Category Archives: Feminism

“If You Don’t Bang Me, Ladies, It’s Your Fault If I Go Kill People”, and Other Terrible Ideas from the Manosphere

[content note: lots of misogyny ahead, a lot of entitlement, some really unneeded comments about some dude’s boner and wank fantasy]

This guy. This freaking guy.

According to Billy Chubbs, guest author of RooshV’s Return of Kings blog, the reason why school shootings happen is because men can’t get laid, so line up ladies and get some of my D or I’ll shoot your head right off.

No, really.

On December 13 2013, Karl Halverson Pierson walked into his high school with a gun, wounded a fellow student named Claire Davis and then killed himself. The assumed motive was Karl’s anger toward a teacher at the high school but others in the mainstream media posited their own theories as to the reasons behind the shooting. The usual suspects were called out to blame: prescription drugs, mental illness, gun control, etc. Some have even posited, based on former Facebook messages of his, that Karl was a militant anti-Republican and that that motivated his attacks…somehow. One theory that was noticeably absent from the ‘experts’ who reported on the situation, however, was Karl’s probable sexual frustration.

Emphasis mine.

So this is the train of thought that went through Chubbs’s head at the time:

“Hmm, let’s see, there’s this school shooting, and it’s terrible, and it’s this kid who shot down this girl. OH! I know why! It’s because she and women like her won’t bang him! Those scheming HB10s! They goaded this man by denying his boner sex, and eventually he just HAD to shoot a chick to represent FEMINISM! Which is something that I personally hate, which means that this guy must hate it too! I’m going to write this into a post!”

By the way, if further details are released in the future which discredit my assumptions, well, ignore the Karl parts of this article obviously. Yet even if I’m wrong in my assumptions of Karl’s life, the basic gist of this article is right and does apply to the majority of normally peaceful men who suddenly turn violent and perpetrate these tragedies.

“Even if I’m proven wrong in this case, my asswritings are still 100% true for ALL MEN, and hence I’m still right, even if I’m wrong. By the way. men are all secretly ticking time bombs who need a self-heating fleshlight in order to not detonate, but feminists are the TRU MAN-HATERS! Men’s rights!”

Seriously, and feminists are the ones who hate men? Read your own writings, MRAs, and then look at yourselves in the mirrors!

Return Of Kings has touched on this subject before, but since the cowardly and narrow minded mainstream media refuses to even consider positing such a theory, it’s up to us ROK truth sayers to repeat ad nauseum such observations: women’s selfishness makes men kill.

“If you decide to not sleep with me, I’ll shoot you dead! Ladies.

This guy. This freaking guy.

What do I mean by women’s selfishness? The majority of women are consistently sexual only with a minority of men. This is a fact. 

Note the complete lack of studies or citations to prove this guy’s point.

The percentages aren’t certain (some studies claim a 60w/40m percentage – I personally think it’s as high as 70w/30m based on my own empirical observations), but the basics are a sure thing.

Anecdote is not the same as data, and assertions of fact are not fact just because you say that it’s a fact.

By the way, according to this study,

Among adults aged 25–44, about 98% of women and 97% of men ever had vaginal intercourse, 89% of women and 90% of men ever had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, and 36% of women and 44% of men ever had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. Twice as many women aged 25–44 (12%) reported any same-sex contact in their lifetimes compared with men (5.8%). Among teenagers aged 15–19, 7% of females and 9% of males have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, but no vaginal intercourse.

In addition, according to this news poll, some 86% of men claimed they’d had sex in the past year, while only 70% of women said the same (margin of error, ±2.5).

So no, MRAs, there is no 60% of women banging 40% of the men going on. A good number of men are having sex and a good number of the women are having sex. Men are getting sex, women are getting sex, the end.

Life without sex is a horrible experience, especially when you’re a young man.

Because every man ever is a horny monster who needs sex now or die.

Sometimes you don’t have sex. Get over it MRAs. It’s not the end of the world.

Although I get laid consistently, I have gone long stretches without any sort of sexual contact with women. It was gruelling [sic].

Boohoo, you don’t get sex every single damned night. I don’t feel sorry for you.

My unfulfilled sex drive made me jack off on average three times a day—four or more on gym days when I upped my testosterone level.

