1 2 3 4 5 9 | bottom
Quote# 130830

What Females really mean when they say that they like all kinds of guys

all kinds of chads

All kinds of Chads! Chad, Chad with glasses, Tyrone

It's funny how delusional females are that they don't even realize their delusion

What can you expect from such low IQ creatures?

99% of men are crazy and stupid. 100% of women are

^ Massive black pill that normies haven't swallowed because they make up part of that %

This is probably the most true statement a normie has ever made. I've seen some of the stuff you say here and usually it's bullshit, but man did you get it right with this comment. Continue the blackpill, son. Let the hate flow through you. Let it shape and mould you.

It's a terrible fucking world to realize how true it is and also to see how people exploit all this craziness and stupidity of others to get ahead/above/rich/power over them. The thing that annoys me most about normies is how prone they are to deny THE MOST OBVIOUS FUCKING SHIT, like how could a sane person possibly deny that maybe incels can't get laid because they're 1/10's? As if someone proposed that dragons exist to them they fully deny it, fucking crazies. And the #1 most annoying rage fuel is women saying that getting cat called and so much sexual attention is unbearable harrassment and that if incels knew they wouldn't want to be women. << Actually I think that last sentence is the best rage fuel I've ever heard.

Gotta ask tho, what stuff have I said that's bullshit?

She forgot the very Rare Chang

lol asian guys dont get any, FOH

various incels, r/Incels 11 Comments [8/21/2017 10:34:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Oedipus Complex Award

Quote# 130809

Finally had enough made an account to come here and confirm even our own mothers are roasties

My mom and dad just got a divorce last month. I went to dinner with my mom and all through out dinner she keeps asking me when I'm going to get a girlfriend. Ignore and push on through dinner, when the waiter shows up and tells my mom that a gentleman at the bar has bought her a drink. My mom waves, and with in 10 minutes she's at the bar with this fucking Chad. 10 minutes after that I get a text saying she's going home with him. Let's face it guys even our moms are roasties ditching us cels to go home and fuck Chads

I am going to need pics srs.

Picture this, your mom is probably on her back spread eagle. Chadthundercock is making her cum all over your dads bed...his semen is all up in them guts and who knows maybe he will finish on her face...the next time you see your mom imagine all the semen that has been on her and inside her...she's going to take everything your dad has....

Jesus you're a real cuck


oh. my. god.

only somebody mentally sick would care about their mother's sex life enough to get as upset as you are. you shouldn't sexualise your mother like this. why do you care who she sleeps with? are YOU attracted to her? disgusting incels.

^ this is today's normie argument. get it while it's hot.

Son arranges a family dinner to keep his divorced mother in good spirits and catch up with her. A random man getting drunk at the bar sends a trashy sexual invitation to her while she's eating dinner with her son and she decides to leave halfway through the dinner to have sex with this man.

"Wow, she's just having fun. Why are you being so judgemental?"
Incels are lonely and upset and needing to vent. They create an obscure subreddit where their emotional venting won't bother other people and they use it to share their feelings

"Wow, and you wonder why women aren't interested in you. Sorry, I just don't feel any sympathy when these guys commit suicide"

Holy fuck. This is what women talk about on that datingoverthirty sub. They leave or divorce their partners/husbands because those guys aren't physically attractive and because of that there was a dead bedroom situation and now all those women are only having sex with and dating the tall good looking white men using tinder and other dating apps and rejecting every other guy. This is how every woman is like. There's no wall. Women don't magically become less shallow at 26 or 30, they're the same their entire lives. Extremely shallow forever.

Ugh hate this kind of hoe mom. At least just grab his number, spend the rest of the time with your son, then go get filled up by Chad on your own free time. Brutal. I'd lay it down just like that on her. Family first and stop acting like a loose sex crazed whore. We need some old school shit in our lives where we can set these sluts straight.


why the fuck is downvoted??? This is the most reasonable comment I have ever read

Visiting stacies know they would do this to their son, anything for Chad. Apparently dropping your son at a restaurant to go suck off Chad is acceptable these days. Revolting. That woman needs to be pulled aside, called a whore, and be reminded that family comes first. I'm a fucking Don, I don't have any time or patience for that floozy shit.

Various incels, /r/incels 11 Comments [8/21/2017 1:32:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130795

Why are sex offenders overwhelmingly male? Because sexual offence legislation is designed – by feminists – to target male sexuality. For instance, men are most attracted to younger girls. Age of consent, child pornography, sexual grooming laws and so forth are all intended to entrap men on this point

holocaust21, Resisting the coming 21st century holocaust – Men's Rights, Youth Rights, Sexual Rights 7 Comments [8/20/2017 12:24:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: anon

Quote# 130787

A normie life is a sad life.

I'm glad I'm not a normie. What is a normie life? A life of constantly putting others down to make your self feel better. They do this by showing off their lives on social media, trying to make others feel bad and make themselves feel great. They live by this motto, "when you are weak I am strong".

Normies spend years of their lives going to parties, drinking till they puke all over them selves, and they mock their own friends and have no loyalty. If a normie gets a chance to hang out with some one who has higher status, you can bet that the normie will ditch their best friend for a higher status person. In general normies are heartless, fake, vapid saps.

(send_me_them_tits_ )
Without doubt. While there are some normies who seem to have meaningful relationships, most of it is status-seeking bullshit that I wouldn't want to be a part of even if I could. Sometimes I imagine being a Chad or normie, Chad's don't have to worry about being cutthroat quite as much, but what if you're on the lower end of Chads? All your buddies are taller/more attractive and you end up looking like a fuck, among your social group of attractive people.

Normies get some poon but at what cost? Their humanity.

This is modern culture. Seek an alternative.

I feel as though I lead a Normie lifestyle while being a secret incel. And yeah it pretty much feels like that sometimes. M

Normies try and lose, while we give up and accept reality.

Various incels, /r/IncelReddit 14 Comments [8/20/2017 6:46:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130786

Why Does Society Care So Much About Female Consent?

In no other species does the concept of female consent for sex, even exist. It does not make much sense from an evolutionary perspective either since for a sub 7 male it is easier to spread his genetics forcefully than to try and attract a female. So how did this concept of female choice and female consent evolve, in human beings? Why do we prioritize it so much that society believes some men should die virgins rather than violate sexual consent laws?

universallyabhorred, /r/IncelReddit 17 Comments [8/20/2017 6:46:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130785

Daily Reminder that Femoids are our enemy

It seems to me that there are a quite few incels here that have forgotten that femoids are the enemy. So, I've come to remind you that how vile and heartless they are.

Just remember: they want us all gone so its natural to hate them.

Truecelism, /r/IncelReddit 9 Comments [8/20/2017 6:46:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130745

I love the Patriarchy!

Yeah, you heard it, “I love the patriarchy!” Call me a sexist, even some intersectional crypto-racist, but I don’t just love a single cis-patriarchy. No! I love the Asian-Aryan patriarchy!

I love it when white guys romantically get with the quiet Asian girl and I like it when Sexpat Loser post some AMWF stuff on my Twitter and fails to piss me off.

Am I some kind of cuck? No, I’m not. I like it when white girls act like anime character or develop an Asian personality. And I like nerdy Asian guys who play Starcraft and make the most crudest jokes ever. I feel like I belong with these people. It’s a culture no one really wants to talk about. Yet, some of those artsy-farsy people use to read Giant Robot magazine and now hang out by the dozen at a Mitski show. It makes me feel I am in the same room with my brothers and sisters.

I’m a bicultural person. I’m not a multicultural person at all. I will listen to trap music with my Asian girlfriend and act hood sometimes, okay, I can take that from black people. Does it make me “diverse?” No, not really, I have my boundaries, and I choose to be with whites and Asians.

I love the biracial Asian-Aryan patriarchy! It does so much wonders!

White guys need to dump the type of white girls that act like Lena Dunham from Mean Girls, and get with the homely Asian girl that appreciates his time. Asian guys need to start reading Yukio Mishima and show white girls a post-Asian-American future away from toxic feminism. I’m such a nice guy, there could even be a yaoi mannerbund between white and Asian guys. Call it gay, but I think that is progressive. A real patriarchy!

And for the girls? Let the Asian girls teach the white girls makeup tips on the train and let the white girls teach them how to be more Western.

I’m such a nice guy, I allow weebs to be self-determine if they want too, and it’s okay for me if Crazy Rich Asian girls want to move to Vancouver and have their Asian culture “whitewashed.” I think all parties can agree they are in it for Asian-Aryanism.

Asian-Aryanism is not only a collective, a community, and a future race. It’s also a spirit. Just like the “American spirit.” Anybody can be an American if they pledge allegiance to the country, right? I don’t want to kill the white or Asian races. I am giving a certain niche of people a space for them to grow. Asian-Aryanism supports big entryism, and any white or Asian can come into the community at anytime.

Asian-Aryanism is the best place to be a true hapa or Eurasian (whatever you want to be called). Both whites and Asians can agree upon having a Eurasian lover. A Eurasian person has two identities. While at the time, everyone, White, Asian and Eurasian, is for an Asian-Aryan identity.

…You know, Charles Murray who co-wrote The Bell Curve had an Asian wife? His theories about “the cognitive elite” is right. The high IQ elite will be Asian-Aryan.

It’s okay if you want to be called either “white” or “Asian.” I can agree, “Asian-Aryanism” is a low-brow term. …But it makes sense, yes?

If you are “white,” or even change your mind and say your “Asian,” just like Roaming Millennial, aren’t you both? Everyone faces challenges when they try and look for a third position.

So be it, you can have your Eurasian daughters and support the new white race. But again, there are opponents out there who are bigoted SJWs and egalitarian fanatics. That is not an Asian-Aryan value.

But I know you will be an Asian-Aryan too, that is, if you love the patriarchy in your own way.

…I love the patriarchy. It’s what is going to create this new movement. Those nerdy, STEM white guys are going to have Eurasian kids and the next generation will be the ones open to Asain-Aryan culture. Its a matter of time before their kids try to considered themselves to be “Asian,” and then they will reproduce with another white or Asian… or Asian-Aryan! I’m just waiting for the Asian-American guys to stand up and be vocal about being Asian-Aryan too.

And some Asian girls are now proud to be white too. It’s all coming together!

Pilleater, Asian Aryanism 7 Comments [8/19/2017 3:51:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130727

Will County Loan Co., Facebook 8 Comments [8/19/2017 3:46:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 130725

White men aren't chanting "white sharia" for nothing.

They know that the white millennial whore is the most atrocious, venomous beast to ever walk this planet. The white millennial whore will be remembered for these attributes: alchoholics, drug abusers, sex fiends, sociopathic, insanely narcissistic, chad chasers, fucking chad like Sasha grey, chad fucking nightly, emotionally destroyed, psychologically destroyed, tatted, fat, purple hair, no femininity.... Etc. These white men are all incels or failed normies who know white women have reverted back to a primal matriarchal state where they are only fucking the biggest baddest gorilla on the block.

the_worst_93, /r/IncelReddit 9 Comments [8/18/2017 10:38:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130721

Though really, anybody who complains about masculinity being toxic is a soft cuck babied by the 21st century's Political Correctness.

Ntwadumela, Kiwi Farms 3 Comments [8/18/2017 9:20:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130708

In 2012, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first female director of policy planning in the US State Department and mother of two, also expressed similar views, when she wrote an opinion-piece in The Atlantic entitled, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”. She described her guilt on the limited time she had with her children and the strain this had caused on her relationship with them. This led to her leaving her high-flying job in order to spend more time with her family. She talked about how the feminist beliefs that she had built her career on were shifting, and that for women to believe they could ‘have it all’ was airbrushing reality. She wrote, “It’s time to stop fooling ourselves. We have to stop accepting… male choices as a default.”

