Category Archives: MRAs

“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!”?


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.

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.


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.


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.


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!

A Treatise on Misandry and How Feminists Need to Sit Pretty and Listen to Misogynists Rant With No Consequences

Or how to not write a manifesto.

So apparently someone in the Manosphere (MRA bloggers) known by Fidelbogen wrote some sort of manifesto for the Men’s Rights Movement.

Honestly, I thought that the MRAs had like three goals.

  1. To hate on all women forever and ever.
  2. To impede any and all attempts to have women recognized as people.
  3. To help men.

They have certainly succeeded in the first goal, and I’d say that they’ve been working on the second one. But the third one?


Somewhere in the distance is an MRA whining “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZ!!?!”, complete with faux outrage and fury that people are paying attention to anything else BUT men for once.

Many organizations (if not all) that DO want to help men and actually do so don’t consider themselves MRAs; in fact, they actually distance themselves from the MRA label, because it’s been tainted by and associated with anti-feminist, misogynistic assholes.

So is this “manifesto” a step towards fulfilling the third goal?

Ehhhhhhh, no.

Let’s get started.

JS38 is a coalition of politically conscious non-feminist groups and individuals. The name itself is a random character string which serves only as an identification tag.

What did you do, use a D26 and a D10 to figure out what letters and numbers you should use?

As a project, JS38 is designed to overcome the problems which labels often generate – such problems as branding, false grouping, conflation, stereotypification, message degradation and the like.

Because it’s obviously so terrible to have a name that doesn’t bring to mind a cold, unfeeling AI about to kill us all.

We recognize that we are in a contest to sway hearts and minds.

I didn’t realize that we’re in a contest on whether women are to be people or not.

If we establish that an octagon is an eight-sided geometrical figure, the truth of that message remains uncompromised by the messenger. Even if Stalin or Caligula declared that an octagon was an eight-sided geometrical figure, it would not become a nine-sided or seven-sided figure.

And even if [insert hot person of your choice here] came up and said that women are all lying, gold-digging, spermjacking sluts, it doesn’t change the fact that what is being said is misogynistic.

I’d also add that it says a lot about you if you’re advocating such a hateful position with a straight face.

We reject all forms of racial, religious, or ethnic identification. We view such identification as conflating the messenger with the message, or the personal with the political.

“Our group is totally colorblind, ’cause we said so. Racism solved!

What do you mean that it’s racist to say that Asian women are inherently submissive and docile?! I’m not racist, see? You’re the one with the problem, not me!”

[…] we believe it is good practice to “think like a lawyer.”

So you’re always trying to find some way to “win” against feminists?

We define our method as query-based rather than theory-based – although it is true that we theorize. But feminism owes us answers, and not the reverse. Thus, if we declare that “feminism is x”, we are expecting proof that feminism is NOT x, and shall expect our concerns to be sensitively and respectfully addressed.

Oh goodie, another excuse for misogynistic men to mansplain feminism to feminists. *rolls eyes*

Also, what concerns? Do you really want us to take “all of the gold digging sluts are teaming up to false accuse me of rape” seriously?

If a particular idea is not expressly stated in this document, it cannot be attributed to the document. Equally, however, it cannot be said that the document excludes it.

“Well, this doesn’t actually say that, but it doesn’t NOT say that either.”

We shall make it our chief business to agitate against feminism, and shall touch upon men’s issues as a subset of this topic, when we are talking about the damage feminism does to the world.

A: “We will oppose feminists at every turn! This I swear we will do!”
B: “What about the fact that one out of six men experience sexual abuse? Or the fact that 3% of American men have experienced an attempted or a completed rape in their lifetime? What do we plan to do about that?”

We recognize that the de facto consequence of feminist innovation has been to make “male” and “female” into separate political interest groups.

I thought feminism was about the radical idea that women are people, and equally deserving of rights. It’s really not our fault that we were born female. And it’s not our fault that there are men who seek to take away the rights to our own bodies, or that there are men who want to take us back to the 1950s where women “learned their place” (if not earlier of course).

We recognize that men on as a group are unaware that they have political interests as a group, and that said unawareness makes them vulnerable to erosion of their well-being within the social polity.

