Trogdor Goes to the Store [TW: Misogyny, Ageism, Racism, Chicken Taquito Rolls, End of Civilization.]

A drugstore, as yet untainted by whores.

It’s been a long time since we’ve checked in with Trogdoor005, a young Man Going His Own Way with a vivid imagination, a love of bold text, and a deep hatred of all things female. In a recent post on, the Trogger reports on a visit to a local drugstore, where he witnessed a loud argument between two women cunts. The argument is actually the least interesting part of his story; it’s what happens afterwards that really got my attention, suggesting that Trog spends most of his days in a constant state of boiling rage not only towards women but towards pretty much anyone and everyone who crosses his path.

In search of the chips aisle, Trog ended up over by the pharmacy.

As I pass by the pharmacy, I notice that most of the people standing/sitting there are older people … what looks like a handful of 60-75 year olds, baby-boomers getting their last few drop$ of blood drained by big-pharma before they croak. Perhaps a comeuppance of sorts, these are, afterall … the SAME people who embraced and got behind liberalism/feminism back in the day … effectively laying the “foundation” for the Matriarchy that we currently live under, among OTHER things … .

Damn those old people and their MATRIARCHY. Trogdor continues his wandering, and we discover that he hates young girls as well:

As I continued to make my way thru the store, I was particularly disturbed by a lot of the younger girls and their dress/ demeanor. Some of these girls didn’t look a day over 13 and here they were, already wearing those short-shorts that go all the way up to the ass, kind of like the ones described here. They of course, had their little “smartphones” in one hand whilst txting away feverishly … and some of their faces were already showing signs of a developing “thousand cock stare”, which should come as no surprise considering the rotten feminized culture they were raised in, having absorbed countless hours of Jersey shore and MTV poison.

What the fuck is a “thousand cock stare?”

I overheard a couple of brief comments as I walked by some of them, totally superficial bullshit … you can tell right away these girls are (unfortunately) gonna grow up to be more of the same generic, hypergamous, narcissistic American sluts that we are all-too-familiar with, TOTALLY worthless women just like their mothers in all like-li-hood were as well. You can tell just from the tone of their voices and their snobby remarks that these girls have no substance, no redeemable qualities … they emphasize and accentuate their “curves” because … that’s all they are! That’s all they have to “offer” … sex … their slimy hole. The future does not bode well for America with such a bad crop of “native” women having >51% of the vote and being “in charge” of reproduction …

Dude, if all you want is a slimy hole, buy a fucking fleshlight – there’s no shame in it — and shut the fuck up about actual women and girls.

Eventually, after witnessing another skirmish in what has become an ongoing battle between the two women cunts he overheard earlier, Troggy leaves the store. While he’s walking through the parking lot, a car drives by:

[A] busted-up piece of shit full of “gangsta” dressed caucasian younggins passes a couple of feet in front of me. The windows are open and it absolutely REEKS of weed … no doubt another batch of young men raised by single moms who, lacking the stabilizing influence of a father, turn to such things as a way to cope with their lack of direction in life.

I like how quickly he moves past hating on these guys to hate on their hypothetical single mothers.

Of course I also see a few single moms, thug-lets in tow, making their way to the store as I walk back to my car.

Evidently Trogdor has quite a developed single-mom-dar; I myself am unable to tell if a woman with kids is single or married or even the mother of the children in question. I’m also unable to tell by looking at young children whether or not they will end up as “thugs.”

On a last-minute urge, I decided to head over to the nearby 7-Eleven to get some of those chicken taquito rolls. On my way there, I pass a high-school baseball field, which was in the middle of a game. Something that stood out to me was the high percentage of Hispanic youth at this baseball game, virtually all the players on both teams as well as the parents present were Hispanic … a sign of the times and changing demographics.

Dude, I hate to break it to you, but these “changing demographics” are also responsible for the ready availability of chicken taquito rolls  at your local convenience store.

Trogdor ends with some broader reflections on the end of civilization as we (or at least he) knows it:

Gents, when I step back and look at the “society” that we live in, I can’t help but think … “what a fucking mess” … and I’m sure I’m not alone. Anyone else feel the same way?

The whole thing is so warped, so backwards, so corrupted …

It seems that one of the key differences between a declining society such as ours and lesser “advanced”, but longer-lasting civilizations which have actually stood the test of time is that places like China, the Middle East, and India never gave power to/listened to idiots, hence their longevity and stability relative to a place like the United States … which is starting to come un-hinged/fall apart after only a measly 50 years (LOL!1!) of feminist assault.

Dude, the only thing unhinged here is you.

What must it be like to live inside the brain of an MGTOWer like Trogdoor, where everything from old people waiting for their prescriptions to women walking through parking lots with their kids somehow becomes evidence that civilization is in its final days?


