Woman From MTV Demands Free Stuff From Us

Some time ago, I wrote a piece titled All Girls Are Cheapskates. In it, I presented a small sampling of miserly and—as I termed it at the time—“tacky” behavior women have exhibited  in my presence with respect to money in the recent past. The goal, of course, was to illustrate a truism that’s all too evident to any man who’s dated a lot—women are allergic, and generally unaccustomed, to spending their own money. Many of the commenters enthusiastically cosigned the sentiment, adding their own vignettes and examples that supported the overall thesis. That, I thought, would be the end of it.

Then, a few days ago, I received the following request from a woman, a Helena Kincaid, who claimed to be a casting person for an MTV reality show called “Real Life” which, she added, was planning an episode on dating cheapskates. Some basic triangulation suggested she was telling the truth. She’d apparently, run into my “All Girls” piece in a routine Internet search.


Seeing the writing on the wall, I responded with the following polite message.


Unsurprisingly, she lashed out at me immediately, revealing her true intentions and views.


I was quick to point out her brazen hypocrisy.


In a last-ditch effort to exercise some measure of power over me, she withdraws from the conversation with the implication that I was the one who was pestering her when, in fact, the opposite was true.


Beyond proving my original assertion that all women are cheap, this exchange illustrates the level of manipulation and disingenousness to which some will stoop in order to parasitically extract free stuff from men.

But despite all that went on between us–and in a spirit of forgiveness and generosity–I’ve decided to comply with Helena’s “request” and put out this short “blerb” [sic] plugging her show, setting aside her rather unsavory disposition and vulgar demeanor. If you or anyone you know is interested in being on this show–and working for and with Ms. Kincaid–feel free to reach out to her directly at the contact information above. Best of luck in your auditions!


Read More: “You Didn’t Have to Make Things Awkward”

141 thoughts on “Woman From MTV Demands Free Stuff From Us”

    1. 1. According to Google, her real email address is:
      [email protected]
      That man-hater created a ghetto-ized gmail account for men, but uses her real Gmail address when doing casting calls for fat activists and the like. I wonder what sort of other discrimination, bigotry, or civil rights violations this Helena Kincaid has engaged in.
      2. Even the “fat activist” we use a photo of wouldn’t promote the show’s casting call and realized just how fake it is.

      1. “If so, I’d like to ask why, when it’s perfectly acceptable for a fat
        man to date a thin woman. I mean, haven’t you ever seen The
        Honeymooners, or Family Guy? How about The Sopranos or The Flinstones?
        The King of Queens? Fresh Prince of Bel Air?”
        Low level intellect, fat stores toxins, guess being fat is in direct relation to higher levels of impurities in the body and it shows in their thought process.

        1. don’t , whe’ll use it as ‘proof’ of discrimination. ignore her, she will die childless and her gene’s will disappear through natural selection

    1. If she’s really working for MTV she should have a budget. It may not be grand (I was going to say ‘large’ or ‘fat’ but given the comments above I’d better not go there) but I’m sure there are a few coins in her budget for expenses.
      How much is a blog ad anyway? For goodness sakes it’s less than lunch in Beverly Hills.
      Well done indeed.
      PS: came here from Instapundit. Instalanches work.

  1. Mildly curious why trolling seemed like a better idea than a legitimate attempt to get a new sponsor.

      1. That’s just a technicality. If Tuthmosis was really interested in pursuing MTV sponsorship via this woman, he’d have sent a more professional reply. He chose make an example of her instead.
        There’s nothing wrong with that choice. His point is valid and it’s an entertaining article. It’s just not the choice I’d have made and it made me curious enough to ask.

        1. In all seriousness, MTV is *not* going to become a sponsor of RoK.
          Can you imagine the hate-mail they’d get on Twitter, the NY Beta Times, and Tumblr?
          (And it wouldn’t be publicity that would actually draw viewers in, just infuriate the crazy feminists.)
          I’m sure their online marketing people make big ad-buys on the big online ad networks, but wouldn’t even deign to check out any small sites for ad purchases.
          Tuth just threw out the “sponsorship” thing to point out how ridiculous her message was.

