Quote# 139085

Re: A feminist decides to become a man. Now feminists accuse her of 'mansplaining,' 'taking up too much space,' and 'asserting white male heterosexual privilege'

(rainman206)
This article should be required reading for feminists.

I always hear, "You don't what it's like to be a woman." Indeed, I don't. And you don't know what it's like to be a man.

(Negative1)

My ability to empathize has grown exponentially, because I now factor men into my thinking and feeling about situations. Prior to my transition, I rarely considered how men experienced life or what they thought, wanted or liked about their lives.


Imagine fucking that. Can we set up a GoFundMe to make all the other feminists undergo gender transformations?

(NibblyPig)
Damn, one of the things I took away from that is how many of these transgender people are trying to be like someone they're not in order to fit in.

Like, they didn't feel themselves before so they've transitioned but now they try to "work on their behaviour" to be different to how they 'naturally' are now. Perhaps even try to be like how they used to be even though their hormones are completely different.

(TheMythof_Feminism)
Well, men can't be "feminists" they can only be allies, according to the feminists themselves.

And women cannot become men because sex cannot be changed.

So this title is poorly worded.

(puppehplicity)
Link doesn't work for me.

I will say that as a transgender guy, you would not believe the vitriol from certain aspects of the feminist movement. (Or maybe you would.)

Assertions that all men are rapists and batterers, assertions that choosing to be a man is choosing to side with rapists and batterers, assertions that I am a gender traitor, assertions that the transgender cult is stealing butch lesbians and we are all mentally ill lesbophobes, assertions that transgender guys are misogynists who have such a narrow view of what it means to be a woman that we assume any butchness is manliness, assertions that we are too weak to deal with the expectations forced on us by the patriarchy so we decide to become part of the patriarchy instead... it goes on and on.

They will eat you alive given the opportunity. And then they wonder why you don't call yourself a feminist. It's disgusting and exhausting. They don't see you as a person. They see you as a rhetorical pawn... either an oppressed sister they need to free or an oppressive man they need to fight or isolate from.

For what it's worth, I never claimed to be a woman, and I am not really a man. Most people think I am a man in daily life, so it's good enough shorthand. But I know my body and experiences are not the same as a non-transgender man, so it feels disingenuous to say that I am the same. I'm just... me. For better or for worse, I do what comes naturally to me and don't give it much thought at all. I have much more important shit to do.

various MRAs, r/MensRights 1 Comments [7/23/2018 3:45:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 139099

You share my exact thoughts. Any justice system involving males in the currently existing Patriarchy will always benefit males. End of story.

No amount of "healing" will cure these offenders, especially rapists.

This current system excuses males in all ways. We won't have any working justice system until males are held truly accountable for their actions and that cannot happen in a Patriarchy.

Also, only a fucktard male would think anarchy is beneficial to society. I had to add that.

Robert Gonzalez, Feminist Current 6 Comments [7/23/2018 5:56:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 136147

I don't bother with femoids anymore everything they say is hypocritical and filled with deceit they treat incels like we aren't even human when all we try to do is be a good man towards them, while praising chad for nothing besides his looks.

jagged0, incels.me 5 Comments [1/21/2018 7:30:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 130851

(final batch of comments from that motherf*cking thread (mostly to wrap up))

(fuckthislyfe)
hearing your mom get dicked by chad

(ForceFetusKing)
Have you called your mom out on it? Have you told your dad? Man thats fucking shitty. Women have no shame.

(noneofthemisvalid)
In Middle East, you should have had to kill your mother and that Chad to clean your honour. This is why you Western men are socially oppressed. You even can't listen your instincts.

(CatSniff)
Cheating with evidence is instant death if she was married but lashes for the guy if he was unmarried but if both were married then both need death.
Edit: also if both were unmarried then both get lashes if there is evidence.

(noneofthemisvalid)
Dude I'm from Turkey, Eastern Turks aka Kurds would kill that degenerate cunt in such a case very very most probably. I like their sharp patriarchal traditions. It's not totally Islamic, it's a social rule existing before Islam too.

(unmasculineloser)
Even for a normie this shit would be fucking repressed memory material, for incels it's even worse. It's one thing to cheat on someone, it's another to involve your own kid in it against their will. Can't imagine what you're going through, friend.