Last week in the UK, high-profile TV personality and self-avowed “passionate feminist” Kirstie Allsop made headlines when she suggested in an interview with the Telegraph that young women should acknowledge the decline in women’s fertility with age and therefore prioritise starting a family before embarking on their careers to avoid the heartache of not being able to conceive children in later life. She said, “At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, to get their career on track, try and buy a home, and have a baby. That’s a hell of a lot to ask someone.” She said her advice was based on the biological clock of women and that while the time of starting a career or even a university education can be changed, fertility cannot be altered. Her statements elicited scathing remarks and a furious attack from feminists who casted her a misogynist and accused her of rolling back the fight for women’s liberation. In response, Allsop tweeted, “Nature is not a feminist”.

The problem with feminism is that it has consistently denied biology throughout its history, with drastic consequences. Its serious error was to not simply call for the right of women to enjoy the same worth and rights of citizenship as men but to measure their success based upon adopting all the rights, roles, and duties of men. This simply exchanged one form of oppression with another for it cast as irrelevant her nature as the bearer of children, expecting her to become equal to men in the workplace while ignoring the blatant fact that she will always be biologically unequal to them.

She therefore entered an unwinnable battle against nature in the name of playing catch-up with men, often sacrificing in the process her natural urge of motherhood – all to step into the shoes of an artificial, fictitious identity of the ‘have it all woman’ constructed by confused feminists past and present. And in embracing this identity, she replaced one form of devaluing of women who were treated within Western societies as intellectually, spiritually and socially inferior to men, with another. This is because by defining her success against the yardstick of adopting the traditional roles of men, especially as wage-earner, she diminished the status of the very thing that makes the woman distinct and privileged over men – the ability to bear and nurse the future generations of societies.

This unique attribute of the woman began to be viewed as a handicap to securing a successful career and aiding the economic productivity of businesses and nations rather than a vital quality for humanity that should be cherished, valued, protected and raised in status within societies. Liberation became liberation from womanhood. The consequence of all of this was stress, guilt, heartache, and lack of overall contentment with life. The other defining mark of feminism is ceaseless confusion regarding the roles and choices of men and women. This is reflected in relentless disputes between feminists over the issue, as well as ever-changing views of what constitutes women’s liberation. This begs the question as to why Western governments and feminist organisations are so stubbornly adamant in trying to market feminist ideals and this failed Western model of ‘women’s liberation’ to the Muslim world?

In this debate, one journalist wrote, “There is no template for successfully being female”. Islam utterly disputes this. It has for centuries defined a vital primary role of women as home-makers, mothers and nurturers of children – one that the Muslim society is obliged to greatly value and protect. This does not deprive women of the right to education, work, or a political voice as some secularists have claimed. It simply means that she is able to embrace the identity of the true ‘have it all woman’ – an identity that confers upon her a role which gives her time with her children, removes confusion and conflicts regarding her priorities, and that complements her nature rather than being contradictory to it. This is alongside enjoying all the rights of citizenship. Isn’t this what ‘having it all’ really means?

Dr. Nazreen Nawaz, TheKhilafah 3 Comments [8/18/2017 8:15:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130706

Among the sweeping allegations of baatil made by a Dr. Hargey is his claim:

“Men and women have identical fundamental rights, with the Qur’an emphasising equality in the spiritual,intellectual, economic and legal areas.”

For this personal view of his, Dr. Hagey is unable to adduce any substantiation from the Qur’aan or Hadith. This view is at variance with the Shariah. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and proofs of the Shariah will establish the fallacy of this claim and make manifest that Dr. Hagey’s opinion is devoid of any Islamic credibility.

In the aforementioned statement, Dr. Hagey has made a sweeping claim without tendering the basis and proof for the claim which is couched in ambiguity. He speaks of “identical fundamental rights” without defining these. He should elaborate and expound his conception of “fundamental rights” so that the fallacy of his arguments in relation to the Shariah will become more vivid to Muslims. Ambiguity is always a cover behind which refuge is sought for unsubstantiated opinions and views.

It is quite a simple matter to launch an attack on the established institutions of Islam by means of high-sounding and ambiguous phrases. But, it is entirely a different matter to define, elaborate and substantiate such claims of baatil as are being traded under the name of islam. To enable us to comment further and in greater detail on this particular opinion of Dr. Hargey, it is necessary that he defines his understanding of “identical fundamental rights”.

In the second part of his claim (cited above), Dr. Hargey attempts to show that according to the Qur’aan men and women enjoy total equality in spiritual, intellectual, economic and legal areas. But, on the contrary the Qur’aan and the Sunnah refute this contention of equality of the sexes, an obsession with the modernists of our time. The following differences or Islamic differences between the sexes will conclusively assert the fallacy of Dr.Hargey’s view.

* According to the Shariah a woman can never be the Imaam in a congregation in which males are present. On the other hand, a man is always the Imaam in any type of congregation.

* If women happen to be performing Salaat in a jamaat in which men are, their position is right at the back–right behind the rows of children.

* When the Imaam in jamaat Salaat makes an error, his attention is drawn to the error my the muqtadis calling out “Subhaanallaah! But, it is not permissible for a woman who happens to be in the congregation to call out Subhaanallaah! to draw the attention of the Imaam. Her voice has to remain concealed.

* Nafl Salaat and Nafl Saum (Fasting) are acts of Ibaadat of very high merit. But, a woman is not permitted to resort to these acts of Ibaadat without the consent of her husband. On the contrary, her husband does not require her permission.

* A woman was never ever appointed a Nabi by Allah Ta’alla. This was the office exclusively of males.

* Juma’ Salaat is compulsory on men, but not on women.

* Eid Salaat is obligatory on men, but not on women.

* Taraaweeh Salaat is Sunnatul Muakkadah in Jamaat for men, but not for women. They are exhorted to perform individually at home.

* According to the Qur’aan Shareef the share of inheritance of a female is half that of the male.

* According to the Qur’aan the testimony (shahaadat) of two women is equivalent to that of one man.

