Why feminists will never be Funny

Comments (12)
  1. this is what a male feminist looks like…


    or is it an M(H)RA…

    who can tell the fucking difference any more…

    1. barbarossaa says:

      Hey Stoner, I read your blog and enjoy it very much, would you consider writing a guest post for me?

      1. Here are a few things I’ve already written that might be a fit…



        I also had some stuff up at a site called mating selfishness…

        Or do you want unpublished stuff?

  2. Uncle Malky says:

    I find several prominent MGTOW funny as hell. John the Other, The Mayor, even Stardusk. Maybe it’s just me but it seems like Stardusk has gotten a lot more (intentionally) funny over the last few months, he’s so deadpan and then he makes some scathing jibe, oh the LOL’s!

  3. Richard Rich says:

    The feminist idea of being “rebellious” means attacking the other half of the human population relentlessly and for no reason. That’s how they “Smash Da’ Patriarchy™”. By being sexists and making inflammatory statements. It’s the same with white liberal atheist hipsters who think it’s “progressive” to attack Christianity, Sarah Palin, and Fox News.

    These women are delightful human beings to be around. They really are. How would they know Tom, Dick, or Harry jack off to Kiddie Porn unless they’re projecting their own proclivities without wanting to call attention to themselves. Lena Dunham is an example that comes to mind.

    1. Richard Rich says:

      I forgot to add “funny” before “rebellious”. Traits these harlots obviously lack.

  4. Uncle Malky says:

    As men, almost all of us have had experiences of intense suffering when we received little, if any sympathy, much less helpful support of any kind from anyone. The best way to deal with that kind of shit aside from suicide or obliterating your consciousness via psychoactive substances, is to have a laugh at it. And to laugh at your own pain is harmless (unlike suicide) and free (unlike substances).

    When women get their feelings hurt they seek out to destroy the ones they feel are responsible via false rape allegations, getting them fired, or at the very least, a scorched Earth Twitter campaign (you made your bed Mr. Whedon.)

    As men, we know what it’s like to suffer horribly and have nobody give a fuck, so why not laugh at it? And why should anyone or anything be off limits to us making a joke? Come brothers, to Rapejokistan, where freedom of speech is more important than feelings!

  5. Golden Eagle-owl says:

    Once, a feminist told me (before my Awakening) that the only rape joke she found funny was something along the line of: “Well, you’ve led a easygoing, quiet life so far, but now you find yourself alone with this creepy dude. This is it! Here comes your rape!” That just shows how they can’t separate their attempts at humor from their propaganda. Everything they say just feels so unnatural, like a bad sales pitch.
    It would be like a jehovah’s witness saying something like: “I like this new goalkeeper, Jesus. You know why? ‘Cause Jesus saves!! LOL LOL LOL Seriously now, would you like to hear the word of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?”.

  6. Would Be Polymath says:

    This is a fine article, and it does highlight some of the unfunnyness of SJWs.

    I would like to offer a more comprehensive take on why women generally and SJW women particularly are seldom funny.

    Recent research has shown benign violation to be fundamental to much humor.
    Excerpting from metafilter.com:

    > The “Benign Violation Theory” posits that for something to be funny, three conditions must be met. First, there must be a violation of the norm. Second, the violation must be perceived to be benign. Last, both these perceptions must occur simultaneously.

    So this explains two reasons for the unfunnyness.
    The first is that women get the pussy pass. Their behavior is held to much lower standards than men, and they are much less subject to repercussions for what they say and do. In other words, much of what could be a violation if given voice by a man is not a violation, if given voice by a woman.
    The second aspect – being benign – tracks with the first. Once you get to the point where the pussy pass does not apply, what you are left with tends to be so outright reprehensible that it is not benign.

    As to SJWism in particular (it’s an ideology, so lets tack that -sim suffix on), it tends to be so bat shit crazy that benign is also hard to achieve. Comments about balls shriveling into manginas isn’t benign, it’s abusive. It’s not a violation, it’s stupidity. Ergo, not funny. (It also shows a lack of understanding of what the term “mangina” stands for. The disconnect is jarring; that precludes the possibility of funny.)

    WIth feminist humor, shrillness also undermines the possibility of humor, just making it caustic sarcasm with no funniness. Anyone who has experienced a harridan up close and personal knows that they are not benign. When feminist “comics” turn harridan they act like a partner in a relationship that has long since soured. Violation, yes. Benign, no. For most people it just comes across as, well, bitchy.

    So there you have it. Benign violation theory explains perfectly why women generally and feminists/SJWists are unlikely to make people laugh.

    1. vortex says:

      “…why women generally and feminists/SJWists are unlikely to make people laugh.”

      On purpose.

  7. Delman says:

    Reductress is very funny. So Is Amy Schumer. You’re a ridiculous person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *