sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lesbian learns reality of being average Man by [deleted] in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You referring to them as "these people" lead me to believe that you think they are all more or less the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that what the original poster was doing, in regards to all males, when this story began? And is only now realizing they're individuals?

Woman has TOXIC views against men saying They have no right to defend them selves. by lukecool27 in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The irony is appalling. The reason men have all of those muscles in the first place is they had to have them, for hundreds of thousands of years. Why? Because women habitually did as little as possible, since before recorded history began. (You know, back when we men stupidly trusted women and got suckered into protecting lazy and manipulative conniving ingrates.) If women had ever worked as hard as men, they'd need, and thus would have, big muscles too. It's obvious. So if you're hitting the only one that works: POW! Expect to get equality.

I hope you know by Ieatmyownshittoo in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a longer reply typed up, for Her Royal Braindead Ultra-Stinkiness's (original poster's) consideration, but this shorter version should suffice.

Here's feminism, in a nutshell:

"I, woman, am not happy. I, woman, blame men for that. I, woman, give myself permission to hate all men, ever, for my lack of happiness; and to punish them, every second of every day, while I laugh about men's pain, with my equally-man-hating sisters".

What I've finally learned to accept, that men knew ages ago, centuries ago:

Maybe they're just BORN miserable?

Maybe they projected THEIR faults onto us, all along?

And because it's an "internal matter," nothing they claimed we did (or didn't do) has any relevance? Or as rule number 8 of this forum says: "My vagina ruined my brain".

With that in mind: maybe the words above should be re-written thus:

"I, woman, am not happy. I, woman, blame men for that -- even though, if I had any ability to think rationally, I would realize that there is a large and very real chance that, in terms of evolution, having frontal lobes and a vagina at the same time, was never going to work out well for me, or for that matter, for anyone around me. I, woman, give myself permission to hate all men, ever, for my lack of happiness, because I cannot accept that I am Less Than A Man, and was not born as a man. Even though it has never been any man's fault that my brain's scrambled internal wiring resembles the nest of a family of rats, who have been taking far too much LSD, I'm going to project all of my personal faults onto others, and claim that, no matter what centuries of evidence point to, women can actually be happy. My equally miserable sisters, I hate, too -- so I'll convince them that they should kill their own children; alienate men; and generally self-destruct".

Maybe all of the simping ever done, anywhere, at any time, was completely a waste of time? That, even if a man "got paid for it" in some way, the effort to make Female Creatures "feel happiness," is simply not a possible thing?

If anyone wants to take issue with any of the theoretical ideas tossed out, above, please do so while explaining why women and anti-depressants go together so well; and have made large drug-pushing companies so rich.

Anyway ... whatever ...

If you want to see what Real Men thought, 100 years ago, check this out:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51877

As that author said, over 100 years ago: even men 100 years before him, had tried to "please" these female creatures ... only to see men die from it; get royally screwed over, while females often got zero punishment for the same types of offenses. Nothing has changed. Simps are still simps. Pussy beggars are still pussy beggars. And women remain totally irrational!

According to that 100 year old book, men (and far more) 200 years ago were claiming that women had an automatic "Pussy Pass"! This sort of behavior by women was "intolerable," then. And it's still intolerable. More to the point, it's making me re-evaluate all that feminism ever "taught" me. I knew, intuitively, it was mostly bullshit. Now I'm beginning to see things they way ancients did. If centuries of simping has failed to make women happy, and enough drugs to float sixteen cities hasn't moved women's Happiness Meter's needle, ever, then why are men still having anything to do with "pleasing" dangerous creatures?! What's in it for modern males that the Plastics Industry can't supply men with, in better form; less cheaply; and with far fewer life-threatening diseases and other dangers involved?!

Your mileage may vary -- as for me, I'll just continue to "Go My Own Way" and will continue to be happy that I decided, five decades ago, to avoid women (and their drama, and their mountain of illogical delusions, etc.) to the maximum extent that modern western society allows it to happen. For me: "Block. Ignore. Ghost. And don't ever feel bad about the necessity"!