* According to the Qur’aan men possess the right to discipline and punish women, even beating them when necessary while women have no reciprocal rights even if their husbands are in error.

* Men possess the right to administer divorce, not women. Women have no such right. Even khulah (the procedure whereby a woman buys her separation from her husband) is dependent on the acceptance of the husband.

* The husband is entitled to recall his wife after having given one or two talaaq even if the wife does not desire to be reconciled. It is his right to act unilaterily and retake her within the iddat period.

* The testimony of women is not admissable in crimes of the hudood category, e.g. theft, adultery. Even if a thousand pious, honourable and knowledgeable females bear testimony in such crimes, their evidence is not admissable.

These Islamic differences between man and woman are sufficient to highlight the fact that the Shariah distinguishes between the sexes, does not provide for identical rights for men and women and decrees the superiority of man over woman. These differences enumerated here will serve to indicate that the Shariah rejects the views and opinions of Dr.Hargey as blatantly baatil.

Dr. Hargey and other modernists of the same opinions should understand that to force equality between inequals is in fact reprehensible inequality, morally wrong and unjust. The Islamic inequality between man and woman is no insult to womankind. The glowing statements of the Shariah speaking highly of women negate any such charge which the enemies of Islam level.

In simple terms the lesser role lesser resporisibility and lesser rank to woman — a rank in subservience to men – all stem from the natural and inherent spiritual, physical and intellectual quality and condition of women. In these areas Allah Ta’ala has created in man dominance and in women subservience.

This state of affairs has been decreed by the Wisdom of Allah Ta’ala and the opinions of Dr. Hargey will not be able to alter the immutable realities created by Allah Ta’ala. Nor does the Ummah require or desire the personal opinions and views of doctors of philosophies, for the path and direction of the Ummah of Islam have already been fixed fourteen centuries ago. And that Path is the Path propagated by the Ulama-e-Haqq – the Path in which great emphasis is and will always be placed on “ritual and externals”, on dress codes” and codes of Islam which Hargey has branded as “empty observances”. May Allah Ta’ ala protect the Imaan of all Believers.

Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai, Reliable Fatwas 0 Comments [8/18/2017 8:14:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130691

It seems to me that human resources has become one of those gender-specific jobs, like logger or cocktail waitress. In my experience, HR is overwhelmingly female, and these are the people who have the power to hire or fire you.

In my limited experience working with female supervisors, I have found them to be less forgiving and less considerate, possibly because they think that men only respond well to abusive slave-driver types. I have also noticed that they are far less likely to directly warn workers or inform them in plain terms that they are dissatisfied. This tends to make male workers feel that their authority is capricious and cruel, and that they can be terminated for anything at any time.

The end result is that men – and particularly men of a certain type – are being pushed out of certain occupations and organizations, and find themselves driven to more exclusively male lines of work, such as construction, driving and law enforcement, and this may explain why men’s unemployment is so much higher than women’s in the current recession. In fact, I would say that the increasing domination of the corporate world by women in middle management – especially HR – has greatly restricted occupational options for younger men, even as senior male managers go out of their way to foster and accommodate women.

What I’d like to know if this corresponds with greater productivity. I suspect that it does not, but I’d have to see the numbers.

One theory I have heard is that senior male managers use females in middle management to keep workers in line and more easily fire people, because they have less of a sense of responsibility for those who work under them. This leads to a more humble and frightened work force, and despite warm and fuzzy talk about wanting “satisfied” workers, perhaps corporate bosses (almost all male) actually want the people working for them to live in fear. A scared and humble work force will go the extra mile to avoid being fired, and will work for less compensation.

I am curious as to whether readers have observed the same. Has the introduction of women into management fundamentally changed the way we work? If so, has their arrival been accompanied by fear and insecurity in the workplace, or has it been positive on the balance? We ought to have these discussions, because women are not going to leave the workforce any time soon, and perhaps it’s time to figure out how we might mitigate some of the negative effects.

Given that there has been a lot of speculation recently about how women will dominate the economy (or what’s left of it) in the future, these are perfectly reasonable concerns for men.

W. F. Price, Welmer 9 Comments [8/17/2017 9:45:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130690

In my recent post questioning the origins of what seems to be a sudden awareness of men’s issues, I wrote that the transition appears to have begun about two years ago. In asking what trends might have converged to spark an awakening of sorts and the emergence of a new generation of writers and activists, I received a number of thoughtful and well-written comments, proving that I am far from the only person thinking about this.

While I intend to concatenate these responses in a future post, I found a two-year-old article written for Salon.com that gives us a clue as to what has been going on in the late 2000s, and sheds some light on the cultural changes that may have helped bring awareness to the fore.

The article, “Women are the new men on TV,” reviews a number of TV shows scheduled to debut in 2007. Although many of these shows never got anywhere, the theme and tone of the shows is very revealing, depicting an America where men have lost their way, and their very manhood. I would urge readers to read the entire article, as it is a well-written piece and surprisingly candid coming from a female entertainment writer (Rebecca Traister), but I will include a few of the better quotes below for readers without the time to slog through three pages.


Note the adjectives used to describe the women in the shows: aggressive, confident, hard-bodied, independent. These are not traits that men generally find attractive in women, but perhaps women themselves enjoy being portrayed as such.


Men are shown to be needy, awkward and juvenile. They are kicked around by women and sexually assaulted by monkeys — in fact some were actually portrayed as monkeys themselves in the short-lived “Cavemen” show (based on the Geico commercials). Now, the idea of a horny monkey may be a bit funny, but would any TV show ever portray bestiality as an acceptable punchline where a woman was concerned?


That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated. Traister wants them “to just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control.” Doesn’t she realize that putting men in the role she and millions of other women wanted us to fulfill required a serious social and legal beatdown as well as a massive seizure of power? Like the woman who cuckolds her husband, she wants men to be reasonable and accepting rather than “angry, neutered bastards.”


