AntiFeministMedia: “Do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ women for no reason?”
Shouldn't they all be?
My favorite Redditor these days is an angry little fella named AntiFeministMedia. How much of a douche is he? So much of one that sometimes he actually manages to get downvoted in the Men’s Rights subreddit for his excessive douchebaggery.
You may recall him as the author of the “the female gravy train of victimhood” quote I highlighted the other day. But I’ve been going through his comment history and have unearthed a number of other wonders.
It’s going to take more than one post to truly convey his charms. We’ll start today with some of his comments on women, and their vaginas, and why both need to be kept in check.
Women, you see, just aren’t made for freedom:
what happnes when you give women economic and sexual freedom, is that you get major social problems.
It simply doesnt work, because women are incapable of behaving themselves, men see their society disintegrating, their children suffering, and then decide to ‘put women in their place’.
If women wernt so irresponsible when they got their freedom, men would not have to step in and take it away from them. Seriously, do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ (read: restrained) women for no reason?
It’s almost as if these ladies aren’t even human:
people are scared of women. Thats the truth about it. Women can be such nasty pieces of work that no one wants to get on their bad side for fear of them becoming hysterical … The female world is an animal world which a lot of men, being human, simply dont understand).
True, they do have vaginas, but that isn’t enough to make up for that whole not-being-human thing:
You may or may not believe this, but I am quite happy alone.
The only thing I’d want you from is a vagina, the rest of the time I’d despise you. You see I dont like who you are. I am a human being, while women are from the animal world. They think like animals, and that is not something I would want to pair with. While women are thinking about survival, Im thinking about god.
And, at least some of the time, about vaginas.
Speaking of which: Since ladies are such herd animals, they clearly shouldn’t be allowed to be in charge of anything, including the things that come out of their vaginas. You know, babies:
You seem to think in groups, not as individuals. Thats why I believe women shouldnt be given a choice. Children should automatically be the property of the male (again). If women cannot understand simple situations like those I’ve outlined, or even the fact that men should be consulted first before a child is created … then they are not the best people to be in control of reproduction.
After all, contrary to all that nonsense you might have heard in your high school sex ed classes, it only takes one person to get pregnant:
It takes two to tango, and one to get pregnant. The one that gets pregnant bears the ultimate responsibilty, particularly since she has full control over reproduction in the modern west. …
It is up to women to screen out bad men, and to choose a man capable of being a good father. That is the responsibilty of women. If a woman opens her legs to any sob, without spending the time and energy to assess wether he would make a good father, and then he runs off, then thats the womans fault. But again, we go back to women not being able to take personal responsibilty.
Exactly. When a man deserts his children, it is obviously the woman, not him, who is being irresponsible.
Given how badly women are doing at this whole reproduction thing, wouldn’t it be great if we could just remove women from the equation entirely?
AntiFeministMedia has some thoughts on this as well, which we will examine in a future post. Stay tuned.
Science Corner: Why some self-obsessed douchebags hate the ladies so much
I'd do me. Why won't those bitches?
Well, this explains a few things:
Narcissistic Heterosexual Men Target Their Hostility Primarily at Heterosexual Women, the Objects of Their Desires, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.
More here. The actual study here (subscribers only).
Yes, like a lot of psych studies, it was based on a relatively small sample of college students (104 undergraduate men, to be exact). But after this post yesterday – and, you know, the entire content of this blog — it’s hard not to think that Keiller is on to something.
Flo the Progressive Insurance gal: a “symptom of a decaying society.”
A tool of the matriarchy?
It may be hard to find a summer blockbuster movie in which two female characters have even a single conversation about anything but a man, but MRAs and related species seem to believe that the entertainment industry is one giant conspiracy against men. Why? Because sometimes men are portrayed as buffoons.
Given that it’s hard to have comedy without buffoons, I have to admit that this is often true. Of course, given that the buffoon role is generally a much better role than straight man (or woman), I’m not sure how this is a grave injustice against men. I’d love to see more female buffoons. Like this:
I doubt the guys at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum spend much time watching old French and Saunders specials. No, they seem to prefer watching those Flo the Progressive Insurance gal ads on YouTube until their heads nearly explode from anger at Progressive’s insidious misandry.
For you see, in these ads – I’m not going to bother to post one, since I assume most of you have seen them — Flo is sort of quirky and charming, but the guys are all, well, to me a lot of them also seem quirky and charming, but to the MGTOWers they – and by extension all men — are being played for fools.