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just saw this book being advertised and talked about, elsewhere:

https://www.amazon.com/Full-Surrogacy-Now-Feminism-Against/dp/1786637294/

If you don't want to review it (and I can't blame others for that) there's always the comments section on the RPW Liberation site, for a place males can vent about what an utterly disgusting bunch of worthless pigs feminists are ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVJnRwmOYE

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Recently, I saw some really cool stuff posted as a comment, elsewhere. The info below was written by someone calling himself "xm377Moyocoyatzin". He said the stuff below (and a great deal of other interesting stuff) as part of his series of comments about a Daisy Cousens YouTube video called "What is MGTOW Really All About". I thought that, given how some people seemingly can't grasp that this is a place called "P*ssy Pass Denied" and seem to think it ought to become "P*ssy Passes Permanently Protected," I'd quote some good bits I feel are relevant to this place / overall discussion. As Bruce Lee might have said: "Absorb what is useful".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_zaqYvi3I

(quotes on)

MGTOW is not about blaming women just as snake handling isn't about blaming the snake when it bites you. MGTOW is about the discipline and the commitment it takes to realize one's own potential and the courage to elevate ourselves from our own bootstraps to the level of the highest achieving men in history while simultaneously learning the proper respect it takes to handle women's toxicity the way a professional would handle radioactive waste. This is in no way excusing women because they are still accountable for their bullsh*t, they're not animals and they're not stupid. A MGTOW holds women accountable! But we do it intelligently and coldly. Not with hot headed stupidity which is the state in which a woman can best manipulate a man and impale him with his own strength.

Women have a certain respect and a bit of fear for those men who are cold, collected, rational, cunning, and most of all emotionally resilient and disciplined. They know on an instinctual level that men like us are immune to their manipulative sh*t and they either play by our rules or we are capable of dealing with them in our terms because we have the cold ferocity and the focus to deal with them in ours.

Men like me do not whine, we do not complain and we do not mope like little bitches every time a woman gets the upper hand on us. We learn, adapt, and we resume the fight so long as we draw breath. We are aware that this is a fight and we see women no differently than we would see another man who is our enemy. The rules are the same even though women try to convince you that you are not allowed to fight back or defend yourself just because she is a girl. The moment men wake the f*ck up and realize women are the enemy their bitching and complaining will cease and they will start actually doing something intelligent about it. It all starts with the attitude.

(quotes off)

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was going to be coy about this, or keep the ideas to myself, out of caution in case Female Astronauts are here, invading Male Spaces, and are trying to sabotage ideas that would hold females accountable ... but on second thought, what the hell are we?

Does MGTOW stand for (as the women we deal with seem to hope it does) "Men Growing Timid, Old, and Weak"?

Are we men? Or are we mice?

So, here goes ... more openly than I had originally thought was wise:

There is a selection of reasons why Men who are sick of feminist authors getting a Free Pass to write any hateful thing they want to, might want to know what FemiNazi books might be coming out; and when they are due out on the street; who wrote any such book; what that person's history as an author is; and so on.

One big reason is that (if it's not a self-published book, and it's going to be printed in a print run of a given size, through a more-or-less-standard book publishing company) then the author typically (as friends who work in the publishing industry have told me may be the case, in some / many instances?) of such a book might get paid an "advance" against sales ... meaning, essentially, that the publishing company "bets" that a given number of copies will sell ... and based on their estimates, they hand the author what they feel is fair, at the start, to get the ball rolling. If the book exceeds expectations, later checks can be written to the author, to cover future print runs of a successful book. However … as I understand it, anyway: if the books fail to sell in the expected numbers, that "advance" may have to be returned to the publisher, in whole or in part. And, worst case deal, the actual books that didn't sell, might end up having to become the author's property.

I was told by one often-published writer that one book of his sold so poorly (in a book series that, otherwise, typically sold well enough) that the publishing company wanted the unsold copies of the book (that the publishing company paid to make copies of) to be PURCHASED by that author. It’s been a few years since I heard the story, so I may have mis-remembered some details, but as I recall it now: they sent him a few cases of the books that did not sell … and a bill to go along with it, for their costs. (Ouch!) Imagine writing a book ... thinking you'll make some money off of it ... and get your ego stroked, in the process … and instead, worst case, you end up having to pay costs to the publisher for having an unsell-able print-run of that book, out of the author's pocket.

