Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Attacking the Manginas

It's hard being a Masculinist, ya know? You got so many groups of enemies: women, other MRA's who are total idiots, woman lovers (most men fit this category) and hardcore Manginas. Woman lovers are best just ignored and idiot MRA's should only be occasionally taken to task. But the Manginas are tricky: on one hand, they are gay as shit... but on the other hand, they are still men so they are not the real enemy. In fact, you could make the case that Manginas are the Matriarchy's biggest victims.

That said, they can't be ignored and I am going to have to engage in some mangina bashing now, but I will preface my comments by saying that women are evil and worthless and are the true villians.

Aight, here's the deal. On Feministing there was this article about some ho who was sexually assaulted in a bar. What makes this different from the typical sexual assault is that the other guys in the bar either cheered on the act or ignored it. Supposedly this proves that women are opressed or that all men are rapist or that... well, I'm not exactly sure what it is supposed to prove but you get the idea. Here are select mangina comments in bold:

Hmm... I like to think that I'd do something in that situation, but I have never really been there myself. Some kid did pull a pocketknife on me in elementary school. As I recall I laughed it off and walked away; but that was just some kid on the schoolyard that I knew, not a stranger in a bar.
Closest is when a woman I go to school with caught up to me outside the train after having some guy grope her and follow her off the car (we were all going to a field trip that day, just recently). It is the only time I've made a serious and sincere offer to beat somebody, which in retrospect I'm not too proud of.
The guy did have a knife in this case, and that does change things... but as pointed out, it is a bar with plenty of heavy things around to swing about. I actually know a bit about defending against a knife and how to swing heavy things about to do some damage, but it's all in the head.
What I guess I'm trying to say is it's not something you know how you're going to react to until you're in the situation. Sitting back and laughing... that is something I can say for sure I wouldn't do.
Posted by: Matthew

Wow, what a flaming mangina. You threatened to beat another guy up on the say so of a woman? What a huge douche you are. He is now saying he isn't "proud" of his gayness but I suspect he probably is but just knew that such talk would not be well taken by the woman posters. Posts like this make me actually feel bad for feminists because they have to tolerate patronizing jackasses like this clown.

I've been in a situation similar to this before (though not with a knife as a potential weapon), and my experience was that if you at least challenge or confront the attacker, then other men will normally follow, or at least back you up if you are genuinely trying to stop this type of situation.
For all of them to just sit there and (presumably) keep drinking their beer without doing or say anything doesn't suggest a lot to me other than the fact they just didn't give a shit.
Posted by:

Give this mangina props for his straight shooting approach. It is correct and he is at least implying that the other men in the bar did the right thing by not coming to the woman's aid. Remember, never side with a woman over a man! That's the rule.

"So, there is this lockerroom trick where you get a guys underwear off of him without taking his pants off. It is not a sexual thing at all. Rough, humilating hazing, yes. Sexual, no. It just looked like this might be like that. If in the main article, she wouldn't even talk to the guy afterward, then not a friendly thing."
Perhaps you are missing the point that even male on male, unwanted contact could be legally considered battery. Even the threat of contact would be assault. Boys injuring or even killing another playing "pro wrestler" at home is also not considered a joke.
Maybe you would understand how being interested in a woman's panties (ie opposite gender) or removing them at knifepoint, makes it sexual. A sexual assault. This will be aided by her statement and testimony. I hope she makes it that far.
Yeah, I guess it was unfriendly. Hence the arrests and charges. The police seem to believe her, even if some men here do not. I really hope your daughters never have "jokey" "friends" like these. I have a daughter. I would track them down and kill them.
Posted by: A male

This guy is such a mangina he is actually posting under the name "a male". What a loser. He is also openly admitting he would side with his daughters over a man who rapes them. Not acceptable. If my sister ever got raped she would know better than to come to me for help because I know that most rapes are imaginary and that she is just trying to frame an innocent man. It is pathetic how willing men are to sell out other men for the benifit of women.

I'm a bartender, and the bar I work at can be pretty rough and tumble, and you know, I simply cannot believe that this woman would simply sit back and watch an assault happen. Like other posters have said, it is her JOB to keep order in the bar, and that's why tough feminist chicks like myself seem to be best for the job. At the very least she should have called the police, while telling the attackers that's what she was doing. In my experience, sometimes all you need to do to calm people down is pick up the damn phone. As for having to deal with those customers again, that kind of behavior is absolutely grounds for being 86'd for life. The bartender is the figure of authority in the bar, and usually people listen to me no matter how heated they are. And if they don't, and I don't have a bouncer in, I call the police. It works every time.

I'm disgusted.
Posted by: Alexandra

Tough feminist chicks like herself? Jesus, what a bunch of bullshit. Yeah it takes a lot of balls to call the police or the bouncer. What a dumb ass ho.

Men don't help women because they just don't give a shit about women. The guys here who are trying to make it seem like a joke---88 or whomever---would probably be right there, cheering or blaming if it happened in front of them, unless it was their 'property.' Guys care what other guys think about them. They don't give a shit about women at all.
Posted by: ginmar

The triumphant return of ginmar! Seriously, this chick must have even less of a life I do since she seems to make about 100 posts a day each on about 50 different blogs. As for her point: if only it were so, Ginny. If only it were so.

Been away for awhile, being hit by a car and breaking your neck doesn't leave you up for being online, but, I have to comment here on a few things.
First, a whole article is rarely posted to this blog, BUT the link to the whole article ALWAYS is, if you want to read, go and read it.
Second, sexual assault is not funny when it is committed by a man against a woman, man against a man, woman against a woman, or woman against a man. If this had happened to a man, I would be the first one to stand up and say that it was fucked up.
I have a male friend who was raped by a woman. He is too ashamed to tell anyone but me for fear of being made fun of and that makes me sad. No one deserves that.
Posted by: SassyGirl

A woman cannot rape a man. Your friend is a lying sack of shit who was probably a woman in a past life.

Sorry the last two posts weren't manginas, I can never stay on topic. Feministing really needs to ban male posters, they are either ultra mangina's or idiots who are always like, "men get raped too!" as if anyone didn't know that. One problem with anti-feminism is that a lot of anti feminists have no real understanding of the ideology they claim to be against.

More Misogynist Fun!

Sorry about the long absence. I haven't posted in a while and my last couple posts didn't have anything to do with bashing women. But I am back!

For starters, let's go over some things that women are soley responsible for:

1. the extinction of the dinasours
2. the Ice Age
3. The fall of the Minoan Civilization
4. If Atlantis really existed, women are what caused it to be plunged into the sea
5. The fall of the Roman Empire
6. World War I
7. World War II
8. The Holocaust
9. A bunch of other shit

conclusion: women=bad

Sunday, December 16, 2007

N'kisi the parrot

N'kisi is a parrot who has been taught by his owner, Aimee Morgana, to actually use language to communicate. Unlike most parrots who just repeat random shit N'kisi can actually hold a conversation.

Controversial researcher Rupert Sheldrake has run an experiment and concluded that N'kisi is mildly telepathic with Miss Morgana. Whether this is true or not the very fact that Sheldrake is associated with the bird has caused a lot of other researchers to stay clear so N'kisi's amazing use of language is not really being studied.

I'm talking about N'kisi because he is so cute! You can find audio of him online but this transcript of a conversation between N'kisi and Morgana is just too adorable for words:

N'Kisi: "Remember, we went in a car"
Aimee: "Yes! Did you like it?"
N'Kisi: "I like that - wanna go out in the car"
Aimee: "We can't, wo don't have a car now"
N'Kisi: "Wanna go in a car right now"
Aimee: "I'm sorry, we can't right now - maybe we can go again later"
N'kisi: "Why can't I go in a car now?"
Aimee: "Because we don't have one"
N'kisi: "Let's get a car"
Aimee: "No Kisi, we can't get a car now"
N'kisi: "I want a car"
Aimee: "I'm sorry, baby, not today"
N'kisi: "Hurry up, wanna go in a car. Remember? We were in a car"

Monday, December 10, 2007

Something in "The Mist"

Well, Steven King's "The Mist" has been made in to a movie. When I read "The Mist" (TM from now on) I thought two things:
1. What the fuck?! That's the ending? What? Shit!
2. If done right, it could be one of the greatest movies ever made.