About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon,, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on May 26, 2012, in antifeminism, armageddon, disgusting women, evil women, grandiosity, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, MGTOW paradox, misogyny, oppressed men, oppressed white men, racism, reactionary bullshit, the c-word, thug-lovers, trogdor005. Bookmark the permalink. 209 Comments.

  1. Oops

    My basic HTML skills, not so much.

  2. @Cliff Pervocracy
    “It’s a map of countries that have or had female heads of state! Obviously having a woman in charge doesn’t guarantee that the country will have rights for other women, but nonetheless, I think it’d make some MRA heads spin to see how many of the countries they consider full of Women Who Know Their Place are colored in on that map.”

    If having a woman in charge doesn’t guaruntee women have privilege, doesn’t the reverse mean the same? Does Obama being a black man mean that black men as a whole are now privileged? Basically whose in charge, gender/race, has no bearing on who in society is privileged as a whole, correct?

    Out of all the women who led countries how many started wars? Did they send men to their deaths or women to their deaths? Did Harriet do a fine job in England or did she destroy the social and economic fabric of that country. Is that princess of a person, Julia Gillard in the process of doing the same for Australia?

    With all the women in power as opposed to years ago one would think socially, psycologically, economically, educationally everything should be hunky dory. Yet the exact opposite is the case. If the diversity of more women in power, of which there most certainly is, means progress and happiness, why are we stagnant, poor and socially in the pits?

    The highest rate of divorce by far is when women are the breadwinners and men are stay at home dads. The divorce is almost always initiated by the women when they’re the breadwinners. We were told by women that the exact opposite would happen.

    Teaching in grade school level is an almost exclusive womens club, they make all the desicions and decide the cirriculum. We were told this new teaching style would yield fantastic results. We have the highest drop out rate, Our comprehension acroos the board in math, reading and science is deplorable. Again the exact opposite has happened.

    The majority of shrinks are now women. Are we socially are psycologically on the upswing?

    So tell me, Holly, how is it that in every case it all went to hell in a handbasket. Are men to blame for the poor education system which is an all womans club? Psycology as well? Economics too? If women are running the show, who else can be blamed?

  3. Can we have NWO’s flagrant misquoting of me deleted or forced to be clarified?

    A sarcastic comment about something that happens and has happened in reality vs. confused NWOspeak.

    Esp. without a link for context, it’s misrepresentative.

  4. High rate of divorce filed by women who out-earn their menfolks – just what is the preferred situation here? Having men hold all the financial cards? Or having less divorce? If there were only 4 divorces in America in 2013, and 3 of them were filed by women who were breadwinners, would that have the same effect on our society as the high rate of divorce has now? Just what is the alternative being advocated here? All I’m hearing is “women having money and feeling like they have options – bad!”

  5. CrazyLadyBlues

    “Did Harriet do a fine job in England or did she destroy the social and economic fabric of that country.”

    Harriet? Do you mean Harriet Harman who was in the previous Labour administration? She wasn’t the Prime Minister (I forget her actual role) that was Tony Blair followed by Gordon Brown. Our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. Or did you mean Margaret Thatcher, the only (so far), female British Prime Minister? She’s not been in power for over twenty years.

  6. just what is the preferred situation here? Having men hold all the financial cards?

    yeah. owlslave’s stated position is that gender inequality is inevitable and that he would much rather be subjugating women than the other way around.

    he is kind of fucked in the head, in case you haven’t noticed.

  7. @crazylady

    according to wikipedia she was minister for women and equality so on the one hand it’s quite possible that’s who he meant, but on the other hand, owlslave barely has a grasp on us politics, so its more likely he means margaret thatcher. which is weird because owlslave is even more of a flaming reactionary than thatcher.

  8. “The highest rate of divorce by far is when women are the breadwinners and men are stay at home dads.”

    Do you live in the world? Cause atm me and my (white!!!) boyfriend will both have to work full-time to break even on rent. God knows what we’d do if we had children. Having a sole ‘breadwinner’ at all is a privilege in this economic climate.

  9. Ol’ Maggie is reaaaaaally not a feminist role model.

  10. Yeah, there aren’t very many of those female breadwinner/homemaker male households. Highest rate based on what headcount?

  11. CrazyLadyBlues

    @ Sharculese thanks, I couldn’t quite remember.

    @ Magical Laura I don’t think he’d be able to grasp that- she’s still a woman who ruled an entire country. I’m not sure Owly understands that women (& men) are able to deduce suitable role models for themselves.

  12. i think we can all agree that margaret thatcher is a fool and a general-purpose shithead. but y’know, women can be those just as easily as men.

  13. I feel kind of bad for NWO, who doesn’t have any sources to cite, so here’s a
    pretty interesting pdf from the US census bureau about fatherhood and divorce. Interesting stats from the Bureau of Truthiness! Interestingly, it doesn’t state that stay-at-home fathers have higher divorce rates than the population in general, which I suspect isn’t true.