Traister sees that it isn’t working, but she doesn’t get it. Women have a huge blind spot when it comes to what they have helped do to men. Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state.

W. F. Price, Welmer 2 Comments [8/17/2017 9:45:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130688

Nick Kristoff, a NY Times opinion columnist who writes like a Unitarian minister and pens self-serving articles urging liberals to give more money (his wife is in the philanthropy business), has come up with a long piece advocating a “Crusade” on behalf of women all over the world.


So what we have is a concerted global effort to help “women and girls,” probably along the lines of the decades-old campaign to do so here at home, which has resulted in the collapse of traditional marriage and boys being increasingly marginalized in school and the workplace.

One of the tools used to promote women in less developed parts of the world is “microfinance” — essentially small scale credit extended to women through World Bank programs and such. An example Kristoff gives is that of a Pakistani housewife with an unemployed husband (who is, naturally, described as a deadbeat and a wife-beating villain)[.]


So here we have a success story, in which wealth is being created through light industrial production of apparel.

Of course, we should all cheer the change in circumstances for Saima, who has now turned the tables and become domineering toward her husband[.]


No, I don’t think so. Countries that successfully raised themselves out of poverty following WW II did not do so through small businesses run by women. Certainly, they put women to work, particularly in Asia, but these jobs were part of a state-planned emphasis on light industry that exploited country girls by making them the low-wage workhorses in factories, i.e. sweatshops. For Korea, China and Thailand this has worked out pretty well, but it didn’t have anything to do with “liberating” women; in fact it was all about control and exploitation. And once the sweatshop model outlived its usefulness, countries like Korea have switched to higher value-added products rather than footwear. These high-end products are manufactured and designed overwhelmingly by men.

Kristoff (who is actually a supporter of sweatshops) is getting it wrong. The countries that most successfully lifted themselves out of poverty did so through patriarchal authoritarianism and strict control and exploitation of women. Of course, once the hurdle was cleared, women were given increasing freedom and opportunity, after which most voluntarily switched from production to service jobs.

So Kristoff’s crusade is doomed. Any effort that encourages female independence and dominance as a means to lift a society out of poverty is working against its own stated goal, as we can see from our own ghetto failure here in the US, where women are clearly socially dominant, and yet have not managed to lift themselves out of poverty without paternalist carrot and stick type incentives from above.

We should beware of crusades advocated by pompous elites like Kristoff, who think they can solve the world’s problems despite having only a contrived understanding of the world, honed to very narrow specifications in detached, exclusive institutions.

W. F. Price, Welmer 4 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 130687

The very rapid transformation of schools from environments dominated by men and boys to majority-female institutions has left many scratching their heads. Why are boys, despite higher test scores and better performance at the highest levels of the sciences and arts, more likely to fail, drop out or avoid school altogether? In feminist quarters there is a sense of triumph about the situation, but many mothers and concerned women cannot figure out what might be the problem. Men, unfortunately, seem largely to have given up trying or stopped caring about this serious problem — serious because male rejection of the institutions that provide a path to upward mobility will undoubtedly have destabilizing effects in the future.

Of course, I am among those who agree that higher education is oversold, and not really necessary for many of the people who attend. Perhaps up to half of the young men and women in college would do just as well – if not better – by choosing a trade. There is no reason a two-year degree following high school cannot provide the training necessary to enter the job market, and if high school itself did a better job of teaching the classics we would have graduates with a perfectly acceptable liberal arts education, with no need to take university classes to round them out.

However, what is really killing boys in school is not that it is forced on them so much as it is the culture surrounding school — higher education in particular. As we all know, school is largely about socializing children and youths so that they get along tolerably well. In a mixed gender environment, socializing is naturally very different from what it is in a gender segregated environment, and controlling one’s conduct becomes more of a priority. When boys and girls are in close proximity, boys must adjust their behavior in a number of ways. First, they must learn to be physically gentle, which is more difficult for young children than it may seem to us. Next, they must learn to be gentle in words and speech, and finally they must learn to repress their sexuality. To maintain harmony in mixed gender environments, all three are necessary, and they take a higher priority than actual hard learning.

So it appears that instead of the “three Rs,” we now have docility, flattery and restraint, none of which plays to male strengths. A number of boys, whether they are intelligent or not, will have a very difficult time following the new code of educational institutions, because it is not in their nature to repress their bodies or minds. Girls, on the other hand, are much better at acting nice and behaving “properly.” Unfortunately, this carries over into higher education, and has begun to pervade society as a whole.

In higher education, the stifling gag of political correctness evolved directly out of this enforced socialization that begins in grade school. The male student is exected to sit there and listen obediently while men in general are trashed and women portrayed as victims of nasty boys at every turn in life. If the male student speaks out or objects – even if on logically reasonable grounds – he is targeted as an example of what is wrong with men, and will be punished for doing so through lower grades. There is no defense for the male student against such actions. A boy whose inquisitive, honest male nature cannot be repressed may find school to be a very hostile place. He had best just learn to keep his mouth shut and soldier on without grumbling about the situation (yes, even grumbling will draw the jaundiced eye of a feminist professor).

Now, what we find in higher education is an environment dominated by a feminine sense of propriety to which men must learn to suborn their nature or, failing that, leave. Those young men who do well are in the minority, and only represent one side of a spectrum of male behavior, just as women who do well in math and science only represent one side of a spectrum of female accomplishment. The majority of young men find the environment of higher education to be unbearable, and so they avoid it.

What this all really comes down to is that men are by their nature radically honest — we don’t understand why we can’t tell a woman that she ought to lose a few pounds or ask her her age, we just know through social conditioning that we “can’t do that.” Unfortunately, searching for the truth in higher education has taken the back seat to the concerns of sensitivity and ego-boosting. Men are forced to flatter and stroke all around them or, if they can’t, to shut up. For many young men, this is nearly impossible, and for most it is too much to ask. Those who will do best are men with a natural ability to prevaricate and flatter, while those who may “get by” are those who are naturally quiet, although this problem must take quite a toll on the quiet boys, who must endure the entire charade in mute frustration.