TM is a novella that was really meant to be a movie. I knew if it was a movie that it would be done poorly thus ruining it but it actually was done okay. All in all, it was a decent, entertaining movie with a horrendusly shitty ending. The ending of the book is frustrating but really great and chilling when you think about it.

things that kept the movie from being even a fraction as great as it could have been:

1. not true enough to the book: it was much truer to the book than I expected but it could easilly have been even more so. They added some week stuff and took some other stuff out for no reason. Bunch of baloney.
2. special effects were week, they should have used puppets, ala "Alien" to make the monsters more realistic
3. The ending, they should have kept the original kickass ending and ditched the shitty ass new ending which is stupid, unscary and makes no sense whatsoever.

King gave the movie his "kosher" stamp which proves that he is a woman loving faggot whore.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Ron Paul: The Masculinist Canidate?

By now you probably have heard about Ron Paul... again and again and again. He doesn't get too much mainstream media coverage but he is the star of the internet. His campaign so far is kinda like Howard Dean meets Ross Perot. Internet driven with fanatical grassroots supporters who believe only he can save the country.

On matters of domestic policy, Paul is the only serious canidate who is serious about dismantling the Matriarchy. He also is actually honest, unlike everybody else in the race (except maybe Kucinich). But I cannot support him and actually am looking forward to voting against him. Why? Two reasons:

1. Foreign Policy: Paul is an isolationist/non-interventionist, meaning he doesn't want America to be all up in everybody's bieznass. I'm with him on that but he wants to immediately withdrawal from Iraq and I think that would be a huge mistake because Iraq would fall into civil war with devestating effects of the world oil market and consequently, the world economy. Gas prices are already way too high without making things even worse.

2. I dislike him personally and I absolutely revile his supporters. I know that sounds like a petty reason to be against somebody but you have to understand that when I say I "revile" his supporters, I am not engaging in hyperbole. I gueniunely have a white-hot hatred for his fans. They are so fucking annoying. I look forward to Paul losing in the primaries so I can witness their wailing and gnashing of teeth.

In conclusion I posted this because Ron Paul is an intriguing canidate and I'm tired of his piece of shit supporters, I also want to increase traffic to my blog and the very mention of "Ron Paul" is a sure fire way to do that.

Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Darren Mack: Hero of the Resistance

Darren Mack's trial has begun.

As you all know Dmac is on trial for killing his bitch ex-wife and the mangina judge in his family court case. The courts committed a grave injustice against him so he was left on his own to get justice for himself.

Mangina judge Chuck Weller did not handle himself well on the stand at all. More updates will come later. I can't wait to read the feminist reactions to the trial of this one man who has taken up arms against the Matriarchy.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Sucks to be you, women

on some gay ass feminist site (I think Iblamethepatriarchy) the idiot author/authors wrote about this case of a teenage girl getting gang raped (allegedly) by some drunken college retards. The article was typical feminist blather but I want to analyse some of the comments.

Let's do it!

Sylvanite May 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I’m officially sick of sports, the people who play sports, and the fans of sports. I would appreciate it very much if men everywhere decided that basket weaving and other arts and crafts were worthy manly pursuits. Preferably to be pursued while sober and miles from the nearest woman.


2 ashes May 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I’m crying. It’s day like this you just hate this whole rotten world.

What, are you serious? You are fucking crying over this? Jesus Christ, be a man.

3 Amanda Marcotte May 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Thank god for Nifong and the immoral media! The hoopla over the Duke case has now made it quite likely that gang rape will be tacitly legal, because prosecuters will be scared to death to prosecute.

Word! Way to fuck yourselves in the ass you stupid feminist dykes. Your errant mangina slave soldier Nifong really screwed you ho's. Hah!

4 Erin May 24th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This is one of those things where my brain just shuts off. If I began to fully grasp the disgusting implications of this situation I think I’d have an aneurism. And I’m loving that ONE quote they are using from a witness throughout all the articles. “I didn’t think of it as a rape situation.” Can we hear from one of the women who took her to the hospital? Or how about the one guy who supposedly tried to stop it.

Because sweety, ink costs money and the paper isn't going to waste it printing a bunch of feminine nonsense.

5 Kumachka May 24th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Wash’t the idea of team sports to channel male aggression so they wouldn’t run around raping and pillaging? Or was it simply to tire them out so they wouldn’t question The Man?
6 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm


The idea of team sports is to hone the skills necessary for success in life under a paradigm of dominance and submission.
7 trailer park May 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pm


I just can’t comprehend how this could possibly be seen as anything but rape.
Some adult gave the victim alcohol, illegally. Three witnesses can testify that she was semi-conscious, vomiting (unable to keep anything down), and that they had to carry her out of the house she was so drunk. They can also testify that the men were holding the door closed. Why would they have to hold the door closed if this was consensual sex? AND SHE IS UNDERAGE! How is this not a crime?? HOW? How much more evidence do they need?
8 kanea May 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Thanks to your premature ejaculation over the whole Duke thing, a lot more than they have, apparently.

there aren’t enough words in the two languages I know to discribe my disgust. I really really hope that some one (perhapse this school’s women’s lib group?) will start protests at sporting events. if this was my school those players would be the one’s who have to leave.
9 lawbitch May 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Congradulations, your school is a liberal cesspool!

Why are these guys being treated like real athletes? These guys are on a *community* college team. What’s next? We’ll let the little league team commit larceny? This has absolutely nothing to do with sports.
10 Shabnam May 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Okay, that is just hilarious. Give credit where credit is due.

District Attorneys are elected aren’t they? Isn’t this problematic? (I’m not American, so correct me if I’m wrong). Is Dolores Carr trying to court the votes of Dude Nation?
11 badkitty May 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Is that some feminist code speak? I've never heard that phrase before. It sounds gay.

Two of the women who rescued the girl have spoken to the press.
12 Shabnam May 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I'm too lazy to read the link so I won't comment.

Or the votes of men who really hate teenage girls. Unfortunately, perhaps that is not such a small constituency.
13 Joanna May 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Or the votes of men who are understandably weary of other men getting railroaded on the say so of a couple of drunken ho's.

And I would bet good money that the three young women who rescued this child are now being harassed.
14 vera May 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Let's hope so.

In her election campaign, Carr had to battle expectations that she would not be independent enough of the police, because her husband is on the police force.
If I had any hope left, it would go toward the possibility that she will have something more to battle in the next election: an outraged public.
This morning I sent a letter to the state attorney general, hoping that someone in that office might think an investigation is in order. I don’t know, however, if that’s the correct office to contact.
15 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Sending a letter, that'll get things done.

Shabnam, Dolores Carr is trying to prove that she wasn’t lying when she got elected on a platform of “my San Jose police detective husband will in no way influence my decisions as DA.” True enough; ostensibly she and the cops depart wildly from each other on this case.
Oh, and she’s trying to court the votes of Dude Nation.
16 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm

There it is again!

I see Vera has already answered Shabnam’s question. Someday I will understand blogs.
17 lawbitch May 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm


The Sherriff’s ofice is keeping the case open.
“Sources told CBS 5 that the Sheriff’s Office was considering a range of options from re-starting the investigation, to re-filing on new, lesser charges against the baseball players for having unlawful sex with a minor, or furnishing a minor with alcohol.”
I get the impression that the sheriff is watching and waiting for has the rapist who committed the hit/run to strike again.
18 A. May 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Probably not.

Okay, the really devastating quotation for me is from the article linked by bad kitty. Speaking of the victim: “When they lifted her head up, her eyes moved and she said ‘I’m sorry.’”
jesus god what made her think she should be sorry?
19 redhead May 24th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Cause she was drunk and didn't know what the hell was going on? Everybody says that they are sorry when they are drunk. I once apologized to my carpet for throwing up on it.

badkitty, thanks for the link. The lowlight is this, from one of the gang-rapers: “This is her fault. She got drunk and she did this to herself.” She did what - gang-raped herself when she was so drunk she was vomiting and had to be carried out of the house?
20 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Something like that.

“When they lifted her head up, her eyes moved and she said ‘I’m sorry.’”
I do not have the ovaries to continue reading general coverage of this bullshit anymore, but jesus tapdancing christ. This is precisely why I write this fucking blog; I keep hoping, against all reason, that some parent somewhere will read it and think “Oh! Wow. Maybe I should try to imbue my son with some sense of T & B. And while I’m at it, maybe I should become a feminist.”

What's T and B?