Oh, and apparently these ads also portend the end of civilization. As Juno3 puts it,
Just another symptom of a decaying society. …
Imagine the ad agency staff, probably a bunch of dykes with a few dudes wearing pantyhose to work.
If that were a show — a sort of lesbian revamp of Mad Men, perhaps? — I would totally watch it.
The other commenters aren’t quite so worried about the end of the world, but perky little Flo really seems to get under their skin. G40IntercontinentalGhost writes:
Am guessing she’s the one with the irritating, smirky assed grin on her face that looks like said grin is/was the result of wiring being put in some mighty sensitive places. KEE-RIST on the Concorde! From under what rock(or cock as the case may well be) did Progressive Insurance find that twat? I’m also really glad that my u.s. Driver’s License(Washington) expired some time ago.
I kinda like Flo. Now that I know the MGTOWers hate her, I feel a lot more comfortable admitting that.
If you’re going to get angry at car insurance ads, get angry at this shit. That jingle just makes me want to punch someone.
Spearheaders on the SlutWalks. Again. It’s bad.
From the Dallas SlutWalk
Oh dear. The Spearheaders are talking about the Slutwalks again. The discussion may be the worst on the subject that I have run across so far. Some of the lowlights:
Keyster seems downright pissed that women actually have the right to say no:
They’re high functioning children with sexual power and they don’t want you to forget it. They’re outraged that just because a young woman dresses and acts in a sexually provocative manner, that she might receive unwanted attention from young men that don’t appeal to her.
She should be able to dress like a street whore and abuse alcohol to the point of delerium and they feel compelled to lecture us on how that doesn’t mean this is an advertisment to be sexually harrassed, sexually assaulted or heaven forbid raped. …
They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …
Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …
“We’ve got the sexual power, the power of consent, the gate keeper of the holy vaginal crevice. See our bouncing propped up cleavage, our long legs and glorious ass protruding from those heels? You want it don’t you?
….ha, ha, ha…you can’t have it because I SAY SO! Because I have THIS power over you, lowly little man. Bow down to me and beg me a little, I might even let the others see me talking to you, without calling the cops.” …
This isn’t feminism, it’s flaunting female sexual power in the faces of men.
You’re seriously complaining that woman have the “power of consent!?” EVERYONE has the power of consent. No one male or female is obliged to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s, you know, rape. It bothers you that women are the “the gate keeper[s] of the holy vaginal crevice?” Who the fuck else should be the gatekeeper of a person’s vagina other than the person whose vagina it is? The mind reels. But apparently the 50+ upvoters of this piece of abhorrent nonsense aren’t bothered by any of this.
Demirogue, meanwhile, suggests we need to better discipline our women:
While perusing FB last week I came across the newest deviation of this mentality which is going topless. … And they want to cry about rape? They need to cry but only because people said enough is enough and started to belt them on their asses.
Women need to be controlled and on a very, very short leash. They’ve been given every right, every option, every opportunity to be something and what do they do with it? Abuse and manipulate it with reckless abandonment and incessant demands.
Geography Bee Finalist himself thinks the slutwalkers must be retarded:
I wouldn’t worry too much about these Slutwalk sows.
They have no redeeming features. None.
They cannot figure out that if you dress like a whore, you deserve to be treated in a disrespectful manner. Even conservatively dressed mentally retarded women can figure this out and conduct themselves with more propriety and intelligence than these Slutwalkers … .
Knuckledragger blames it on those damned suffragettes:
…we let ‘em drive, we let ‘em vote, and this is what we get.
Ridiculous to even offer attention to another excuse to dress like a whore, goof off in public, and not bring me a beer.
Any man worth his salt should fire any skank who was “sick” from work to attend this nonsense.
SingleDad seems to think that all accusations of rape are made up:
Rape is now the extra tax women charge men if some how their unsatisfied with whatever arrangement was made before or after any encounter in or outside of marriage.
Other lowlights:
Poiuyt agreeing with Anders Breivik’s “observations surrounding this femaleist pandemic,” while adding that he “is to be rebuked for taking the wrong cureative actions to solve it.”
Demirogue (in a second comment) complaining that “overvalued pussy is all [women today] have to offer and only to certain men.”
Anonymous age 69 explaining that “rape laws were intended to protect women of good character, from being sexually violated,” not “to protect promiscuous sluts .”
And more, much, much more. Many of the worst (including most of those quoted here) have many dozens of upvotes. Go read the thread yourself, if you think you can stomach it.