Wait, hold up. Are you taking steroids? And are you aware that steroids have a huge list of side effects, including cataracts, high blood sugar, osteoporosis, mood changes. shrinking of the testicles, infertility, and worse?

Oh, the irony of a self-proclaimed “alpha” male losing his balls!

For the vast majority of men their sex life is a central part of their character and a major part of their motivation for all aspects of their life. If men are barred from it (whether they actually are or merely feel that they are) for whatever reason, they feel little incentive for anything else; even if that incentive is to not go crazy and shoot people.

So, men are 100% horny machines who only want sex and will kill people if not sated with sexy poon? And men don’t naturally have moral centers?

Wow. You are a sad human being, if you think men are like that.

How many MRAs are going to say “wait a minute, what the hell, misandry!”?

Tumbleweed

Karl wanted to have sex, and just by looking at him it’s obvious he wasn’t getting much, or any. Claire is a beautiful young woman and is doubtlessly the object of affection for many young men who know her, including lonely and sexually frustrated ones. Karl was certainly amongst them. Karl had no chance to ever be with her and he knew it. And that’s why he encountered her in his school, armed with a gun, he turned it against her.

Obviously, every shooting that involves a man shooting a woman is because he wasn’t getting enough poon and hence he just had to get violent and kill her. or another woman representing her. TRU FACTS!

In reality, it is believed that the suspect in question was seeking to target the debate coach, and not some random woman. She was just in the way, at the wrong place at the wrong time, collateral damage.

Am I saying Claire should have known better and had sex with Karl in advance? No. Claire was for all intents and purposes (looks, status, wealth) far out of Karl’s league. Yet there’s little doubt that there were many, many women in Karl’s high school who were in his league. So why wasn’t Karl at home relieving his sexual frustrations with a girlfriend on par with his looks instead of simmering in anger alone, writing typical angry teenaged political messages on his Facebook and purchasing guns? It is because the inherent selfishness of all women has been allowed to run rampant in our Western societies.

In other words, it’s always a woman’s fault. If only she had sex with him, he wouldn’t have killed her. If only she gave him a blowjob every night, he wouldn’t have killed her kids. If only she showed him affection, he wouldn’t have beat her senseless. If only she did <thing>, he wouldn’t have done <violent action>.

It’s the same story, constantly excusing the abuser’s actions in every scenario of abuse. Because the victim didn’t do this, then the abuser was justified in abuse. It’s never the abuser’s fault for choosing to abuse, it’s always the victim’s fault for not appeasing the abuser. Always the same story, and always the same justification, the same excuses, the same defenders.

The assumed catalyst as to why Karl went on the rampage was that he was demoted by a teacher in charge of the debate team, and that this caused murderous frustration in him. Do you think Karl would have had so much murderous frustration if he was receiving as little as a blowjob every so often?

Yes. That’s why there are serial rapists — it’s not about the sex, it’s about power.

This is just abuser’s language. “If you don’t want me to hurt you, you have to do something that I want. Appease me, and maybe I’ll be nice and not kill you today.” Does Chubbs realize how depressing that mindset is, how abusive?

Wait, no, of course he doesn’t.

So long as society encourages women of all ages to be the inherently promiscuous creatures they are and allow them to limit their sexual choices to the men at the top of the pyramid (when many of them have no right to), sexually frustrated men will continue to lash out with extreme violence. The Columbine’s will continue. The Sandy Hook’s will continue. The Arapahoe’s will continue. Until society sits down and thinks over these problems with an unclouded mind, men will continue the shootings. More people will die just so Jane Doe can continue to ‘explore’ her sexuality until she hits the wall.

Because women now have sexual agency and can say “no”, men are going to kill, because men are all ticking time bombs who will kill if provoked by the threat of no sex. The only way to stop school shooting is to deny women sexual agency and force women to have sex with every single man in question, with no resistance, no questions asked. The end.

And they say that feminists are the misandrists here.

Items “For Her”: Is It Really Necessary to Have a “For Her” Version of Consumer Products?

Because apparently my ladybrain can't figure out how to use a pen. Credit to AdWeek.

Because apparently my ladyhands are too delicate to use a pen. Credit to AdWeek.