The solution is a return to gender-segregated places in schools where boys can be their true selves. Remove the enforced repression and replace it with discipline, and boys will thrive. It cannot be emphasized enough that discipline is fundamentally different from repression. Discipline is what gets one through the tough job, and is readily understood when explained to boys of a certain level of intellectual maturity. Repression only gives boys and men a confused sense of hopelessness and alienates them. Learning can and should allow the full spectrum of male expression, but we may simply have to accept that this cannot be achieved in mixed-sex environments.

The above problem extends far beyond the realm of education, but to keep this post from getting too long I’ll save that discussion for another time.

W. F. Price, Welmer 1 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130686

Since I first discovered my desire for women, I have always taken this attraction for granted and held it to be an inseparable part of my straight, male identity. It has been just over twenty years since I began to lay awake in bed, imagining the female form and feeling a need for its presence. Although I knew that my need for women would eventually lessen, I expected it to last for the rest of my life. I saw it in my grandfather in his old age, after all, and expected it would be the same for me. I thought of it as an essential element of my masculinity — a part of my being that I’d both exult in and suffer for throughout my life.

However, essential or not, I thought of desire as external; separate from thoughts, emotions opinions and sense of self. I considered it involuntary, like the beating of my heart or the drawing in of breath.

Lately, I’ve begun to realize that the desire I’ve always counted on is a far more complex thing than a mere physiological process. It seems men aren’t the purely physical creatures I assumed, and that longing and need encompass far more than the switching on of a sexual response.

I often see explanations in popular culture for why men find themselves increasingly uninterested in American women. Some of these are quite compelling, such as the lack of femininity, the ever more aggressive and assertive nature of young American women, and the sense of entitlement that they display as though it were an expensive piece of jewelry. The raw, predatory sexuality encouraged on television shows for women has a distinctly unattractive quality; aside from certain anatomical features and minor differences in dress, these women display all of the characteristics of offensively forward and brash men. The hard look in the eyes, the strut and the lack of regard for others are now the mark of the superior woman. For many men, to desire these characteristics would require a change in sexuality — something homosexuals persuasively insist is impossible.

I see this as just another example of the shifting definitions of masculinity and femininity as society emerges from the Industrial Age. Recently, I reread Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and found myself amused by his devotional descriptions of the heroine, Lucy Manette, who epitomizes beauty, femininity and goodness. She is one of the least realistic characters in fiction, yet obviously was an ideal that Victorian Englishmen could relate to. This little doll with blonde curls, devoted to her husband and full of only loving and nurturing sentiments, was pure, unrestrained male fantasy. That impossible ideal lasted through the better part of the 20th century, but has clearly given way to something far different. Some blame feminism for the destruction of the concept of the exalted woman, but in fact it still exists! The exalted status remains, but the statue on the pedestal is no longer shaped and defined by the imagination and ideals of men.

The new woman on a pedestal reflects the conceits and fancies of adolescent female minds. She is their idea of beauty, power and freedom. Children occasionally appear as emotional props, and are conveniently cared for by nannies or others when the time comes for a night out on the town. Men slavishly follow and desire her, and she changes them as freely as though they were an article of clothing. On television shows such as CSI, she shows direspect to the dead, displaying her utter contempt for even the concept of dignity or decency. She takes her sexual and aesthetic advice from homosexual men, who have little use for the qualities that straight men admire and love in women.

This redefinition of the ideal woman has left a beast that possesses all the physical attributes that men desire in a woman, yet behaves, speaks and moves in a manner that most men find repulsive. Rather than a companion, she is an adversary. She offers not comfort, but contempt. This mutation from icon of male desire into receptacle of indulgence was the culmination of years of human self-deification: deification of our own desires, and deification of their objects.

W. F. Price, Welmer 2 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130685

["Historical" note: this post is the closest you can get to an origin story for The Spearhead]

Now that gender equality in terms of income has been achieved in the younger generation, and educationally women currently surpass men, most of us ordinary men find ourselves staring irrelevance straight in the face. A friend of mine recently observed that women are “taking over” his department at his former company. Except in specialized occupations that require male minds or bodies, women do indeed appear to have the upper hand. However, I observed to my friend that the top remains largely male, while the middle is dominated by females. The bottom, like the top, is predominately male. Unfortunately for us men, there’s a lot more space at the bottom than at the top.

So what does that mean for men who are not among the fortunate few? Are we destined to be lowly peons shoveling muck out of gutters? For many of us, our fate could be worse than that. Gutter cleaning pays fairly well, at least according to the last bill I saw for that service. The future certainly does look grim, but could there be anything redeeming about our new status as disposable goods? Yes, there could, but only when we learn to accept and finally embrace it.

Bound by a sense of duty and responsibility to family, employer and country, men demanded certain guarantees in return. All these guarantees can be summed up in one word: fidelity. We expected not to be cheated, lied to or abandoned. Sadly, all these things have come to pass. Perhaps our own complacency is as much to blame for this as anything else, but our betrayal is a fait accompli. There was the inevitable denial, rage, and despair, but finally we find ourselves at the point of acceptance.

Accepting such a great loss of security, confidence and trust is a very difficult thing to do, but it is profoundly liberating. Whereas before one was shackled to deceit and resentment, now the fetters are broken, the cell door opens, and suddenly the world is revealed. Feelings of guilt, inadequacy, anger, envy and disappointment dissipate in the open air; ought gives way to is. When one arrives at this state of mind, all of the countless obligations, worries and responsibilities lose their sting. It becomes clear that reality – the way things are – is our only true master. We owe no debt to anything or anyone else.