    Interestingly, 34% of custodial fathers received all the cash child support due to them, while 42% of custodial mothers received all cash support – but 70% of custodial fathers received noncash support (such as covering children’s expenses, clothing or gifts) while only 30% of mothers received noncash support.

    And yay, 176,000 stay-at-home fathers in 2011 – an increase! Hurray for reclaiming the role of primary caretaker! Two for you, stay-at-home dads.

  14. NWO’s idea of racism is literally “not racist enough.”

  15. The highest rate of divorce by far is when women are the breadwinners and men are stay at home dads. The divorce is almost always initiated by the women when they’re the breadwinners. We were told by women that the exact opposite would happen.

    Sample size of one, admittedly, but my marriage has never been as strong as it’s been over the last year, and a major reason is that because I now combine childcare with working from home I’m around for everyone in my family in a way that I simply wasn’t when I was out of the house from 6am-8pm daily.

    Oh, and Harriet Harman was Gordon Brown’s deputy, and probably the most powerful feminist in Britain for a good two or three years.

  16. CassandraSays

    This odd assumption that divorce is always a bad thing if the woman initiates it irks me. Divorce isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s by far the best thing for everyone involved.

    Obviously in this case it’s in large part just misogyny because how dare those women defy their rightful masters, but it’s still worth pointing out that sometimes people are miserable together and divorce is the best option for them.

  17. Just impelled to point out that NWO defines “rights for women” as privilege!


  18. The only bad thing about my parent’s finally divorcing is that it didn’t happen earlier, or that they were ever together in the first place.

    Also, marriage is an extremely problematic (at best) social institution. I would rather see marriage eliminated as a legal and social institution totally (some ppl would perhaps still have relationships that look similar, but without the institutional backing). I don’t see reduction in the rates of marriage, or refusal to abide by patriarchial nuclear family models as a problem in any way whatsoever.

    If women with resources did leave their spouses more, it’s not a sign that women having resources is an issue, it’s far more of a sign that more people would try to escape if they could, or that the institution is built on exploiting women’s labor and denying them resources.

    I’m far more skeptical about marriage being able to be salvaged at all than some other feminists, poly people, and queer people. In any case, major, major changes are needed at best for marriage not to be an oppressive normative social institution. So I won’t pretend to buy into this nonsense that marriage is automatically good and things that interfere with it are automatically bad.

  19. HAHAHA, NWO’s going to call us vile racists? That is so cute. NWO’s too far right for Stormfront for fucks’s sake.

  20. Teaching in grade school level is an almost exclusive womens club, they make all the desicions and decide the cirriculum.

    owlslave, you understand the reason for this is that teaching was traditionally considered one of the few jobs women were capable of doing, not to mention too menial for men to bother with?

    no, of course you didnt know that.

  21. @hellkell

    that was dkm. but trying to find out if owly has tried posting there led me to this brilliant gem of his from in mala fide

    To say it takes a long time to depopulate a certain ethnic race by underbreeding is a false assumption to say the least. It atkes about 2.2 children per couple to maintain 0 population growth, with a generation being 20 years. In Europe and the US if you take away immigration, the actual European birthrate in nearing 1.1. I believe Germany is already down to or below this rate.

    Now watch how quickly an ethnic race can dissappear in 100 years, we’ll start with a population of 100 million breeding at 1.1 child per couple and a generation being 20 years, which is 1/2 of 0 population growth.

    100,000,000/2=50,000,000 in 20 years, 50,000,000/2=25,000,000 in 40 years, 25,000,000/2=12,500,000 in 60 years, 12,500,000/2=6,250,000 in 80 years, 6,250,000/2=3,125,000 in 100 years.

    So a nation of 100 million people of any particular race who practice this birth rate will be a population of a little over 3 million people of reproductive capacity in just 100 years. Since women have basically a reproductive window of roughly 20 years, this is why a generation is said to be 20 years. Pretty staggering when you look at the cold hard numbers, isn’t it?

    To even think that feminism wasn’t hoisted upon the western world to achieve this exact result is to delude youselves. This is also why the UN is aggresively exporting feminism as it’s number one priority worldwide. Well, that, and feminism is also the best form of Marxism ever created. Since no matter how ethnicly pure a nation theres always men and women. So you’ll always have a built in oppressor class/victim class. Guess who the oppressor class is?

  22. Price is reading minds again over on The Spearhead. He’s heard about one gay bar that has banned bachelorette parties, and isn’t buying the reason given by the establishment’s management. He knows better. It’s really because they can’t stand women. The stated reason that it is a protest against gay marriage still being illegal sounds just like the gay activist men I know, but Price isn’t buying it. Can Price see through walls too?

  23. CassandraSays

    Totes because the dude who runs The Abbey hates women, not because he hates penis hats and people shouting “wooooo”, and marriage inequality.