It goes against your interest to have people learn about consent, have women in combat roles, have more women working in STEM, and whatnot? And having women take a more equal role in society alongside men erodes a man’s well-being?

Well then, who would have thunk it?

*rolls eyes*

We affirm that males and females possess, on average, bio-genetically based differences which generate differences in psychology and behavior not due to cultural training.

For example, it has been shown that ladybrains have been shown to be inferior to men in all ways. It’s not our fault that ladies are inherently inferior, it’s BIOLOGY.


We affirm that the existence of male-only social space – in the form of groups, clubs and organizations of whatever sort – is a POSITIVE GOOD. We assert that such things ought to make part of any future society we would aspire to, and that the formation of male-only spaces should begin immediately.

“Why do women get to have women’s centers and women’s shelters and everything? It’s not like they did anything special. MISANDRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!”

We assert that the non-feminist community is an autonomous power in relation to the feminist community. As such, diplomatic courtesy from the feminist community will be expected.

“Even when I say that all women are inherently gold digging sluts, you are not allowed to talk back and say that I’m wrong. Got that?”

We assert the prerogative to define feminism in absolute terms in the light of our own study, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is.

“Words only mean what I mean what they mean. Hence, rape culture means a culture in which men can rape women without impunity and there are absolutely no consequences ever. And obviously that doesn’t exist, because men can go to jail for raping a bitch, LOL.”

We affirm that feminism generates a cloud of inconsistency or indefiniteness about itself, and switches from one set of rules to another as need dictates. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

Because while feminists are inconsistent ’cause ladies, MRAs are ALWAYS consistent and never contradict themselves.

“Of course we men are consistent. We’re MEN. It’s BIOLOGY.

What do you mean that it’s inconsistent to say that women need to protect themselves against rapists and then say that women shouldn’t presume all men to be rapists? Your ladybrains just don’t comprehend the logic behind it. Mmhm.”

We affirm that feminism, as a cultural project, seeks to increase the individual and collective power of women with no limit. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

“Feminism is about FEMALE SUPREMACY, while the men’s rights movement is about EQUALITY. I know this because I’m a MAN. You don’t because you’re a WOMAN.

Anyways, women shouldn’t even bother getting out of the kitchen, they need to learn their place. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich bitch.”

We affirm that the feminist drive to increase female power involves a willful attack upon men and maleness as such.

Because toxic masculinity is totally a good thing for men. And because all feminists want to do is to suppress those uppity men, just like MRAs want to suppress those uppity women and send them back in the kitchen.

We recognize that feminism promotes the idea that everything wrong with the world flows from a male source, or as the saying goes, that “men are the problem”. 

Also known as something that no feminist has ever said, ever.

We affirm that men and women share the same social ecology, and that harm to any part of this system will generate systemic consequences. Consequently, we recognize that feminism’s attack upon men amounts to a war of aggression against the world at large, and that this war will damage men and women alike.

“If you women don’t shut up about your feminism, I’m going to withdraw my attention away from you and not date you, ever. And you can’t marry me, or have my babies, ever. WHAT NOW, HUHHH?????”

We affirm that feminism is dynamic, must remain perpetually in motion, and that if forced to become static, would expire. We refer to this condition as “perpetual revolution”. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

Because no civil rights movement has ever evolved over time.

We recognize that the feminist campaign for “equality” between the sexes is fraught with hypocrisy in practice, and that the term “equality” itself is deeply problematic by its very nature.

“Equality implies that women are actually people, deserving of rights and of an equal position of society. We can’t have that, nope.”

We affirm that there is a cultural taboo which suppresses open critique of feminism.

Really? Because feminists disagree with one another all the time. Just some time ago, Manboobzers had a disagreement with David Furtelle because he stated that he believes that made to penetrate isn’t rape.

Oh, you mean that you want the right to call women uppity gold digging sluts and whores without consequences. Sorry, not going to happen.

We affirm that there is a cultural taboo against recognition of male suffering and against recognition that male life has inherent value.

Because men suffer so much when feminists call for consent education.