There are no arguments to rebut here; I can only repeat the basic message that the slutwalks are trying to convey: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what they are wearing or how much consensual sex they engage in. Even if they show some cleavage or prefer athletes and/or rocks stars to so-called beta males.
I refuse to see dead people
We gave them the vote and they STILL won't shut up about it!
Apparently, all that time I spent studying history in college and grad school was a complete waste of time. Because once people die, nothing about their lives or the events that happened during their lives matters. At least according to merlin34 in Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, who recently set forth this cogent argument as to “Why feminists should SHUT THE $^%# UP about women’s suffrage in US/UK.”
The 19th Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified in 1920, before that year’s election. At the time, the voting age was 21. Any woman who was denied the right to vote would have had to have been born before Election Day of 1898. Today, she would be 113+ years old. That means dead.
In the UK, it was in 1928 that women were granted equal voting rights to men, again at the age of 21 (although women over 30 were given the vote 10 years earlier). Any woman denied the right to vote based on sex in the UK would be over 105 years old now. There’s still probably some around, but not a lot, and not for much longer, and they weren’t denied the right to vote for long.
What does this have to do with anything? It means that feminists using the “women weren’t allowed to vote, wah” or “black men got the vote before women of any color” canards should SHUT UP, because the list of those actually denied the right to vote based on sex is rapidly diminishing. In another ten years, none will remain.
Naturally, the comments are also a delight. OThompson says:
You can also tell them that Suffragettes were often domestic terrorists.
AntiFeministMedia adds:
It isnt just feminists though is it, its any woman you get into an argument with.
If its not ‘women wernt allowed to vote’, its ‘rapists get off scott-free’. They ignore the context. When did universal sufferage for men go ahead in the UK? 1918?
Most women are ignorant of most of these issues, but they are happy to just parrot all this stuff because that makes them victims, and so they get privileges they arent really entitled to.
They dont care wether what they are saying is out of date, or that most men didnt recieve the vote untill very recently either, they only care that the female gravy train of victimhood keeps rolling on.
Is the Female Gravy Train of Victimhood anything like Soul Train? Because that would be awesome.
Is she really going out with him?
Some guys get all the chicks!
This is a bit of a rant inspired by some of the discussions of my recent post on Susan Walsh.
In my defense, I’ve enlivened it with a couple of videos.
Let’s say you’re a young, horny, lonely heterosexual guy. You’re walking to the store to buy some, I dunno, pretzels, and you see the woman of your dreams walking arm in arm with some hideous toad of a man. You say to yourself: how is it that a nice guy like me can’t find any girl who will return my phone calls, while ugly boy here seems to have won the girlfriend jackpot? If you’re Joe Jackson, you write a song about it:
Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street
From my window I’m staring while my coffee grows cold
Look over there! (Where?)
There’s a lady that I used to know
She’s married now or engaged or something so I’m told
Is she really going out with him?
Is she really gonna take him home tonight?
Is she really going out with him?
‘Cause if my eyes don’t deceive me,
There’s something going wrong around here
A lot about the world seems desperately wrong when you’re young, horny and alone. But maybe in this case there is something that you’re missing. Maybe the ugly dude is charming as fuck. Maybe he’s a brilliant thinker. Maybe he’s awesome in bed. Maybe she’s shallow and materialistic, and she likes him just because he’s rich. Or maybe there’s nothing redeeming about the guy – intellectually, sexually or financially — and the woman in question simply has horrendous taste in men. It could be any of these things.
But here’s the thing: no matter how wounded you feel, whom this woman goes out with is really none of your business. She doesn’t have to have a good reason to be going out with him. It’s not your call. The world doesn’t owe you a hot girlfriend, and this particular woman has the inalienable right to go out with whoever she chooses, even if you personally feel ill at the thought of them doing it. Women you find attractive aren’t obliged to date men you think are appropriate for them.
A lot of guys in the manosphere seem to have hung on to this young-man’s anger and sexual jealousy. But instead of somehow turning their resentment into a catchy song, and then moving away from the rock world to a more jazz-inflected sound, these men cultivate their resentments. And talk about them endlessly.
Soon they’ve developed the uncanny ability to demonize any woman who makes any romantic choice – other than picking them. If a “hot” women is dating an ugly dude, well,
He must be rich! All women are filthy golddigging whores! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
If the same woman is dating a conventionally handsome man, the reaction can be just as strong:
She’s a shallow bitch! They always go for the alphas! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
Weirdly, a lot of manosphere dudes also get angry about the sexual and romantic choices of women they aren’t interested in at all. If a woman they don’t think is all that hot is with a conventionally handsome man, it’s still the woman to blame:
Ha! She’s punching above her weight class, looks-wise. I guess any bitch can get laid, while a hard-working beta like me doesn’t even rate a second look. But eventually he’ll dump her and I will laugh and laugh. Live it up now, bitch, because you’re going to end up alone with a bunch of cats!