    1. Because he was able to see pass the bullshit, anyone who would have been casted from RoK would be made out to seem like as she put it a “misogynistic asshole” when the show aired. Thus contributing even further to the decline of the western male as beta white knights. I assume anyway.

      1. Reality shows tend to want strong, interesting personalities that will engage and polarize viewers with drama and conflict. They’ll absolutely spin your image however they want to, and they will lie with impunity. But if you’ve got charisma they may be perfectly fine playing you up to be the coolest guy ever to be paired with such a cheapskate bitch. They’ll ruthlessly do whatever gets the best ratings.

    2. Oh please. There’s zero chance that MTV was going to become a sponsor, even if she was being straightforward with her request (which I dont think she was). Using this request as troll fodder is the only way anything positive for this community was going to come from this.

  2. My experience in PR has taught me that when dealing with media types, keep your head on a swivel. They are the most duplicitous, backstabbing, dark people you’ll ever meet…but they always put on the front of having a sunny demeanor and an ever-present smile on their faces.
    They act like everyone’s best friend until you look behind the curtain for a minute, as you’ve seen with this email exchange. Only by looking behind the curtain can you see what dark forces you’re dealing with.
    In all likelihood, this would have been a setup to put you and the rest of the manosphere on trial for crimes against humanity or some shit. I advise anyone who would think on contacting MTV to keep what I’ve said in mind, and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

    1. I’m glad I’m not the only one who smelled a rat here. Something’s up. As the manosphere gets more attention, we’d best be wary as things move forward.

      1. The thing to remember is that they need us far more than we need them. They’re desperate to find enough trivial crap to create content with to shovel towards the mass of voracious content consumers who do nothing else with their lives but sit on their arses and ‘binge watch’ entire seasons of TV Shows because they lack personal agency. I doubt mansopherians have much use for television or the media, as we have control over our own lives and aren’t living vicariously through aspirational programming.
        We’re probably the only generation of men who have zero interest in being famous, as only beta men think fame is necessary to get laid.
        Expect a lot more duplicious crap like this going forward. Who cares what an MTV watcher thinks of us? A 20/20 watcher? They’re sitting on their arses, being dictated what to think, what to buy, and what mental complexes to develop from the realisation their lives are not measuring up to their constant diet of fantasy.
        Fuck them all.

    2. Yeah, I wasn’t buying it either. I was thinking this might be a subtle indirect way to research for an attack piece. Like a sub rosa version of the recent 20/20 article and aborted TV spot.
      Her second reply certainly shows she had read enough of the site to form a very unfavorable opinion, and it seems unlikely that she would be seeking input from people she views as misogynists for any purpose other than to attack.

    3. Exactly what I thought : “She wants names, and she will do her best to fuck up the lifes of those who took the bait”.

    4. I work in media and my first thought was that this is fake as she uses a gmail account. She’d be using a Viacom, MTV or production company email address. She could have been a stringer but then proper etiquette is to identify yourself as such.
      If you really would like to wind her up, then contact MTV and advise them that someone may be misrepresenting themselves as an employe of the company and forward the email correspondence to their legal department and CEO. And publish this action on RoK.
      If she’s fake, then you’ll get a denial from the company (that you can publish) and they’ll want to leave it there – unless they want to offer you a man show. If she’s for real, then she’ll get reprimanded or fired for such unprofessional and sexist behavior.
      But my money is betting she’s fake – and that RoK gets a show.

  3. If you view the file/document properties of the MS word doc, you may see the name of the person who edited and/or created that document.

  4. Epic .. like witnessing a bunch of bikers dragging Bono behind their bikes over a dirt road full of broken glass and stones. Or something. LOLZ

  5. Helena, if you want to survive in the PR World, you’re gonna have to step up your diplomacy game.

  6. I was going to say that she can first give me a BJ, then I’ll decide if I want to help her.
    But then I saw that photo. Another fat feminist with entitlement syndrome. She also looks like a donkey. One would think she’d have avoided highlighting that fact by posing in a photo with one.