Also, society doesn’t recognize that men’s lives have value? Other than the fact that most of history focuses on the achievements of men, much of science focuses on what men have achieved, movies are extremely male oriented, video games are almost all about the men, and people still think it acceptable to make sexist jokes and to threaten to rape a woman for having an opinion?

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

We call for an end to the feminist stranglehold in the realm of public education.

Because encouraging girls to take on STEM is a stranglehold on the MENZ.

We call for a full intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint. We call upon credentialed academics to join in this work, along with all manner of people everywhere. 

“I don’t accept your studies! They don’t support my viewpoint, so they’re all invalid!”

I know that there have been studies done on many feminist claims/theories. I can’t be arsed to find all of the evidence right now though. Maybe if I have a specific claim that I can debunk, then sure, I can do a in-focus search.

We affirm that misandry (disaffection toward men and maleness) is a real thing with cultural and institutional presence.

“A woman refused to have sex with me! Misandryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! You need to acknowledge my painnnnnnnnnnnnn!”

We affirm that misandry and misogyny are two aspects of an underlying unity, that they cannot be understood separately, and that they increase or decrease in direct proportion to each other.

So we should aim to be more misogynistic in order to make a better society, if your hypothesis is correct?

You know, this says a lot more than they realize.

We affirm that misandry, rather than misogyny, is the primary driver behind the present crisis.

“Women can choose to not have to sex with me!!11! MISANDRYYYYYYYYY!!!”

We affirm that the growth of freedom without responsibility is pernicious, and we recognize that feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has encouraged precisely such growth among the female population.

Because while feminists seek to put rapists to task for, you know, raping someone, MRAs want to put the blame on the rape victim for letting zirself be raped. Right.

Of course, the MRA version of taking responsibility is to blame a woman for everything, and excuse a man’s misdeeds as somehow caused by a woman. (“Hitler just needed more poon, then he wouldn’t have committed the Holocaust” anyone?)

We assert that non-feminist men and women have no duty to stay current with the discourse in the feminist community. The case is rather the reverse: that the feminist community must listen sensitively to what non-feminist men and women are saying, and address respectfully any concerns they might raise.

“We don’t ever have to listen to you. You’re just stupid. Instead, you must sit pretty while we go on an tirade on how women are all gold digging sluts and how women are destroying the world because we let them out of the kitchen.”

We maintain that feminism, in its ideological and politicized form, was imposed on the world as a social innovation and that the impacted population was never consulted about this.


This “manifesto” actually does say a LOT about the MRA movement. But it doesn’t actually say what they think it says.

Two Women Talking About Something That Isn’t About a Man? MISANDRY!!!11!

Also known as the Bechdel Test, a concept dreamed up by Alison Bechdel in a strip called Dykes to Watch Out For sometime in the 1980s.

To start off, this is what the Bechdel Test is: if a movie (or a book or a TV show or something like that) has 1. at least two women who 2. talk to each other about 3. something besides a man, it passes the Test.

Passing the Bechdel Test does not mean that the movie/book/TV Show is inherently feminist. The Twilight series (I refuse to call it a saga, it’s an insult to the term “saga”) passes the Beschdel Test and it’s extremely sexist. In contrast, much of the Harry Potter series doesn’t pass the Bechdel Test and Hermione Granger is a fully fleshed out female character, intelligent and friendly and hard-working and easily frustrated and full of integrity and devious and <and so on and so forth>.

(Hermione isn’t just a strong female character. Female characters can be—and should be—more than just “strong”, which is why I don’t state her as such. We don’t just categorize men as “strong male characters”, rather we call them cynical or religious or obnoxious or intelligent or assholes or anything else besides strong. If men can be complicated and flawed, why can’t women?)

Hence, to use the Bechdel Test to state whether a work is feminist or not is incorrect and disingenuous.

However, despite this, the Bechdel Test does serve one purpose: to highlight the fact that in much of our modern day media, women either are non-existent, obsessed with the doings or men, or utterly insignificant in a tale that’s all about men.

And that’s it. To highlight that media as a whole doesn’t seem to think of women as people with individual personalities and story arcs that don’t revolve around men.

Now with that in mind, let’s get to the story in question.