As the holiday season picks up speed and consumerism drives people to the shopping malls and the department stores looking for presents for loved ones, I think it might be appropriate to bring up the issue of “for her” products.

“So what are ‘for her’ products?” you may ask.

“For her” products are essentially products that have been “redesigned” in such a way as to become more “feminine”. In many cases, this involves a more slender design (because apparently women’s hands are much too small to handle the “big boy” toys like a power drill), and often features a large palette consisting solely of shades of pink and purple. The above image of Bic For Her pens is a prime example on how this works — a product which is inherently unisex is “remade” with more “feminine” features in order to appeal to female consumers.

Some other examples of “for her” products:

A "for her" gun, because  you need to know at a glance if a gun belongs to a woman or not.

A “for her” gun, because apparently you need to know at a glance if a gun belongs to a woman or not. And what better way to do so than to make the entire gun PINK!, right? Credit to Decantis Holster.

A "for her" tool set, because apparently women are allergic to anything that's not pink. Credit to Survival Supply.

A “for her” tool set, because apparently women are allergic to anything that’s not pink. Credit to Survival Supply.

A "for her" laptop, because women won't know a laptop was made for them unless it's PINK. Credit to Trade Tang

A “for her” laptop, because apparently women can’t use a computer unless it’s covered in PINK! and feminized in such a way that a man can know not to touch lest he risk getting LADY COOTIES. Credit to Trade Tang

You get the idea.

“Now what’s the problem with pink products, Alice? Wouldn’t some people really want to have a pink product?”

And to that, I say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with “for her” products on its own. Having a product that happens to be colored pink or purple or whatever is the issue here.

No, the issue isn’t the fact that there are pink products. The real issue is that these products are pink, and are solely intended to be marketed for women to purchase. And that’s problematic, for a few reasons:

  1. it implies that the regular product is inherently masculine and for men. This enforces a gender binary and establishes gender characteristics for products that are otherwise unisex. This is extremely problematic when you see what products are made “for women”: guns, tool sets, pens, laptop computers, etc. — products that are used in “masculine” careers such as police officer, mechanic, computer scientist, etc.
  2. It implies that women are otherwise uninterested in doing certain things (learning how to shoot, using a computer, writing, etc.) unless it’s been “feminized”. This further enforces said gender binary.
  3. It’s insulting. What is the difference between a Bic For Her pen and a Dr. Grip pen (which I use on a near daily basis), or a Bic For Her pen and one of their many other pen products that they sell? Nothing. The fact that apparently I won’t know that I could use a pen (or how to use one) unless it’s specifically made for me insults my intelligence and mocks women for being so “inferior” that they need special products for themselves.

So people. If you’re going to buy a present for your lady friends, unless your friend really, really, really loves pink, can you just buy us the regular products? We’ll know that those presents are intended for us, and we can figure out how to use it, thanks.

Happy Birthday Grace Hopper!

Google is honoring Grace Hopper’s 107th birthday today.

Of course, if people haven’t read any of my earlier posts, I really, really, really like Grace Hopper, a pioneer in computer science and developer of the first compiler, as well as coming up with the idea of computer programming languages and popularizing the term “debugging”.

Why can’t schools go over amazing women like her?

Happy 107th Ms. Hopper, may you rest in peace.

Regarding the Feminist Plan of Castration

So apparently there’s a few people who think that feminists will happily castrate uppity men for daring to call a woman “sweetie”. For example, we have this guy from Manboobz, who thinks that human resources will mutilate zir penis when the feminist revolution comes to fruition.

(I think zir found out that HR’s going to feed said mutilated penises to KittySharks and PuppySharks, as we feminists plan to take over the world and establish female superiority in all things. I can’t prove it, but still.)

I have to admit the fact that I’ve been sharpening my special castration knife and practicing on a large amount of bananas in my spare time, in order to prepare for the Mass Castration Event that will take place. As a feminist, I need to be able to castrate at least 200 men in fifteen minutes, and the faster I can do it, the better it will be.

I’m also running a bit more, but that’s more related to the fact that I want to get more exercise and be healthier than the castration thing.