  24. Sharculese, I get my racist, sexist dinosaurs confused sometimes. I did the same google wise and missed that gem, but did you see his youtube comments?

  25. but women are still allowed in as long as theyre not part of bachelorette parties.

    unless all women are celebrating a bachelorette party always.

    price, you stupid motherfucker.

  26. Yeah, the first commenter on that Spearhead post says he was thrown out a of a lesbian bar just for being male. I doubt that, he probably went in all, “‘Sup, bitches, who wants a piece of this man action?”

  27. @hellkell

    i make a point of never reading any youtube comments. but is owlslave even especially bad by their standards?

  28. Yeah, the first commenter on that Spearhead post says he was thrown out a of a lesbian bar just for being male. I doubt that, he probably went in all, “‘Sup, bitches, who wants a piece of this man action?”

    shit, why didnt he sue for gender discrimination like price says in his post. i mean besides the point that that isnt actually a thing.

  29. Some lesbian bars are pretty suspicious of guys, especially unaccompanied guys. I’ve been to one that would’ve kicked out my male friend if he hadn’t come with me and another woman.

    I don’t have a violin small enough to properly mourn this tragedy.

  30. sharculese, it’s a definitely a different (not better) facet of the man.

    Holly, I’m sure there are bars like that. Seattle, for it as big as it is, only really has one lesbian bar. You really have to show your ass to get tossed from there.

  31. Shit, I meant Cliff. I apologize.

  32. No worries.

    This was in New York, for what it’s worth.

  33. When I was living in Seattle during the early 1980s, there was only one lesbian bar!

  34. On the bright side, the MRA tendency to see support in everything, everywhere regardless of the real meaning of what they are seeing probably means that they are not exactly the invincible steam roller of history bearing down on us.

  35. Was it the Wild Rose, Ithiliana?

  36. CassandraSays

    I don’t actually have any issue with gay bars banning straight people in general. That’s not even what’s going on in this scenario, though, but between the Spearhead nonsense and straight women on the Jez article about the same thing whining about discrimination I’m pretty much out of patience right now.

  37. of COURSE jezebel is upset by this

  38. If I owned a non-gay bar I’d ban bachelorette parties, they’re annoying. I’d also ban scavenger hunts and backwards hats on principle.

  39. CassandraSays

    I’d love to ban the people who say “wooooo”, but then my hypothetical bar might go out of business.

    Basically I don’t really want to own a bar, I want to own a cocktail lounge that plays trip hop and has nice mellow customers.

  40. @hellkell: I…..think so. It was a long time ago, and my memory for names sucks, but that rings a bell.

  41. Argenti Aertheri

    @Argenti Aertheri
    “Shouldn’t that have been, “in a strawberry ice bar,” instead of, “is a strawberry ice bar?”” — you are correct on that though, I was typing one handed while eating my fruit bar goodness. You can do better than just playing spot-the-typo though!”

    When you corrected my grammar it was to prove your superiority and my stupidity.
    When I corrected your’s, you had a legitimate excuse.
    Why would you do that?

    When you played spot-the-typo, it was clever and intelligent.
    When I played spot-the-typo, it was juvenile and childish.
    Why would you do that?

    It’s a fair question, don’t you think? I answer many questions so answer mine. Why would you do that?

    I corrected your typo/grammar that one time because it was really annoying me — if I wanted to correct all your errors to prove my superiority I’d probably bore myself to death trying, I really don’t care that much (how can you care that much about a typo, or grammar error, in a comment online FFS?)

    The point of “You can do better than just playing spot-the-typo though!” was that your comments lend themselves to being torn apart by various commenters here, mine occasionally have a typo, if I’m nearly as wrong as you are, then you can do better than merely spotting my typos (note that the post I corrected yours in was rather long, with one line about your grammar — reply to the rest of the comment if I’m so terribly wrong)

    I’m really curious how you make “you are correct on that” into “I’m better than you”. Had you replied to my note about your grammar with anything along the lines of “oops” or “thank you” or “you’re correct on that” — I’d have let it drop, because I really don’t care that much.

    Where did you ever get the impression I thought you spotting my typo was childish though? Pointless, sure, but so was mine really. Since you apparently take it as a serious blow to your ego to have made a simple mistake, I won’t point out your grammar anymore, unless in the form of “what does this mean? please explain”

  42. Argenti Aertheri

    Not really at NWO, but there’s a difference between a typo and a grammar error — the former can be assumed to be a mistake, the latter is generally an error in one’s understanding of grammar. One cannot improve one’s ability to hit the right keys (especially not half-asleep, as I was by the point of offering ice bars) but one can improve one’s grammar. And being human, we all have room to improve.

    In other words NWO, there is actually a difference of substance between correcting grammar and fixing typos, but as I said, since you apparently consider correcting your grammar a blow to your ego, not room to improve, I will stop correcting your grammar.

    Now to read the rest of this thread!

