female chauvinism

Hey, everybody... Misandrymolly's "boyfriend" passed away.


Now who the fuck believes this story? This man-hating harpy who says you deserve to be killed if you demand evidence to substantiate a rape charge, claims to have a boyfriend? Seriously? Look at that idiot’s posts. What kind of man would get with that? This is the kind of shit you come up with when people start realizing what a nutjob you are and you need a sob story to convert that disdain into sympathy.

I’m betting the real story is that her vibrator broke and it’s out of warranty. Awwwwwwww.

If the US economy collapses, there is one thing you can take comfort in:

The female chauvinists - men and women alike - are the first group of people that are going to die. The weak, parasitic, self-entitled women who hate men or use them to fulfill their hypergamic urges. With capable men neither willing nor forced by law to support them, they’re going to mostly die of disease, starve to death, or be mauled by roaming dogs or other wild animals. Then the chivalrybot manginas who worship them are going to fall prey to all the gangs who see them as target practice. The women who know how to fend for themselves are not going to want these losers as deadweight. We MRAs sure as fuck will lock them out at gunpoint and laugh while the disease, hunger, dehydration, cholera, and roaming gangs cull them out of existence.

And when the economy collapses there’ll be no cops around to force us to keep them alive.

Let me repeat: when the economy dies, Misandry dies, DAY ONE, without MRAs having to fire a single shot.

I think we need to look at how our post-sexuality-morality culture makes it harder to form friendships. Simply put, if you can’t trust women, it’s much harder to be friends with them. This is our elephant in the living room: obvious, and yet for some reason passed over. But once you notice it, you realize how large it really is. Remember the “Hottie Handbook” for teen girls? “Attention girls…If you have a boyfriend, don’t bring him around me because you won’t have a boyfriend anymore…I sizzle. I scorch, hotter than any flame.” Not exactly the kind of girl you’d rush to befriend.

Then there is RevengeLady.com, where women proudly trade stories of revenge on other women. Their rampages, without exception, are prompted by sexual double-crossing: One boyfriend asks a woman’s best friend how he can get his girlfriend back, since they have been fighting; the best friend responds by throwing herself at him, thus earning her the title of “ex-best-friend” and a carful of skunk oil, applied discreetly in the cushions with a syringe. Another woman’s husband has a coworker who is constantly flirting with him and calling him at all hours; the wife retaliates by sending subscriptions for fifteen different magazines to the coworker’s doorstep with instructions to “bill me later.”

Naturally, the wife includes porn and baby magazines, “since I know the baby thing is a sore topic for the Witch.” One woman decides to sleep with an old college friend’s fiance, so, in retaliation, “I sent her a letter stating that she had recently had unprotected sex with someone who just tested HIV positive. My (fake) organization strongly urged her to get tested immediately. I sent the letter to her job. Her reaction was great! She got very upset, she began breathing hard, and she fainted. They had to call an ambulance to transport her to the ER from work! [And] she stopped sleeping with my fiance.”

One may legitimately question whether men so easily sidelined are worth keeping in the first place. However, some of these cases are fuzzy (as with the married man who was flattered by his coworker’s attention but wasn’t about to have an affair), and women can very easily make a bad situation worse - or turn it around and make it better. It’s now conventional wisdom to pile scorn on cheating men even as we encourage women to imitate them, but in training our eyes exclusively on bad male behavior and never on bad female behavior, we clearly make things miserable for ourselves. What if all this retaliation weren’t necessary, and women could simply trust other women?


Shalit, Wendy. Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect & Find It’s Not Bad to Be Good. Random House; New York. 2007. (pg. 132 - 133)

Advice on how to fight back against misandry and female self-entitlement.

Women use social exclusion and rejection, or the threat thereof, to intimidate and coerce males into compliance. They are also extremely vulnerable to the same tactics.

When you decide you don’t have to deal with a woman’s bullshit, you have the same advantage that she uses against you: she cannot force you to deal with her bullshit.

The difference between men and women is that women tend to feel more entitled to having someone deal with their major malfunctions. Does she feel like men are treating her bad? Go find a guy to cry on his shoulder. Does she have a hate-on for men? She counts on a white knight being there to hear her out, understand and even justify her bigotry. Does she feel the sick urge to laugh at men getting hurt? Literally, some guy will protect her with obsequious excuse-making. Does she feel entitled to no-strings-attached expensive dinner dates? There are men out there who’ll oblige, just to show they’re gentlemen.

These self-entitled brats - who define themselves as women - are extremely defensive when their sense of deservedness is challenged. If you question a woman’s entitlement to be wined and dined with no equal monetary investment on her part, suddenly you are saying she owes you sex, when you never even implied that. Even though you never implied it, suddenly you’re saying she should date you if you bring up her endless string of bad relationships. If you call a misandrist out for laughing at men getting hurt, then you are somehow also in favor of domestic violence against women. If you point out false rape accusations then you are a part of rape culture. If you point out that women should not expect to punch a guy for no reason without an equal reaction, you, sir, are now Al Qaeda.