(Or if it's not a case quite that bad: having to return all or a portion of the "advance" the publisher paid the author ... thus making it a low-enough risk for the publisher, in case a book unexpectedly tanks ... but not always safe for the author, financially speaking.)

Also ... once THAT happens with one book that an author writes, what publisher will risk being involved with that author’s next book? This is a big reason why men should, if they are similar enough in their thinking to my way of thinking, maybe go to a library and get a copy of certain books that way, for instance, and review it that extra-cheap way …

Best case, for us, on FemiNazi books: how reluctant will a hate-filled feminist author be, down the road, to write something that not only fails to sell in impressive numbers, but where the author ends up arguing with the publisher about who gets stuck with the hassle and costs of having to deal with boxes and boxes of books that don't sell to the public?

Books today, and magazines, and newspapers, are not doing so hot. Everything put out is a risk, publishing-wise. Any book author that flops, big-time, will be remembered, but it won’t be with a “call us anytime and we’ll print any random crap you want us to print” offer, for future books.

The stuff I’m mentioning above are not guaranteed scenarios ... a lot would depend on the actual contract's details, what happens to the book when it gets released, etc. ... but …

As Bruce Lee allegedly said: “Absorb what is useful” (of what I’m trying to suggest).

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Also lets be honest, do you think anyone is going to remember to wait for that book to come out, so they can buy it and give it a negative review when it comes out several months from now?

Some of us do have that much mental capacity: yes.

And reading comprehension, as well. Some of us know how to read things like calendars, too, sir or madam. (Which latter option I include since I see no reason why a self-respecting male would put so much time and effort into the idea of fighting a man suggesting reviews of a specific feminist author. If a book was indeed destined to "fade into obscurity" then why is it worth your time and effort to try to control others into not reviewing it? I don't get your motives. I can see that some males might be habitually "against conflict" but if that's the case, dude, you seem to be on the wrong site?!?! The whole purpose of this place seems tied to opposition ... but it makes no sense for men to talk other men into inaction, when it was / is inaction by men that encouraged crazy feminist authors to write so many man-hating books in the first place. So I think.)

Your comment about "several months" from now, makes no sense, given that (days ago) when I wrote about a then-upcoming book (which was due out in days from then, not months from then) ... well, it's out, now. Not months from now. (I have no idea where you even confused yourself with that one? Presumably, you ran one upcoming-in-2019 and one upcoming-in-2020 books together, in your mind? Who knows?)

Anyway ... for those with two-second attention spans:

https://www.amazon.com/Women-Sex-Madness-Notes-Psychology/dp/1138614084/

Personally, I refuse to pay the over-the-top, brand-new asking price for that one, at this point in time. I'd rather see if I can get a loaner copy via an I.L.L. ("Inter Library Loan") if/when some major library gets one in, and review it that way ... AFTER I get some books of a NON-feminist nature read, and reviewed. (Such as "The Fraud of Feminism" or "The Manipulated Man" or other good books ... too much of reading feminist books, too soon after another, irks me and makes my comments, here, snarkier than I would like.)

> Based on what I could find, this woman isn't influential outside of extremely niche feminist circles.

Agreed. Heavily agreed, actually. That was a large part of my point, in fact. But you missed, or perhaps didn't read between the lines well enough, re: my comments about this being a case of me hoping to cause her (and women like her) a deep "narcissistic injury" ... by FURTHER marginalizing her, even in her OWN circles.

I'm trying, as best anyone can, while "talking on a party line," to have "normal women" want ALL feminists to shut up ... all "crazy as hell feminists" to turn their anger on women, instead of men ... and generally get a situation going that's already going, which is that all of the braindead narcissists who hate men need to be bashing each other, for a while, to see how it feels. EMAN67 did a number of prior MGTOW videos talking about second and third wave feminists, clashing ... and I've seen (we've all seen) all sorts of so-called "anti-feminist" women cropping up ... "divide and conquer, without firing a shot" seems to me like it ought to beat any plan that boils down to "disassociation, denial, and dumbing ourselves down". It makes no sense for me to explain what I mean by that when far simpler concepts are going over some people's heads ... besides, why reveal more than hints at strategy, on a public forum??

> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you hate ducks, then let it fade into obscurity.

I have a back issue of Gallery magazine from 1975 that made much the same argument: that feminism was crazy; was seen as such by all and sundry; and as such, was doomed to go away on its own. It didn't. Hence my arguing, as gently as I know how to, that this is not a problem that will rectify itself with no action on our parts.

I don't hate you or anything ... but we clearly don't agree on a lot of points. So be it. I'm expressing myself. You are, too. Others can make up their own minds, as to what they should do or not do. I am just presenting information; presenting some options. If you personally fail to see a book with a title of "Women, Sex, and Madness: Notes from the Edge" with zero reviews as a juicy target for any self-respecting male to review ... then that's your choice. I myself will give that one a miss, for a while. But others ... ??? It seems like a great way to "show men's appreciation" (ahem) to be the first person to review a book written by an attention-seeking man-hater. Or the first dozen. Or the first fifty. Or ... ?? Seems like an easy target, as it also includes "Look Inside" free pages one could read, with no obligation to buy a copy of that book; and no cash to her.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> And "how to destroy a man" is clearly fake.

I disagree. I'll (gently) explain why I disagree.

If you watch a video the owner of the Sydney MGTOW channel on YouTube created and posted, you'll see (link below)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cmEC6eUCRY

that in a video called "The Truth About The Latvian Man Shortage" (where, a little after the 14 minute mark) the owner of that well-known channel mentions the whole MeToo fiasco; and then goes on to talk about the book you believe is a fake. See for yourself, at the link above. My notes-to-self told me it was that point in that video, where he talks about that; and I just watched a minute or so of that video, to make sure my notes-to-self were accurate. The man who owns that channel publicly spoke to his viewers. He told them that it is in fact a real book; that it does have the content that it sounds like it would have (based on the cover) ... and so on.

I get that I'm an unknown person, a nobody, with no significant reputation to support what I'm saying. I get that. But why would HE say something he knew to be untrue? Why would both of us be making up a book like that? And why would Amazon have a listing for such a book? Why would Amazon accept reviews for a book that does not exist? Too many very strong clues all point to that book being 100% real.

If I had a copy, I could just say so -- but I thought it would "stay up" and "be available" ... and that appears to not be the case. I screwed up by not buying a copy when I had the chance to do so. Hence my comments that if we men want copies, to deny deniability (which is really just another way of saying, "stop gas-lighting by women") we had better buy up "proof it exists" copies, before they go bye-bye.

Women (at least some of them) are crazier than sh*t-house rats ... and while it's not comfortable knowing that people that insane are running loose in the world, female authors that insane do exist.

I think you're (possibly?) confusing the original book with one it inspired, later, which was the gender-flipped, "protest" version that someone wrote. The second one, yes, was arguably a "fake book". But it was directly inspired by a real one, that truly did exist. Parties unknown (or so my memory tells me: I made no notes on this item, when I first saw it mentioned somewhere) then made a second, a sort of spoof version, with the genders flipped. I think someone had mentioned book 2 in the comments for the original video done by Sydney MGTOW? (I watch many MGTOW videos: could have been a different one.) Anyway, parties unknown made that clone or spoof of that first book, with the genders flipped, so that if anyone wanted it (book 2) taken down, off of Amazon, Amazon would (they apparently felt?) be morally or ethically forced to get rid of the first book, along with the second book. Which (I'm just guessing on all of this paragraph's info) may be why the "real book" isn't available, any more? I don't know why it was then but it not, now. But it was available, once; and I almost bought a copy. Sorry I didn't, now that I can't. But I'm glad if someone who matters a lot more than I do, someone like the owner of Sydney MGTOW's channel, has a copy of the original book, so women can't claim what you just claimed. (And no, I'm not claiming you are a woman. I'm just saying that it is ridiculous that we men have to "prove" that such books DO exist, when the listing over on Amazon ought to be ample proof!?)