Like I said though, I know a girl named Alice who really likes chocolate truffles with hazelnut centers. If you give her enough truffles (oh, I say maybe three boxes worth), she might be lenient and save you men from castration.

But remember. Chocolate truffles with HAZELNUT centers. NO SUBSTITUTES.

Okay, maybe you can get her a few bags of Lindor chocolates.

How Women’s Rights are Designer Goods and Other Thoughts from the Misogynistic Sphere

Obviously, I’m not dead, or otherwise this post would not exist. I hate exams. And homework. But mostly exams.

Unfortunately for us, while the world moves on and does more important things like not fail Calculus, misogyny never shuts up.

Today’s featured misogynistic screed is “Remove the Needs”, written by a woman named Laura Grace Robins. According to her, women’s rights are the same as designer goods: often ugly looking, extremely expensive, and totally unnecessary.

*rubs hands* I’ve been looking forward to this.

Even though men no longer go out for wild beasts, the modern workplace is just as wild and very often has a live or die atmosphere; literally regarding the military and other dangerous fields and figuratively with the competitiveness of business. 

Wait. So hypothetically, if I fail doing my office job (presuming that I want one), I’ll die? And my body would be buried with the scars of sharp scissors on my hands, paper cuts on my fingers, and punch holes from staplers?

The dynamics are still the same for men, but women do not return the comforts of home as a favor. They are too busy slaying their own wild beasts. Sure she still may pick up dinner at a restaurant and thus its looks like she is creating a home with “food according to his liking”, but I suspect deep down for the husband it just isn’t the same. She did not labor and put love into the meal as he did for his paycheck.

Because all men love their jobs, men can’t cook, and if a man picks up dinner at a restaurant it’s infused with love from his money.

Why can’t women love their jobs, and why can’t men want to cook dinner?

If God had meant us to live like animals, like we are today, then we would not have the maternal and paternal instinct that we do, nor this desire to create a family.

Obviously animals don’t feel this urge to have kids either. That’s why animals don’t have mating seasons and why many of these animals don’t risk death trying to sire offspring to pass on their genes.

BIOTRUTHS!

Gratitude. This is not something the modern woman thinks she owes anyone, especially a husband.

Wait. Since when are feminists teaching other people that we can eschew basic manners and empathy?

It is clear that modern wives have no need for husbands, since they now have their own money and independence; therefore, love does not feed. Husbands have also learned or been explicitly told that they too have no need for their modern wives. Modern technology has basically made a wife obsolete.

I’m pretty sure that one of the goals of the feminist agenda isn’t “no more marriage, EVER!”.

Also, isn’t it kind of sad that the only reason Ms. Robins think women want to get married is because they need a wage slave?

Men can still efficiently cook meals and a keep a home without it interfering with his work day. If it still took a whole day to do laundry or we were cooking over open hearths, wives would still be needed as men can’t do all that, plus make a living. Again, love does not feed. I think women still need men, more than men will ever need women.

Obviously women are totally unable to make a living and have a career, and will die starving on the streets without men to give them money.

BIOTRUTHS!

When shopping, we are told to recognize before buying something if it is a ‘need’ or a ‘want’. This is a way to stay clear of impulse buying. Feminists generally say its Okay to still want to be a mom or want to get married, but its NOT OKAY to say you ‘need’ to be a mom or ‘need’ to be married. 

Women don’t really need to have rights, they just want it, and we need to train women to follow their BIOTRUTHS and just be incubators.

Also: Ms. Robins. It’s totally okay if you feel that being a housewife is totally your calling. As a feminist, I’ll happily say that. It only becomes a problem when you extrapolate your personal choices and tell other women that they’re lesser because they didn’t make the same choices as you did.

If a woman merely wants to be a mom, there is still some wiggle room. Feminists can get in there and change her mind. Wants are Okay because they can be controlled and manipulated (advertising does this quite well). However, needs are more primal and survival based. 

Funny how Ms. Robins claims that feminists are trying to make everyone “live like animals”, and then she turns around and says that we should return to the so-called “primal and survival based” needs.

I would argue that the latter is trying to make people live more like animals, as it’s basically telling people that they should rely solely on “instinct”, if instinct means following the essential BIOTRUTHSKinder, Küche, Kirche, right?

