. That bum just winked at you. He wants to take you back to his cardboard box. [waving at bum] Hi, bum!
Her: [struggling to conceal a grin] Shh, stop that. Stop waving. You’re horrible.
Truly, bum-mockery at its finest.
But he’s only getting started:
Me: You want to take a bus? Forget it. [nodding in direction of obese woman] She ate it.
Her: [looking heavenward] Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.
Aw yeah. Suggesting that a fat person has just eaten something comically large: comedy gold!
After some further jests on the topics of male boobs (hmm), the size of black men’s cocks, and raping the disabled (yes, really), our hero is in like Flynn, well on his way to all-caps “TRIUMPHAL SEX.”
The way it will usually go down is like this: You revel in your cruelty. She reacts with manufactured disapproval, often stifling laughter. Her vagina moistens. A wave of hidden shame releases a continuous flow of blood to her vaginal walls, maintaining her in a semi-aroused state all day long. Later that night, the floodgates open and you slip in like a lubed eel.
Yipes. That is about as erotic as Gilbert Gottfried reading from 50 Shades of Grey.
I’m pretty sure the only reason Heartiste can maintain his belief that women can’t do cruel humor themselves is that he’s never heard what they say about him once he leaves the room.
How to get yourself upvoted on the Men’s Rights subreddit: Suggest that people making rape jokes help to protect men from false rape allegations. That at least seems to be the clear implication of this comment from DoctorStorm (hopefully not a real doctor):
How to get yourself downvoted on the Men’s Rights subreddit: Tell DoctorStorm that the reason you shouldn’t tell rape jokes is that some of those in your audience may be rape victims, and that as a decent human being you might just want to be a tiny bit concerned about their feelings:
Douchebaggery towards rape victims: it’s a Men’s Right!
Well, this is … interesting. So JohnTheOther has plopped out another rambling diatribe about evil feminists. This time he accuses them not only of “attacking male sexuality” but also (if I’m reading him correctly) of being a bunch of evil homophobes jealous that some men don’t want to have sex with women. You read this and tell me what you think he’s implying here:
Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.
JTO would love to compare these alleged gay-man-hating feminists to the proudly gay-male-affirming Men’s Rights Movement. There’s just one problem: As even JTO has to force himself to admit, there are more than a few homophobic dudes lurking around in the Men’s Rights movement. As JTO acknowledges:
[T]here is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or I suppose, transsexual.
JTO doesn’t like this, and says so:
[There] are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.
At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?
So: JohnTheOther has explicitly decided to speak up in favor of “the gay agenda.” (Yes, that’s the phrase he used.) And he’s even included lesbians in the deal – something allegedly pro-gay MRAs often have trouble doing – even though he sort of suggests at the end that he’s only willing to accept lesbians who are also MRAs.
But, hey, baby steps, right?
Well, John, if you really want to toss the homophobes out of the Men’s Rights movement, you’re going to have to start with A Voice for Men itself.
If you go to read JTO’s whole post over on AVFM, you’ll see a couple of “featured videos” in the sidebar from longtime AVFM friend and contributor Bernard Chapin. One of them bears the intriguing title “Feminist Professor Gloats Over Lesbian Chic.” The description, presumably written by AVFM head honcho Paul Elam, reads:
Bernard’s on a roll here with this one. And you will be rolling to [sic] as he delivers another thorough fisking, Inferno style.
Watch the video, here or there, or as much of it as you can stand. As you’ll see, it’s basically eight minutes of gratingly “humorous” lesbian bashing from good old Bern – whose preferred term for “lesbian,” incidentally, is “lesbobo.” (Evidently adding an extra “bo” to the old slur “lesbo” is hilarious.)
Chapin has produced more than 1200 videos; this is one of the two that AVFM has chosen to feature.
You want to stand up to homophobia, John? Take down that video. Apologize for hosting it. Apologize for featuring it. Demand that Chapin apologize for it — or kick him to the curb.
Meanwhile, AVFM is helping the guy behind the website Artistry Against Misandry publicize and raise money for an upcoming event; Elam himself says he’s already sent along a hundred dollars. Here are some examples of the sort of “artistry” that’s featured on the site:
This second graphic is not only homophobic but confused: Chaz Bono is a trans man, not a lesbian.
Speaking of transphobia, AAM also hosts several videos by “Creativebrother,” one of which is this not-hot transphobic mess:
John, I suggest you ask your boss at AVFM to get his money back from Artistry Against Misandry. Because, here’s the thing: if you actively support hate like this, people might just get the impression you’re a hate site.
EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, Elam proudly announces his own support of the “gay agenda” as well. Well, with 0.1% of it.
I don’t like most gay activists very much, and I oppose 99.9% of what passes as gay activism, but I don’t think it is very smart to forget that part of the reason they were led astray is because most “normal” men never gave them the dignity of being regarded as a man.
Forget gay marriage, forget bullying, forget AIDS: apparently the only real issue for gay men is evil feminist ladies calling them “fags” for not wanting to have sex with them.
Elam also has a most interesting explanation of homophobia, at least against gay men:
Gay men are bashed, when all is said and done, because they are not of utilitarian value to women, and because they are perceived as not having enough strength to be of utilitarian value to the elites.
Yeah, that’s probably it.
What about homophobia against lesbians? That’s easy: “lesbobos” are just naturally ugly and hilarious.
Prepare to laugh your ass off (not literally, I hope) at this display of hilarity, courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit:
Oscar Wilde would be proud. Wait, not proud. Disgusted, and probably a little embarrassed for you.
I took this screenshot the other day. When I went back to see if there were any developments in the thread, I discovered that both the joke and hardwarequestions’ brilliant reply had picked up some more upvotes, and that crankycloud has apparently been banned. I guess that’s one way to deal with hecklers.
EDITED TO ADD: Hey, Tweeps, come on over to Twitter. I’m trying to get a hashtag started: #OscarWildeQuotesWithLolOnTheEnd
Every few days, it seems, Reddit has some thread asking the regulars there what horrible thing they would do if they could get away with it. And invariably someone says rape.
The good folks in ShitRedditSays recently highlighted one such comment, from a fellow calling himself nickfromredcliff. As you can see from the edits to his comment below, poor Nick felt somewhat embarrassed and even affronted by the attention.
When I checked his comment again this morning while writing this post, I found he’d edited it again. Gone was his plaintive plea for tolerance; in its place, a bunch of new rape jokes. (You can find a screenshot of his original comment here; at the time it had 39 upvotes.)
Let’s all use this as a learning experience.
And while we’re at it, let’s have a toast for the douchebag.
The regulars over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit are currently getting amused and/or outraged by the existence of a book titled “Girl, Get That Child Support,” a guide to help single mothers track down deadbeat dads and get the child support they are owed. A few of them were apparently so overstimulated by the book’s title, and a reference to “Baby Mamas” in the subtitle, that this little conversation ensued:
Note the upvotes and the (scarcity of) downvotes. And the complete lack of anyone saying “hey, you’re being racist assholes.”
The Men’s Rights Movement, the “most significant civil rights movement of the 3rd millennium.”
“It must be cotton pony rodeo time,” and other incredibly brilliant insults that will totally make the ladies cry.
In the war of ideas, it is important to be well-armed. And that’s why one brave antifeminist warrior named Roy Scott Movrich has supplied his fellow warriors with some potent verbal ammunition, a full clip of misogynist insults designed to reduce all women in the immediate area to blubbering tears.
As Roy explains:
Feminists have gotten away with shaming language for too long. Far too long.
Its time we got our own back.
And since women in general have not stood up to defend men, it stands that all women are tarred with the same brush. Therefore ALL women are to be denigrated equally.
Here are a choice sampling of insults to deride women with.
Try them and see. I did. And watch their ordure (translation: s**t) hit the roof!
A few of Roy’s insults are borrowed from literature (mostly from Shakespeare), but most of them are originals. In a manner of speaking.
He starts out with a puzzler:
Your’s is even smaller than mine.
Presumably he is suggesting that cis women/feminists have some sort of symbolic penis, and that this symbolic penis of theirs is smaller than his non-symbolic penis
He continues on with several other comments in this vein:
It’ll be way bigger than anything you’ll ever have.
The one you try to have is even smaller than mine.
And of course this classic:
Mine isn’t too small, your cooch is too wide/large/loose.
Then we get some vibrator-shaming:
Oooh! Bad mood! Did you run out of batteries?
And some wildly unoriginal negs:
You sound really old.
You don’t look your age. [Pause] You look [longer pause] old.
You look good enough to be my great-great grandmother.
This one might not be terribly successful with total strangers:
You were/are a lousy lover.
And then it’s back to the vagina:
You must be having constant periods.
It must be cotton pony rodeo time huh?
Note to self: Find out if anyone in the history of the world has ever referred to a woman’s period as “cotton pony rodeo time.”
Then on to cats, spinster-shaming, and general unpleasantness:
Did one of your cats just die?
You must not be married yet.