  43. Argenti Aertheri

    Sharculese — NWO’s math is technically correct, highly oversimplified for looking at society at large, but technically correct. (If you saw where I said I understand the “breeding white women out of existence” thing because it’s the same way Native Americans are being “bred out” then yeah, same math -ish)

    Difference being, and the problem in NWO’s math — he completely ignored interracial marriage (not surprising) and also ignored the really complex math involved in immigration rates and birth rates. If the non-white Germans are also having 1.1 kids, and immigration holds stable, then the percentage that is white Germans won’t decrease, just the overall number.

    This is, of course, the least unethical solution to overpopulation — have less kids. (Not that overpopulation won’t solve itself, but that’s not really on topic)

    NWO — I know I *just* said that I won’t mock your grammar, but I can’t make heads or tails of this sentence — “The majority of shrinks are now women. Are we socially are psycologically on the upswing?” — I was a psych major, so if you explain your sentence, I can try explaining wtf is going on. The majority of psychs are women because the majority of psych students are women, which is because psychology is considered a “soft science” and men (well, HS boys really) are not generally interested in the soft sciences because patriarchy hurts men too.

    I’m not really sure how you got “more women in charge is inherently more better” from Cliff’s comment, particularly considering — “Basically whose in charge, gender/race, has no bearing on who in society is privileged as a whole, correct?” — correct, yes. Well, mostly correct, swap out “no bearing” with “very little bearing” as it does reflect that the group the person comes from is not totally disadvantaged, they may still be very disadvantaged however. (Obama is a good example actually, can you see those “witch doctor” ads being used against a white man?)

    Oh and plenty of us are white btw, or at least look white — you want to bash me you should go for how I’m a sneaky Native American not having a sign on my head announcing I’m of Native descent and thus carry non-white genes (if this sounds hilariously stupid, it’s because it is)

    “Would you like a link to a white man being falsely accused? There’s loads of them. Is it less of an injustice if he’s white? Is it more of an injustice if he’s black? Does justice have a race or gender?”

    You’d need an example where his lawyer specifically said no one will believe him because he’s “a big white boy”. You’re conveniently ignoring how his shitty lawyer made his race an excuse not to actually fight for him — which is a travesty of justice.

    CrazyLadyBlues — maybe he means Harriet Jones? She’s fictional, but awesome (Doctor Who spoilers at that link)

    Re: divorce — this is going to blow the MRMs minds, but when my cousin and his ex divorced he didn’t want full custody, as he put it, his ex is a more mature adult and better suited to raising children, while he’s better suited to playing video games with them and taking them for ice cream. The latest I’ve heard from them was the ex and the current girlfriend got together civilly (they divorced years ago, about a decade now). The only time they’ve ever fought over custody was a tiny out of court spat when I announced last minute that I would be in town for Christmas, but she already had other plans for the kids — he said that made sense given the last minute notice, they agreed I’d get to see the kids next trip up, and I did.

    Sometimes it really just doesn’t work out but everyone is still friendly — they got married straight out of HS and divorced a few years after his tour of duty was up, the marriage they thought they were creating just wasn’t what life had in store for them.

    Mind blowing, a man got partial custody without a fight and that’s exactly what he wanted!

  44. Actually, one drop rules and such are part of why the “white birth rate” is counted so low in some places, as are somewhat reduced in some places pressure to pass. My half Haitian nephew is as much my white mother’s grandchild as my blond and redheaded nieces, but you can be damned certain the former won’t ever be counted as white on any legal measure. My father lists himself as white on official paperwork, his brother lists himself as native american. My uncles daughter will be legally an asian-native american birth (or perhaps an asian-native american-white birth), despite our having the same Irish grandfather.

    There are a lot of “white” people with non-european origins. Shit, my own white Spanish grandmother (mother’s mother), revealed upon my nephew’s birth that some of her Spanish relatives had been Moors, and it was just something the family knew but kept secret once in the US.

    Whiteness is a social categorization that revolves around certain phenotypes or known ancestries, it isn’t some sort of discrete biological phenomena.

  45. Argenti Aertheri

    Seconding everything darksidecat said, with the note that the “certain phenotypes or known ancestries” part changes over time — my great-grandmother (maternally, in all generations) came over from Italy through Elias Island, back when southern Italy was considered black. I’ve had relatives go from being classified as black to being classified as white in other words. And the inverse, because of racism and one drop rules my generation on my father’s side is the first to openly admit we’re of Native descent — if you could pass as white, you damned well did — which seems similar to darksidecat’s “family secret” that they’re related to Moors.

    Sorry for my oversimplification, I get pissy about this as I get shit from older family members for not hiding my non-white genetics (some it’s racism, my father is a prick, some it’s remembering how important “being white” was 70 years ago)

  46. Crumbelievable

    On the bright side, the MRA tendency to see support in everything, everywhere regardless of the real meaning of what they are seeing probably means that they are not exactly the invincible steam roller of history bearing down on us.

