T-Shirts Are Here!

The Man Boobz Store is open for business on Zazzle!

Mammoths and Cupcakes and t-shirts, oh my! So far we've got 5 t-shirt designs, illustrating 2 different boob utterances: "We hunted the mammoth to feed you," and "Underneath that fun cupcake is a MONSTER." You can pick the color and quality of the t-shirt, put the designs on a hoodie or a baby doll t-shirt or pretty much whatever you want. There are also stickers, coffee mugs, and an assortment of other swag. And I take requests: if there is something that Zazzle sells that you want to have a Man Boobz graphic on, let me know in the comments and I'll make it available.

Order now! Zazzle has a coupon for $5 off on t-shirts (the coupon code is listed on Zazzle); it expires on Monday. 

Big thanks to JohnnyKaje, who designed the t-shirts and provided a lovely mammoth cartoon (and who's got a Zazzle store too), and Shaenon, who drew that deliciously monstrous cupcake. Thanks also to the folks at board.crewcial.org who gave me the idea for the t-shirts in the first place, and suggested the now-legendary mammoth quote.

All profits will go to charity -- specifically, to Planned Parenthood. I'm offering the T-shirts at a variety of different costs, depending on how much you want to donate. With the T-shirts, some are being sold with only a 10% royalty fee -- the lowest that Zazzle allows -- for those who can't afford a big donation; others are sold with a 30% or 50% royalty. The rest of the swag is being sold with a royalty fee of 20%. The amount you end up donating to PP depends on how expensive the item is and what the royalty rate is. For a Man Boobz postcard, you'll be donating all of 22 cents; for one of the more expensive t-shirt options at a 50% royalty, you'll be donating about $20. (The royalty fee goes to me; I will send it along to PP.)

If you want to donate more than this, or if you need a receipt for tax purposes, donate directly here.

Depending on how this goes, I may decide to add some more t-shirt designs based on other strange quotes from the boobz. Make me proud.



--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Saturday links: Not-so-nice Nice Guys and not-so-hypergamous women

Links

A couple of interesting posts on topics near and dear to readers here:

Amanda Marcotte takes on "Nice Guys," and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:

My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused.  Are some confident men abusive assholes?  Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen.  But are all confident men?  ... [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident ... Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy.  But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters.  I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha"-ness and basic human decency. 

And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren't so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive.  In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won't kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:

Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.

Here's a brief summary of the research. And here's a more detailed (if a bit convoluted) discussion from Thomas on Yes Means Yes, from which I got the above quote.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Feminists: Lizard-brained sperm-hunters

Men: Do not do this.

Our good friend Herbal Essence -- the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo -- is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women's Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. "Feminism" is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly -- a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:

Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy - my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.

I don't know about "protection" and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.

Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing -- besides sperm, of course -- that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes -- all paid for by their long-suffering husbands -- while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here's Herbal again:

The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.

And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they're either lying to themselves, or lying to you.

Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.

Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn't fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you're jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.

Be careful out there.

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Tall, dark and hansom

Future evil feminist, developing her evil mind.

Say what you will about those Men Going Their Own Way, but they have proven themselves again and again to be experts on the enigma that is woman. Over on MGTOWforums.com, the commenter calling himself AC101202 may not be able to spell the word "handsome" or use the correct form of "it's," but he knows what women want and why they do what they do. What do they want, what do they really really want? Dudes to boss them around and maybe even oppress them a bit. Because oppression = love. 

Women love being controlled and oppressed. Like children, they are the happiest when they know their boundaries. ... Women are overgrown children, hence why they relate to children so well. Like children they need (and occasionally admit that they like) men who (fairly and non-violently) tell them what their place is and keeps them there, and in the process show that they are protecting them and value them.

Alas, not all women are able to find themselves oppressive bossy dudes of their own. These unfortunate lasses all too often become feminists. And instead of learning beauty secrets from their happily oppressed sisters, or from any of the many fine periodicals devoted to the subject, some of these ladies start trying to -- get this -- improve their lady brains. And that's where all the trouble begins.

Because feminists are mostly physically ugly they cannot attract strong well-off hansom men with their shit together. Because they are usually ugly they compensate for their physical short-comings by working and developing an intellect, and because they are jealous of other better looking females, they seek to restrict their actions by passing anti-prostitution laws, laws that restrict free-speech to keep women from selling the image of their bodies etc... You will rarely ever see an attractive women protesting against cheer-leading, or outside a Hooters. That's because they, unlike the fat pudgy feminists, can profit from selling their image.

AC101202 doesn't spell out all the implications of these developments for nice, thoughtful guys like himself, but I will.  You see, since women only have sex with alpha male thugboys -- those non-thugboys who claim to sleep with women are obviously all lying -- nice guys are also forced to develop their minds (though not, evidently, forced to learn how to spell). This doesn't do them much good, though, given that the ugly smart girls out there that might have otherwise been captivated by their giant brains have all been infected with feminism, and have managed to convince themselves that they don't actually want dudes bossing them around. (Though they do, they really really do.) What can a poor boy do -- except to declare he's had enough of women, and then prove how little he needs or cares about these foul harridans by spending every waking moment complaining about them online.

Poor AC101202 ends his comment with a lament:

To be fair I would be lying if I didn't admit to being jealous of the alpha male bad boys who attract women easily. I wish I had their look and natural charisma. I'm also pretty sure the reason most smart people tend to be physically weak, especially in youth is because genetically they are programmed to compensate for their physical short-comings. However, I would never lobby to pass legislation to restrict people's sexual behavior. I'm quite happy watching this society collapse under the weight of it's own human stupidity.

Continue Going Your Own Way, young man. It is the only solution.

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

With a Cherry 2000 on top

Silly poster! Melanie Griffith does not actually play Cherry 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

RANDA: [Indignantly] No. 

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

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

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

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

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Incredibly Strange Antifeminist Bedfellows: Kay Hymowitz defends her attackers

Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay!

This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz' new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won't let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men's Right's/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a "bitch," an "entitlement whore," a "cunt," "a fugly tranny skank," and someone who "on her best day ... has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own."

Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning ... a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of "backlash" and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she's quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that's her real argument. Let's let her explain:

[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. ... That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.

At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don't know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them  ... and others don't!

Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.

As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, "that they're all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots." Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a "hotness" scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you're confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.

But here's a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don't like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don't be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women's distinct personalities ... interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.

Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating -- some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! -- even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she's not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she's so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it's a bit of both.

The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses -- it's simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it's pretty clear she hasn't revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn't a Men's Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine "coming soon" whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also "under construction.")

Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you -- which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:

I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. .... this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. ...

WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. ... Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.

Somehow, I don't think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates. 

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.