In Sweden, four cinemas have started to add a new rating to highlight which movies have a more significant female presence. In order to get an “A” rating, you need to have at least two named women who pass points two and three.

This doesn’t sound too bad, right? Women hold up half the sky, women are people, and how hard is it to imagine that two women might want to talk about something that’s not related to a man, right? I do this all the time.


r/mensrights are complaining that Sweden’s forcing movie makers to add some random scene about two women talking about shoes. And of course, women only talk about kitties and babies, according to one r/mensrights Redditor, so why would they ever need to talk to one another?

Having a rating for whether someone passes the Bechdel Test is ZOMG FEMINIST FASCISM.

The Swedes have way too much time on their hands.

Saying that maybe we should have at least two women talk to each other about something that’s not a man is the “height of foolishness” and damages freedom of expression.

This is all about censorship and propaganda control, and feminists are as bad as Goebbels! And WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!!11!!


And so on.

Man, it’s as if thinking of women as people with individual personalities and preferences and whatnot is too hard for some people.

The Bechdel Test: highlighting the fact that apparently, the idea of women with personalities and experiences that don’t revolve around men is too hard to comprehend.

The Feminist Ploy to Take Over the World

Yes, we’re planning to take over the world. It’s true, I know because I’m a feminist.

I mean, yes, it’s totally true that we’re already secretly controlling everyone and everything. We’re secretly Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Chem and Big Agriculture and Big Business and everything, making the world into our puppets. That’s why we do things like have the Texas government make an anti-choice abortions restriction bill that would close all but five abortion clinics in the state, got Wendy Davis to filibuster it for 11 hours or so and causing thousands of women wearing orange to show up in protest, passed that law anyway in a special session July, and then sneakily got a federal judge to declare that law unconstitutional anyways.

I mean, we have to do something other than sitting at home all day eating bonbons and spending 60% of our man’s income on clothes, scented candles, hard chairs, and more bonbons (duh).

Sitting around and spending money that we didn’t earn is BORING, you know? And it’s not like we’re really doing anything. We’re too stupid to work in STEM fields, and really, women like Grace Hopper, Lise Meitner, and Ada Lovelace stole the credit from all of the MENZ.

And really, all of these women here, who help contribute to computer science? That’s really the work of men, who were working on our orders, and we stole the credit from them, even though we’re also somehow controlling them with the SECKS and also somehow doing that and sitting in our hard chairs eating bonbons and sniffing scented candles lit by female penguins.

And we can all totally get laid with anyone we want, and yet apparently we’re so desperate for attention that we welcome unwanted advances. So besides eating bonbons, sitting in hard chairs, sniffing scented candles, messing with entire governments, stealing credit from all of the MENZ, and yet somehow controlling everybody with the SECKS, we’re also desperate for attention.

Also, for some reason, we call our movement for equality, and then we turn around and sign laws in Ohio that force abortion clinics to shut down. I mean, why do we try to fight for reproductive rights, and yet ban people from getting abortions, right?

And of course, we’re really narcissistic and only care about ourselves. It’s why we force men to serve us as wage slaves so that we can sit on hard chairs sniffing scented candles and eating bonbons, and controlling entire governments, and controlling men’s boners and then denying them the SECKS.

It’s really all a ploy to take over the world. Really. Even though we already control all of the MENZ and all of the governments and everything, for some reason we haven’t really taken over the world yet.

We’re taking over the world, and soon, you will be paying us a tribute of bonbons and scented candles.

You have been forewarned.

I highly recommend you start stocking up. I heard somewhere that a girl named Alice likes chocolate truffles with hazelnut centers.

[LINK] MRAs Use BAD Math in Regards to a 2010 CDC Survey about Rape

Long story short, I took a nap the day before, and didn’t wake up until early this morning, so that’s why there was no post yesterday. Oops.

Anyways, moving on. I have a decent amount of work to do today, so I’m basically going to drop a link from Manboobz and go.

This link is about the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a victimization study in 2010, which MRAs like to (mis)use to claim that half of the rape victims are men and that 40% of rapists are women.

Of course, those speculations are based on bad math that is unfounded. David Futrelle had emailed the CDC about this survey, and they sent back a response stating such. Linky.