(Mentalcel)
Jesus fucking Christ. One of the few positives of being middle eastern is not having a slut for a mom.

(fuckthislyfe)
Hhahahah. here is a blackpill: i'm from a conservative middle eastern country

(degesodegeso)
What the fuck? I am from a conservative middle eastern country as well so I'd like to know what country it is. I am genuinely baffled.

(fuckthislyfe)
levantine raised in ksa

(degesodegeso)
This is so fucked...
But I am glad I am blackpilled, I used to be a naive idiot that would have never suspected something like this. That said this is still surprising for me, the ride never ends.

(St-ElliotsSecAscent)
What the fuck. How can you still respect your mother?

(fuckthislyfe)
that is the least of it

(loiterturd)
please elaborate story.

(fuckthislyfe)
too many stories and they're long, but she would go on vacation on my beta dad's dime and take me with her, she would introduce me to new guys there telling me they are family or family friends. she would book two rooms and hide that she booked a second one. she would go and fuck chad and then come into our room sweaty in her bath robe when done.

(loiterturd)
thats fucked up, i don't think i could look her in the eye again if she was my mom. wtf and ur father he is clueless as fuck. the fate of the beta cuck what pointless existence. just pain and humiliation.

(MashedPotatoFace)
This, also how recent was this and are your parents look-matched?

(fuckthislyfe)
dad is ugly, mom is hot

(fuckthislyfe)
i was younger, but fully capable of understanding what was going on

various incels, r/Incels 1 Comments [8/22/2017 5:43:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127080

I just didn't care to since I couldn't help but laugh at how hilarious it is that you think that people in the United States actually have rights over their bodies.

Women CAN be raped without being sluts, but it's MUCH more unlikely and making rape against sluts legal would stop the rape of respectable women.

I hope you do realize that the reason we think rape is so traumatizing is because only the traumatized make a scene over it. Sluts who want to get raped just enjoy an orgasm and move on.

RetroSpriteResources, Deviantart forums 5 Comments [5/12/2017 12:01:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Vogon Award

for worst attempt at poetry

Quote# 141756

How noble are you if you kill

There's no more glorious knight than he who decapitates a woman

How sacred you are if you set a woman on fire

All niggers who massacre are kings

caamib, FSTDT comments 11 Comments [12/30/2018 11:07:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 135207

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Jim, Jim's Blog 8 Comments [12/15/2017 12:20:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 134253

Would you kill a baby if they were male? How about a FTM trans person?


Yup and yup.

comradejordan, Tumblr 3 Comments [11/15/2017 11:07:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Daspletosaurus
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 138926

Now High Schools are teaching young girls that the difference between "flirting" and "sexual harassment" is totally based on how it makes a woman feel. ie: If Chad talks with her = Flirting, If Incel talks with her = Sexual Harassment.



(WalkinWaski1)
"Just put yourself out there, bro! Just go and try with her, you got nothing to lose except your virginity, haha!"

Go to jail for sexual harassment

([deleted])
I mean that was always the case, but to see it become official teaching material... just fucking unreal.

(Toolman890)
imprison whoever wrote this

(ALovelyPlace)
How can anybody deny the blackpill now? Just approach females bro, it's a numbers game bro.

(Sudden_Pear)
I think any woman would feel insulted by me speaking to her. I’m 5’4 and ugly as hell, if I talk to a woman she thinks that I think I have a shot with her. That means she’s genetically inferior and within my reach. I shouldn’t even talk to women according to this chart.

(Waqui98)
Incel: Hello, may i say you look absolutely stunning today.

Her: You feel bad that a genetic subhuman complemented you.

Chad: Ayy girl bring that phat ass ova here!

Her: You feel good that a chad noticed your booty.

(DaiMiVsi4ko)
Wtf is wrong with this society. It's all getting worse and worse by the minute.

(UramiSan)
I can feel the equality in this book, boys!

(snatcher9)
Wow.. soon it will be a federal crime for an ugly male like me to approach women at all.

various commenters, r/Braincels 7 Comments [7/16/2018 12:59:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 107760

The popular narrative today is that women demanded the right to vote and the menfolk just told them no until they got tired of their whining. After all, why wouldn’t a woman want more rights?