At some point (usually around 40) the numbness wears off and women remember their basic needs of home and family.

So if I don’t snag a husband for myself by the time I turn 40, I’m going to die a sad spinster with ten thousand cats?

How heteronormative.

Buzz word alert: “experts!” Public school teachers are these paid experts. Even for the most sensitive issues, schools teach children to rely upon the school for their needs, i.e., birth control. They learn in school not to NEED their parents.

I don’t recall going to elementary school and being told that I should totally ditch my parents and declare emancipation.

I also don’t remember my middle/high school telling us anything about birth control. I mean, it’s probably different in other school districts, but my school district never really told us about birth control.

In either case, a person’s sex life is their business. And while it would be nice if a minor can be open with their parents regarding their sex life, it’s not necessary. A person’s body is not owned by their parents, period.

Yes, it is an “unnatural struggle for bread against the men who should be their natural protectors.” Very backwards. At times, I’m glad that I am in a women dominated field and generally compete with only other women. Guilt would be just that much more if I had to compete with men for the bread (i.e. pilot). Right now, at least I know I am not taking a job away from a man and pushing into his sphere.

That’s nice that you’re happy doing what you do, Ms. Robins. But why are you constantly guilt-tripping yourself on whether a man would approve on what you want to do in your life?

That doesn’t sound like a happy life.

Sex unity is gasping for its last breath as the hook-up culture is rampant and women willingly choose to be single moms.

Since when? I thought that the reason why many women are single mothers is because their partner was a huge asshole, and in many cases, left the women alone with the kids?

And that’s not to mention women who escape abusive households because the other option was to hope that the abusive partner won’t kill you or your kids.

She may have everything she wants, but not everything she needs. She wants independence, the vote, her own income, etc., but she wants all these things like she wants a designer purse. Underneath it all, it is just for show and what she really needs are the basics; like food, shelter, and a husband.

So I really don’t need to have the right to vote or the right to have my own income. Instead, I really, really, really long for a husband, even though I’m asexual and don’t have a desire to find a partner in general. And if I don’t get myself a hubby right now, I’ll die when I hit 40.

How heteronormative.

By women of today, she means the women of 1914! They had the the key, the chance to stop it all, but instead they were lured by wants and forgot about their needs and the needs of their families. Now most women live hollow lives filled with closets full of shoes and purses, while homes are empty of husbands and children.

“If you don’t have a husband and several children by the time you turn 40, your life is totally worthless and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

She has no one to “appreciate, sympathize with, are grateful to, enliven, comfort, and cheer.” 

Because obviously only husbands can fill that role, and not friends, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc.

It’s kind of depressing, isn’t it?

To make everyone feel better, here’s a picture of a cute cat with two differently colored eyes.

On Positive Male Role Models and International Men’s Day

International Men's Day logo

A day to celebrate TRU MANHOOD, because apparently it’s not Men’s Day every single other day of the year. Credit to International Men’s Day; image is in the public domain.

Because apparently not every single day is already a Men’s Day, tomorrow is International Men’s Day, which is all about celebrating MANHOOD of the gender essentialist variety.

Now, they haven’t actually released a press release for this year’s theme (“Keeping Men and Boys Safe”), but they do have one from around this time last year, complete with essentialist goodies such as “[n]o matter how great a mother is, she cannot replace what a father provides to a child” and “[i]rrefutable research shows that mothers typically are nurturing, soft, gentle, comforting, protective and emotional. Fathers tend to be challenging, prodding, loud, playful and encourage risk taking”. Of course, they do not link to any of this research; we’re supposed to take it at face value, without questioning their authority.

Now, I’m not happy with the gender essentialism. And because tomorrow is the proclaimed International Men’s Day, I’m going to write my OWN press release for last year’s theme (“Positive Male Role Models”), if I were in charge of this event. So without further ado, this is the Feminist Skeptic’s version of the media release for 2012: Positive Male Role Models.

[TRIGGER WARNING: some links contain threats against people.]

On Positive Male Role Models

What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be born as a male? And how does one learn how to be a man in our current society, a world where 4.5% of men are rapists, where men commit the vast majority of murders, and where a large amount of men advocate violence against other people, from other men to women and children?