I highly encourage you to read this, even if it’s quite technical in nature. Enjoy.

And now, to homework!

“YOU HAZ PRIVILEGE TOO!!11!!”, Or How MRAs Misuse Statistics to Claim that Women Have Privileges Ergo the Patriarchy is a Lie

So I did find the time to finish this before the weekend. Yay!


The “infographic” in question. Click to see full size. And oh look! There’s a remade, utterly impossible to read version of this infographic! 

So as you can see in the image above, some MRA has made a lovely “infographic” about how women really have all the privilege, hence feminism is a lie and men are really the most oppressed class in history.

As you can also see, this is also extremely misleading, and it abuses statistics in order to tell a story that is essentially one big fat lie.

Let’s debunk and/or mock each point, one by one. Preferably mock, but let’s get some factoids up here too, because this thing is ASKING to be mocked and debunked.

Lower chance of being a murder victim.

Really? That’s a female privilege?

Just how do you plan to resolve that, MRAs? Murder more women?

Lower chance of committing suicide.

Please insert your choice of expletives here.

Okay, let’s be serious for a second here.

Women are more likely to attempt suicide. Men are more likely to succeed. Women are also more likely to have suicidal thoughts.

It’s not a “less chance of committing suicide”. It’s “because of gender roles, men are more likely to take more risks and to succeed in their suicide attempts”.

Of course, in the MRA world, attempting to commit suicide by a woman is because she just wants attention. Women don’t seriously want to die, they just want attention.

As someone who has suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, I’d like to take a moment and say <insert curses of your choice here>.

Lower chance of physical assault. 

I went searching for some sort of statistics for this, and most of what I’m getting when I Googled “physical assault statistics gender” link to domestic violence pages.

I did find this on PubMed, although the survey in question was conducted in Norway, and not the United States. It does state that the majority of violence in the sample studied was men attacking other men, but the next highest statistic is men attacking women.

And then we get to domestic violence, because it made up the majority of searches.

The problem isn’t that women aren’t getting assaulted as much (although that’s the implication), it’s that men are more likely to commit violence as a whole.

Although, again, MRAs, what’s are you proposing to do? Beat up more women?

Oh <bleep>.

Longer average lifespan.

Wait, that’s a female privilege how?

It’s not like I choose to have a longer lifespan, you know! And it’s not like society points at women and says “live longer!”, right?

Less work related injuries.

Less work related deaths.

Wait, that’s a privilege? Are you seriously whining that women aren’t dying in larger numbers, MRAs? Seriously? What the hell is wrong with you?

Shorter/easier criminal convictions.

Because obviously it’s our fault that male judges tend to be more paternalistic and give women shorter sentences, right?

MRAs, if you want women to be treated equally in terms of sentencing, put more female judges on the bench. Women tend to be harsher in terms of sentencing. (Now if only we fixed the racism. That would be nice.)

Circumcision is illegal.

In male circumcision, men can still use their penis. It’s safe. There’s some evidenece of benefit in the reducing the transmission of HIV. And it doesn’t seem to decrease sexual sensitivity, harm sexual function, or reduce sexual satisfaction.

In female circumcision, there is absolutely no benefit. It’s often done in unsafe conditions, which runs the risk of infection and death. Women are left with reduced sexual satisfaction/sensitivity, in some cases their vaginal opening is closed shut, it can cause complications in pregnancy, etc.

The two are not equivalent. So, MRAs, please shut the hell up.

Draft immunity.

Okay, three things.

  1. We don’t have a draft. MRAs, learn to use a dictionary.
  2. Most countries in the West have made compulsory enlistment illegal.
  3. Because feminists aren’t working to open the Selective Service requirement for women, if not outright opposing the requirement as a whole.

Let me make this clear now. I don’t like the fact that the Selective Service Registration requirement exists. I wish it didn’t, because we don’t need it. Also, I’m a pacifist.

But if it has to exist, I want women to be required to register for it, just like men are required to register now. That would be fair. That would be gender equality.

Divorce/family court bias.

Because it’s our fault that the stupid gender role of “women take care of house and home and kids” exists.