This is the thing that’s weirdest to me. Getting worked up about a woman you like who’s dating a loser? I can understand that. I did that, a lot, in my twenties. But quite a few manosphere dudes – and women like Susan Walsh who are manosphere-adjacent – seem somehow deeply affronted by the notion that any women could hook up with a man either lower or higher on that universal 10-point hotness scale so beloved by PUAs and other manosphere dudes.
Walsh speaks of “equilibrium” in the “sexual marketplace” (or SMP as she and her fans like to abbreviate it), and seems to consider any deviation from it to be a moral failing – of the women involved. (The slut-shaming is strong with this one.) Her idea of “equilibrium,” as I mentioned in my last post on her, is one in which fives date fives, tens date tens, and female sixes and sevens know better than to try to get the attention of male eights and nines by wearing low-cut dresses and “slutting it up.”
But here’s the thing. If you’re going to try to mix economic terminology into your dating advice, it helps to actually know what the terms mean. Market equilibrium, as Wikipedia handily summarizes it,
refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.
Guess what? Insofar as the dating world is a marketplace, it’s already at equilibrium. Potential daters size up their prospects, and make a guess as to who is and who isn’t “in their league.” Those who are aiming too high (setting their price too high) and not hooking up with anyone (selling themselves) may end up lowering their standards (lowering their price) to make a sale (get laid). Some products (people) appeal to a wide demographic; others to a nice market. Some have better marketing then others. Some products look good at first glance, but turn out to need a lot of repairs. All this is mighty familiar to students of economics. This is how markets work.
Of course, the dating world is even more complicated and messy than economic marketplaces. But in a lot of ways it really does act like one.
The interesting thing here is that Walsh and her followers aren’t thinking like capitalists at all. Essentially, they’ve decided that they know better than the SMP they so love to talk about, that their imaginary 10-point scale should predict who chooses whom better than those who are actually doing the choosing. That’s not capitalism; that’s a Soviet style command economy. It’s not the way marketplaces work, and it’s not the way the dating world works.
Guys: if no one is buying what you’re selling, you could try to change what you’re selling so that it appeals to buyers more. Or if you are confident in your product you can simply wait until a more discerning buyer shows up.
Or you could sit by yourself stewing in your own bitterness and blaming everything on the bitches. Much like the jealous narrator of David Bowie’s classic Queen Bitch, only much less sexually ambiguous. And, frankly, much less appealing. In this song, Bowie manages to make sexual resentment somehow glamorous.
I would like to apologize for talking about this song and bitter manosphere dudes in the same sentence. But I’m still posting the video. This is Bowie, in 1972, performing it live, and fucking killing it:
More violent talk, more excuses for terrorism, this time from the inaptly named Happy Bachelors Forum
Try pointing the finger at yourself, for once.
On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:
This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …
If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.
You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.
It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.
Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:
[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.
Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.
Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.
And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:
Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.
Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.
Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.
Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.
khankrumthebulgar gives his real name
khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).
spocksdisciple comment
khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment
Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2
Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at Freedom Twenty-Five.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
From "Hooking Up Smart."
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Betty Drapers of the world, unite!
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 4: If They Are Not Restrained
In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, Tiny Bunny and Small Dog make an excursion to NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, and consider the view of one fellow there who feels women should be restrained so that they don’t all become sadists and sluts. Also, there is a discussion of ice cream.
Here’s the original comment from the forum. (I edited it a bit for length and clarity in the video.)
All women are instinctively sadists and sluts if they are not restrained by the society.
Present feminism has given complete freedom for women and has completely restrained and shunned all men.This present feminism invokes and encourages the very basic instinct of a woman - It encourages her how to be a slut & how to be a sadist.
One better e.g. that I can give is - If a woman beats her lover/husband with a machete and fills his body with oozing blood whole mob(which includes all men) cheers her with claps & encourages her to give the more brunt of it(click here).Or even if a woman kills a man in public she is seen as if she has done a heroic act in media,courtrooms & in public.Even if she is guilty of that serious offence she is acquitted.Like this there are many e.g. which I don’t even need to give.