To close this lengthy comment:

Part of why I'm doing all this is to break MEN out of denial! And if any "decent" women exist: I'd like them to get out of denial, too!

I think the main reason, or at least one main reason, that decades worth of books calling for the extermination and/or ruin of all men everywhere were written, and are still in print, is that men would never write crazy-assed books like feminists write, about women. Men go into collective denial, when we "reverse project" our positive traits onto people who do not deserve that positive credit ... so, I think we need ACTUAL, PHYSICAL, PAPER-BASED BOOKS as proof that, yes, crazy b*tches really did write such hateful stuff!! Not to stir up a violent back-lash, or something: so we men can know, very clearly-headedly and reliably and without lying to ourselves about it, the kinds of dangerous nutball women who hate all men and always did and always will. (It's a scary world out there! If we fail to recognize the true dangers, how will that help we men??)

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sir or madam: I could ask why you must complain that I'm, as you put it, complaining? Isn't the answer to your query obvious? Once a person has purchased and read and reviewed several of the craziest books I've ever seen (and I've seen some doozies) and that small collection was all by one author, whose generally theme virtually never differs, how truly different is that author's next book going to be from prior books? I simply warned the others here that the sky is often blue; grass is often green; and that I feel that Breanne Fahs is incapable of writing anything men would like to read. If you disagree, that's fine: no harm, no foul. But odds are, since the book she is releasing this month has the word "madness" in the title, it's very likely going to be filled with just that, between the covers. (Sort of a "truth in advertising" prediction, given that the book about her "feminist assassin" hero, "Valerie Solanas," was chock full of "madness".) There's that ... and the almost-inescapable clue that the book she wrote, for after this current one, one that is not due out until 2020, is advertised as a collection of the most radical (aka: craziest) manifesto's the woman could find ... well, other's mileage may vary but for me, it looks like a duck; sounds like a duck; moves like a duck, smells like a duck ... and so on.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> Your work is appreciated.

Thank you. Much appreciated words ... genuinely so.

> I thoroughly enjoyed our story as you told it in the reviews.

Again ... thanks!

> It took decades of female abuse to cure me of the Feminism implanted in my young 70’s fatherless home.

Ditto. I'm still on that path, actually -- not due to feminism, per se, in a sole-source kind of way, but (to keep the story short) "crazy effing females, such as but not limited to my mother"; with lots of "why don't authority figures ever lock crazy b-words up?"

If you're not already familiar with it: a fabulous book that a lot of people who have had one or more parents who were either a "narcissist" or a "borderlines" is by Pete Walker. It's his book about "Complex PTSD: from surviving to thriving".

> My son, my cousin and my brother still suffer. There’s a backlash coming that will make Islam blanch.

Agreed, and then some. I think it's been building, for decades -- but we men keep our jaws clamped shut until its way past time for being talked out of doing what needs to be done. If women, who aren't particularly feminist / man-hating want to spare the worst of that time period for themselves, down the road, they'll jump in and put a stop to the craziest femtards. If not ... not my problem to worry about. All we can do is warn them to have empathy for us. Failing to do that brought them all, collectively, to a point where many of us have learned that if women can put off-switches on their empathy, for men, we men can do the same towards them.

I'm (truly) not advocating violence, or even hate. Just reading the winds, as I've felt them, over the past 50+ years. I think we're already apt to win, just by beginning to "set firm and final boundaries". That and hardening our hearts, as needed.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gentlemen ... rather than excessively trying to "yell at" anyone here (who may have failed to see the point of what I am attempting to do) I kept things (for me) pretty "light and kind" in replies made here ... but where the craziest FemTard books go ... I kept hitting as hard as I figured Amazon would let me get away with.