21 redhead May 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
jesus god what made her think she should be sorry?
She’s a woman in a patriarchy. She really shouldn’t be out in public, let alone thinking she has the right to drink at a party where there are men without relegating herself to the slut class.
22 Maryam May 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

No. See my earlier explanation above.

“This is her fault. She got drunk and she did this to herself.”
Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
23 delphyne May 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Don't mind me, go right ahead (pun not intended)

“jesus god what made her think she should be sorry?”
A crime has been committed so someone needs to take the blame. As rapists are never to blame it falls on the victim to accept responsibility. That’s why everybody blames the victim too, at some level they know something terrible has happened, but they can’t quite bring themselves to blame men for their crimes against women, so the outrage gets conveniently transferred to the victims.
24 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

No. For the last time, read what I wrote above about her apology. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

delphyne nails it, as usual.
25 lawbitch May 24th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Delphyne, it’s called shame, and all survivors of sexual assault carry it (myself included).
26 delphyne May 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Oh shut up.

Me too lawbitch. I’m questioning why it happens. It’s just my own theory, but I think if communities were genuinely outraged about rape and supportive to victims that victims would find it easier (not easy though) to recover and not to blame ourselves. I mean if we can’t blame the rapist, it must be our fault, right? It’s the stinkiest of stinky dynamics.
27 kate May 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

See what I wrote above? There is plenty to go around.

Reports like these make me want to commit violent acts against men. Hit them, beat them, kill them.
Yeah, yeah, I know it solves nothing, I guess.

Sure it would, in fact, I encourage you to go this route. Please, please, please do all of those things. Go up to a man and attempt to "hit and beat" him, see what happens to you. Please God, let some woman be stupid enough to attack me.
28 De anza player May 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

sounds like you sure do buy in to the way the media twists a case in a girls direction…ever thought about what happened before the girl went in that roo…what she was doing…..saying….acting….perhaps when the truthful story comes out after all this dies down you will lower your chin a bit and look in the mirror…..the media is not the accurate source of info. they were not there in that room…i was….justice has been served

Don't try to reason with women, they are gay.

29 SimonJericho May 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
This is completely beyond the fucking pale. Insufficient evidence??? I was apparently under the mistaken impression that eyewitness accounts were still admissable in court and that even our present batch of misogynist fuckwits in the legal system included “Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by theaccused (taken directly from the California Penal Code),” in their definition of rape. Absolutely nauseating. There should be violent vigilantes for this kind of situation.

I agree! Please go that route! See what happens to you.

I don’t know why I’m so surprised, really. Even community college athletes are obviously worth far more to the community than some stupid, drunken slut, right?

Wow! We agree on something else!

After all, where would we be as a country if we let a little thing like a brutal gang rape interfere with the capacity of witless virile evolutionary events to hit leather wrapped spheres with crude phallic objects, to the adoration of thousands (okay, probably closer to dozens; this is community college, after all) of equally witless but less virile asshats with nothing to do on a Sunday afternoon? Fuck all these people.
30 lawbitch May 24th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

That made no sense whatsoever.

I’ve been working on shame. Shame has a psychological function. Shame allows the victim to believe that she had control over her own life.
In my case, I suffered sexual abuse as a child.

You probably just imagined it.

I clearly understand on an intellectual level that I was in no way responsible. I *needed* to feel like I had some control over my own body, even when that control did not exist. As an adult, I’ve even thought that it was my fault for not telling. My DH called me on that and reminded me that I would have been beaten for telling the truth. He is absolutely right. I did what I had to do to survive.

Keep telling yourself that you slut. You let it happen, you probably enjoyed it, didn't you?

31 Twisty May 24th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Well, well, well. ‘De anza player’, since you were there, by all means enlighten the group. We await ‘the truthful story’ with bated breath.
Just kidding! Banned!

::sigh:: Women...

32 kanea May 24th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
re kate.“Reports like these make me want to commit violent acts against men. Hit them, beat them, kill them.
Yeah, yeah, I know it solves nothing, I guess.”
I think most sane people feel like that after reading new like this; at least a little bit. logic comes in and reminds you that you’d get arrested and it doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

Your excuse for innaction is fear of arrest? What a bunch of bullshit. You know that wouldn't shit happen to you you dumb harlot, atleast nothing from the police that is. You are such a cowardly female you can't even admit to another cowardly females how much of a cowardly female you are. Dumbass ho. Try attacking a man and then mail be a picture of his face when he is done with you. Cunt.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Women's greatest weakness

What I am about to say may seem obvious to most of you, but I am very out of touch with women (because I have so little regard for them) so it is quasi-news to me.

THE issue that bothers women the most is rape. Not violence against women, not abortions, not the wage gap, not anything else. Rape is a particularly important issue to Feminists (notice the capitolization, all women are atleast lowercase feminists but not all are capitol Feminists) because it is the ultimate proof of woman's inherent inferiority.

I can't go so far as to support rape, I still think it's wrong and should be punished, but I like that women need to live in fear of rape. I like that I have found an issue that the mere mention of can reduce most Feminists to tears. If you want to cause pain to a woman, make a joke about rape. I will be sure to do this more in my own life.

In some spats I had with females during the years, I wonder if they mistakingly took my belligerent attitude as being a threat of rape, which I didn't intend, as opposed to just the threat of violence, which was the effect I was going for.

In conclusion: rape is funny

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

More on Mangina Asswipe Steven King

The beautiful essay that I crafted below was inspired by reading some more feminist drivel by supreme douchebag woman-lover, Stephen King. In his fucking book Insomnia there is all this feminist bullshit. Well fuck all of that. Fuck Steven King and fuck women and fuck feminism. Fuck.

You may be able to gather that the little dipshit hack fuckwad has really gotten under my skin this time so I will tell you what made me so angry.

It starts with this really minor character bitch who has got bruises all on her face from her husband. King of course can't leave it at that, the last you hear from the uppity cunt King mentions "the fading bruises of the last beating a man woud ever give her...". Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck you Steven King.

Oh yeah, I can just feel the strength of this newly empowered womyn oozing from the pages. Any woman who feels so strong and empowered can come give that shit to me and see what I do to your fucking face. Listen to me you stupid bitches, you are not my fucking equal! I will fucking kick the shit out of you if you try that "independent" shit with me.

Why does this make me so mad? Because its bullshit. I'm tired of women babbling about how independent they are while hiding behind Big Sister's skirt. If you bitches didn't have Big Sister's Mangina slave-soldiers lets see how fucking independent you are. Dumb cunts. Fuck you. If you really are strong and independent you don't have to go out advertising it. You ever see a man brag about how "independent" he is? Of course not, because all men are de facto independent whereas all you are totally dependent on us, one way or another. Stupid twats. Fuck you. You want to be equal? Well you can start by acting like a man instead of a entitled twat fraud. By yourself a gun, learn Brazilian Ju Jitsu and get yourself a high paying job. Live your life and don't give people a bunch of bullshit about how "strong" you are. You act like this and we will give you your props, there are some legitimately tough women out there (see "Snoop" from HBO's The Wire), but they are usually one's who just try to be one of the guys and they are usually embraced and respected as such. There are no legitimately strong feminist though, just a buch of uppity harpy cunts.

There is more Stephen King I could complain about but I don't feel like it right now.

Thought Provoking Essay

Fuck you, women! Fuck. You. Stupid ass cunts. Fuck your empowered bullshit. A man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish you entitled uppity cunts. Fuck your goddamn independence you fuckhead cumwads. You can all fucking die! Fuck your goddamn mangina slave-soldier guardians, Fuck em! I will fucking put your teeth on the curb and stomp the of your head you stupid twats. Die you stupid bitches! Just fucking die! You worthless bitches should be cut into pieces you cunt headed bitch heads!

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Violence against women is good

"Violence against women", for the lack of a better phrase, is good. Violence against women is right. Support violence against women.

