This seems like a fairly common-sense strategy, and one that would simple enough for even the dullest of man boobz to remember. But apparently it has proved a little hard to put into practice.
For evidence of this, let's return to our good friend Nightstorm -- you know, the mousetrap-vagina, leech-women in the food court of doom guy on NiceGuy's MGTOW forum. He's back with another posting called "The List,"which is a list -- naturally -- of
the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together. He MUST do these things to "make the relationship work"
The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men ("Open all doors before and after for her"), but which have not actually been a part of any relationship I've ever been in. Aside from some complaints that are ridiculously petty ("Go to borning [sic] family out-goings") and some that are weird paranoid fantasies ("You get your penis size and bed performance revealed to the sisterhood. Oh yes, their not laughing with you!"), the complaints come back, again and again, to money:
Pay for dinner ...
Buying her yet another useless item she doesn't need, like shoes or a brand new car ....
You get to pay for the privledge of being with this woman. ...
You get to work while she lays around the house doing nothing. ...
She can have the government garnish your wages to pay her just for being the female spouse. ... You get to feel like the worthless scum you are and pay her for telling you that you are.
But, again, there really is a simple solution to all these money issues. I'll say it again, in bold this time: If you don't want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don't seek out women who expect you to support them.
This, evidently, is where Nightstorm's grand strategy has gone a bit awry.
For, as I discovered from another posting of his from a few days back, it turns out that Nightstorm's plan to totally avoid evil leech-like women apparently entails spending many hours flirting with women online. Indeed, he included a long transcript of an online chat he'd recently had with an (alleged) 18-year-old (alleged) girl who'd evidently decided after a couple of online chats that she wanted to be his girlfriend, despite the fact that the two of them have never actually met and in fact live in different states. (Hey, women can be idiots too.)
Nightstorm (posting as "shawnz") decided they needed to set down the terms of their relationship, and began by asking her what she thought she brought to the relationship. She jokingly suggested: herself, her "sexy hair," and her vagina.
[20:54] shawnz: if you become my GF..
[20:54] shawnz: I will get you, your sexy hair, and your vagina
[20:55] shawnz: and what do you expect out of me ...
[20:55] [name redacted]: ur penis ur cuddles and ur texting/calling/being on cam and coming to visit!
[20:55] shawnz: ok, anything else
[20:56] [name redacted]: nope
That seems pretty straightforward. No mention of "family out-goings" or even paying for dinner.
Nightstorm then set out his terms for the relationship:
[20:58] shawnz: First, I want a girl who cooks and cleans the house, I want someone who doesn't nag, cripe
[20:58] shawnz: bitch, or complain, someone who cuddles and anytime I want sex
[20:58] shawnz: someone who has ambition
[20:58] [name redacted]: demanding arent we lol
[20:58] shawnz: and someone who wants more than just love in the relationship, after all its hard work
Demanding, to be sure, lol, but he offers some things in return:
[20:59] shawnz: and what I offer is romance, a good paying salary for provision, and intimacy
[20:59] shawnz: I also offer you good self-esteem and reliability and faithfulness
Let's pause for a moment to consider that bit in the middle after "romance": "a good paying salary for provision."
The two haven't even met, and he's already offering to support her financially.
It appears Nightstorm not only has not only bungled the whole "don't pursue women who expect you to support them" strategy I have outlined above. He's actually OFFERING TO SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXPECT HIM TO SUPPORT HER.
It seems to me that if you want a woman who is financially dependent on you -- you provide the money, she provides "anytime [you] want sex" -- you pretty much forfeit your right to complain about her being financially dependent on you.
Fortunately for Nightstorm, [name redacted], and the rest of us on this planet, he decided that [name redacted] wasn't serious enough to be his girlfriend. So, crisis averted. For now.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
I love Nightstorm! He's my favorite manboob. I think he should have his own TV show.
ReplyDeleteI love how epically he fucked this up. The girl wants a fairly standard casual relationship (sex, snuggles, attention)-- I've done it loads of times. But instead of talking to the actual person on the line, he's talking to Girl Stereotype #14. Girl Stereotype #14 wants money-- actual girl, not so much!
What do you bet he decided she wasn't serious when she said "um, dude, I want sex and a casual relationship, not a Fifties marriage"?
I really want to read the full The List, but I don't want to sign up for weirdosite. Someone in the comments help?
My favorite is when the same complainers guilelessly shell out whatever it is the latest PUA guru o' the week is charging...
ReplyDeleteThat guy in the vintage ad looks a bit like Desi Arnez (I Love Lucy).
ReplyDelete"Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!"