However, it’s happening less frequently now, judges try to judge the best interests for the kids, and oh yeah, a large amount of families are getting joint-custody.

And if it’s in the best interests of children to be with their mother (because daddy’s an abuser or whatever), they’ll award it to Mom.

And of course, with alimony, whoever gets more money gets the alimony payment if awarded. Figuring who pays child support and how much takes into account various factors. And here’s some context on how big the payment is.

I should also note that advocating murder, running out of the country, and whatnot isn’t going to help convince a judge to give you custody of the kids or whatever.

More scholarships available.

Maybe it’s because MRAs, like you, tend to think that women are too stupid to deserve college educations? It’s not like we were asking for it.

High college acceptance rate.

Uh huh. From the article:

Consider some of the numbers at leading schools: At Vassar College in New York State, a formerly all-women’s college that is still 60% female, more than two-thirds of the applicants last year were women. The college accepted 35% of the men who applied, compared with 20% of the women. Locally, elite Pomona College accepted 21% of male applicants for this year’s freshman class, but only 13% of female applicants. At Virginia’s College of William & Mary, 7,652 women applied for this year’s freshman class, compared with 4,457 male applicants. Yet the numbers of each who gained admittance were nearly the same. That’s because the college accepted 45% of the men and only 27% of the women.

A 2007 analysis by U.S. News & World Report, based on the data sent by colleges for the magazine’s annual rankings, found that the admissions rate for women averaged 13 percentage points lower than that for men. 

Higher college admission rates my ass.

Less likely to drop out in college.

Then work harder, you dumbass. Blaming women isn’t going to get your grades up.

Emotional encouragement.

Because it’s the women’s fault that the gender role of “men are supposed to be unemotional” exists.

That’s not a privilege, that’s a gender role that’s biting men in the ass.


Are You Serious?

Dude. Men can marry other people because of money too. It’s not a female privilege.

Also, seriously? Are you really going to say that all women are gold-digging sluts?

Cheaper healthcare.

Bullshit. Quote:

Among adults who had at least one health care expense, the average expenditure per person, including expenses covered by insurance and those paid out-of-pocket, was slightly higher for women ($5,635) than for men ($4,952). However, men’s average expenditures significantly exceeded women’s for hospital inpatient services ($18,984 versus $12,997, respectively). Women’s expenditures significantly exceeded men’s only in the category of office-based medical services ($1,556 versus $1,323, respectively). The overall mean health care expense was greater for women because of the greater percentage of women incurring more expensive services. For instance, 10.8 percent of women had hospital inpatient services, compared to 6.4 percent of men, which contributes to a higher mean expenditure overall. Hospital inpatient services include childbirth delivery.

It depends on what service you’re getting. Overall, women tend to pay more.

Also, study shows women pay more for the same healthcare coverage.

Better healthcare.

Dude, we get the same healthcare as everyone else. If you think your care sucks, speak up about it or change health care providers.

Control over 60% of US wealth.

Because obviously women use the money to buy bonbons at Costco.

I want to see the context of this number.

Reproductive rights.

Because there’s a movement trying to strip men of the right to masturbate, just as there is a movement to restrict a woman’s right to choose.

Men, you have rights to your body too. No one’s going out there to deny you your Viagra. In the meanwhile, we have to have articles like this because there are people out there trying to deny women safe abortions and birth control.

Women’s shelters.

Because it’s a privilege to have to find safe harbors after one leaves an abusive relationship, because if you don’t, your abusive partner could try to kill you.

*rolls eyes*

White House Women and Girls Council.

Because Congress isn’t already 81.7% male.

Police deference during domestic disputes.

Because it’s a female privilege to be more likely to be abused by their male partners.

Men get abused too, but not to the extent that women are.

Better employed for same experience

[citation needed]

Also, define “better”.


Are You Serious?

Assumed primary parental figure.

Because presuming that women are meant to be homemakers is a privilege.

Positive sexual encouragement.

Uh huh.

Less mental health referrals.

Referral for which mental disorder?

Safer work conditions.

OSHA doesn’t make work conditions safer for men AND women?

Less productivity pressure.