Let's say you are walking down the street and you see some random woman, if you beat her up, that would be wrong; so it isn't always good when women are attacked but sometimes it is. Let's examine some evidence from Feministing.com that proves that violence against women is good:

Because Mommy has the dubious virtue of being the one who has to carry and give birth to the baby. And let's not forget the mommies who can't get abortions for whatever reason (I notice they all get left out of these discussions) - the mommies who don't believe in abortion, who can't afford abortion, who don't have access to abortion or whose parents prevent them from getting abortions.
An abortion isn't snapping your fingers and wishing the pregnancy away. It's money shelled out, it's a surgical procedure, it's choices made, and it's not always easy. Some women can't do it. And they end up with a child that needs support just as much as any child that was kept because the woman desperately wanted to be a mother.
Here's the thing: Mommy can make a choice before there is a child to worry about, in most cases. As was pointed out above, men may consider it unfair that she gets two chances to make this choice (pre-sex and then pre-birth), but that's the way reproduction works, and there's nothing we can do about it until men figure out a way to be the ones who get pregnant.
However, once there is a child, nobody has a choice. The child needs care. Child support is for the child's care. Hence, the non-custodial parent pays child support. Paying child support and abortion are not equal, and it's disingenuous to compare the two. One is a choice made pre-child. The other is not a choice because there is unquestionably a child whose welfare must be paramount.
That's really all there is to it.

This piece of nonsense was from a ho on feministing.com, a website that I love to hate. While for legal reasons I would never say somebody should harm a woman who says such things I think we can all agree that if harm were to come to her that it would be a good thing. The author of the preceding post is a good example of the kind of woman who it would be funny to see at the receiving end of violence. I'm not going to bother refuting what she said because she is a dumb cunt.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Bashing a woman

I almost feel guilty about the way I am going to tear into this girl's writing because unlike most feminists, she seems to be a nice person. So I guess this time it isn't personal, its just business.

Since feminism began, there have been opponents. Sometimes, those opponents have been women who don't want to upset the balance for fear of retribution, for fear of losing their social position, for fear of not attracting a husband, whatever. Mostly, though, the opponents of feminism are and have been men. Not all men, of course, oppose the ideals of feminism. But most of the opponents of feminism are men.

Good intro.

I have talked a lot in previous posts about how socialization is responsible for gender roles,

oh-no. ... Here we go...

and how that socialization has particularly affected women. However, masculine socialization is just as powerfully directive as feminine socialization. Masculine socialization is not inherently oppressive, the way feminine socialization is, but it is, nevertheless, a powerful force that moulds boys into men who play out patriarchal hierarchies in society. Boys are taught from an early age to act like men, which involves primarily not acting like women. Masculinity is tied to sexuality - both sex, and heterosexuality, in particular. Failure to act in masculine ways de-sexes a man, makes him appear not fully a man. So what does masculinity look like?
First, masculinity is the embodiment of such characteristics as success, independence, aggressiveness, physical strength, emotional strength, and dominance.

More or less. I don't know if those values are exclusively seen as masculine any more though.

Second, masculinity is the manifestation of these characteristics through social relationships with other men (relatinoships with women are primarily sexual).


Third, masculinity is defined by what it is not: not feminine, not homosexual, not being dependent, not being emotional, not being submissive, not being compliant, not being effeminate, not failing in sexual relationships with women, not failing to not have sexual relationships with men, not failing to have social relationships with men.

Good, if somewhat obvious, points

Also, all masculinities are not created equal: the definitive masculinity is that of white, middle class, able-bodied, heterosexual men. Men who fall outside this narrow category are less masculine - or sometimes are demonized into hypersexual beings, as has happened with black men since the time of slavery.

Yeah, this is true.

Through this definition, men learn to be sexist, heterosexist/homophobic (the term homophobic denotes a "fear" of homosexuals, and the truth is that heterosexual men are taught not just to fear homosexuals, but to hate them in the same way whites are taught to fear and hate blacks and other ethnic groups), and racist. Masculinity is tied to all these forms of hating others.
Sexism: First, men are taught to hate women, to see women as being for a specific purpose: caring for men and providing men with sex and children. Men are taught that it is "natural" for men and women to be and act a certain way and that those ways are "naturally" consucive to certain types of roles, jobs, etc. Men are taught to view women as objects, property.

In Afghanistan maybe, not in America. In the West men are taught to worship women who are constantly hyped as being soooo great.

Since masculinity teaches men not to be like women, any slip from that set of guidelines into feminine behaviour makes a man less masculine, and vulnerable to attack by stronger men who may usurp them and their property, including their woman. So, for fear of this happening, men try to adhere to a flight from femininity as much as possible, and they learn to hate women for embodying the characteristics that they fear.

Pathetic attempt at psychoanalysis. Baloney all.

Women represent home, emotion, familial responsibility, dependence on others - the opposite of fun. Men gain masculinity points by putting down women and what they represent… or making a show of that masculine trait, aggressiveness, toward women.

Aggressiveness towards women is condemned in our culture, atleast officially. Pop culture, especially TV, often features weak/stupid men being dominated by independent womyn.

Heterosexism/Homophobia: Second, men are taught to only have sex with women, not with men.

Most men don't need to be taught that

This is what women are for, and it undermines one's masculinity to not participate in a heterosexual sexual relationship.


Having sex with men is what women do, not men, and so homosexuality is closer to feminine sexuality than to masculine sexuality. On the flip side of this, men are expected to have primarily, if not exclusively, homosocial relationships - that is, social relationships with members of their own gender. Men who are too friendly with women but are not having sex with those women are suspected of being too much like women in other characteristics. Men are constantly evaluating one another's masculine performances, playing off one another's masculinity. The fear is that they will not measure up, and will be revealed as a fraud. And so, men learn to fear other men, fear being unmasculine, fear being perceived as feminine. And feminine men are deemed homosexual.

Except for the last line, that paragraph was bullshit

Racism: Finally, men are taught to fear and hate men of other ethnic backgrounds. I won't got into a long list of examples here; it will suffice to say that white men are taught to find ways in which men of different ethnicities are not masculine enough, and in the effort to gain a piece of the masculinity pie, men of different ethnic backgrounds respond by doing the same thing to all other ethnicities combined with acting in a masculine a way as possible.

Bleh... I don't even care

Masculinity is primarily about power. Feminists have identified this for centuries, that men are preoccupied with power, that men have the most social and economic and political power, that men exert that power over women. However, most men do not feel powerful! The huge pressures of masculinity prevent men from feeling powerful, and instead make men feel powerless.

Most men are and have historically been politically and economically powerless. In the past though they did have power over women. I will give the writer that much.

Men are raised to believe they are entitled to power,

Again, maybe in Afghanistan. In America they are raised to believe women are great and should run everything and that they should be manginas.

but do not feel they have it. They are pressed on all sides by masculinity, sexism, racism, heterosexism/homophobia. They have to live up to these standards, and do not feel free to simply be who they (may) want to be.


No wonder men do not respond well to feminism! First, feminism identifies men as having the balance of power in society, and most men do not feel they have that power. Second, feminism argues for a redistribution of that power, and men want to hang onto whatever power they feel they do have. And when women do make strides that allow them to break away from oppressive gender roles, men are threatened.

Last line is true for at least some men.

So, how can men learn to feel less threatened by feminism? By recognizing that masculinity, like femininity, is socially constructed, and can be socially deconstructed in the same ways that women have been and are deconstructing femininity.

Feminist have flopped at deconstructing feminity because it is not a social construct. Neither is masculinity. Well, there are certainly social elements to it but it is biologically based.

By recognizing that being a man does not necessarily mean being sexist, racist, homophobic.

::roll eyes::

Is this realistic? I don't know. Many men do not want to give up the power they have, however small it may be.

We already have. Now it is your turn to give up the power you have over us.

But, I ask you this: does it have to be a zero-sum equation? Does more power for women necessarily mean less power for men?

Theoretically, no. But in practice that is what has happened, to say the least.

Can it be seen as a positive, as sharing rather than dominance? More power for women will mean that things will change - but couldn't it just be true that those changes will be good for everyone?

Sure, as was the case between 1920 when women got the vote and the 1960's when feminism took off.

I think it can. I think that as more women gain power and independence, they will enter the workforce throughout the world, economies will start to grow, and countries will be pulled out of poverty. Less children will be born, and they will be better cared for, so infant mortality rates will fall, child starvation rates will fall, and education opportunities will rise, which will lead to greater economic prosperity. Health care will be more accessible, and fewer people will die from preventable/treatable illnesses like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. Empowerment for women is definitely a good thing for men.

This isn't feminism, it's common sense. Everybody wants to see all of those things happen.

How can men support feminism?
Stop objectifying women.

Yeah, that might happen. Women should take some responsibility and stop objectifying themselves, although men will always objectify them. If you see that as oppressive, too bad, because it won't ever stop.

Stop seeing women as things over which you have power. Stop seeing women as things over which you have ownership.

No men do.

Stop seeing women as having a specific purpose in relation to you. Stop seeing women as being perpetually sexually available.