Positive male role models do exist, but for the most part are few and far between. Movies often depict hypermasculine men using violence to solve their problems. Men and boys do not learn how to treat people with respect, threatening people with rape and other violence for doing something that displeases them. And many men care little about the suffering of others, preferring to live self-centered lives devoid of empathy and full of hatred towards other people.

There is a need for positive male role models, a niche that needs to be filled. Someone who can teach young boys on what it means to be a man.

But what does it mean to be a man?

To be a man is to know that he needs to treat other people with respect. A man does not need to threaten violence on other people in order to get what he wants. A man knows that the most important part of society is to help other people, to pick them up rather than push them down. He knows that he is one of many different people in the world, that he is not the lone ruler at the top but one of many unique, diverse groups that make up humanity.

He knows that he can be confident in his own expression. He knows that it is not shameful to cry, to be weak, to be anything less than a hypermasculine model. He knows that it’s okay for people to choose how they want to live, and he respects their choices. He knows that he can uplift those who have been disadvantaged by a society where the cis* straight white male is the normal and everyone else is a derivative. He knows that society does not have to be a world where straight white male is the easiest setting, and he is willing to stand up for that better world, to speak out against injustice and to foster a welcoming community where everyone is seen as an equal—no more, and no less.

In that light, let us look up to the men who see women, non-heterosexuals, non-white, and others as equals. Let’s look up to the men who treat others with respect. Give us positive male role models who will uplift and foster a boy who will grow up to positively contribute to society, without putting others people down. Give us positive male role models who teach young boys to stand up for those who are different, instead of hatred. Give us positive male role models who will better us, one young man at a time.

Let us celebrate these men, and thank them for giving boys a person to look up to, in order to better our society and everyone in it. And let us thank them, for bringing us a step closer towards a better tomorrow.

Thank you.

Apparently Heartiste Thinks Feminism Is About Cuckolding as Many Men as Possible

[citation needed]

You’re really going to need a [citation needed] sign for this post.

Bonus post! Because I’m a bit of a sadomasochist and I need something to mock!

The article: “The Feminist Push to Sanction Female Infidelity” (from Heartiste, a PUA)
Its inspiration: “The Upside of Infidelity: Can an Affair Save Your Marriage?” (Slate)

Now, the Slate article is interesting. The main thing you need to know is that some therapists think that for some marriages, if a person is found to have had a conflict avoidance affair (“generally found among couples whose arguments never escalate into screaming matches” according to Slate), it can serve as a wake up call for a couple to get their act together and discuss their issues, which may end up saving a marriage.

The article starts off with an hypothetical: a wife cheats on her husband while he was away in Afghanistan, and the two of them land in therapy. They talk about their issues, and slowly they stop blaming each other and start asking questions in order to resolve their underlying issues.

Then Heartiste read the article title, the first two paragraphs of the scenario, and then went off ranting on how feminists are trying to get men cuckolded.

Let’s get started.

Advanced apologies for the f-bombs. I should probably just add that to the about page or find a way to warn people ahead of time.

What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle.

What?

No, seriously. What?

What evidence is there that there is such thing as an alpha male, a beta male, or a “biologically innate female imperative” to bang and leech according to her period?

Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.

You know what this thing is missing? Evidence.

Also, what is with the “alpha fux, beta bux”? Are you trying to emulate wannabe 12 year old gangsters who think that spelling words with an “x” at the end and maybe a gang sign or two is enough to make a person cool?

The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day.

[citation needed]

An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.

[citation needed]

Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.

Heartiste, you’re as bad of a writer as Stephanie Meyer.

No, wait. That’s an insult to Meyer. Sorry, Ms. Meyer.

The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term.

And now we’re at the heart of this post: letting men bang as many women as they want, without any consequences whatsoever.

Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, […]

[citation needed]

[…] and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them.

So many assertions. So little evidence.

A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife.

Because if a man cheats on his wife, it’s always 100% the wife’s fault because she doesn’t do sex on command.

And if a man cheats, a woman’s supposed to just smile and pretend that nothing is wrong in their relationship, ever.

A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”.

Because the only two settings a woman has is hate and more hate.

This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom.