Turns out there are plenty of reasons why most women would want their own rights restricted, and they all have to do with women knowing the true nature of women. As the saying goes, “A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other.” Women know exactly how terrible they can be. A feminist friend of mine once told me, “I envy men, because you can put two random guys in a college dorm together and they’ll get along, but that never happens with two random girls.”

The anti-suffragist organizations had the same numbers among women in America and the United Kingdom as the suffragist organizations, often even excluding men from joining. More women than men were opposed to women’s suffrage. In fairness, some of these groups supported women’s suffrage in local elections.

But all of them feared the hell that would be spawned from complete women’s suffrage, namely the soft socialism we live in today. Ever notice how everything Obama says is pro-woman but that he’s dialed-down his pro-black agenda? It’s because women are the only fans he still has left. Even the blacks don’t want him anymore.

Here’s a few reasons why women themselves did not want to involve themselves in politics.

Less Than Feminine

It’s unbecoming for a woman to be caught up in the affairs of politics. It just isn’t sexy. Nobody likes an activist. A woman doped up on Fox News or HuffPo is as disturbing as your stepmother screaming at the referee at a high school basketball game.

Women get passionate about things, often that whichever her man is passionate about. This can be a very good thing in the right contexts. In the wrong contexts, it’s terrifying. A friend of mine used to be big into Rush Limbaugh, and he decided to involve his wife in his passion. But she was a psychopath in general, and he became horrified at this terrifying right-wing beast he had created. He saw her general hatred and cruelty magnified in her political views.

[...]

Be as offended as you want, but how many women have you met who were bitter, aggressive, and antagonistic over their political views? Why would a woman want to turn into that? And how many more women than men have you met with that demeanor? Being married to a woman invested in politics or social theory is like being married to that one passive-aggressive co-worker who is best friends with the manager.

Today more women than men vote, especially single women, although married women vote more often than single women. Single women are more likely to vote Democrat than married women, and men are more likely to vote Republican than either of them. Whether it’s the financial support or the moral guidance of a husband, women tend to be right-wing when influenced by a man (hence why the left keeps trying to destroy the nuclear family).

And if you are a man who votes Democrat, then yes, you vote like a girl. And probably the kind of ugly girl no man wants to commit to instead of the young hot Presbyterian Sunday school teacher.

Part of the reason women tend to vote Democrat is because women are terrible with money and math. This is the same reason kids are taught in school to pursue their dream job instead of learning a trade that will provide a secure income.

Bad For The Family

Ultimate History Project writes,

One year later, on April 3, 1914, [Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin-in-law Kate] Roosevelt’s diary mentions Mrs. Martin speaking at the home of Mrs. Henry Seligman, wife of the millionaire banker…According to the Times, Mrs. Martin proceeded to tear to tatters the great new cause. The audience listened to her demolition of the suffrage movement “We are not merely against feminism, but for the family. We cannot reconcile feminism and the family. We hope to hear the sound of women’s feet, walking away from the factory and back to the home.”

Notice the idea of suffrage is connected to women in careers. Ideas do not exist in isolation. The barefoot and pregnant Catholic housewife with five children is a far happier person than the sulky feminist writer who retires to squeeze out a retarded child in her late 30s conceived through in vitro.

Women often don’t transition well from the office to the home, becoming bored and listless after being used to the high energy (and germophobic) environment of work. Furthermore, the reason feminist writers think careers are fulfilling is because writing feminist literature is fun. Most women (and men) don’t have careers—they have jobs where they work at the grocery store and hate life.

This claim that women’s entrance into politics and the workforce would destroy the family was not merely the anti-suffrage position. The suffragists themselves admitted that a war between the sexes was a major reason they wanted the right to vote.

[...]

If you look at history, democracy has rarely worked well. It is not rule by the majority but rule by the loudest. And who is louder than a woman? Who is more passionate? And when women follow others like lemmings, we see that women’s suffrage can quickly become destructive.

True, the monarch could be oppressive, take away your rights, censor speech, enact things that the most people are opposed to, and often make the common people miserable and impoverished. But how is that any different than modern western democracies? At least the monarch could accomplish things. Our government can’t get anything done except throw away money.

Furthermore, the monarch has the all-seeing God, his family legacy, and anxious nobles with small armies breathing down his neck to help make sure he does what’s best for the country. In the democracy, it’s greedy corporations and small minorities of activists who control the political narrative. Which is the lesser evil?