No men do.

Stop viewing pornography.

Good luck with that one.

Stop raping women. Stop abusing women. Stop making excuses for any objectification of women.

Okay, I promise I will stop raping and abusing women, effective immediately.


Start seeing women as equals.


Give women the same respect and consideration you might give a man.

Most men do.

Assume that women have goals and dreams and desires exclusive of men, children, and families.

Most men do.

Start recognizing your own social, economic, and political power, and the lack of power held by women in relation to men. Recognize that women are oppressed, and that men are, by elimination, their oppressors.

Reverse the genders and you have what Masculinist want from women.

Recognize that while it may not be your fault, you participate in that oppression inherently, whether you want to or not, by subscribing to masculinity.


Support women's goals, dreams, and desires. Recognize that women will need special protections and assistance in order to pull out of oppression, and support such initiatives. Equality is not the same as equity. Women will need such measures as affirmative action to get a foothold. Don't complain about it. Support it.


Stop being threatened by women, and by homosexual men (if you are heterosexual). Their existence doesn't detract from yours. So what if someone confuses you for a homosexual man? Who cares? It isn't important, it doesn't mean you are not a man. It doesn't mean you will never get laid again. It doesn't mean anything.


Support gay and lesbian rights. Stop demonizing homosexuals as sexual deviants, monsters, ungodly. Just stop it.

What does this have to do with sexism?

If you are heterosexual, encourage your girlfriend/wife to continue her female friendships. Isolating a woman within a romantic relationships and trying to control her movements outside that relationship is very bad. Women need solidarity, we need to organize together, we need to support one another.

I don't think women need to be encouraged to have female friends anymore than men need to be encouraged to have male friends but I guess there is nothing objectionable about this idea. I think it is sort of patronizing towards women, but hey, not my problem.

Don't make your female partner feel as though she should be threatened by other women for your attention/affection. Make sure she feels secure in your relationship.

Uhm, okay.

Support your female partner by sharing equally household tasks and childrearing tasks. Relegating women to the private sphere of home restricts her ability to reach her goals and dreams.

I agree with this provided she is working full time. If she doesn't work she should take care of the housework. If its the man that doesn't work he should take care of the housework. If both parties work than they should split the homemaking duties.

That's all I can think of. I hope this look into masculinity has been somewhat enlightening.

Well I disagree with most of what you said, but I applaud your straight forwardness and positive approach. Feminists like you are no fun.

Friday, October 12, 2007

1st chapter of my novella

Alimonyby Otis the SweatyOtis the Sweaty Publications 2007Chapter 1: Working LateThe Schumacher's were a pair of cum stains. Tom supposed he could have said the same about a large portion of his clients but these two managed to take their douche baggery to a whole new level.Tom Phillips had been doing financial planning for 17 years, and had never once had a customer be dissatisfied with his performance. He knew what he was doing and did not need idiot clients looking over his shoulder telling him how to do his job; Kelly and Rick Schumacher, however, apparently did not understand that.

Kelly could best be described as a trophy wife of Rick's. Rick was a pudgy, balding and decidely Jewish looking man who could never have landed a knockout like Kelly without his millions of dollars. The problem with Kelly was that she didn't know she was a trophy wife, or if she did know she tried to be more than that. One of the ways she tried to show off her own intellectual prowness was to micro manage their finances. In the three monthes that Tom had the Schumacher's as clients he had put up with more bullshit from Kelly Scumsucker than from all of his other clients over the previous 17 years.

It had been at around 4 in the afternoon when Kelly had called up to do some of her signature meddling. She wanted Tom to make some "adjustments" to her and Rick's stock portfolio. Like most of her other ideas, these adjustments she wanted would not necessarily be wrong to make, but they were unnecessary and promised to waste a great deal of Tom's time.Tom spent over an hour on the phone with Kelly in what he knew to be a futile attempt to make her see reason. Finally he gave up and agreed to do what she wanted. Since the account involved the joint assets of Rick as well as Kelly, he could have tried going over her head to Rick but assuming he could even get in touch with Mr. Shmuckheader the chances that he would overrule his wife's latest idiocy were approximately nil. Might as well not waste any more time.

Tom briefly toyed with the idea of calling up Kelly and telling her to go to hell, but he literally could not afford to lose their multi million dollar account, plus the valuable other clients they might refer to him in the future. Money was tight, and Tom's wife Courtney's propensity to spend the money he earned like a drunken sailor certainly didn't help matters much. The reality is that he was stuck with Mr. and Mrs. Jizzbag. Reality sucks.

After around 6 hours of endless paperwork and other such bullshit Tom still didn't feel he was that much closer to turning Kelly's inspired vision into reality. He never had liked Kelly, other than her looks she had no redeeming features. But now he was actually starting to hate her. She was a bitch.

This whole situation was just so unfair. While he was trapped in his office busting his ass in the service of two wealthy morons his worthless bitch of a wife was at home watching TV, or eating, or sleeping, or "caring" for the children. In short, she was doing basically anything but actually working. Freeloading bitch.

The single biggest mistake Tom Phillips had ever made was Courtney McKinney. Actually, had he married another woman instead of Courtney than that woman would probably have been the biggest mistake of his life. Marriage and children are what turn a man into a wage slave; or atleast that is what Courtney and his two kids Harold and Samantha had made him into. It never occurred to Tom that many of his male coworkers were married with children and yet seemed very happy.

Deciding he wanted his 10th cup of coffee of the day he stood up and walked into the dark hallway towards the kitchen. Overwhelmed by the general lousiness of his life he punched the wall in an act of frustration. He looked blankly at his knuckles but couldn't see them very well in the dark. Still he could feel them starting to swell, he hadn't meant to hit the wall that hard. Shit."Fuck this," Tom said out loud.Indeed. Fuck this shit. Fuck the Schumacher's and fuck this job, it wasn't as if both of them wouldn't still be present in the morning (although that was hardly a comforting thought). For now atleast, he had had enough. He was done for the night. Time to go home.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Feminists are irresistable to men

Men just love feminist women. They aren't able to keep their hands off them, just ask any feminist!

There is a recurring theme amongst feminist bloggers about how men are always either groping or atleast hitting on them constantly. Personally I think this is baloney in most cases as girls tend to believe every guy is attracted to them and interpret every smile from a guy as reflecting sexual interest. Feminist live under the delusion that they are certifiable man magnets. Like this ho (my testerone fueled replies in bold):

[guys who randomly touch me...]
Stop. Just stop. This goes for you, Mr. Three-Sheets-to-the-Wind Chuck-Norris-Wannabe on US Airways to Cleveland, snatching my tiny cup of raspberry vinaigrette out of my hands to open it for me without a word,

What probably happened: he probably saw your pathetic attempts to open the can by yourself and grew frustrated, eventually opening it for you so he wouldn't have to listen to you fumbling around with it. I would also like to point out that he didn't actually touch you, he touched your soda can.

but especially for you, Pervfesser Dickhead, sitting next to me in Photoshop class today. Who said you could, I’d like to know? Class started two hours ago and you’re patting me on the shoulder like I'm your golden retriever? The cold stare you netted the first time you went there obviously wasn't enough for you, since you did it again and I had to ask you to stop. “Don’t touch you?” Yes. “I was just being friendly.” Well don't be. If that's being friendly, be unfriendly. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, you don’t know if I want your friendship (I don't), and I’m certainly not going to let you pat me at will throughout the next four hours. And I’m tired of being nice about it. I’m tired of acting apologetic and making up excuses. I’m tired of spending the rest of the class fending off the bruised aura emanating from your enormous ego. I’m tired of spending my lunch hour trying to imagine circumstances under which I would touch anyone I’d just met, male or female, the way you touched me, and coming up blank.

Alright, this guy was definately hitting on you. I misunderstood this the 1st time I read this, I thought she was a college student saying she was getting hit on by some dude of about the same age , and that didn't all seem to add up given that this chick is undoubtably unnatractive, why would a guy be hitting on her right off the bat? Now that I understand the ho is probably in her 30's and this dude is in his most likely 20years her senior it makes sense: older guys have a drastically reduced standard of beauty, particularly when it comes to younger women.

I don't think this guy's behavior is horrific, but it is innapropriate and abnoxious. Give the bitch her due.