Because obviously presumed to be lazy good-for-nothings who spend their days sitting on couches eating bonbons is a positive thing, right?

More, better contraceptive options.

Dude, that’s not a privilege. It’s because it’s much easier to prevent pregnancy in women, who are the ones to actually get pregnant in the first place.

Not assumed to be a pedophile around kids.

Because this post by LaidNYC is going to help you guys not look like child molesters.

Not avoided by strangers of the opposite gender.

Because being street harassed by random dudes is SUCH a privilege.

Are women supposed to be pleased if someone yells “nice tits!” or wolf-whistles at them when they’re walking down the street?

Better education.

Wait, I thought that we all went to the same schools together?

Also, women around the world get better education than dudes? Really?

Less likely to be homeless.

Because society encourages men to lose their house.

(It’s true that the majority of homeless people are male. But a large amount of the women who are living out on the street happen to be survivors of domestic violence.)

Less likely to be unemployed.

Maybe it’s because there’s not so many women looking for jobs?

Less likely to abuse drugs.

More women who have been arrested were abusing and using drugs. Otherwise, technically it’s accurate that more men report using drugs.

However, is that really a privilege? Or is it gender socialization biting men in the butt again?

More likely to be helped/treated as victim.

Because being more likely to be abused or raped is a good thing.

Less often admonished by teachers.

Because it’s out fault that teachers don’t often pay attention to us.

Given extra attention in class.

That’s bullshit. Boys get more attention in class as a whole than girls.

Less likely to be depressed.


Less likely to have a mental illness.

Which ones?

Less likely to abuse alcohol.

Because we should force women to abuse more drugs! Equality, yo!

‘The Sisterhood’

What’s that? Is that like Big Pharma?

Less pressure for financial achievement.

Because being expected to be stay-at-home housemakers forever eating bonbons and wasting husband’s money is a good thing.

Also, has this guy never stepped into an Asian household?

Feelings given more inherent value.

So the solution is disregarding women’s feelings?

Also, because female hysteria was not a thing, ever. Or the “oh, it’s all in your head” excuse when a woman complained of PMS.

Safer workplace conditions.

Again? Did you run out of things to complain about? Poor MRA.

Expected to choose easier career.

Because being considered to be too stupid to handle STEM, for example, is a good thing and a privilege.

Priority during emergency rescue.

“Women and children first” has no basis in maritime law. It doesn’t exist.

Punished less for changing your mind.

What the hell does this even mean?

Less likely to transition gender identity.

Because it’s so much better to be a woman! Get it?


Less enforcement of heterosexuality.

That’s only because men think that lesbian sex is hawt and they want to fap to it. You know, cause while one woman is good, two women is better!

Yay for objectification of someone’s sexual orientation!

Less likely to experience dysmorphia.

Is this the same as the transitioning gender identity one?

General immunity to sexism allegations.

Since when? If a woman’s being a sexist asshat, she’ll be called a sexist asshat. You don’t see any feminists calling Phyllis Schlafly a woman who’s not sexist.

(I’m aware of arguments that say that women can’t be inherently sexist because in order to be sexist you need to have power and a privileged position in society. I don’t honestly buy into that argument, although I’m aware that systematic oppression is worse. If someone’s using a sexist argument without irony, they’re sexists. Period.)

Less likely to live in poverty.


Less likely to emigrate for work.

Say what now? I am so confused, citation needed.

Less likely to be killed in war.

Because women are considered too weak to hold a weapon, you dumbass. It’s not like feminists have been fighting for the military to allow women to serve in combat roles alongside men for a long while.

Exclusive school groups and clubs.

Because men don’t have their own exclusive groups? I’m aware of at least one male-only Greek frat that operates on my school campus.

“Having it all.”

Are You Serious?

Women’s Studies Departments.

Because most of what you learn in regular history courses isn’t all about men.

More likely to have a teacher of your gender.

Men are more likely to have a doctor of their gender too.

If you want more male teachers, get more men interested in teaching.

Not commonly considered privileged.

Uh, because we’re not, except in the fevered minds of MRAs?


Because feminism doesn’t try to help men. *eye roll*

MRAs: using false equivalency to whine about feminism since <year>.