tons of tier biotruths about what all feeemales want and how it's possible program the feeemale to be a sexual pathology receptacle if the right buttons are pressed
/r/Tinder posts that are probably a power fantasy LARP situation because he's claiming to be living the alphabro side of the script of every chanlord's greentext "cuck" fixation
humblebragging in "/r/EscortClientsOnly" about having only 500k in cash and LARPing as an edgy 50 Shades character
And the grand prize goes to
I’ve identified as an egalitarian who believes all people are equal. Then they will ask me if I believe in gender equality. Of course I do. Oh, so you’re a femini$t. No, I don’t identify with that word. They will get so pedantic about it. My argument for why I don’t identify as a femini$t is basically this. Anybody who uses the word femini$m to mean “equality” and uses the word “patriarchy” to mean oppression is using gendered language to describe good and evil. I don’t trust anyone who would do that to actually have the best interest of both genders in mind. By using such morally loaded gendered words, they have already made it clear that they think one gender is good and the other gender is evil. This is frighteningly close to how Bulsheviks viewed anybody with money, or how national socialists viewed Jewish people.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
I make 130k, handsome, tall, full head of hair, big dick. I can’t get a date either, Because I’m not super rich and super hot.
As someone who was raised a girl, yes. Immediate red flags. Sets off all the misogyny radars. Any man who complains about feminists is going to be a bad time. Couple that with bragging about money and looks because he thinks that's what women want, yet still assuming women are shallow gold diggers even when he can't get a date despite being wealthy and attractive. The whole thing drips with passive-aggressive resentment. Why would anyone want to be around that?
Anybody who uses the word femini$m to mean “equality” and uses the word “patriarchy” to mean oppression is using gendered language to describe good and evil.
I remember some loud whining from lanyard-Americans during the regime about how they couldn't laid, even with their six figure salaries being waved around while at the same time claiming feeemales were shallow and only wanted their money.
The bubble world that types live in makes it seem like it's impossible to get laid without being some unreachable level of celebrity attractiveness/wealth. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because being a bitter misogynistic piece of shit can be smelled a ways off. It's like when creeps whine about parents getting protective and defensive against them when they're lurking near playgrounds.
I agree with the first half of that, but not so much the second. I'm a tall single dude, and I am more or less stigmatized out of spaces where kids exist unless I'm with a woman presenting date or friend. Like, I get it, sexual predators tend to be men so extra caution is prima facia warranted, but it's pretty unfortunate that has manifested in such a way that men are inherently unwelcome without a chaperone in what should be gender-neutral spheres of society. This seems to reinforce toxic gender stereotypes to me and harm everyone.
I feel like both your characterization and my objection are reductive, though, and I honestly don't want to get into a whole thing about it. So I'd prefer to just say I think there's more nuance to that and leave it be.
Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.
Lowercase rationalism: not even once either. r/TheMotte is/was one of the worst subreddits ever for my money. It was like SSC but more blatantly racist.
looked at that guys profile too. said he wanted a dick enlargement surgery even tho he got 7 inches. he seemed to think having a 9-10 inch dick would get him laid all the time lol
Capital-R "Rationalism." Not even once.
It's time again to play "glance at
post history!
drumroll
And the grand prize goes to
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
My guess is he may be successful on Tinder but as soon as any woman talks to him, he immediately sets off all of their red flags.
Either that or he's just lying. Hard to tell.
I'm willing to believe that he's
enough to brag about hiring expensive escorts while at the same time whining about not getting laid any other way.
As someone who was raised a girl, yes. Immediate red flags. Sets off all the misogyny radars. Any man who complains about feminists is going to be a bad time. Couple that with bragging about money and looks because he thinks that's what women want, yet still assuming women are shallow gold diggers even when he can't get a date despite being wealthy and attractive. The whole thing drips with passive-aggressive resentment. Why would anyone want to be around that?
deleted by creator
Gender abolition but dumb.
Lmao which defense contractor do you suppose they work for?
I remember some loud whining from lanyard-Americans during the
regime about how they couldn't laid, even with their six figure salaries being waved around while at the same time claiming feeemales were shallow and only wanted their money. 
That's pretty funny, because I've never made more than median local wages and I've never struggled to get laid (please don't turn me into the
)
Maybe, just maybe, treating women like people and not having a shit personality is more important than wealth.
The bubble world that
types live in makes it seem like it's impossible to get laid without being some unreachable level of celebrity attractiveness/wealth. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because being a bitter misogynistic piece of shit can be smelled a ways off. It's like when 
creeps whine about parents getting protective and defensive against them when they're lurking near playgrounds. 
I agree with the first half of that, but not so much the second. I'm a tall single dude, and I am more or less stigmatized out of spaces where kids exist unless I'm with a woman presenting date or friend. Like, I get it, sexual predators tend to be men so extra caution is prima facia warranted, but it's pretty unfortunate that has manifested in such a way that men are inherently unwelcome without a chaperone in what should be gender-neutral spheres of society. This seems to reinforce toxic gender stereotypes to me and harm everyone.
I feel like both your characterization and my objection are reductive, though, and I honestly don't want to get into a whole thing about it. So I'd prefer to just say I think there's more nuance to that and leave it be.
It's reductive, yeah, but for the most part I don't blame parents for erring on the side of caution if an adult man is alone around a playground.
Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.
Lol, lmao.
Gee I wonder what's scaring the ladies off
Lowercase rationalism: not even once either. r/TheMotte is/was one of the worst subreddits ever for my money. It was like SSC but more blatantly racist.
looked at that guys profile too. said he wanted a dick enlargement surgery even tho he got 7 inches. he seemed to think having a 9-10 inch dick would get him laid all the time lol