I’m tired of trying to imagine what it must be like to go through life honestly believing that your hands belong anywhere you want to put them, such that you’re offended when you’re told they don’t. I’m tired of being reminded how much I am still a woman of this culture because I’m worrying about what I did to make you think it was okay—was I too nice? Did I smile too much? Should I not have responded when you made that comment about my shoes? Do you know what would happen if I touched you that way? I do—you’d think it was a come-on. So why is it that I am not supposed to suspect your motives? If I touched you, and you welcomed my attention, and I then said, “I was just being friendly,” do you know what you would call me? I do—a tease. If you didn’t welcome my attention, do you know what you would do the rest of the afternoon? I do—ignore me, pretend I didn’t exist, since nothing's scarier than an obviously desperate fat girl!

Oh shit, even this oreo eating whore even admits she's fat. I've never heard a feminist admit to having any flaws before.

But once again, I got to give this bitch some props. I never really thought about the point she is making here before. Before I swore off women completely, I would make comments to girls sitting next to me in class or something even when I wasn't attracted to them. Actually, if I thought she was attractive I'd be more likely to not say anything because I didn't want her to think I was hitting on her. I would certainly never put my hands on somebody I just met but for the first time I realized that there was no way for these girls to know that I wasn't trying to hit on them. Unlike the bitch writing this rant I don't see that as a sign of oppressive patriarchy but it is something I never thought of before. It also makes me think that maybe sometimes I thought girls were trying to flirt with me maybe they were just making conversation. Interesting.

So why is it that I’m being rude if I try to get on with the business of learning—which after all is what I paid to be there for—by trying to forget you’re sitting there, trying to stop steeling the right half of my body against further onslaughts from your direction? Why am I rude if I tell you not to touch me?

You're not and nobody would say you were. He might have his ego bruised but there no outside observer of the situation would view you as in the wrong. This whole situation has nothing whatsoever to do with sexism. The genders could easily be reversed. You are a dumb bitch.

Why is it that the woman is always wrong?Here’s a primer, dudes. You know how you’re so frustrated because you don’t know what to do about sexism and male privilege?

Sexism is a two way street you entitled whore, and there is no male privledge in the West ya dumb fucking harlot cunt.

Keep your frickin’ hands to yourself. And tell your buddies to do the same. Because if a woman wants you to touch her, she’ll let you know.

Is this a joke? She might let you know in suttle ways but 9x out of 10 she ain't gonna come out and say it. And who can blame her? Asking someone to touch or kiss you just is weird. Girls generally don't like being asked by guys if they can kiss them either, it sounds gay. If a girl asked me if she could kiss me I would be totally weirded out. This is day one stuff. Maybe it isn't right, but it is the way it is. This has nothing to do with sexism.

I can guarantee a woman you met in a Photoshop class two hours ago does not want you to touch her.* It's pretty easy not to touch women you don't know. You just don't touch women you don't know. But even if it's someone you do know, there’s an easy way to avoid all this unpleasantness--ask. Say, “Is it okay if I touch you?”**

No, no, no! Don't do that. You will weird the bitch out. If you aren't comfortable with touching without asking permission first then do not touch, I guess me and the writer agree on this. But under no circumstances do you ask somebody for permission to touch them, ever. Do not do it. This is the same for both genders and has nothing to do with sexism, again.

If she comes back with anything that isn’t, “Yes, please,”*** then back right the hell off without being a prick about it. You were wrong; act like it. Say, “Sorry,” and mean it, and don’t hold that grudge.

Fair enough, but that isn't how it is going to work most of the time. This is just human nature. Let's say a girl gets a "don't touch me" from a guy whose shoulder she patted. She is gonna feel rejected and resentful, even if she knows she shouldn't. This has nothing to do with sexism.

Even better, just wait until she touches you first.

Ah, now who's being sexist? Stupid bitch.

I’ve worked in the medical field for 15 years and I have never heard of anyone’s dick falling off from failing to make the first move. You can wait the hour or day or week or month it takes for her to feel comfortable enough to let you know, in completely unambiguous ways, that you’re welcome. It won’t kill you. Trust me. If you really object to being classed with the mugger/stalker/rapist du jour, then stop acting like him.

Patting a girl on the shoulder may not be classy or appropriate, but it can not be compared to the behavior of a stalker or rapist. Stupid bitch.

Stop demonstrating that you share his fundamental ideology. Women’s bodies, even our shoulders, hands, heads, hair, or other “harmless” parts, are NOT yours for the patting or squeezing or groping anytime you should feel the urge. If you don't have explicit permission, you DON'T HAVE PERMISSION

False. As almost any female on the planet can tell you.

, and we’re not wrong for explicitly demanding that you respect our bodily integrity. YOU’RE wrong for making that explicitness necessary.______*That’s why mommy always told you to say “Excuse me,” when you brush someone in the grocery store. Because in this culture it’s UNACCEPTABLE to put your hands all over strangers.**If it’s a romantic encounter I promise you that asking will only enhance the mood. ***

No it won't, just the opposite, but as someone who shuns women this doesn't really concern me so I'll just give it the ol' "whatever".

[end crappy article]

We see here just more of the same old feminine sense of entitlement. They are all that and men believe they own them and can touch them at will. Fuck you, women. You are all gay as shit.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Are Women as Intelligent as Men?


Some Women I Admire

As a misogynist, a lot of people might expect that I would not admire any women. At most I might pretend to admire some more "traditional" women. That is not the case, here is a list that is by no means exhaustive:

1. My Mom: She is a successful attorney who regularly works 70+ hour weeks. Still manages to be a good mother (I have two siblings). When her career first began she was occasionally sexually harassed but just ignored it without turning in to a feminist cunt. I admire her more than anyone else in the world, male or female.

2. Queen Elizabeth: That bitch was a bad ass. She stared down the King of Spain and made England into a world power. Never became a feminist cunt.

3. Catherine the Great: More or less the same as Elizabeth, great ruler who expanded Russia's territory and influence. Also not an uppity feminist cunt.

4. Judit Polgar: Who? She is the world's greatest female chess player. She is one of the 10 best players in the world period. She humiliated Gary Kasparov in a tournament game in 1994 when he (probably the greatest player of all time) was reduced to cheating to win (i.e. he touched one piece but then moved another, once you touch a piece you have to move it, he denied doing this but was caught on tape, it was pathetic). She will never become world champion because, since she is a woman, she isn't good enough but she is still a damn good player. She broke Bobby Fischer's record for youngest player to ever become a Grandmaster when she was 15 (that record has since been shattered by many young men, I think the current record for youngest GM is 10yrs old). From day 1 she has refused to play in Women's only events but not because she is an uppity cunt but just because they would not provide her with any competition. Her older sister is not nearly as good but is much more uppity and is always talking about "bringing more women into chess" and how she suffered discrimination as a woman player. Judit, however, has never brought up her gender or whined about discrimination.

There are other women I admire but those are the big ones. I think this shows that I am not one of the "women should be seen, not heard" crowd (although such people are welcome in the AWC, we accept everyone who is anti-woman). A great deal of women, however, certainly should be seen and not heard, (or in some cases, not seen either), here is a very short list:

1. Christina Aguilera: Uppity cunt. Not bad looking though, high quality sex object.

2. Martha Burke: The ho who wanted to force Augusta National (where the "Master's" is played in golf) to allow women members. What a bitch.

3. Kim Gandy: Prez of NOW. 'Nuff said.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

More gay ass women


Ms. Jared is a stupid cunt, let's go over the comments by other cunts to her gay article.

For background let's go over the general theme of the article. Aside from it's tone of feminine indignation and general gayness it makes a pretty good point. The article is basically to bash middle aged guys who go overseas to get some real hot piece of ass that is supposedly submissive and would otherwise be totally out of these guy's league. As y'all know the AWC opposes mail order brides but we also respect the right of men to pursue them if they so desire. We happen to think, however, that such guys are kinda pathetic and just plain stupid, because marriage in the West is a tool of Matriarchal oppression. But we strongly oppose MJ's feminazi thesis that men shouldn't be allowed to pursue women from overseas. Well, not really, but we do oppose the reason for which she opposes it.

The AWC might reconsider it's position on foreign brides just because they seem to be so offensive to women.

Anyway, she also rips into Hugo which I found interesting. Hugo apparently expressed some sympathy for these clowns (the one's in the Ukraine lookin' for a new ho) and MJ did not take to kindly to that at all. Upon further research I've discovered that Big H really isn't too popular with radfems online. I guess I shouldn't be surprised because while Hugo is a mangina, he isn't really a man hater. To his credit, he doesn't really seem to hate anyone or anything. This has earned him the wrath of many a feminist.