The proper response to these “women” is a form of symmetrical warfare. Their weapon is exclusion and rejection. Their weakness is exactly the same.

  • If she refuses to go dutch on a date, don’t date her. Move on.
  • If she comes to you crying about how her man treated her badly, give her one time to do that. Then tell her to either leave him or don’t pester you about it. Considering that women rarely ever listen to men’s dating woes, this is PURELY symmetrical.
  • If she says you’re a nice guy BUT “let’s just be friends”, don’t keep feeding this black hole of a situation. Put her on the back burner and find a dating service if you need to, there’s lots of them. If you’re spending a lot of time with her, she’s not entitled to that. Cut back, use that time to find someone else.
  • If she starts bashing men, or otherwise has a shitty or self-entitled attitude about equality, dating or whatever, tell her one time that what she is doing is wrong. The second time, your response is simple: that bigot is dead to you. Finito. This one is called the total Freeze Out, and should only be used on the worst of women.
  • If she has a serious thing for bad boys and thugs… PERMA FREEZE. NOW. For your personal safety. Literally speaking, this woman presents two threats: she may become abusive toward you if she thinks you’re not street enough for her. If she’s into bad boys and thugs, well these men are quite promiscuous. She may catch a disease from him… and then if she dates you…
  • If she laughs at guys getting hurt then don’t even bother talking to her again. Don’t even waste time telling her why. Let her guess.

See where I’m going here? No woman has the authority, legal protection or the physical firepower to stop you from refusing to grant her any particular (or any, period) social interaction. To deny you the right to cut her off, to force you to give her your time or money, she has to use physical force. Good luck with that. 

Verbally attacking a woman for her mental malfunctions is less effective than outright refusing to deal with her. She can put up counter attacks against verbal attacks and cry about how she feels her life or safety is threatened (yes, even when someone simply calls her names) and white knights will respond to her call. But she has no counter attack against denial of social interaction and this arguably hurts women more than it hurts men. Men are used to denials of social interaction, in fact we’re (tragically, sometimes) adapted to it. Women… not so much, for the most part.

Of course as we all know, women tend to subconsciously rely on the fact that if one man says no to her bullshit, others won’t. They don’t really fear censure all that much. Sometimes this is a good thing - like when Rush Limbaugh called for censuring Sandra Fluke and the legions of Republicans that answered his call, and the world jumped to women’s defense. But neurotic women also get the same “damsel in distress” benefits. One gold digger or misandrist gets told to fuck off by a guy and she cries and 9 men rush to kiss her ass.

But when you refuse to play this game, that 9 becomes 8. When you quietly refuse to play that game, that 9 may become 7. Think I’m wrong? Visit Seattle, Washington and watch women there complain about how men don’t rush up to kiss their asses for dates. That is a living demonstration of a mere fraction of the power that men can wield by withholding social interaction. Women’s groups are not out in the streets protesting the men of Seattle, and the legions of criticism aimed at these men for their alleged timidity has fallen on either deaf or unsympathetic ears.

When men decide to simply refuse, literally nothing can stop them. In large numbers this is proving to be disastrous to women and even the nation’s economy. Look at Japan’s Herbivore Men for a living, breathing example. But you don’t have to be an extremist like them - you just have to say NO!!! to social interactions with neurotic, misandrist or self-entitled women. Stop feeding the beast and it will starve.

Are you afraid that she will no longer be your friend? Then let’s just say your pain is the feeling of weakness leaving your social life. Meaning: you need to make more intelligent female friends. Perhaps you even need to leave your neighborhood and change social circles. Another thing that damages a self-entitled woman’s ego is that there are other fish in the sea. She uses this against you, of course, as any one woman typically has a lot of men competing for her - but when men decide she’s not as hot or important as she thinks she is… that hurts. It typically hurts her more than it hurts men. ESPECIALLY if she feels entitled to your social interactions.

Neurotic loser women need you around to feed their egos. Refuse. Refuse. REFUSE. Make it a rule to give your time of day only to a woman that’s actually worthy. You have as much of a right to choose who you want to interact with as any woman does. No one can take that from you. Make wise use of it.

Dear all feminists: When you complain about Patriarchal oppression and then consciously take advantage of the benefits thereof, you are guilty of aiding and abetting the Patriarchy.

If you make fun of men who are victims of rape or domestic violence, you are aiding and abetting the patriarchy in perpetuating its views toward victims of violence. That makes you an accomplice.