So once a man throws off his countless restraints and goes all the way up the chain of command to take orders from the top, how does he deal with his only boss? Perhaps surprisingly, dealing with reality is very simple; it is only a matter of “can” and “cannot.” There is no want, should or ought with reality. All those are subjective, and have nothing to do with the sun setting or things falling when dropped. A man who has a good idea of what he can do has a great deal of choices and ability, because there are infinite things men can do. Of course, there are always consequences. For example, you can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but you cannot survive it. This is where judgment comes into play. However, although dealing with reality requires good judgment, letting other people do so for you requires absolute faith in their judgment AND their interest in your own welfare. That’s a risky bet.

Once a man is freed from the bondage of others’ expectations and desires, all that he does comes from his own heart. Any help or affection is freely given and not in any way coerced. His love and goodwill are pure and free from any taint of flattery. Likewise, any malicious acts are undertaken only by his own initiative. His heart and intentions are made clear through his actions. Because reality is truth, he embodies honesty.

These principles apply to all people, whether male or female, but the loss of direction among men in our civilization is a fairly recent development, and needs to be addressed. At this point, a politicized “men’s movement” might be counterproductive, because it would lead us down into the sewers of contemporary discourse. But a spiritual awakening, accompanied by a recognition that we have our own priorities, is sorely needed. Women rebelled against their social obligations and limitations and threw them off. Men, too, can do the same.

When men see that bondage is a state of mind – often an unconscious choice – they realize how easy it is to cast it aside. Our own bondage came from the guarantees that we demanded, which slowly created obligations that we came to see as inevitable. But now that the guarantees have been removed, we find that we are still in chains, and herein lies the great liberating opportunity afforded by injustice. Without the shock of betrayal and loss, we might have plodded along forever, devolving into something akin to oxen, fit only for heavy burdens and the whip. But that will not happen now. The deal we’ve got is clearly rotten, and there’s no good reason to haul that load.

The uplifting feeling one gets when laying down a heavy burden does much for the spirit. The bitterness over loss and betrayal is forgotten as the realization sets in that one’s life is in one’s own hands. What others want, think or expect becomes no more important than anything else, because all that matters is what IS and how one chooses to deal with it. When men know that, they know true freedom.

W. F. Price, Welmer 1 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130684

Although it’s pretty clear that a lot of the blame for problems in modern relationships can be laid squarely at the feet of young women, we ought to at least ask why they are such miserable failures compared to their grandmothers. They are genetically pretty much the same people, after all, so there must have been something about their upbringing that made them worse than useless as wives. Well, I guess we all know that’s pretty obvious, but how often do we get down to brass tacks and ask “what really makes the difference?”

Having had the dubious benefit of having raised a couple of children for almost five years, much of the time all by my lonesome, I’ve started to get an idea of what’s going on. One thing I can say is that raising kids, although rewarding in some incomprehensible way, is hell. I’ve never had a harder job. Doing it yourself is an exercise in masochism, or maybe martyrdom, which is why I don’t believe all the BS about “single mothers” going it alone. In fact, I’ve never, ever met a single mother who did it alone. Women are better at social networking for a reason: they need to be to get help raising kids.

Nevertheless, modern young women are particularly deluded about childrearing. Most of them have no more experience than a few weeks in total of babysitting kids during the easiest possible age bracket — between the ages of six and twelve. Your typical parent wouldn’t dream of allowing a teenage girl to babysit an infant or toddler for more than a couple of hours, and in that event would do their utmost to set everything up for the babysitter so that it went as smoothly as possible.

So young women come into marriage without a clue. In days past this wasn’t the case. Just as boys in old times would be expected to handle firearms, chop wood, and deal with large, dangerous farm animals, girls would be thrust into the business of childrearing and homemaking as soon as they had the strength to pick up a child and handle a cast-iron skillet. Now, these girls are texting on mobile phones and chatting with friends online all night as soon as they’re done with their homework.

However, the instinct to be a grown woman and mother remains, so girls dream of the traditional marriage without having any idea what it really means. Therefore, as a guy who’s been there and back again, I’d like to give other men an idea of what they really ought to be thinking about if they are serious about a traditional marriage, so I’ve come up with a few questions to ask women before tying the knot:

Can you handle the obliteration of your former physique for at least eighteen months for each child you bear?
Could you drive a car with someone screaming into your ear at a high volume for a prolonged period of time, day after day, without losing your cool and/or crashing?
Would you be able to interrupt your dinner to put your hands on human excrement, and then return and finish eating?
Can you go for weeks without sleeping more than a couple hours at a time?
Are you prepared to handle a 1000% increase in housework?
Can you see yourself acting as impartially as a referee in a boxing match during sibling disputes?
If your sex life were to evaporate, would you still be able to retain a fair perspective concerning your spouse?
Does the prospect of being chained to a few little hellions every minute of the day, at the risk of prosecution if you fail to do so, seem bearable?
Can you sacrifice your shoe budget for family necessities?
Would you be able to control your hormonal mood swings enough to prevent yourself from blowing your marriage sky-high?
Do you have enough sense to stop and look for the light at the end of the tunnel?

If a woman says no to any of these, she’s a bad bet. Not to say there’d necessarily be a divorce (although chances are better than even), but the road will be very rough. Unfortunately, this probably comprises at least 75% of young American women. Their mothers, indoctrinated as they were by 1970s feminism, did a huge disservice to society. Not only did they frequently emasculate their sons; they coddled their daughters, teaching them to be the cheap facsimiles of men we are so familiar with today.

Is it possible to change a girl who has grown up within this milieu? I have my doubts. Even with game, just keeping things together with such a woman requires a Herculean effort from most men, and we have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether it’s even worth it.

However, if you are a guy who wants to knuckle under and go for it anyway, ask these questions. If you can’t ask your girlfriend, at least ask yourself about her and try to detach yourself from your feelings for her so that you can be as honest as possible about the answers. Although the conclusion might be depressing, it could save you from a kind of pain you never suspected you could be subjected to.

W. F. Price, Welmer 3 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:13 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 130683

According to a former waitress who is now a “writer”, one Hannah Raskin, a 15% tip just ain’t enough anymore. People are making less than ever, are unable to afford eating out, and yet she’d have them pay servers more than they can afford.