Anyway, as I indicated above the comments are more interesting then the article itself. Here we go!


When he "had" a touch of that entitlement? Hugo's track record hardly reflects that he's free of that men-get-firsties mentality.And even if he is, OK, he feels compassion for the creeps, he sympathizes with the sexists, he's down with the humanity of the woman-haters, we get it, we get it, we're renting a squadron of fifty-seven skywriting planes so we can write "we get it" in purple smoke over the entire eastern seaboard, for christ's sweet sake, WE GET IT, HUGO. More fury, less "why can't you see where the haters are coming from," please. God.
By Mary, at July 12, 2006 3:19 PM

Holy shit! Are you kidding me? Hugo as a misogynist? I mean, Jesus fuck! If she think's Hugo hates women then I guess so does literally every other man on earth. If even Hugo isn't a big enough mangina for this ho, then who is?

nuomena, i get that hugo explained why he feels compassion for the men and their so-called "loneliness and woundedness" but i think it's bullshit. i don't think the majority of those men are "lonely" or "wounded", i think they're assholes who are alone BECAUSE they're assholes.
By ms. jared, at July 12, 2006 3:42 PM

You go girl! Seriously, that was actually kind of an insightful comment. Funny and so true.

also, it just really rubbed me the wrong way that throughout that whole fucked up essay with the numerous examples of how heinous and disgusting these men are...
By ms. jared, at July 12, 2006 3:48 PM

These guys were a gang of cum-stains, no denying that, but I saw nothing in the article that indicates that they are evil incarnate. These fella's are just a bunch of inconsequential chumps. Ms. Jared's fury at them is really just anger at the fact that women aren't anything more than glorified sex objects. These guys are evil just cause they are trying to take advantage of a fact that every man knows.

Well, for the same reason I wouldn't call myself anti-racist if I made a POINT of making it WELL FUCKING KNOWN how much I cry over the plight of KKK members, Noumena. Because it's disingenuous and assy and, frankly, offensively stupid.I read this issue of Harper's on a plane, and got a number of funny looks as I worked through that article. Particularly the "watching the stock come in" line. God, I wish, I wish SO HARD, that it were as easy for me to make people feel small as it is for men like that. Maybe that's why I became a lawyer (lol obligatory "lawyers are evil" joke).
By Mary, at July 13, 2006 4:38 AM

Wow, this Mary chick sounds like quite the cunt. I like her line about how she wishes she could make men feel small the same way we can do to her. It just shows that these Empowered Womyn can't even take a verbal jab. When I was in college I put up a piece of looseleaf paper on a bulletin board in the Women's Studies center reading "Women are Glorified Birth Machines". Mary's hyper sensitivity gives me hope that my small action successfully caused atleast 1 woman pain. Keep up the good work boys!

You know, I never did get to feel like the beautiful princess, either--possibly because I was too busy being ABUSED BY MEN.If the most these guys have to complain about is that they're too repulsive to get poontang, I WANT TO HAVE THEIR FUCKIN LIVES.Whatever, "wife"-buyers; whatever, Hugo; whatever, patriarchy. Just whatever.
By Mary, at July 13, 2006 5:41 AM

Jesus. What a bitch.

Excellent post! And damn, I'm right there with you on the defending these creeps thing. Quite frankly I don't give a fuck if these guys had hard lives. I don't give a crap if they're poor, sad souls beneath a hard crusty shell. I, and many, many women, have experienced the sting of abuse from men. As a whole women take ALL of the bullshit from men and you know what? It's never an excuse for us to act out. Nobody ever says, "Well, she was molested as a child" when a woman sexually abuses a child. Yet, when men are the issue the rallying cry which is inevitably prefaced with the obligatory, "I'm not excusing his behavior" is often, "Well, he WAS abused as a child". This society is way too keen on letting men have reasons and excuses and it's utter bullshit. *sigh* Now I have to run back to the Den and do a little post about excuses hehe.
By Biting Beaver, at July 13, 2006 7:20 AM

BB is the chick who is famous for saying she wished she aborted her own son. As to what she said about women never having/making excuses, she is insanely wrong. I'm not going over this issue again, she is just a dumbass.

seriously! there is no excuse for these men to behave and think the way they do. like mary said, they're repulsive - that's why they're alone.i guess why hugo's post bothered me to the extent that it did is that i read the same article he read and i saw absolutely no trace of humanity or decency in any of the men. i came away angry and disgusted and outraged at the men who think women are for sale. that they can check our "use by" date like we're a carton of milk.

You are you dumb bitch! I'm against relationships with women but some guys who do want women are naturally going to want the highest quality available. As long as there are women who are willing to sell themselves (and there always will be) there will be men to buy them. Unfortunately for these Ukranian women, today we are living in a bit of a "buyer's market", heh-heh-heh.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Stupid cunt in action

The link: http://ginmar.livejournal.com/781488.html?thread=24356528

Here is an article about Darren Mack (a guy who stabbed his ex wife to death in retaliation for her screwing him in family court and then tried to off the judge who facilitated said screwing) by a loud mouthed cunt. This cunt goes by the name of ginmar and links to cunt queen Trish Wilson. She isn't quite as dumb as Wilson but that is kinda damning with faint praise, isn't it? Here are selections of her drivel with my sufficiently testerone fueled replies in bold. Sorry that this is all so out of date but I was not an MRA when the Mack incident happened so I am playing catch up. I don't even remember hearing about Mack on the news... probably because I don't watch it.

Crappy Article:

To wit:One scumbag, Darren Mack, kills his wife in the midst of a divorce. He's a millionaire, by the way, and owns a pawn shop, so he has access to weapons, vehicles, and capital. He used one of those weapons to subsequently shoot the judge in the case as well as a female staffer in the case. Now, if it were not for the shooting of the judge, the case would not have gone national. The murder of one woman and the shooting of another is just not news.

I take it Ms. Ginmar views this as an example of patriarchal bias in the media, you know, since every time a man is murdered it is front page news for monthes on end.

Pandagon has a good round up, too. Then CNN got in on the act, putting on a ranting MRA who said, basically, that poor Darren got driven mad by the injustice system that men labor under when they can't control and beat their wives any longer.

Typical feminine baloney. They get mad when THEIR money gets transferred to their ex's. Women either deliberately pretend that it is all about "control" or are really just too stupid to understand that it is about money.

CNN didn't check the murder cheerleader out; he's part of the same group that Mack was, and he's got quite the history, which Trish and Red State Feminist have both been on top of. Why didn't CNN check this guy out and find out he was a loon? ...Tell me about that liberal media again, I dare you.

Got to give the chick this one, I have not seen any liberal bias in the media for a long, long time.

This guy was allowed to say that Mack was driven to murder and attempted murder, as well as criticize one of the victims. It's a wife beater's fantasy; the ability to go on the air and just say, "Well, look what she made me do." These guys never take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, which have an alarming tendency to take the lives of women and children.

Whereas women like Andrea Yates, the Winkler ho, and that bitch who ran over her husband in her car a few years back are models of taking responsibility. Feminist showed how much they cared about children when they uniformilly demanded Yates receive the death penalty.

The only reasons these guys occasionally let women live is either carelessness or malice: after killing the kids, they know the woman will have to live with that for the rest of her life.

Scratch my earlier comment about this gal being smarter than Wilson, Wilson would never say something this stupid. I'm not even sure what this ho is getting at.

Darren Mack is currenlty on the run, and the basic refrain from the FRAs is that if these poor guys weren't denied justice, they wouldn't have to shoot their wives, or other people. They were driven to it, they claim. They had no choice.

Exactly, you don't blame the victim. We can't have people running around shooting up ho's or judges because that would be anarchy, but the real blame needs to be placed on the Matriarchy which created such unjust conditions for Mack in the first place.

Wouldn't you just love these guys raising boys and teaching them this stuff, as well as teaching girls how loathsome and disgusting they are?

Agreed, when couples split the men should take the boys and the women take the girls.

One thing that really pisses me off about discussing wife-beating is how people still perpetuate the notion that battered women are stupid to get involved with these guys.

You're right, these women are certifiable geniuses for getting involved with guys who use them for sparring practice and then staying with them. Men just can't understand feminine genius.

In fact, these guys study women, and more often than not they tend to go for women who have more traditional values or lower self esteem. They're often charming and seem to have come straight out of a romantic novel.