[...]

Progress

We have this idea as a society that we are constantly getting smarter with each generation. Yet if you read old books, you find that man has gradually become stupider over the centuries. Even just 100 years ago, people—both men and women—still had the common sense to not shoot themselves in the foot over women’s issues.

Today we have this sense of rights in general, like we are entitled by God at best and by Nothing at worst to have certain laws in place. Where God or Nothing promised this to us is beyond me.

The liberal atheist believes in these human rights more than anyone, even though he doesn’t believe in a god and therefore has no basis for his natural law philosophy. At the least it would make sense for him to believe in whatever is either the oldest or the most universal morality, but instead most atheists jump ahead to whatever new moral fad will fill the emptiness. Just because religion is the opium of the masses doesn’t mean mankind doesn’t need an opium.

The religious person isn’t any more off the hook. Nowhere in the Bible is tolerance, equality, or democracy mentioned, and I doubt they are very prevalent in other religions. The Bible doesn’t say much about politics, but one could make the best guess that while a king may or may not be appointed by God, a senator or president is clearly appointed by man, and therefore democracy isn’t Biblical.

Blair Naso, Return of Kings 22 Comments [4/11/2015 2:53:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 25
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 125732

can't have boobs be a babies meal and benefit from them also being used/presented as sexual objects. Cover up unless in private, everyone's husbands and sons are not viewing that as nature!!! Have some modesty at some point in this downward spiralling society. Cleavage is out of control....why wear clothes at all....?

Jody Vineyard, Facebook 10 Comments [3/25/2017 11:17:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 126592


["Feminist Shaming Tactics"]

Anonymous, Imgur 9 Comments [4/22/2017 3:37:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127074

It is utterly sinful that our U.S. Court System refuses to recognize and honor a husband's right to RULE OVER his wife in every aspect. Whether you ladies like it or not, God's Word teaches that your husband has the RIGHT to control your life, where you go, what you do, and how you do it. If you don't like that, then you need to either get saved or get right with God. God says that rebellion is equal to the sin of witchcraft (1st Samuel 15:23).

I am not condoning spousal abuse, such as violence in the home; but the reality of today's freakish society is that a husband cannot even control the couple's mailbox without risking being considered "abusive," and that's just plain wrong.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 11 Comments [5/12/2017 12:00:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 133205

[OP of "I wish I was Tyrone"]

Becoming Tyrone is the only way for me to leave Inceldom. Unfortunately, as we all know, genetically superior males are born and not created. Don't let the Redpill and PUA copers fool you to believe that anyone has the chance of reaching the top 1%, its nothing but pure delusion.

Anyway, just for the sake of this topic, let's just say I was indeed Tyrone. What do you think would happen? Well, for starters I would be a God and be treated as such. Life would be incredibly easy to me due to the fact that people would respect and treat me for who I am, instead of my subhuman looks overshadowing me. Most people will be intimidated by my presence and tremble over the fact that they have witnessed a genetically superior being. I would not have to amount to anything in which I will be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want; as it should be.

As Tyrone, I would get an unlimited amount of attention from all types of femoids, especially the degenerate white femoids. They would actually find me attractive and sexually appealing, instead of them finding me subhuman due to my ugly looks. Femoids would literally throw themselves at me, regardless of the fact that I cop a few felonies and is a gangbanger. In fact, I would get more proposals from bitches wanting to get a piece of me. They would obsess over me and won't get enough of me even if I don't want anything to do with them. I could abuse them and treat them like the sluts they are but they will still come back for more instead of leaving. Due to vast amount of femoids wanting to fuck me, I can use that chance to impregnate them and leave them as single mothers so some beta fuck provider can provide for her and her bastard child. Though, I'll still visit whore from time to time to bang her brains out. I will be able to cheat on many cum dumpsters and have the ability to let them wanting me back since they are obsessed over me. Hell, femoids would would cheat on their low T beta partners with me.

But alas, this is nothing but a dream. I will never become Tyrone, nor will I ever get a fuckload of bitches lusting and desiring over me. It's literally over me, to be honest. The only thing that awaits me is death itself and nothing more.