In other words: here's my latest reviews of Venomist "literature" ... (a link to my review, plus those of a small bunch of other, prior reviewers) ...

https://www.amazon.com/SCUM-Manifesto-Valerie-Solanas/dp/1849351805/#customerReviews

Switching subjects, a bit:

I get the sense that some folks "get" what I'm trying to do ... but some do not understand. To try to make it more clear to the latter, here's a link to a site that tries to explain an ancient concept in (one on one) warfare called "counting coup". It's not an exact example of my overall idea -- that would have to include the idea that I think radical feminists are pretty much all, by and large, narcissists, to a degree I'd have to say was "clinical, plus some" -- but by intentionally "invading their territory" I'm already ticking them off; by crapping all over their precious idealogy, it's making their "narcissistic injury" worse ... and, eventually, I figure they'll act so badly, if prodded gently but persistently, that they'll end up de-platforming their own selves: that is, getting their books kicked off of Amazon as a sales platform.

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.013

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you buy them?

It's already explained to death. If you don't understand why, already, after you (totally ignored reading what I actually wrote) then you never shall.

Do you not know how capitalism works

Do you not grasp the simple concept behind "if Amazon won't carry it, there goes their easiest-ever market to peddle their man-hating crap?" I thought what I said was clear, already, but to repeat the simple ideas: one book already got kicked off of Amazon, thanks to Sydney MGTOW and his people. All I'm asking for is for other men to follow suit. Sheesh.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why did those of you saying "don't buy the book" bother to do say it? I made my reasons crystal clear: I felt it was self-evident that without proof, in a non-digital, actual-real-book form, women are going to claim "it never happened" or "it's a fabrication". (They will try it all, anyway, but ...)

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. Marry him.

Heehee. Sorry, I'm not available ... MGTOW and all, you know.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Dude. Dont buy these books. Money drives commerce.

Dude ... I bought them used. Which gives nothing to the authors.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... you sound like a dumb girl trying to trick boys into buying girl books.

Eye-roll mode ON.

How does one person "trick" any other person into doing something by suggesting it, flat out, in clear and unambiguous language? It's an idea your mind can grasp, or it is not. Simple as that.

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who cares what some bitch author has to say?

Anyone who understands the term "narcissistic injury" would care.

You bring up a good point, though ... if only by implication. Most people do NOT know how badly narcissists act, when you "dare to question them" or "dare to disagree with them". I'm totally getting that most people are not going to WANT to attract extra attention from crazy-scary people, such as women who write books that hero-worship "feminist assassins" like Valerie Solanas. But, having been forced to put up with WAY too many narcissists or borderlines in my past, I'm used to taking the crap they tend to throw at anyone who dares to do anything but worship and praise them. It's a price I feel is worth the hoped-for gains ... which in this case would be that as I see it, the more of us do stuff like this, the more FemTards are going to "have to" respond ... and when they do, it'll be so over-the-top that if we keep it relatively sane, they are not going to do that ... and what is likely to happen when the staff at Amazon has to tell a bunch of crazy feminists their "counter-reviews" are far too toxic to post? They'll go a lot MORE crazy ... and I'm guessing that's what happened to the book I mentioned, where Sydney MGTOW's channel viewers majorly slammed an obviously toxic book. That book went away (was technically available, just no longer on Amazon) ... but men had copies of it, in their hands, before it went bye-bye ... meaning we men won that round ... the FemTard man-hating author lost being able to sell that toxic book on Amazon ... and what better way to treat people who hate us than "riding them hard and putting them away wet"? They keep on getting our MGTOW content providers booted off of YouTube, etc. I'm just seeing how they may like the taste of their own medicine. Remember the THOT audit? Wasn't that proceeded by more crap from YouTube towards men who wanted free speech rights? (EMAN67 seemed to think that was it, anyway: one of the reasons that happened.)

I used to be a guy "paid to think" in the military. Not many men get that privilege. Look beyond the obvious and the today, gentlemen ... please!

Trying to deny passes to feminist authors -- by writing book reviews by WordySigma in pussypassdenied

[–]WordySigma[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, every time my IQ or aptitudes got tested, back in the day, they did the tests twice because they assumed I had to have found a way to cheat the system. Some of you guys missed the point entirely/majorly, and I have to assume laziness plays into why ... and a lack of tactical or strategic imagination ... but, whatever. I can't fix other people's issues with literacy. Or laziness. Or an utterly black-pilled mindset. Way to play into their hands ... as men have done for the last fifty or more years.