If you demand that the man pay for your half of a date, you are taking advantage of the benefits that patriarchal oppression offers you. That makes you an accomplice.

If you call men neckbeards or make fun of their weight or height, you are using the patriarchy’s body-shaming tactics to suit your own purposes. That makes you an accomplice.

When you complain about Patriarchal oppression, the way to get rid of Patriarchal oppression is to not only oppose the downsides, but to refuse to accept the upsides. Otherwise you are only contributing to the Patriarchy and the continuation thereof.

Feminist Zealots LIE about the Friendzone. But then again, they lie about EVERYTHING.

1) Myth: the Friendzone is about men calling women bitches for not dating them.

Fact: the Friendzone is about men calling women bitches for not dating them, much in the same way that driving a car is about drunk people running over pedestrians.

The Friendzone is a shorthand term for unrequited love, or “Let’s just be friends”. It is a new word for a dilemma that is as old as humanity itself. Everything else about the Friendzone is extraneous: verbal attacks at women for not dating a nice guy does not define the Friendzone any more than a bomb wielding terrorist defines airline travel.

2) Myth: the Friendzone is about men -

Fact: Full stop. Women also complain about being Friendzoned. This is not just a manosphere issue.

In the fanatical rush of feminist zealots to crush all talk of the Friendzone, they are also silencing the voices of women who speak out about it as well. How ironic.

3) Myth: the Friendzone is about women being obligated to repay kindness with sex.

Fact: this is the most insidious and mean-spirited exaggeration of all. It’s about as rational as saying that feminism calls for the extinction of men - er, wait a second. Forget I used that analogy.*

Moving on.

The feminist zealot furor over the Friendzone is little more than a symptom of a larger problem: exceptions aside, women in general do not like involuntarily celibate men. This is an animal instinct thing. Females have never liked males who were not popular with other women. This is why a married man is often targeted by other women, simply because he is married. Extremist feminists, in addition, are always looking for new ways to segregate men into two groups - the compliant ones, and the terrorists.

Nice Guys are extremist feminism’s new Al Qaeda; and the Friendzone is the new Radical Islam.

* Relax, I’m only kidding.

MRAs, lend me your ears for a second. I offer a proposition.

Instead of bashing the word “feminism”, how about “female chauvinism”?

Does female chauvinism not encompass ALL of the evils that we blame on feminism? The pursuit of female gender privilege and special entitlement, the belief in female superiority, and also misandry, all fall under female chauvinism.

We need to have a discussion on this. I don’t see how much changes in the MRM if we retire “feminism” from our shitlist in favor of “female chauvinism”. Well, except that we would be more accurate, for one, and scoring less collateral damage as a result.


Tough news for misandrists: humanity can survive without you. It even does better without you. Humanity, however, cannot survive without men.

Female chauvinists and misandrists*, that misguided minority of bigots that have appointed themselves as the guardians of womankind, are known as something else by nature: 

useless idiots.

Useless idiots. Defined as people who cannot contribute anything useful to society. To put it in a more understandable context:

How many cities have female chauvinists built?

How about hospitals?

sewer systems?

water purification systems?



I can go on forever here, but you get the point.

Men and women alike have had a part in creating all the creature comforts you see above. But not female chauvinists. Female chauvinists are only marginally better skilled than welfare mooches and are more of a real problem, but fortunately lack the economic power of the idle rich. (The level of misandry in our society is bad enough, but if they did have as much power as the idle rich, we’d be a matriarchal society. Be thankful they don’t have that kind of power**.) What they have in common with welfare mooches and the idle rich is that they’re utterly useless and contribute almost nothing to society.

Let’s be honest here. Almost none of the female chauvinists out there have done any of the things on that list. They lack the skills to do so. There are so few that are capable of much of anything useful that they could not hope to form a functioning community. If all the misandrists of the world got together and formed their own Paradise Island they would starve or die of exposure by the first winter. They are almost all simply lack the proper skillset and division of labor advantage that they would need to survive. Take away the men that they hate and make fun of so much, and they’re done for.

Now you’ve probably heard their bleating before about how we’d better run if society collapses because they’re sneaky little ninjas with knives but really, that ain’t gonna happen. Without men, the misandrists will simply die off and become a warning for future generations not to follow their hateful path. The next time you see a female chauvinist, ask them the above question: what have female chauvinists built?

Female chauvinism survives solely by the charity of the foolish society that chooses to keep supporting their existence. Give men the freedom to not support them and they will vanish practically overnight. This is not like what would happen if the mythical John Galt took his band of super genius rebels and fled to Galt’s Gulch: the working class, being that they are workers and thus the entire means of production, would stumble for a while, then simply find new leaders and rebuild in their absence. (Thus, sadly, potentially giving rise to another John Galt.) Left on their own, though, misandrists would not… could not… build anything whatsoever. If society were to flee from the presence of misandrists, leaving them to themselves, female chauvinists would quickly become victim to the same violence and bigotry amongst themselves that they blamed upon men.

