Or Are We Not Doing Phrasing Anymore?

« February 2016 »


It's Men's Rights Monday! And while the Men's Rights movement is many things - Some of those things include pathetic, deluded, and walking, grunting compost. What they are not is "gay-friendly". Even though technically, there's no reason "men's rights" should be virulently homophobic, their remit to be the worst of all possible people demands that they be constantly threatened by gay and transgender people.

Which is why it behooves them to keep all traces of homoeroticism from their writings. Obviously, if they don't, certain hilarious juxtapositions could be drawn by someone who, say, doesn't appreciate the MRM and finds them to be animated excrement.

Which brings us to Kenzie Atkins, whose bio mentions that he "is also a healthcare professional and an interest in writing on the side", which just goes to show you that an interest in writing is not the same as an ability to write. He also "swallowed the red pill a while ago but recently got an unexpected double dose".

I don't think I've covered this yet, but MRA's tend to take the "red pill" metaphor from The Matrix and apply it to themselves. To them, the reality where women are human beings deserving of equal treatment and respect is a fake reality, and the one where they themselves are totally awesome players who deserve to dominate everyone else is reality. Also, "recently got an unexpected second dose" totally means "got dumped for being an asshole", right? I'm not the only one seeing that?

Atkins' article is entitled "4 Reasons why Gyms Should Be For Men Only". If you're wondering, like I did, whether this means women shouldn't be allowed to go to gyms, rest assured he does not feel that way. After all, if women don't go to gyms, they'll be totally unfuckable by the time they're 30. Atkins refers to this as women losing their "sexual marketplace value", but I thought I'd make it less offensive by just saying "unfuckable".

The four reasons? "It would increase testosterone levels and competitiveness". Because everyone knows that when women are around, men stop competing with each other because there's nobody around they want to impress. Anyway, the more men are togehter, sweating and pumping, the more their testosterone cycles sync up or something. I don't know. I'm not a scientist.

Reason two? Women wouldn't be messing up all the sweet weight setups by taking all the weights off because they're weak. And gyms wouldn't kick you out for merely telling women to go off and do aerobics or some shit. Hypothetically, of course. I'm sure this has never happened to Atkins personally, mostly because it would require him to talk to a woman loudly enough for her to hear.

Third reason! "It would stop the distractions." I'm not sure how it helps the Men's Rights cause of totally dominating and controlling women to admit that an attractive woman at the gym can totally throw them off their stride, but whatever. I'm not the one trying to make a logically consistent movement out of the insecurities and dysfunctions of a giant pile of garbage people.

And finally, "It would increase brotherhood and male bonding". So, you want a lot of testosterone in the air, you don't want to be distracted by women exercising or trying to use the equipment, and you want lots of male bonding, but Starbucks (according to another article on the site) are totally pushing the homosexual agenda? I'm not saying these shitheels are gay. I wouldn't wish them on any minority community. You've got enough problems. I'm just saying that if they're incapable of checking their privilege, they should at least learn to check their phrasing.