    I`d feel more intimidated if MRAs could give me an actual timeframe for the Fempocalypse. One MRA said ten years. That Jimmy kid said 3. Paul Elam and Friends are very vague and just say “soon”.

  47. When, specifically, did shorts on kids get sexualized? They used to be standard, indeed required. Now they indicate sexual availability? What meeting did I miss?

    True! Now that you mention it, growing up in the 80’s, my shorts were pretty damn short. But in some of these cases we’re talking about dudes who are sexually attracted to teens and kids, and anything really, so of course they are gonna see a kid wearing shorts in the summer time and think it’s a trap.

    But I mean, there is a line. If your ass cheeks hang lower than your shorts you should probably not be out in those at any age.

    Why do I get the feeling that anything girls or women might talk about would be dismissed as superficial simply because it was girls/women talking about it?

    Yeah, it’s not like they don’t spend all their time gossiping about “girls,” and most of them are adults!

    Over 70% of divorces are inititated by women, that number is higher when children are involved. Men pay while women play. Women who are unwed and have children choose to do so, they also choose to bring in a string of random men into their homes. Stop blaming men, women are at fault.

    It’s simple to say that 70% of divorces are initiated by women, much more difficult to research and understand why. But you just assume that it’s on a whim, and the woman just doesn’t want to be with him anymore just ’cause.

    Uhh, men pay while women play? Because raising a child is like playing. Clearly someone hasn’t even babysat.

    As for women choosing to keep a child, the initial choice is on both parties, the second choice is so much more complicated. When you consider the moral implications that abortion has for some people, because not everyone is in agreement with whether or not it’s acceptable to abort a fetus, how can you simplify it to be just that a woman chose this? You seem to be consumed with oversimplification. It’s as if you believe that everything is simple, cut and dry, there are no circumstances that inform people’s actions.

    Regardless of whether or not NWO is sane, he could absolutely benefit from counseling. It’s not just for the insane. Someone could absolutely help him with his missplaced rage and paranoia.

    I’m sick of the mrm appropriating racist shit and calling it misandry, especially because the mrm is an especially white movement and happens to harbor a lot of racism.

    Half the stuff they claim is due to some other aspect of the man’s life besides being a man, such as class and race.

  48. CassandraSays

    I do sometimes wonder if that’s due to a fundamental understanding of the concept of privilege, ie if they’re interpreting the concept of male privilege to mean that you can’t also lack privilege in other ways like race, class, etc, and male privilege can’t entirely shield you from the societal crap that goes along with being not the privileged class in other ways.

    I’m probably being much too generous here, but I suspect there are a few people who’re genuinely confused.

  49. CassandraSays


  50. Crumbelievable


    I think you`re being too generous. There seems to be an unsurprising overlap between between people who think men are discriminated against and people who thinks white people are discriminated against. In fact there was a recent whinefest ob r/mr where they were all afraid of anti-white discrimination.

  51. Aw sweet, I got a hamster!

  52. Sorry, wrong thread.

  53. Argenti Aertheri

    Crumbelievable — within the MRM, probably too generous, yeah. In general though, I think a lot of people do have that issue, have you ever tried explaining male privilege to real life men you know? Because I get the “but I’m poor” argument a lot, and have had success letting Emilie Autumn do the explaining (time for a random video!)

    Oh goodness, anyone else getting the Olay ad first? Thanks for proving the point youtube! (And since NWO is almost certainly lurking, it’s sarcasm, the entire song is sarcastic)

  54. CassandraSays

    @ Argenti

    I love that song. In fact, remind me to pull it out in the event that our annoying former troll who shall not be named pops up again to tell me that I have no right to have opinions on dating or gender relations because in his opinion I am “looks privileged”. That particular privilege is a. always temporary and b. accompanied with rather more unfortunate side effects than most privileges (though still definitely a source of privilege in many ways).

    And yeah, I was thinking more of people who go “what do you mean I have male privilege? I’m not rich!” in general, rather than MRAs, though I’m sure there’s some overlap at the less, um, virulent end of the spectrum.

  55. Argenti Aertheri

    Cassandra — I love EA in general, so mental note made.

    “That particular privilege is a. always temporary” — yep, one day EA will be old (fuck, that crazy girl better live long enough to be old!) — but she’ll still be a master violinist, brilliant songwriter, etc

    “b. accompanied with rather more unfortunate side effects than most privileges (though still definitely a source of privilege in many ways).” — like being the subject of MRA rants about bitches who won’t let them buy them drinks, or who take the drink but don’t give them “the sex they deserve”, or do and are thus prostitutes because they bought sex with a drink…yeah, you just can’t win — though those pink collar jobs they insist are made up positions, there’s definitely still a sense of who’s “front desk material” and who should be kept “to the back office” >.<

    "at the less, um, virulent end of the spectrum." — that exists? I have yet to see proof of these moderate MRAs.