“I have a right to cheat on you, because you refused to sleep with me the other night. You are never to complain, because I’m a logical man and I have needs, damn it! If you didn’t want me to cheat, you’d never say no to sex!”

Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, […]

Hey! Don’t you dare insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

And what the hell is equalism? Is that like a new religion where we worship equal signs and give offerings to our masters “1+1=2” and “2+2=4”?

[…] interchangeable flesh cogs […]

We’re in a machine now?

[…] that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care […]

Because women are inherently too stupid to understand science.

[…] given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.

Because there’s something wrong with you if you have any sense of self-worth.

Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them.

Because an article saying that maybe an affair could serve as a wake-up call to resolve issues in a marriage is equivalent to mother freaking genocide.

Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts.

I’m sensing some psychological projection going on here.

And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.

Ew, dude. I don’t really need to know what you’re wanking off to.

Happy mocking!

How to be Dateable, the Gender Essentialist Way

Now, I’m aware that there’s absolutely no shortage on dating advice online. People are obsessed with trying to get a date and finding relationships. And that’s fine! Relationships are good, so long as you and your significant other(s) respect one another and want to be together!

And then we get gender essentialism into the mix.

Today’s “dating rules for the heterosexual gender essentialist” comes from rudatable.com, a site dedicated to make you dateable. Let’s get started.

Dating rules for girls:

Accept your girly-ness. You’re a girl. Be proud of all that means. You are soft, you are gentle, you are a woman. Don’t try to be a guy. Guys like you because you are different from them. So let your girly-ness soar.

So if I’m not gentle or soft, I’m not a woman? Does that mean that I can’t swear anymore, or have a temper?

Tell it like it is. Dateable girls don’t lie to themselves. They don’t say stuff like, “His girlfriend just isn’t good to him, that’s why he’s seeing me on the side.” Or “She started it so I’m going to get even.” The Dateable girl let’s God run the world, and tells herself the truth–that all she can control is herself. She doesn’t imagine things to be more than they are.

Okay, let’s ignore the “everyone believes in God” presumption in this advice and just get to the root of it. (Seriously? Are you implying that atheists aren’t dateable?)

The presumption is that girls are inherently control freaks who want to control everything and anything. Isn’t that, like, a little bit sexist?

(Also, uh, why is your hypothetical girl seeing someone who has an SO?)

The sexiest thing on a girl is happiness. Girls try so hard to add beauty and sexuality to themselves with clothes and make-up, but the truth is it’s your spirit that makes you hot. Your outlook on life, your happiness factor. Dateable girls aren’t downers, they love life.

“Hey girls, if you want a date, all you have to do is smile!”

Also, you do realize that not everything we do revolves around boys, right? Maybe the clothes and makeup are because we think it makes us look good and it makes us happy.

Girls don’t fight girls, ever. Revenge belongs to God. Dateable girls know that when they fight other girls they look stupid and catty, and guys don’t like it any more than God does.

“Ladies, we don’t like it when you’re angry, so don’t ever be angry. Even if you’re rightfully pissed off, anger makes you unattractive and undateable!”

Believe in your beauty. Dateable girl learn how to overcome the sins of the past that have been perpetrated on them. They don’t let the enemy steal their beauty. God made them, so they know they are beautiful, even if they don’t feel like it sometimes.

“Just believe that you’re pretty, even if you don’t feel like it! That’ll solve all body image issues, ever!”

Be mysterious. Dateable girls know how to shut up. They don’t monopolize the conversation. They don’t tell everyone everything about themselves. They save some for later. They listen more than they gab.

“Know your place. Don’t talk too much, because men HATE it when you have something to say and an opinion!”

Act confident. Dateable girls know that confidence is hot. And the cool part is that no one knows if you are confident but you. Confidence isn’t how you feel, it’s how you act. Act confident and people will think you are.

This isn’t bad advice. If you’re confident, people will see that.

Look ‘em in the eye. Part of being a Dateable girl means you really see people. They matter, and if you don’t look them in the eye then you will never see them and they will never know they matter to you. Look ‘em in the eye. They are valuable.

What if you have autism and you can’t look at them in the eye because you feel uncomfortable?

Let him lead. God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!

Because we still live in the 1950s and it’s totally emasculating to pursue a guy that you like, or to take charge of yourself every once in a while.