  7. As I point out repeatedly when it comes to women and resources, they are just not capable of understanding paying their own way.
    My comparison has been, get a room of boys and young men and ask “How many of you aspire to be rich enough that your spouse does not have to work?”, and you’lll get virtually every male put their hand up.
    Ask the question of women, and they’ll recoil in horror. it is a genuine affront on their sensibilities. They do not have the biological capacity for honor, or obligation-free displays of generosity. When I’ve gone in depth and they’ve retorted “Why should a partner deserve to stay at home, regardless of gender”, I’ve replied with logic “A wage derives means to access the material. There can come a time where there is enough money to satisfy the material, and if that is reached by one wage earner, would it not make sense to have the other person invest in social capital, such as raising children, investing in knowing neighbours and helping people in need?”
    However logic never goes down well. To women, a man earning, even if less than here is just “more material stuff”, however I think that has more to do with marketing telling them to consume more. Even in a case of where women earn marginal more than men, men spend less than they consume, their surplus goes to extra consumption for women.
    As I said, they can’t pay their own way, they always need their hand in a man’s wallet, be it directly through a wedding ring, or getting the state to confiscate it off men, then hand it to women by a welfare system. Now, the MO is to give women bullshit jobs and overpay them in terms of productive output measures.
    Women have thrown husbands and children under a bus, because the corporation told them acquiring material stuff is now of greater priority. However regarding the feeble minds of women, it was an easy sell.

    1. ‘course. The vast majority of women will never, ever let go of the idea that men are there to provide for them, no matter how much logic you use or how many appeals to fairness you may make.
      Why the Hell would they? They have the best of both worlds now, with the majority of the traditional male AND female privileges while having neither of the traditional male OR female responsibilities. Why would they mess up such a sweet deal, especially when the majority of “men” show no interest in reigning them in? They will let the good times roll up until either men grow some balls or our society can no longer afford to keep coddling them.

    2. Raise hand and say “I will try to be rich enough that my wife woudn’t need to work, but I’ll use the money for sportscars and motorcycles instead”.

    3. Raise hand and say : “I will try to be so rich that she wouldn’t need to work, but she will, because as a firm believer of equality and I’ll use that money on myself”.

    4. I think there’s a large and growing segment of the female population that insist on paying for dates themselves. They may not necessarily want to, but they feel obligated to under the guise of being independent and to cut off any possible argument that she should put out because the guy paid.

      1. Quite a fanciful notion with no real grounding in reality.
        The part about ‘not wanting to pay’, then what is the philisophical justification for getting paid? if a woman is granted a wage, for what purpose does it serve, if not paying for her own consumption?
        And as far as any ‘obligation of sex for dinner’, please, that has never existed and never will. men are consigned that rejection is always a possibility, and a majority of men do not place pressure on sex, they assume that sex doesn’t occur that they are the ones who have done something wrong. Blue-pill thinking of course.
        The main benefit gamed showed was in my first steps, dinner created the intimacy, and various techniques escalated the siutation, triggering certain reponses in women that would increase the chances of sex, even if they ‘regretted it’ the next day. Ensuring ‘bang for my buck’ so to speak.
        Maturity in the game meant I could dispense with the dinner.
        That said, in no way, shape or form has any women ever NOT looked to be free-loading off a man.
        As I said, there is a philosophical vent to earning money, a right AND an obligation, but like all thinks women, they only want one side of the deal.

  8. This is great material. Women are very, very cheap. Any man getting laid should be actively trying to minimize the financial damage they do and should always try to keep maintenance costs lower than what a weekly $250.00 prostitute visit runs you.

  9. Guys, we don’t want her to lose her job – then she’d sponge off men *even more.*

    1. You’re right. The goal isn’t to get to lose her job which, to be frank, isn’t put in any kind of jeopardy anyway. For one, I don’t know that she has any kind of status over there and, secondly, attacking a man is perfectly okay.
      It’d be different if the situation were reversed, of course.