    Oh and EA is a crazy girl, not woman, because she regularly calls herself a crazy girl, so I'm just going to roll with it.

  56. CassandraSays

    The thing about women and appearance and society is that there is no way to win that game, and you don’t get the option of not playing no matter how much you’d prefer not to. Beautiful? That can help you out in some ways, but will fuck up your life in others (take a look at the rates at which models are sexually exploited some time, especially in high fashion), and it’s fleeting. Ugly? Well, you’re in for a whole lot of harrassment about that, and some outright discrimination. Plain/average looking? Get ready to spend your life being exhorted that you could be pretty if you just made a bit more effort and blah blah and by the way if you’d just buy this product…

    The focus on women’s looks fucks things up for all women at all points on the conventional attractiveness scale, just in different ways. In fact, gain or lose a lot of weight and you might get to experience several of them in your lifetime! I’ve found that women who’ve been in that position have a particularly acute sense of the ways in which the system is designed to suck for everyone and to keep women at each other’s throats.

    Short version – the societal focus on women’s looks is in part a mechanism of social control, and an exceptionally effective one.

  57. CassandraSays

    (Watch NWO come back and whine at great length about this conversation, and understand absolutely none of it.)

  58. Argenti Aertheri

    Cassandra — I’d thought about posting this when it was random quote day, but figured NWO/etc would flip shit, but whatever, it’s both on topic here and more EA (and more EA is definitely always more better)

    “And, what’s more, this ‘precious’ body, the very same that is hooted and honked at, demeaned both in daily life as well as in ever existing form of media, harrassed, molested, raped, and, if all that wasn’t enough, is forever poked and prodded and weighed and constantly wrong for eating too much, eating too little, a million details which all point to the solitary girl, to EVERY solitary girl, and say: Destroy yourself.”
    ― Emilie Autumn, The Asylum for Wayward Victorian Girls (from the autobiographical bits)

    This bit “demeaned both in daily life as well as in ever existing form of media, harrassed, molested, raped” is wtf Dworkin’s line about all men are rapists was about as well, just worded less well. (“less well” sounds more wrong than “more better” but I think that’s proper grammar…English is weird)

    And now I need to find that line in the book and see if “in ever existing form” is really EA failing grammar, there are typos in there, but that seems wrong, like it was a typo on the part of whomever typed up the goodreads quote. (omgs the book is excellent and well worth the money if you can afford it)

  59. Argenti Aertheri

    Typo is in the book, that’s from one of the bits straight out of her diary though, so I can see why she didn’t correct it.

  60. Argenti Aertheri

    I’m bored, and thus decided to research this NWO claim —

    “The highest rate of divorce by far is when women are the breadwinners and men are stay at home dads. The divorce is almost always initiated by the women when they’re the breadwinners. We were told by women that the exact opposite would happen.”

    1) divorce rates when women are breadwinners
    2) divorce rates when men *choose* to say at home

    Not the same thing! The former appears to be semi-valid though, I can’t access the study itself, but I dug up this press release. It would appear that in marriages where the mother works, and the father does not, a whole bunch of unexpected results happen, and unsurprisingly, NWO is misrepresenting them. So some bullet points!

    For a man, not being employed not only increases the chances that his wife will initiate divorce, but also that he will be the one who opts to leave. Even men who are relatively happy in their marriages are more likely to leave if they are not employed, the research found.

    *unemployment, whether by choice or economy, results in increased chances his wife will leave
    *or that he’ll leave
    *even if he’s happy in the marriage (WHUT?)

    “In contrast, women’s employment alone does not encourage divorce initiated by either party.”

    So it’s not about women being breadwinners, but about unemployment among men.

    I also found this — and apply salt to that, it’s aol not a journal, but I can’t access full text reports.

    That’s right: a 25-year study that tracked 2,500 married couples found that female breadwinners were 40 percent more likely to divorce their lower-earning husbands than women who raked in less than their partners.

    Reporting his findings in the October issue of Journal of Family Issues, sociologist Jay Teachman at Western Washington University noted that the distinction only becomes apparent when women earn 60 percent or more of the family’s income.

    This one is actually about female breadwinners though, but again, does not say “The divorce is almost always initiated by the women when they’re the breadwinners” — says that women are more likely to initiation divorce when breadwinners than women who are not the primary breadwinner (this is important NWO, the study is comparing women to women, not women to men). Can anyone access the full text on that to tell if that’s looking at who initiates divorce or just the rate of divorce? It’s moot to NWO’s point if it’s the latter, and that’s the only way this makes sense — “Teachman speculates that male egos might also contribute to the increased split rate.” — but that’s worded like the study does actually say that.