Ever seen what happens in a natural disaster? Or an economic collapse? Misandry is always the first casualty. Men and women get to immediately realizing that everyone has to work together to survive. Misandry has no place in that. For that matter, neither does misogyny.

Which is why female chauvinists hate to see blogs like this. They hate the idea that men might realize they’re free to go on strike let rot the society that lets these hateful misandrist weeds flourish. Their counter argument is that men should be forced to uphold a society that lets them flourish. Repeat: misandry is all about forcing people against their will to support their female chauvinist hate. Misandry cannot possibly survive without intimidating and forcing men to uphold them. But yet they hate and mock and make fun of men.

Misandrists hate this blog post because they know: the moment enough men decide, NO MORE!!!, the misandrists lack the firepower to continue to enslave men to support their anti-male agenda. Without the ability to force people to support them, they they become an ugly memory in the footnote of history. Because they, as a group, lack self sufficiency. 

In closing: once again… if you see anyone bashing this blog post, make sure to ask them how many cities, refrigerators, highways, cars, hospitals, etc. were ever built by female chauvinists.

* Note that responses to this blog post will center around the misandrists’ complete lack of understanding of the fact that misandry and female chauvinism isn’t the same thing as feminism or womankind in general. Their responses will be some mutation of, “Oh you’re saying you want to kill off women in general!!!” It never occurs to them that while men and women have built civilizations, nothing has ever been achieved by misandrists and female chauvinists.

The really insane idiots will bleat, “He wants to stab and shoot and rape all the wimmens he’s a violent MRA!!!” Which means, basically, they’re saying that you are being violent if you merely refuse to work yourself to the bone to support a society that breeds misandry. Freedom is violence. Watch and laugh, folks.

** And if the misogynists aka the Patriarchy had the kind of power that misandrists say they have, do you really think women would have the right to vote? REALLY? Say hello to the Patriarchy, aka the SECOND group that wouldn’t survive if things went to shit - because it’s already dead.

One of modern feminism's greatest failures is that it blames the Patriarchy for things that women do.

Modern feminism is on a crusade to deny that women can be responsible for their own actions. This reduces women to the level of children and they seem to be happy with that, because it gives women the privilege to engage in miscreant behavior without any meaningful consequences.

Worse yet, feminism blames the Patriarchy for society’s excessive tolerance of violence and sexist behavior by women. This tolerance of miscreant and anti-social behavior by women far predates any Patriarchal society. In fact it was even worse before the dawn of Patriarchal society.

By blaming everything on the Patriarchy, modern feminism ignores a basic fact - women are human, and thus just as capable of bigotry, violence and anti-social behavior as men. 

Feminism: outmoded and unpopular

Feminism and the fight for sex equality are seen by the public as outmoded concepts which are failing to address the strains of modern lives, according to research published on the 75th anniversary of women winning equal voting rights.

Translation: Feminism is being destroyed by extremists within the movement.

Instead of blaming MRAs (who have little to do with this destruction) or the “ignorance” of society, perhaps it’s time to look at the misandrists within the ranks and give them the heave-ho?


To fight feminist zealots and their censorship tactics I have mirrored this video, “What guys like in girls” on my Youtube page. This was originally posted by JC Caylen, Nash Grier, and Cameron Dallas, but feminist zealots launched a huge censorship campaign that got the video banned.

My mirror is itself the mirror of another resurrected version here:


More about this story here:


When we ask "Why do women not date nice guys" WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DATE US.

You’ve got it all wrong, ladies, feminists, internet male white knights, whoever you are.

Those who ask that question are simply, genuinely puzzled at what the woman’s major malfunction might be. Whatever it is, though, we don’t want you plaguing our lives with it. We just see a train wreck and are puzzled at the lack of explanation for why your train wrecked.

Likewise when you complain “Where are all the good men”, we want to know what’s your problem… because the problem is definitely YOU. We don’t want you to date one of us and mire us in your shit.

We just want to know why a given woman, who is typically privileged enough to choose the best mate among the hundreds of suitors competing for her affection, went and picked a fucking cheating, abusive or otherwise undesirable douchebag. And then decided she needed some other man’s shoulder to cry on.

Do you honestly think we want you to date us? You fucking have HERPES… not the physical disease, but the mental version. So get off your high horse and spare us the ranting about niceness coins and oweing a man sex for being nice. We don’t want you. We just want to know what went wrong inside your head. We want to know why society is stuck picking up the pieces after you went and fucked these idiots and had their kids that they won’t support.

I mean, our taxpayer dollars do sometimes pay for your poor dating choices. So we kinda have a right to know why.