Lookismisreall, Reddit - r/Incels 13 Comments [10/19/2017 2:12:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: JeanP
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127715

Roastie source code

if ((man.personality == "kind" && man.income > 150000 && man.height > 80) || man.name == "Chad") { flaps.spread(); } else { say("CREEP"); post.type = "rant"; post.subject = "no good men"; post.target = "Facebook"; post();}

wokecel, r/incels 9 Comments [6/1/2017 12:20:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 135652

When did we as a society start putting women on the highest pedestal?

And then you're surprised that they look down on you from it.

Any semi-attractive femoid can garner a million followers on Instagram, Twitch, Twitter, YouTube fast

How did men in America become so thirsty?

Considering the gender ratios are 1:1 we should all be getting laid, so the only logical explanation to this is that just as many women are choosing to be single and denying us sex or taking turns with Chad

Rahmawn, incels.me 7 Comments [1/2/2018 9:29:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124901

[A gunman who shot dead eight people in an upmarket beauty salon in California is said to have gone on the rampage after losing a custody battle over his son. Scott Dekraai, who is the former husband of one of the stylists, is said to have shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.

His ex-wife, Michelle, is also reportedly among those who were killed. The 42-year-old, who used to work in the military, had allegedly threatened violence after losing a court case against Michelle - who was using the name Huff - over the custody of their seven-year-old son, Dominic.]

The problem is twofold. First, the family court system is totally unjust. Second, there is simply no other recourse for the man who has been forcibly robbed of his children by the unholy alliance of ex-wife and family court. I have zero sympathy for any woman who would utilize the force of the law to deprive a man of his children, no matter how unhappy the marriage. In fact, one can quite reasonably argue that it is in the interest of women to demand a more equitable family court system; this should become more apparent when "winning" a child custody case amounts to a potential death lottery.

The ironic thing is that society tends to applaud a man who do anything and pay any price to get back his child. There are movies entirely based on this premise. So, why should it surprise anyone that increasing numbers of men are willing to resort to breaking the very law that took their children away from them? Throughout the West, the Muslims have shown the way: threaten sufficient violence in a credible manner and the law will be modified according to your will.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 21 Comments [2/26/2017 6:55:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 136596

(Part 5/5 of "How Women Manipulate Men and the Female Ego". Emphasis original.)

How do men cope with this knowledge?

All that is necessary to fully understand women and solve many relationship issues is to understand that women oppose and resist every ego weakness about a man and that they mistake power for love

Should men condemn this behavior? No, instead it is better to have compassion and forgive, especially ourselves in order to heal these aspects within our own psyche. It stems from women’s deep need for security and issues of abandonment. It has to be understood that women had much less power than man in the past and that it is mostly the source of all their power.
How do you protect yourself from this manipulation and respond?
A usual way to deal with these issues would be to point out that you do not tolerate this behaviour and align with this attitude (cal. 300's). However, women will not comply to this request, will use the various tools mentioned above and keep on going.
Women are so good at these tests, that they know that you will suffer from it and that you cannot really protect yourself from it. Because whatever you say your inner state will be known and to be kind in anger is pretense. Of course you can build a ‘thick skin’ and pretend, but ….
The only way to really master these tests is to become loving. If you have transcended the emotional field that is being exploited you will likely not get these kind of attacks and even if you do, you usually just have to laugh. Because you instantly get what is happening and you are not subject to it. This is a good response, because it denotes more humility and compassion.

We will end this article with a few calibrations:
This article calibrates at – no permission
The average level of consciousness of men and women is the same – true
There are no spiritual differences between men and women – true
A woman perfects her intuitive side before the man does – true

Some of the manipulation techniques were completed from the german book “Lob des Sexismus” (Submitter's note: "Praise of Sexism"; a PUA book) from Lodovico Satana, which lays out manipulation techniques in much more detail (only available in german).

Frank, CCRT Blog (archived) 2 Comments [2/12/2018 3:48:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 128463

Why Ghostbusters Was Doomed from the Start


It wasn’t a bad script that killed Ghostbusters (2016); the movie was doomed from the start.



BassFzz’s Video: My Problem With “Empowered” Female Characters

The new Ghostbusters film hasn’t even been released yet, and it’s already turning into a disaster. Audiences are panning the trailers, heads are rolling at Sony, and the Director – Paul Feig – is blaming it all on misogyny.

