by Jim Goad
This essay is intended solely for our male readership. Our three female readers can sit this one out. Go bake us a pie or knit us a sweater or something.
Men: If Hillary Clinton had won, you might as well lop off your testicles with a meat cleaver and ship them parcel post to Washington, DC. Either that, or you can wait until the new Queen Bee’s Castration Squad knocks down your door and leaves your groin as flat and smooth as a Barbie Doll’s crotch. Get ready to have a vagina spot-welded onto where you used to have a penis.
You think I’m kidding, don’t you?
Consider this: Many idiotic American voters pulled the lever for Obama in 2008, thinking he’d usher in a “post-racial America” rather than a “most racial America.” But instead of eight years of racial healing, we were bludgeoned with ceaseless disparagement of All Things White. If Clinton were to win, the focus will shift toward All Things Male.
Consider that women are four times as plentiful as blacks; it has been my experience that they are also 100 times more vengeful. If anyone at this point is stupid enough to think that electing a woman because she’s a woman will improve relations between the sexes, you deserve to be publicly gelded on a Pay-Per-View special by a female pygmy named Sappho X.
“Angry women may put Hillary over the top in order that she can put men at the bottom.”
As a man, you should be concerned that millions of American women would walk into polling precincts on Tuesday, wrap their gummy labia firmly around the lever, and yank it hard for Hillary Clinton’s cold womb. I suspect they won’t be doing it out of a love for other women—H. L.
Mencken famously said that no one hates women as much as other women—but due to lingering, stinking, lifelong hatred for the male of the species.
Do they hate men because men actively oppress them? I think not. I think they hate men because men are dumb enough to submit to such endlessly ball-shriveling hectoring. They hate men because men are so supremely stupid, they actually think that women are oppressed in this society.
I firmly believe that ideas such as “patriarchy,” “rape culture,” and “women are second-class citizens” are sick jokes concocted by cackling shrews who don’t believe a word of it but who are keenly aware of what gullible, submissive boobs most men tend to be.
I also believe that most women are keenly aware that society bends over backwards to treat them better than men.
After all, women live longer—as the joke goes, “Men die younger than women because they want to.”
Women may not make as much money as men, but that’s because they don’t work as much. And they certainly don’t see anything unfair or “sexist” about leaving nearly all of the most dangerous jobs to the boys. But they definitely spend more money than men, and it’s estimated that over the next decade, they will control a staggering two-thirds of all consumer wealth in the US. For the most part, men have been relegated to the role of worker drones—they are here to provide and then die. And if there’s a woman willing to take the job, then men are simply here to die.
For all the yippety-yap you hear about racial disparities in criminal sentencing, the gender gap is six times as wide. Whereas male offenders are merely considered “evil,” women are thought to have “emotional problems” and are far more likely to receive counseling than they are to be tossed in a cage.
But still, that’s not quite enough unfairness for some women. A mannish twat writing in the Washington Post two years ago argued that women should never be put in jail—for anything.
Just as all criticism of Obama for the past eight years has been rerouted and redefined as “racism,” the press is already falsely branding all untoward sentiments regarding Hillary Clinton as “misogyny.”
A gay man writing for The New York Times whines about “Hillary’s Male Tormentors,” whose ranks allegedly include not only Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, but also Anthony Weiner and…Bill Clinton.
Writing for The Nation, the supremely hideous Katha Pollitt frames the election as a heroic mission wherein Hillary Clinton vanquishes “Badly Behaved” men.
That doesn’t sound like a drive for equality to me; it sounds like a lust for vengeance.
A girl recently texted me about a female friend of hers who’s getting married:
She doesn’t want a loving respectful relationship with a husband – she wants reparations from men. She told me probably about a month ago something like, “I’m not trying to turn a kitten into a lion but you have to learn to be an apex predator – be mean to men…it’s your birthright.”
I was in Brooklyn to cover the election in various capacities. That night I chanced upon this sign near a subway stop:
WARNING…NEW YORK CITY GIRLS WILL KILL YOU
I’m sure I will be dismissed as paranoid and uptight for suspecting that this sign is a wee bit more than a joke. But I will be dismissed by precisely the same people who’d shit their diapers and call the police if the word “GIRLS” had been swapped out with “BOYS.”
The air is thick with misandry. Can you smell it? Angry women could’ve put Hillary over the top in order that she could put men at the bottom.
And it won’t be about equality—it’ll be about reparations.
Animosity between the sexes is natural rather than a “social construct.” It is so pervasive that it may be genetically hardwired. But in the current climate, such animosity is only being encouraged in one direction, while it is demonized in the other. When people talk about “sexism,” it’s as if galloping misandry doesn’t exist.
If you even remark on the double standard, they cackle that you’re a “scared little boy” and they’ve “touched a nerve.”
Gender shouldn’t be an issue in this election or any other. But if women insist on making it one, men would be wise to follow suit.
And in the nightmare scenario if she had won, men would have also been wise to heed the advice of dead gay junkie William S. Burroughs:
Find yourself in a matriarchy walk don’t run to the nearest frontier.