  10. “Please don’t email me again.”
    She emailed him first! That’s like a freakin’ kindergartner that starts a game and complains he doesn’t want to play anymore when he loses!

  11. “Please don’t email me again.”
    I get that all the time on Twitter. Feminists will Tweet a death/castration threat at me, I’ll re-Tweet and Favorite it, and they’ll shoot back crying “Don’t re-Tweet me you misogynistic fuckhole” or something to that effect. Honey, you’re the one who contacted me! You’re the one who said you wanted to kill me or chop my dick off with a butcher knife, and you’re upset when I respond?

    1. That’s what the hell I’m talking about. Let these feminazi bitches know we’re not sitting back and taking their shit anymore.

      1. “Don’t [contact] me again” is indeed the last-resort salvo of choice from women these days. It’s serves a multitude of purposes, from implying they’re the bigger person (when they were the petty ones to begin with) to not having to be articulate in an argument.
        In this way, it’s not much different than “creepy”: a catch-all conversation stopper that allows them play victim.

        1. The best response is to beat them to it.
          (Just like we co-opt words like ‘creepy’ and ‘weird’ and use it against them.)
          If a girl is being a snatch, do one last short response, say your peace, and top it with “and don’t text me again, creeper”.

        2. The one I just recently used is, “It’s automatic now, all future emails go straight to trash.”

        3. I believe “Don’t contact me again” is a necessary first step to obtaining a restraining order. Which gives you a record with the courts.This is what girls are learning these days.
          OTOH, I gather smitten women routinely give money to their lumpy boyfriends, and then try to recast it as a loan retroactively after the breakup. If not for their gullibility, Judge Judy would go out of business.

        4. ^This.
          This is how you tell her to get lost, without sounding like a bitch by using “Don’t text me again.”

        5. What if you replied “OK!” Would that be funny (to the sender I mean) or would it look try hard?

        6. can we make a blacklist of women like this, like an internal facebook app for rok users that warns other guys of potentially unstable/childish women?

        7. Back when I believed in the Iraq war, there was a football player that openly said that he believed Pat Tillman was doing something really stupid for signing up. Anyway, I wrote him and expressed my moronic opinion, and his response was just 100% happy, upbeat, respectful and positive. He basically left me nowhere to go. It made me wonder about which of us was really in the wrong.

    2. It’s how you know you’ve ruffled the feathers of a narcissist.
      Did you ever see the Twilight Zone? If you challenge their self-image their try to ‘wish you away’.

  12. *Gasps* You still complied even after all she did to you?
    Can’t help but admire your patience.

  13. Who the hell still watches MTV anyway? Don’t support them in any way. They are a huge contributor to the degenerate art in our fucked up culture.
    And wow, she broke fast. But then again, most pedestalized princesses do.

  14. Remember that episode of “True Life: I’m a Sugar Baby”? At least in that episode, the old guy was somewhat alpha, even if he thought it was a badge of honor to have sugar babies; he didn’t get played by that asian chick who thought she was gonna be a singer.

    1. I don’t know what that is but I’m sure I’d rather gouge out my own eyes than watch it.

  15. Don’t trust people who write like kids in business mails (“Hi!!”). One exclamation mark is more than enough.

  16. Women are NOT logical beings.
    When we try to take them serious and give them responsibility, bad things happen.

  17. If she “works for MTV” then why is she using an @gmail.com domain? The suspiciously specific email alias is telling, as well. For all you we know she was just maliciously fishing for content to blast on some feminist blog. Well played – her immediate ad hominem response was a dead give away that she was full of shit to begin with.

    1. Cable networks tend to contract/outsource their casting to small casting firms in NY and LA. The casting firm this girl works for probably doesn’t even have their own dot-com domain/email server.
      And her very specific email address is because she hates men and didn’t want to give us her regular Gmail address — even though she used it for her other casting messages to other groups.

  18. What an absolutely ALPHA response on your part! My beta self would have complied in a heartbeat. The lessons I learn from RoK are priceless….and ever-continuous.

  19. She looks like every arrogant, second self-indulgent borderline-fatty with whom I went to university – right down the crazed look in her eyes. Borderline personality disorder or something up in this bitch.

  20. if this girl approached me to do something I wouldn’t even think about saying no. I would just ignore her straight up.
    Fell down the ugly tree, double chin and all…

  21. If these are the types of people working for supposedly “major” entertainment venues like MTV, then we’re in bigger trouble than even I thought. Her whole schtick is like watching amateur hour at the Apollo. How? Oh, let me count the ways:
    1. Overly chirpy, bubbly introduction (“Hi!!”)
    2. An email with no formal salutations or email letterhead, as would be expected of any major corporation.
    3. Email filled with misspellings, which only undermines the sender’s credibility.
    4. Flagrant attempt to enlist King Tuth into her army of orbiters or minions.
    5. Presumptuous unwillingness to discuss compensation or at least some sort of quid-pro-quo in return for a favor. Which screams, amateur.
    6. Once called out on her bullshit, the pathetic attempt to reframe the interaction in the way Americhicks know best, where the man is some sort of creepy aggressor, rather than the other way around.
    All in all, a highly educational and illustrative incident.

    1. The Obama camp did research on every spam mail they sent. Changing tone, wordage, etc. They found the more casual they acted, including mild swearing, the better their donor base responded and the more money the spam generated. both in terms of response rate and dollar amount.

      1. this is very interesting, i remember reading how they used microanalysis + behavioural psychology to get a buttload of donations. got any more links to this stuff?

        1. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-29/the-science-behind-those-obama-campaign-e-mails
          There was a paper by some guy from MIT that analyzed the entire technological state of the campaign. After reading it you realize that Obama was playing 9-dimensional chess and Romney was playing checkers. It helps that high end IT and developer skills are highly correlated with being a blue pill beta tool that thinks by acting cool it will get women to like them better.
          Not that Romney would be noticeably better for the country, just explaining why Obama defied logic.

  22. Exactly as Roosh showed a few weeks ago they are getting scared that we are getting traction. As they should be

  23. All women are cheapskates?
    I don’t know what kind of golddigging skanks you hang out with, but the girls I’ve dated (including the woman I married) have all been responsible adults with their own money.
    Not sure what to say about the MTV chick except that she’s obviously the product of a “higher” education gender studies program.
    A walking waste of space in other words.

  24. Hi Helena!!
    We were wondering if you would like to take on a part time at hardcore satanic metal fatty porn studio?
    We specialize in denigrating women for free. This means that salary negotiation is out of the question.
    Please =D
    You can reach me at [email protected]

  25. Hi Helena!!
    We were wondering if you would like to take on a part time at hardcore satanic metal fatty porn studio?
    We specialize in denigrating women for free. This means that salary negotiation is out of the question.
    Please =D
    You can reach me at [email protected]

  26. Reality TV is trash and she’s looking to exploit people for the benefit of her career.
    Also, it it occurring to anyone that she may have been trying to attract cheapskates from HERE, until the false pretense that it was you readers who were being fair?

  27. This is an interesting illustration of how women think everyone prioritizes social exposure with the same degree of importance that they do. She presumes without forethought that men will simply jump at the chance to see their faces on TV (and tell all their friends about it) with the same verve that women will, irrespective of what the show’s about or how they’ll be characterized. This is why she thinks the “opportunity” to be on-screen will sell itself and she wont have to do her job and really work to recruit men to perform for her.
    For women, “look at me!” has priority over “what’s all this about?” and in girl-world, where men are ‘tha same as womyn” the expectation is that men will have the same response.

  28. Did you consider that if you stop surrounding yourself with sleazy, degenerate women you’ll eliminate the “cheapskate” ones? The people you surround yourself with will only act as classy as the standard that you hold them to, and I’m pretty sure that you can tell within two minutes of a conversation with someone the general type of person they are- especially if you happen to be a writer who “specializes in dating culture, social intelligence, and the state of masculinity.” Sounds to me like you’re exuding the characteristics that you seem to be complaining about: bitchiness and an inability to deal with your personal problems; you apparently feel the need to spread your misery online for other men to sympathize with. Or does that make you manipulative in the way that you’re capitalizing on a bad social experience to make a career out of it?

    1. “Did you consider that if you stop surrounding yourself with sleazy, degenerate women you’ll eliminate the “cheapskate” ones”
      Yes, but all 3.5 billion of us men on this planet can’t all date the 14 women who aren’t sleazy and degenerate.
      Hence, many of those 3.5 billion men will miss out if they don’t surrounding themselves with sleaze and degeneracy. We have to mitigate this dilemma and find ways of optimising our interaction the majority of women.

  29. Of course you realize that she never had any intention of doing a show that would have any females featured as cheapskates. It would have been all females claiming that their dates were to cheap to really spend big bucks on them.

  30. Needless antagonism. She actually wrote the first email without a hint of anger about the article saying all women are cheapskates. Her request is not unusual for the press, whatever the gender (it’s not free “advertising”; given how many people want to be on TV). Some guys here might love to put their cheap GF on blast on TV. Most chicks are twats; this one may be too. But we’ll never know because you never gave her the chance by responding to a relatively innocuous email with such an extreme angle.

    1. If she had a sense of humour and didn’t already have her hate on she should have responded much better than she did. No, she was already thinking he was a misogynist when she sent that first email and was just acting likes a big phoney to butter him up. No benefit of the doubt should be given for those in the media who act like this I’m afraid.

      1. Well, you could’ve gotten your message out. Roosh certainly didn’t shy away from TV while abroad. In fact, he actively courted it.

      2. Well, you could’ve gotten your message out. Roosh certainly didn’t shy away from TV while abroad. In fact, he actively courted it.

    1. she wasn’t even apart of MTV retard, why would she have a gmail address ? and a @mtv.com or etc. address ?

  31. I’ve had a few girls contact me on facebook, for the sole purpose of trying to expose something about me – usually how (since I write in the Manosphere) I must either be deeply wounded by some woman, or have some sort of aberrant sexual fetish.
    They pose as a fan, until I catch them in what they are.

  32. Took the beta bait, you gave her what she wanted in the guise of alpha-ing. The appropriate way to do this was to edit out the name, the name of the PR company, and challenge her to try to claim credit for the emails, and see if anyone actually noticed.

  33. LOL! I have had that conversation thousands of times with women over the last 6 years……usually it is a “concern troll” who tells me how “sorry” she is my children were kidnapped and abused and my house was stolen but in the next breath she will say that I should “get over it” and “get on with my life” so that I will be “happy again”.
    I mean, how hateful are such comments?
    Anyway…when I then call the woman a liar and a hypocrite because she is not “sorry” at all and she just condoned and supported perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse….she fires back that I must hate all women and that my wife must have suffered greatly being married to me and I deserved everything that happened to me and I am an arsehole, blah, blah, blah.
    The transparency and hypocrisy of these women has to be experienced to be believed. It really does.

  34. Do you know why you’ve not heard many rape jokes??
    Because you’re entire life is a rape joke!!
    hurrr hurr hurr
    No but seriously, I’ve read quite a bit of your stuff now, and I’m fairly certain you are a closet gay, all these articles just reek of repressed angst towards the sex you cant truly comprehend (but can trick into sleeping with you).
    You write opinion pieces justifying a small minorities repressed and barely concealed hatred (which I suspect is just insecurity turned out towards the world) so it’s not your prose or skill as a writer that’s given you a platform (I’ve read cereal packets that are more informative) but rather the joint abandonment of shame & adoption of anonymity that allows you to be the voice of over-compensating, over-masculine, deeply depressed men everywhere.
    Also yes, scandal = traffic, ergo you = dickhead on purpose, I get that, so no need to offer your standard set of ‘i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i’ rebuttals, as they won’t be read.
    Ps. Just wanted to stress the cereal packet thing, your actual STYLE of writing is too disengaging, messy and unprofessional to function (I guess your reliance on hyperbolic lists compensates for both this, and the stunted attention span of your readers?) so please go back to school or ask people to be honest in future, thanks.

Comments are closed.