The problems with this film should have been obvious from the beginning. There’s a reason audiences have reacted so negatively, even before rumours of the lame duck script were released. It’s not just that they got the music wrong, turning 80s synth into modern orchestral; it’s not just that the outfits look dumpy, and the jokes are lame; there’s a far more fundamental problem which poisoned this film from the get go, which no amount of creativity could have compensated for.

The problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is that main cast is all women.

Now am I saying that an all-female cast in a comedy-adventure movie aimed at general audiences is an inevitable death knell? Am I confirming Feig’s accusations of misogyny, that audiences are just angry because they can’t deal with strong, female characters?

No; not at all. In fact, if you took the four women playing the ghostbusters and put them into another film it could have been incredibly successful; in fact, the 2011 comedy Bridesmaids had much of the same cast, and the same Director, and it was received extremely well; if, instead of Ghostbusters, the four of them had starred in a sequel to, say, Jumanji – just imagine it, the same four actresses fighting off giant insects and killer plants, while the Great White Hunter comes after them, hating them for no reason at all – that could have worked, as a comedy, as an adventure, and it wouldn’t have traipsed all over the good will from the Robin Williams film.

So is the problem that this is a transparent, feminist reboot? Taking a beloved IP, sex-swapping the lead roles, and pretending that this somehow makes women empowered? Not exactly. While it’s certainly a blatant slap in the face to audiences, that’s nothing more than the icing atop a concept that was fatally flawed from the beginning.

The reason Ghostbusters doesn’t work with a female cast is because at the core it is a male story.

Now I’d like to step back for a moment and consider the term “Strong Female Character”; my colleague Zarius has a video where he discusses this topic at length, and he uses the term “Strong Female Character” to mean Good female character; it’s a great video, and I definitely recommend that you check it out. But I’d like to go in a different direction, and consider the specific words that are being used. Strong Female Character as opposed to Powerful Female Character.

Strength – physical strength – is one of the defining aspects of masculinity. When you contrast the sexes, there’s no contest; the average man is stronger than 95% of women; and even female bodybuilders don’t get much stronger than your part-time gym rat. This is why hitting women is such a universal taboo. We expect men to use their physical strength to protect women – not abuse them.

Somebody who’s strong is somebody who’s powerful – but strength isn’t the only form of power. In Game of Thrones neither Tyrion nor Varys are strong physically – Tyrion because of his dwarfism, Varys because he was gelded – and yet both of them are powerful and admirable despite their physical weakness.

This is why I find the phrase “Strong Female Characters” so interesting; it sets women up to fail, competing in an arena where men are the superior sex – or it requires that they be “Empowered” by the director, who winds up giving superhuman abilities to 120 lb Scarlet Johansson. This results in cognitive dissonance for the audience. In Avengers, Black Widow is tough enough to beat up hardened Russian Mobsters at the beginning of the movie – but later on, when we see her fight Hawkeye, every healthy, well-adjusted person in the audience is subconsciously outraged that this big man is beating a tiny woman.

Strength isn’t the only difference between the sexes, though it’s one of the most obvious; men and women differ in so many ways – in complementary ways! Each sex is specialized to work well with the other; men are good at some things, women are good at different things, and trying to judge either sex by the standards of their complement isn’t just foolish; it’s dehumanizing.

So let’s return to Ghostbusters – the Real Ghostbusters from 1984. What’s this movie really about? When you strip away all of the makeup – the setting, the ghosts, the gags, and the big name actors – what is the kernel of narrative that you find?

It’s a movie about four friends putting together a start-up business, and the difficulties they have to deal with – both from clients, and from regulators.

This is a masculine story at its core. Not because women are incapable of inventing a proton-pack; not because men have better instincts for what sort of businesses will succeed; the reason it’s a masculine story is because of the psychological inheritance we received from our ancestors.

Men evolved to go out and prove themselves to women; to take big risks, to bite off more than they can chew. Women evolved to find security in the home environment so that they could raise their children securely. Women who took risks wound up failing the test of evolution; so did the men who played it safe. Because of this our ancestors were the risk-taking men, who would do something like gamble on Ghostbusting being successful; and our ancestors were the cautious women, who would rather achieve a stable income on etsy, even if that means that they’ll never hit it big.