Present feminism is a failed ideology,just look what it has given - there are single mothers,prostitutes,drug addicts(teenage girls & boys brought up by single mothers),recession for men,disjoint families ,higher divorce rates,depression,increasing violence among teenagers due to lack of care during their crucial childhood years,immoral porn culture which also encourages homosexuality,oppression of men,etc…
If soceity puts some restrain on women then definitely women can be beneficial to the soceity with their feminine touch.Restraining women is necessary to teach them discipline & such disciplined women are really good to soceity.In fact this should be the principle of feminism & we men would had undoubtedly embraced such kind of feminism.But what I said above is seen as offence in present feminism which preaches every woman to oppress men & treat them as slaves.
There was actually one more paragraph of this. Just more of the same.
Time for some ice cream, I think.
Angry Harry: Violence is justified, but don’t blame us for it.
Anyone who has spent much time at all on MRA message boards knows that they tend to be littered with vague and ominous “predictions” of an inevitable violent backlash of men driven to fury by our supposed feminist overlords; some of these predictions are delivered with such obvious relish that they seem little more than justifications in advance for future murderous rampages on the part of people not too far distant in their ideology from Anders Breivik.
Of course, most of those making such predictions-cum-threats don’t want to actually face any culpability when their bullshit gets real. Fear not, MRA prognosticators, for one prominent British MRA has come up with what he sees as a brilliant way for MRAs to avoid getting implicated in future terrorists attacks. According to longtime MRA blogger Angry Harry we shouldn’t blame violence on the beliefs of right-wing terrorists – we should instead blame it on the people they’re mad at.
Angry Harry uses this bit of sophistry to explain away any culpability the right seems to have in the Norway massacre:
The recent massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway is being portrayed by the left-wing media (such as the BBC) as being motivated by extreme right-wing groups - the idea, as ever, being to demonise and, hence, to intimidate, as much as possible, anybody who does not support their malicious self-serving agenda.
But if you look more closely at the evidence, it is quite clear that, if anything, it was the various machinations and rhetoric engaged in by the deceitful LEFT that infuriated this man. …
Quite simply, it is the Left, not the Right, who are the more to blame for this incident.
Ingenious. Of course, this logic only really works if you agree with the extremist ideology of the terrorist or murderer in question. Let’s apply Angry Harry’s approach to a historical example that also involved extremism and murder on a large scale:
Hitler hated Jews. Hitler killed Jews. Therefore, according to Angry Harry’s logic, we should blame the Jews for getting him so mad in the first place.
Is that unfair? Given that Breivik is a mass murderer with many ideas strikingly similar to those of Hitler, I think not. The logic is the same, whatever the body count.
Apparently Harry thinks his bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand will absolve MRAs when, not if, the violence comes:
MRAs need to get to grips with this type of situation because it won’t be long before they are being blamed for something or other - perhaps a family court judge being murdered.
Why might this be a particularly sensitive issue for Harry? Perhaps because in another posting of his, he offered a justification for doing just that — murdering family court justices and those involved in enforcing their decisions.
In a post with the blunt title “Why Violence Is Often Justified,” Harry put it this way:
[A]nybody who takes away a man’s children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.
I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men - particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom - such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.
To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.
In his recent posting on Breivik, Harry offered an obligatory comment suggesting that, if course, he wasn’t actually justifying the Norwegian’s actions – oh, no! – even though the logic of his argument seems designed to do just that. Then he went on to make some predictions about what the future holds for his leftist and feminist enemies:
I think that it is fairly obvious to my most excellent readers that the war against the Left is hotting up. …
In fact, what I can never seem to understand is why it is taking so long for people - particularly for men - to rise up against the Left, given its appalling attitude and behaviour over the past two decades.
In combination with the feminists, the leftists have done their very best - with much success over here in Europe - to break up our countries, our cultures and our families, while at the same time heaping hatred upon hatred on to their very own people!
I just cannot understand how they have gotten away with this for so long.
You cannot go round continuing to display rigid intolerance and horrendous injustice against millions of men in your very own country and not expect some kind of violent backlash from them.
And matters are definitely going to get much worse.
He ends with a weasel-worded half-endorsement of this “violent backlash.”
The war against the Left will just continue escalating and, at some stage, with any luck, the leftists and the feminists will be defeated without too much carnage.
Well, that’s reassuring. Harry doesn’t want there to be “too much carnage.”
Which naturally leads to the question: just what does Harry regard as the right amount of carnage?
I hope we never have to find out.