    I can’t find anything on stay at home dads that doesn’t bring up the correlation between male unemployment and male depression though, which is implying no one’s studied whether there’s a difference between unemployed men and stay at home dads or not — not surprising given the study above is from late last year, research in the works wouldn’t be published yet.

    I’ve got nothing on “We were told by women that the exact opposite would happen.” — you were? By whom? And do you understand that a woman leaving a depressed, unemployed, husband has more to do with depressed people being annoying to be around than his income? (depressed people are annoying to be around is TRUFAX because this depressed person said so, if we’re making unscientific claims I get at least one freebie, it’s only fair considering the frisking of everyone else’s unscientific claims😄 )

    NWO —😄 is not some secret girl code, it’s internet emote speak for X = crossed-eyes and D = smile type mouth; ie laughter, a joke. Wiki’s got a whole list of these for easy reference (and yeah wiki has issues being user edited, but if there’s one thing general consensus is good for, it’s “wtf does this internet thingy mean?!”)

    Idk if this is relevant to NWO’s claims, but regarding single parents —

    Between 1996 and 1999, the percentage of children in single-parent families stabilized at 29 percent, and it appears to have edged downward to 28 percent in 2000.

    This change is the product of three separate trends. Between 1996 and 2000, the share of children living with a never-married parent rose (from 10.6 percent to 11.0 percent), but this increase was outweighed by a drop (from 17.3 percent to 15.6 percent) in the share living with a divorced parent. The share living with a widowed parent remained constant, at 1.2 percent of all children. (Source)

    11 + 1.2 = 12.2% of children are living with a single parent and are not the product of divorce, while 15.6% of children are living with a single as a result of divorce. (I’m not sure where the missing .2% of children are living, might be a rounding error) That works out to 56% of single parents households being the result of divorce, and 44% being the result of either one parent dying, or the parents never marrying. There’s a solid case here that men leaving their pregnant partners is a substantial cause of single mothers in other words (it’s truly rare for a never married couple to have the father have sole custody and it not be the result of the mother dying, though I have no numbers on that).

    *awaits NWO’s twisting of statistics*

  61. (it’s truly rare for a never married couple to have the father have sole custody and it not be the result of the mother dying, though I have no numbers on that)

    I don’t know, I can think of at least a couple of people I know offhand (though one had a lesbian ex, which brings up other issues of bias). My mother’s current boyfriend had primary custody after his divorce of all of his kids. It’s in lower numbers, but it’s not something rare enough that you don’t see it all that much.

  62. Ah, never married couple wouldn’t include my mother’s boyfriend, but it does include a number of people I have known.

  63. Argenti Aertheri

    darksidecat — point noted, I should’ve perhaps gone with “less common” — the point was just that of the 44% of single parent households that were never married, the vast majority are going to be female head of household. I was mostly just dropping the citation for the MRAs who call that all single mother are women who left their husbands, when nearly half of single parents were never married (or were widowed).

    Truly rare did make it sound like I meant <1% and not probably something like 5-20% though huh? Sorry about that (and yes, I'm still guessing, tracking down the percent of single fathers who were never married doesn't really seem worth the work)

  64. Argenti Aertheri

    “who call that”?? WTF?

    who say* that (jesus fucking christ I know English, I swear!)

  65. @Dracula

    Aw sweet, I got a hamster!

    It is always the right thread to say this. Hamstertime!🙂

    (Who did the Hamstertime! one BTW? So cute.)

  66. @Argenti Aertheri:

    There is a big difference between “unemployed” and “stay at home”.

    If there are two breadwinners, and one loses his/her job, the stress on the household is going to increase dramatically. If there are two breadwinners, and they decide one should voluntary leave work, or never enter the workforce, that’s another bag all together.

    And a little part of me wonders how many breadwinning women are still expected to do an unreasonable amount of household chores and work. If one partner earns over 60% of the income, and is expected to do 60% or more of the household maintenance…the what the fuck do they need a partner for?

  67. Hari Narayan Khalsa

    It’s sad such a putrid douche is using that name. The actual Trogdor is awesome.

  68. Argenti Aertheri

    karak — “There is a big difference between “unemployed” and “stay at home”.” — agreed, I was trying to make that point, but it may’ve gotten lost in the math.

    I could only find data on the unemployed, and it specifically had no break down of whether that was voluntary or not. On your first paragraph — agreed.

    On the second — idk, on either the data or “what the fuck do they need a partner for?” — potentially child-rearing, but that data I was using didn’t differentiate between parents and non-parents, so idk. I would guess that couples with children would be less likely to divorce because of unemployment, at least in the short term. Having a parent at home does reduce childcare costs significantly, but that’s just a guess, and would likely change the longer the partner is unemployed.

  69. RE: CassandraSays

    I don’t actually have any issue with gay bars banning straight people in general.

    HOW WOULD THEY KNOW???? How dare the Homosexual Cabal not give me my requisite mind-reading equipment when I came out!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: