Category Archives: mansplaining
Men’s Rights Redditors wonder why nobody else realizes that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more
For example, women never have to fight off flying squirrels.
So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently discussing one of the most important — if often overlooked — issues of our time, which is: How come nobody but us sees that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more? Or, as paranoiarodeo497, looking hopefully towards the future, has chosen to put the question: “What future event/tragedy do you think will happen that will make people realize not only are women no longer deprived but in fact equal to men?”
Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.
Men’s Rights Redditor: Nigella Lawson should have expected choking because Saatchi is a rich dude, and rich dudes are EXTREME!
So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing the Saatchi/Lawson divorce, as we were yesterday, and, well, it’s going better than expected, in that quite a few of them are actually willing to accept that Saatchi actually abused Lawson and that his demand that she defend him against the accusations of abuse thus don’t really make much sense. I guess that’s what happens when the abuse is literally caught on camera and printed on the front page of every British tabloid.
But not everyone there has responded so, well, rationally. Take this fellow:
Dude, I’m pretty sure the rich and/or weird are subject to the same laws (and moral judgements) as the rest of us. Billionaire art collectors don’t get a free pass to choke their wives in public. Nor is that equivalent to a hypothetical Playboy centerfold cheating on you.
Also, as a point of fact, Saatchi isn’t a billionaire. According to Celebrity Net Worth, he’s worth something on the order of $100 million; the site estimates Lawson to be worth $15 million.
John The Other debates John The Other on MRA misogyny, loses
John Hembling: Open mouth, insert foot.
So the other day someone asked the Men’s Rights subreddit “Why do people think you guys hate women?”
There were a lot of ridiculous answers to that question, but one of the most ridiculous (and one of the most highly upvoted) responses came from our old friend John Hembling, the blabby Canadian videoblogger and A Voice for Men “Editor in Chief” also known for some dopey reason as John The Other. He explained:
@Fidelbogen is killing it on Twitter with his antifeminist bon mots #NotReally #SeriouslyTheyreAwful
So our old friend Fidelbogen the Counter-Feminist Agent of Male Renaissance has gotten on the Twitter. And even though he hasn’t yet figured out how to replace his generic egg avatar, and has managed to amass only 44 followers (one of them me), he’s been tweeting up a storm in the last couple of days.
Indeed, he’s so proud of his recent tweets that he screenshotted a bunch of them and put them on his blog under the title Casting Your Breadcrumbs Upon the Water. (Huh. I thought the expression was “Cast your bread upon the waters.” Maybe Fidelbogen is hoping to recruit some ducks?)
Anyway, I thought I’d give his timely tweety wisdom a somewhat wider audience. I hope he won’t mind.
Can you all suggest some more Fidelbogenisms for him to post?
Bride of the Monster: The Red Pill Subreddit creates Red Pill Women
He’s kino escalating, but she’s not giving him any Indicators of Interest.
So you all remember The Red Pill subreddit, that wretched hive of scum and misogyny I wrote about the other day, and the other other day, and the other other other day before that. Well, now something even more horrible has sprouted up on Reddit, like genital warts after a night “raw dogging it” with a PUA douchebag.
It’s a new subreddit from the Red Pill masterminds called Red Pill Women.
Let’s talk about sex! (With the icky, icky dudes of The Spearhead)
Those sneaky, sexy ladies, always up to something!
So over on The Spearhead, the fellas are discussing journalist Daniel Bergner’s sexy new sex book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire. It’s a book that challenges many conventional wisdoms, both scientific and popular, about sexuality and, as Salon puts it, portrays female sexuality as essentially “base, animalistic and ravenous.”
MRAs at The Spearhead Blame Women, Feminism for Cleveland Abductions
So The Spearhead has weighed in on the Cleveland abduction cases, and has not failed to disappoint.
Spearhead head boy WF Price uses the terrible unfolding drama as an opportunity to attack the notion of patriarchy. His logic: the alleged abductors weren’t rich dudes, so therefore patriarchy is a lie. No, really, that’s his argument:
Christopher in Oregon: “Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding.”
Apparently this is what Christopher of Oregon thinks happens to women when they hit the age of 40.
Time for another visit into the mind of Christopher in Oregon, a confirmed bachelor best known for posting long screeds on his friend MarkyMark’s blog about how ugly and smelly and disgusting women and their various orifices are. Today, his topic is old women, by which he seems to mean all women above the age of 35 or so.
I’m not even going to bother to comment on this one except to say: if you’re a heterosexual man, with an interest in sex, and you actually believe that all women over the age of 40 are icky and ugly and smelly and wear dentures, you’re not only delusional, you’re probably going to have a very sad second half of your life. (And I’m guessing the first half probably won’t be so great either.)
Here’s Chris:
Face it: Nature doesn’t want CRUSTY OLD WOMEN having children! Basic biology, folks, and I’m no expert on biology. It’s just common sense! …
Old women are supposed to be…..old women. Crabby old women. Ugly old women. Nasssssty old tobacco-chewin’ women. …
A woman should be done spewing out babies by the time she is thirty, and no later. By forty, a woman is OLD! Look around you. Look at the forty-year-old women you see every day. See any of them you want to screw? Any of them? Didn’t think so. (Blow-jobs aren’t good either- their dentures might lock up on your weinie! Imagine THAT 911 call!)
Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding. Kind of hard to get pregnant if you’re so gruesome no man in his right mind can get a boner over your appearance. But, women, in their arrogance, fail to realize that men are stimulated VISUALLY!
If you look like an old hag, then the penis just naturally will NOT stand to attention. You’ve got to have some sort of good looks to get our motors running, ladies, and if you look like a bag of wrinkly cellulite, then you had better face it- no one wants you! Contrary to the lie feminists have been telling you, fifty is NOT the new thirty! A fifty-year-old woman has less sex appeal than a sheep. (Ask anyone in Montana.)
I am constantly amazed at the post-forty women that have come on to me lately. Give me a break! Do they think I’m blind?
Ick! …
A woman of forty is not sexual in any sense of the word. She is useless for breeding, and her sex appeal is GONE! Why have women fallen for the lie that they remain sexual into their sixties and seventies? They are NOT! They are putrid, smelly shells of their former selves! Nothing more! By that age, a woman looks like the package her body once came in. All sagging, wrinkly and disgusting! …
If you just have to get laid, and you can close your eyes, and hold your breath (pew!), there is no easier lay than an old woman. They are so desperate. So pathetic. So easy.
So gross.
There’s more where this came from over at MarkyMark’s.
Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it
Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.
NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
The Myth of Warren Farrell: Farrell on Rape, Part One
No book has had more influence over the Men’s Rights movement than Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. Published in 1993, in the heyday of the early 90s antifeminist backlash, it set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement as it’s developed over the last two decades. He’s the one who came up with the notions of “male disposability” and the “death professions.” He’s the one who got MRAs fixated on the issue of draft registration.