I’ve got nothing against servers, but I hate tipping. I always do it, and my tips fall between 15-20% about 95% of the time. However, if I ran a restaurant, I’d include the gratuity in the price of food. Selling a sandwich for $5? Raise it a buck and give the extra to the server. $1 for a soda-pop? Make it $1.20. I detest feeling that somehow I have to prove my worth by giving the server some exorbitant fee for showing cleavage as she bends over to serve me food. And that’s really what this comes down to — as women have come to dominate food service they’ve sexualized it to the point of something near pole dancing.

Frankly, I’d rather a guy serve me my food. He’ll usually do a better job and not try to use some physical assets to try to open my wallet. Same goes for a therapeutic massage. After getting run over by an old lady doing a thankless, low-wage job that I should have been tipped for, but never was (courier), I had a few sessions of much-needed massage therapy to minimize scar tissue in my neck and back. By far the most useless practitioners were females. Not only were they weak and ineffective, they seemed to feel that I owed them $60/hour simply for them having deigned to touch my back. As a young guy who had no shortage of female attention at the time and definitely needed a therapeutic massage, I certainly didn’t see it that way, and after a couple sessions with lazy, pathetic masseuses I made it a point to demand a masseur – preferably a strong one – or no go.

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

Whatever the case, if I had my way I’d eliminate tips altogether and have waiters work on commission, as I suggested before. If their 20% is in the menu price, I know exactly what I’m getting into when I look at the menu and there’s no reason to complain. If the service is bad, I simply don’t go back to that restaurant. If guys want gussied up little hussies, they can go back over and over again, but as for me I’ll be happy to patronize pleasant places with a touch more class. Pardon me if I’ve been a bit uncouth in this post, but to be quite honest I find Ms. Raskins’ attitude pretty offensive and simply replied in kind.

I’d like to hear Chuck Ross’s take on this.

W. F. Price, Welmer 6 Comments [8/17/2017 9:43:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 130682

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.


If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.


If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.


Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.


Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

W. F. Price, Welmer 2 Comments [8/17/2017 9:43:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130657

Acid Attacks Are The Great Equalizer

When a beautiful average or even normally ugly female has some acid thrown at her face and she survives, the result is a dramatic decrease in her quality of life. This is due to its disfiguring effects which ultimately lead to her having the same sexual market value as a sub 6 male. While once the slag could effortlessly ride chad cocks and had a huge army of beta orbiters along with males asking her out, she will now only receive pity, while people might lie to her saying she is still beautiful, chads will avoid her and only ugly men will ask her out. To a female this is the ultimate insult, unattractive males having the nerve to imply she is equal in looks to them. She will also no longer be given special treatment or attention by males everywhere she goes just for being female. Before when she looked in the mirror with make up on she felt satisfied, knowing she was worth something due to being desirable to men, now she will only see a charred and disfigured husk of what she once was. Her status also takes a hit as she will be the ugliest female in her social circle and she can no longer virtue signal, by subtly mocking other ugly females.

universallyabhorred, /r/IncelReddit 9 Comments [8/17/2017 10:28:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130639

Daenerys Targaryen is the archetypal femoid; boring, entitled, only fucks Chads, calls her pets her children

irrational, prone to anger, entitled and makes dumb decisions.

Tyrion is the one making idiot decisions this season.

Ah, forgot to add "blames men for her bad decisions".


Bluepilled cuck detected.

It's a female.

Game of Thrones is feminist garbage.

Jesus christ how did I not see this before

I always hated this boring overrated show.

Watched the first 2 seasons. The best part was this chick naked.

various incels, r/Incels 13 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 130638

>tfw incel

Side note, it's scary how accurate this is

The "cold" and ugly thing hits home the most. I would kill for the feeling of a girl who thinks my face is physically attractive cuddling with me.

That's what we fuckin need. It's never ever going to happen. They only find 1 percent of men physically attractive. The rest are sexually unattractive to every female on earth.

No guy with a side profile like that could ever be Incel.

Tfw you might have achieved a lot more in your life if not weighed down by all your insecurities and inferiority complex.

Tfw you have achieved everything in life but nothing of it is official because at the end of the day yu are still incel

A lot of these symptoms could be from low testosterone.

How could young guys fix that without the replacement therapy? It's not possible right to fix it naturally?

I meet all of those except fat and no job

various incels, r/Incels 6 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 130637

Don't be stupid Billy, I had my fun in college, high school (and middle school tehe) but now I'm all yours

This seems to be the only thing that genuinely triggers the normies. Keep posting it.

"How could you attack females for something they can't control!??!" say the Stacies who demand men be 6 feet tall with a 6 inch dong at bare minimum.

Triggered normies in 3...

Splatter it with mayonnaise and leave it to semi-dry to it's like a crusty-wet texture with an off-yellow colour and you'll have Stacy's roastie bang on.

Fuck roasties

As a NEETcel, I can't help but say:

Fucking lol.

That's what a used up useless vag looks like after being rammed by chads. Beware post-wall normies. Be very ware.


You know that pussy will be beat to shit and look disgusting by that time.

Quick question - serious one. Do you think getting banged hard = different labias? Cause I've fucked my wife hard - often - for 10 years and she has pretty much an "innie" pussy lip and I've fucked young girls in High school that had some serious meat curtains (and one was 100% a virgin). Check out Sasha Grey one of the most banged out porn stars of all time and super nice looking cooter.

Piss off man whore

I think at this point they just post it because they know it makes women mad. I don't even get where they got this idea, most are open that they've never seen a vagina in person. And pornstars often have innies despite having sex hundreds of times. It doesn't make sense. Though I admit I believed that wider vagina was from having sex. When I was 13.

The US enslaved the wrong peoples
Should have just been females
I've come to realize that total freedom, in settings where there is a massive power imbalance, is a very bad thing

You forgot elementary.
Edit: haha down-vote brigade. Seriously, fuck off normtards.

various incels, r/Incels 9 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
1 2 3 4 5 9 | top