*eye roll*

Even Santana isn’t buying into this bullshit.

Need him. Dateable girls know that guys need to be needed. A Dateable girl isn’t Miss Independent. She knows we are made for community. Needing each other is part of faith. She allows him to be needed at times, knowing he was called to serve just as much as she was.

Because obviously if you’re not co-dependent on your significant other you’re totally undateable and you’ll die a spinster with ten thousand cats.

Dating rules for guys:

Being a guy is good. Dateable guys know they aren’t as sensitive as girls and that’s okay. They know they are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous and that’s okay. Dateable guys are real men who aren’t afraid to be guys.

So if you’re a dude and you feel the need to cry sometimes, can’t lift, don’t want to go more than maybe ten miles away from home, and won’t hurt a fly, you’re an emasculated wimp and you should be ashamed of yourself?

Believe in yourself. Dateable guys know they are men even if someone has tried to bring them down or make them less than men. They know that the past doesn’t define the future.

FEAR THE EMASCULATION!!!!

Also, uh, sometimes the past does define the future. Example: you have a history of being an abusive douchebag.

Control your mind. Dateable guys know that God demands self control. They learn ways to control their minds so they can control their bodies.

Because men naturally will hump anything and everything if they don’t learn discipline.

Don’t just want a win, want an adventure. Dateable guys know life is about danger. You might not win, but that’s not the point, doing it is. Dateable guys risk failure to live the adventure of life.

Okay, presuming that this is about being confident, this isn’t bad advice.

Face your Fears. Dateable guys will not be controlled by fear. Whatever controls you owns you. Fear is from the enemy and so the Dateable guy stands in the face of it and says, “ha!”

And if you admit that you’re scared even once, you’re emasculated and should be ashamed of yourself.

Men of God are wild, not domesticated. Dateable guys aren’t tamed. They don’t live by the rules of the opposite sex. They fight battles, conquer lands, and stand up for the oppressed.

“If you act like a girl, you should be ashamed of yourself. REAL men don’t act like girls!”

Bring God into it. Dateable guys bring God into it. “What would He say if he was talking to me through this situation?” they ask.

So atheists are undateable?

Be honest with girls. Dateable guys don’t use the truth to their advantage. They know that girls read into things so they don’t use that for their good. They are honest and not manipulative.

Honesty is a good policy, yes. But did you really have to make the assumption that girls are inherently overanalytical to make your point? Why not just say “being honest is a good thing because that means that all parties know what is expected”?

Be a gentleman. Chivalry is not dead with the Dateable guy. Even if society thinks this is old fashioned he knows that it is God-fashioned. He keeps his gentleman side strong and considers all women important enough to care for.

Sure, be nice to women. That’s a good thing!

But seriously, paternalism towards women? Isn’t that a wee bit misogynistic. presuming that women can’t take care of themselves and that it’s the man’s job to save her from herself?

Keep it covered up. Dateable guys know that porn is bad for the spirit and the mind. They keep women covered up.

Because wanting to have sex is something that needs to be suppressed and is inherently a Bad Thing.

Also of note, the guy who owns the website actually advised female students at a high school that if they want to catch a guy, they need to know to shut up.

How’s that for gender essentialism and misogyny?

“Hey Ladies, If You Didn’t Want to Get Raped, Why Didn’t You Just Shut Your Legs?!” Asks a Lawyer

No, I’m not kidding. Someone SERIOUSLY said that.

*facepalm*

Picard himself is groaning from the stupidity in that argument.

This was the statement that Keith Jefferies, defense lawyer for convicted rapist George Jason Pule, asked the jury.

“All she would have had to do was to close her legs . . . it’s as simple as that,” he told the jury. “Why didn’t she do that? . . . The reason she didn’t do that was because the sex was consensual, as easy as that.”

Because OBVIOUSLY if you didn’t bind zip ties to your ankles to prevent yourself from getting raped, then the sex was totally consensual! After all, rapists can’t rape you if you squeeze your thighs tight enough!

santana_rolling_her_eyes

Needless to say, activists were not thrilled.

Hint: if a lawyer is seriously arguing that a lady just needs to shut her legs tight as she can to not be raped, that’s rape culture.