Furthermore; we tend to have more sympathy for women than we do for men; we’re more likely to give them help when they encounter difficulty. There are good evolutionary reasons for this (reasons that are so obvious I won’t even bother mentioning them), but when it comes to Ghostbusters this innate empathy undermines the conflict. In the original film, Walter Peck – the EPA regulator – was an antagonist we loved to hate; but he wasn’t a villain. At the end of the day he was just another man doing his job, even if he went about it foolishly, and his anger at the ghostbusters was comedic.

Replace Dan Aykroyd with Melissa McCarthy, however, and we’re right back to Hawkeye acting like a wife beater; what was once a funny pissing match between a couple of guys, is now an abusive misogynist who doesn’t want women to succeed.

For most people the differences between the sexes are so obvious that they wind up being difficult for us to even notice. Are men and women equal? Of course they are! What sort of savage would say otherwise? Should you treat a gentleman in the same manner that you’d treat a lady? Why of course not, what an absurd suggestion! This is all so obvious to us, on a subconscious level, that when something like Ghostbusters 2016 shows up on our radar, we just know it’s wrong, even if we can’t quite orchestrate why. So if that’s the case – how did Sony fail to realize that this was a disaster from the beginning?

It’s time we looked at the Director, Paul Feig. In a 2015 interview with Variety, he discussed how his world had been female-centric from a young age; how he never learned about masculinity from a father who was always working. In another interview with Hollywood Reporter, he made a point of saying that his favourite colour is purple.

According to Feig, his world has been female-centric from an early age. Growing up in Michigan an only child, and with a father busy running a surplus store, he spent a lot of time with his mother. “Most of my friends growing up were either women or sensitive guys like myself,” he notes. Though his last name is pronounced “Feeg,” its close enough to a gay slur that boys his age teased him. “You know how guy comedy is,” he says. “They would call me names and punch me. And I would think, ‘I don’t enjoy this male bonding!’ And I hated the locker room, because that’s where I got beaten up.”

It is clear that Feig is a man who’s deeply confused about the sexes. Not because he’s a dandy necessarily – Oscar Wilde was a dandy, and he had a very deep understanding of the sexes – but because from the earliest ages he was encouraged to identify with the female, to seek female primacy.

He was a boy raised to be a woman; and now that he is a man, he takes his malformed, stunted understanding of masculinity, and projects it onto the other sex. He wants to see women as saviours, as soldiers, as successful in business; he wants a woman who will continue to over-mother him, protecting and providing for him. His latent masculine instincts are screaming that he ought to be protecting and providing – but because he never grew up, he projects those roles on to women.

In their review of Star Wars prequels, Red Letter Media pointed out that the biggest failure of those movies was that they didn’t tell a human story. Audiences couldn’t relate to the characters on the screen, and so once the dazzle of the special effects faded, there was little left to care about.

Man is the story telling animal; all of our narratives are built off of rules and tropes embedded deep in our subconscious. The reason that “Rescue the Princess” is a theme you find throughout all cultures, is because women have always been attracted to men who are strong enough to defend them. When you flip the sexes, putting a woman in place to rescue a man, the romance at the end of the story evaporates. Instead of fighting to rescue a lover – she is fighting to rescue her younger brother.

Everybody understands this, even if they can’t put it into words; and when you present them with a narrative that’s broken from the get go, they can all sense that something’s wrong, even if they can’t put their finger on it. Both Paul Feig and Amy Pascal, the Chairman of Sony Pictures, are deeply sexually confused, and as such are obsessed with forcing female bodies into character roles designed for men. They want to see a strong princess go and rescue a weak man and then fall in love with him – to everybody else’s disgust.

It wasn’t a bad script that killed this movie; it wasn’t problems during production; and it certainly wasn’t fear or hatred of women. What doomed this movie from day one was the deep set mental illness of Feig and Pascal. Rather than crafting a good film, they tried to force their sickness into the world; twisting reality with contradictions, and demanding that reality accommodate them. They went against the logic of the human soul, and because of that, Ghostbusters was doomed from the start.

DAVIS M.J. Aurini, Stare At The World 14 Comments [6/25/2017 6:12:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: P.E.T.S
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 70016

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.
[...]
Compared to most womens sexual nature, mens sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual natures desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman.

Dennis Prager, Townhall.com 56 Comments [1/30/2010 4:52:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 49
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
WTF?! || meh