Can’t have kids huh?
There’s nothing a woman can do for me that my right hand can’t do better.
Even dung beetles are higher than women and feminists.
And back to the vagina again:
You obviously have one of those super large and deep ginas a man has to strap a plank to his back to prevent him falling into.
Note to self: Find out if there is anyone who refers to vaginas as “ginas” who is not a misogynist asscrack.
If you need more, Roy suggests that you can basically go with
[a]nything that implies her plumbing isn’t clean, has diseases or a foul smell.
After delivering this list (and some Shakespeare quotes), Roy somewhat confusingly concludes that insulting women is actually a waste of time:
[A]t the end of the day, given that women are devoid of logic and wit, using such choice insults is wanton waste.
Better to ignore them completely.
And since modern women, with their over-inflated sense of entitlement cannot abide being ignored, this is just as dramatic and effective as any insult.
In other words, the chance that Roy has ever used any of these insults in a conversation with a woman is roughly zero.
Reading this blog, you might get the impression that Men’s Rights activists lack a sense of humor. Not so! Some of them even make their own hilarious comics! I’d like to celebrate three of the finest MRA cartoons I’ve seen thus far in the first edition of what I’d like to call the MRA Comics Cavalcade. Click the thumbnails to go to the (full-sized) comics themselves.
In this edition of the popular The Pigman Cometh, the aforementioned Pigman, who has apparently killed a woman, dances with her corpse while spouting humorous remarks about how women and marriage suck. This comic is written by one dude, and drawn by another. Yes, it takes two people to produce masterpieces like this.Two separate people.
In this NSFW cartoon found on the blog Wimminz, two evil feminists talk evilly about divorce and park in a handicapped parking space. Just like real feminists would! And then a guy has sex with, apparently, some sex dolls?
And, finally, in this edition of plasticBrickAutomaton, an evil feminist door-to-door saleswoman tries to sell some dude a weird and incorrect caricature of postmodernism. The guy cleverly parries her attempts to indoctrinate him by attaching a baby to a balloon and letting it float away, to ultimately meet its demise. (One imagines.) This got more than 100 upvotes when it was posted to the Men’s Rights subreddit.
More MRA Comics Cavalcades to come!
UPDATE: Reddit has now removed “all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children.” And it only took them six years to realize that maybe catering to peodophiles was not such a good idea.
Yet another Reddit pedophilia explosion, this time centering around r/preteen_girls, a subreddit which is evidently filled with sexualized photos of preteen girls. (You thought the banning of Reddit’s Jailbait subreddit solved the problem? Nope; Reddit still hosts numerous subreddits catering to pedos.)
The subreddit came under some criticism elsewhere on Reddit a couple of days ago, and countless creeps leapt to its defense.
I don’t have the stomach to dig into this one, but ShitRedditSays is on the case.
Here are screenshots of a bunch of comments defending the subreddit, the pictures, and creepiness itself, collected by SRS regular littletiger. They’re all pretty repugnant, but this one really takes repugnance to a new level:
Here’s an SRS thread discussing the screenshots and the controversy in general.
Many of the defenders of r/preteen_girls have responded to the criticism by angrily asserting that the pictures there aren’t nude or pornographic. Which is not, actually, true, as this SRS thread makes clear. Indeed, here is a screenshot of the incredibly creepy discussion that ensued in r/preteen_girls when one nude picture got posted. (Note: this screenshot shows a small censored thumbnail of the nude picture in question.)
Naturally, all this led to yet more highly upvoted pedophilia jokes, something Reddit already has quite a surplus of.
(Thanks to SRS once again for pointing me to this comment.)
Here’s a discussion of the original thread (in r/wtf) in which some questioned the propriety of Reddit hosting a forum devoted to suggestive and possibly pornographic pictures of children; and another SRS thread highlighting one of the creepier r/preteen_girls defenders. (And if you want more, here’s that guy’s highly disturbing comment history.)
For more on Reddit’s pedophilia problem, see my previous posts on the r/jailbait controversies.
Reddit used to be owned by Conde Nast. It is still owned by Conde Nast’s parent company Advance Publications. Why would this publishing giant, which owns dozens of media properties ranging from the New Yorker and Vanity Fair to the uber-wholesome Sunday newspaper supplement Parade, want to associate itself with a site that continue to host forums devoted to sexualized photos of underage girls?
NOTE: None of the links in this post go to r/preteengirls itself; they are all to discussions of it elsewhere. None of them link to any of the pictures in question, though one, as I noted, contains a censored thumbnail image of one picture posted there.