Hah! Sounds like ginmar here is talking from some personal experience!

This is why a good wife-beating statute will include some prohibition against threats or language.

We can't make this stuff up folks. So when men are violent or even verbally violent against a woman, who is supposedly their equal, there needs to be special laws to deal with that. Just another case of a woman admitting she is inferior to men and needs Big Sister to protect her.

When someone has previously been violent, being loud and threatening is intimidating or may even predictive behavior. Once the guy gets the woman hooked on him, he then subtly reverses direction and begins to tear her down in small steps, offering her 'advice' which is often insulting and demeaning in ways she can't quite identify. Because he has previously been so nice and complimentary, she thinks it's her. After all, people don't change, right? They do, however, conceal. He will be supportive and critical by turns, but he often seems to take her side against other people, cutting her away from them by either playing on or creating tensions. Once she's isolated from her support network, and has travelled a fairly far way down the pathway of destroyed confidence, he'll move to physically isolate her as well. He will pose this as for her own good or as something she's always wanted. Once he has her where he wants her, often times with children, he will become physically and emotionally abusive.

Sounds like someone has been reading too much Stephen King. This could have been a synopsis of the relationship between the upitty cunt in Rose Madder had with her husband Norman and what Beverly from It had with her husband Tom. (There is an upshot though in It when Tom beats the living shit out of Beverly's feminist best friend)

In the case of my mugging, a supposed 'lover's quarrel' involved a six foot four inch man beating a five foot three inch woman's face into the pavement till she was bloody and unconscious, seizing her purse and then running off.

I don't get it, why weren't you able to defend yourself from your equal?

Certain individuals like to claim that men never hit a woman, that men are told this. This is what they want to believe, much like the belief that bad things only happen to bad people.

Only a woman would believe something so stupid.

the court system is stacked against women with presumptions that wife beating and child abuse are signs of her failure as a mother, not his lack of character.

Like in Darren Mack's case where his ho got custody and 10 G's a month plus child support? This chick writing is an idiot.

becaus the standards of parenting are so incredibly higher for women than they are for men.

Which is why women almost always get custody, right? I think our friend ginny was on something when she wrote this article.

To add to the problem, divorcing couples then go before a divorce court system dominated by conservative white guys who often disapprove of women with jobs---and women without jobs.

In Red States things might be more balanced, but in Blue States as well as all of Britain, Canada and Austrailia the courts are totally stacked in womens favor, something that everyone knows. I'm not sure if this cunt is being deliberately dishonest or really is as ignorant as she is coming off.

In fact, the children are especially in danger from guys like this because they're simply vehicles of control and if that doesn't work---of revenge.

Pretty sure that it has been established that Feminists don't care about kids. Hey, nothing wrong with that, I don't care about kids either, but if such dishonesty about their motivation is never going to help any of these poor women land a husband.

Note I don't mention children there because it goes without saying: if women are easy to kill for these guys, children are effortless.

Just ask Andrea Yates.

Unless a woman has her own wealth or some solid foundation which enables her to be free of men, she can be vulnerable to any man.

Hate to break it to you bitch but even if she has her own wealth she is still dependent on the Matriarchy's force of mangina slave soldiers to keep her precious cunt safe.

For sexist men, their sole identity is being not women, and being better than women.

I wouldn't say that's my sole identity but it is a fair point. I would definately rather not exist than exist as a woman. Almost every guy feels the same way.

You have to attack another man [to make the news].

You have to either kill somebody who matters or kill a whole bunch of people, prefferably in a public place. It has nothing to do with sex. If Mack's judge had been a woman it would probably be even bigger news. You really are an idiot.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Feminist Criticism of MRA's: MRA's are Whiny

Feminist often accuse MRA's of doing nothing but bitching and moaning. Feminist (probably due to their lack of a Y chromosome) are unable to see the truth, which is as follows:

1. Internet message boards are a place specifically designed for people to bitch and moan on. The teeth gnashing of MRA's on the internet is no more all there is to the movement than the feminist griping which is on Cunt liberation pages is all there is to the womyn's movement
2. Men, unlike women, actually have legitimate issues to complain about. We are facing government sanctioned discrimination, women on the other hand complain about the effects of their own inferiority. I am yet to see one example of government discrimination against women in the West. On the contrary, women are so inferior to men that they are always calling on the government to help improve their status, and that is the root of the problem we are facing today.
3. Men who do actually take means to resist the Matriarchy are always shrilly condemned by cunts as either being dangerous or loony. If you act you are a dangerous lunatic and if you complain you are just being a crybaby. The funny thing is that it isn't that women ignore the hypocrisy of such a stance, they are merely too stupid to see it.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Steven King is a Feminist Dick Monger

Steven King loooooooves women. He thinks they are just sooooo great. Fuck that, women blow. Steven King should stop loving women so much. Steven King, if you are reading this: The AWC demands that you stop portraying women in such a positive light. If you do not comply with this demand we will have no choice but to make a totally hollow threat to boycott your future works.

I know what you are thinking, "You mean the guy who writes horror novels, don't bad things usually happen to women in horror novels?"

The short answer is "yes" and King has actually taken considerable heat from stupid feminist cunts for being a man, er... being insuffiently woman friendly; but most of said feminist cunts have not actually bothered to read his stuff. If they did they would find out that while some bad things do happen to King's female characters (not as much as happens to his male characters though), his main cuntachters always prove to be strong womyn who buck the odds and trounce their patriarchal opressors. While King personally denies being a feminist (::cough:: bullshit ::cough::), that he is one becomes an inavoidable conclusion once you notice that about 90 percent of his 10million or so books contain at least implicit pro-woman propaganda. Also interesting is that his books without feminist propaganda tend not to be very good. Conspiracy? I'll let you decide.

To be fair, King's ultimate feminst work Rose Madder is not very good either. I mean, it's okay but unlike most of his other stuff, it just isn't that good. Rose Madder is about an abused wife who becomes an uppity cunt (or, to translate for my female readers: an "empowered sheperson"). By the end of the novel you need to keep checking the cover page to make sure you haven't accidently picked up a work by an obscure feminist author named Stephanie King. All kidding aside, it becomes very difficult to believe that a man, even an extreme mangina, could produce such a cuntrology. The sad fact, however, is that while the Rose Madder is nothing special, it is still a million times too creative and the story is too well told to have been done by a woman. The conclusion: Your eyesight was not failing you and you are not reading the breakthrough work of bulldyke Stephanie King; Steven King is merely the world's biggest mangina.

King's severe case of woman-loveitis apparently comes from being raised by his Empowered(tm) and independent mother (and likewise not being raised by his abusive deadbeat of a father). In fact, his mother is allegedly the basis for the character Doloris Claiborne, the main character of the bizarely titled Dolores Claiborne. Claiborne is not really a feminist, per se, but she is empowered enough to kill her douchebag husband and so does her friend/enemy/employer Ms. Cunthair. Although I didn't think the book was that great, I did kinda sympathize with Claiborne. Yeah, she was a bitch, and a little bit uppity, but she wasn't so bad. She really wasn't a feminist though and unlike with Rose Madder it is hard to see women getting all wet over Dolores Claiborne. The AWC has decided to leave Dolores Claiborne off of the list of banned books.

Gerald's Game on the other hand is more feminist crap. It is also not particularly good. But didn't I say that it was King's non-feminist books that tended to be weak? The answer is yes, I said that, but his explicitly feminist one's aren't very good either. His best books are the one's which are implicitly pro-woman (It, The Stand, Insomnia). Actually, now that I think about it, I was wrong because a great deal of King's best books are not pro-woman either (Needful Things, Misery, Pet Semetary). Okay, forget what I said about King's non-feminist books not being that good, I was wrong on that point.

Anyway, back to Gerald's Game. It is a book about an uppity cunt and I wouldn't be surprised if many women found it more empowering than Rose Madder. My feminist readers must leave a comment or send me an email indicating which one they felt was more cunt-friendly.

In conclusion: Steven King is great! I fucking love Stephen King! The man is a genius and certainly one of the greatest writers of all time.

That said, the AWC cannot overlook the gratiutous woman-loving that permeates much of his writing. So listen good Stevie boy, your future books should focus more on women's flaws, I know that as a writer you delibrately avoid such easy assignments but we at the AWC have had it with your pro-woman propaganda. Women are lame, it is time for your writing to start reflecting that.