THE LIST
ReplyDelete1. Respect her
2. Pay for dinner
3. Open all doors before and after for her.
4. Pretend to not be staying at other chicks breasts.
5. Listen intently at the most meaningless garbage you ever heard. Ex: She got her nails done or how she feels.
6. Visit the Parents
7. Visit her "Family".
8. Go to borning family out-goings.
9. Visit and hang out with her friends.
10. Waiting a hour for her to get ready for your date.
11. Helping her move in to your place.
12. Watching your manly items leave your house 1 by 1 while her trinkets flow everywhere.
13. Stop hanging out with the guys or friends because you have to spend time with her.
14. Stop going to your occasionaly events because you have to spend time with her.
15. Taking out the garbage.
16. Going to the baby stores holding her hand while she asks you what you think of "this outfit for the baby?".
17. Going shopping with her.
18. Buying her yet another useless item she doesn't need, like shoes or a brand new car because she was bored with the old one.
19. Constantly giving her compliments even if you can't think of anymore.
20. Constantly trying to convince her that she really does look beautiful and isn't fat.
21. Drain all your time and energy in a poor attempt at being romantic just to have sex.
22. Fighting and arguging that your not romantic enough (working hard enough), to have sex tonight.
23. Nagging. Nuff said.
24. Bitching. Nuff said.
25. You will tell her your deepest most darkest secrets, and you get the joys of hearing them all over again back in your face the next fight.
26. Mood swings that put you in a roller coaster ride. What will tomorrow bring? Nothing good I can assure you.
27. You get to hear that laugh and giggle. It was cute at first, but now it annoying as hell.
28. You get to pay for the privledge of being with this woman.
29. You get to work while she lays around the house doing nothing. You might find a decent one who will occasionaly clean but ask for your help.
30. You get your penis size and bed performance revealed to the sisterhood. Oh yes, their not laughing with you!
31. Gossip Gossip and more Gossip. She can't get enough to tell on you.
32. What you thought was love forever and a endless supply of sex has now become a dry land of pussy begging.
33. You get your own children as hostages in the marriage.
34. You get your own children as hosstages in divorce.
35. She can take at minimal 50% of your money just because you married her, nothing else.
36. She can have the government garnish your wages to pay her just for being the female spouse.
37. You get to watch her beautiful exterior age.. and get old.. and start to decay on you.
38. You get to change diapers.
39. You get to have meetings. You'll know they are in session with the opening phrase "we need to talk".
40. You get to fight atleast 3 times a week over absolutely nothing. Yes, absolutely nothing.
41. You will get your manhood shamed over and over again.
42. You get to feel like the worthless scum you are and pay her for telling you that you are.
43. You get to cry yourself to sleep at night while envying all the single guys.
44. You get to believe hell is a free ride out of here.
45. After 20 years, you wake up to this man-hating blob that stole your freedom, virginity, resources, energy, and time.
"How she feels"="meaningless garbage," on a par with "getting her nails done."
ReplyDeleteThank you very much!
ReplyDeleteMost of this alternates between "decent human being" (dude, I have to change diapers too, it's not like I invented the concept to fuck with you) and "DTMFA" (fighting three times a week? Seriously, break up already).
That list has scared me off of marriage.
ReplyDeleteWow. If you want a quiet, unthinking, unfeeling female that will give you sex whenever you want and won't complain and has no family ... just buy a blow-up doll already.
ReplyDeleteOr are those too "sensitive," always needing your attention to reinflate and make sure you don't pop them?
I like how "shoes" and "new car" are like, totally the same expense or something. How about a candy bar? Some Mountain Dew? A pack of smokes?
ReplyDeleteBut I have to say, number 45 really takes the cake. The "your virginity" added to the list says it all. Yeah, there's healthy, well-adjusted people out there who don't have sex for whatever reason, but this really isn't well-adjusted. I mean, he does realize that you don't have to get married to have sex, and that there are people out there who just want sex? And that you don't have to marry your girlfriend? Or that most people usually start off causally?
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI just read The List.
I feel really sorry for Nightstorm and any other person (male or female) who views love relationships as primarily being adversarial in nature. If you're in a relationship where you're fighting three times a week, are sexually unsatisfied and feel nothing but contempt and annoyance for your partner... yeah, DTMFA.
Relationships are supposed to require some effort, but if you're upset more often than you're happy, you're doing it wrong, or are with the wrong person. I wonder if perhaps Nightstorm's parents had an unhappy marriage which they kept together 'for the kids' sake.' I know my folks did, and it took me awhile to unlearn the bad habits I thought were normal.
So, he watched a movie or something? I mean, this is the guy who already told us that he's never slept with anyone, so I'm assuming he's never moved in with a woman, or bought anyone a car, or impregnated anyone. Hell, I question whether any woman has ever asked him to meet her parents.
ReplyDeleteThe beauty part to me is, not only is he making sure his potential girlfriend from before the time their relationship even begins knows that he's willing to support her financially--he's actually promising to do almost everything he's complained suck about relationships. He's going to give her endless romance (#21). He's going to boost her self esteem (#19 and #20). And he's already letting her know that this is not going to be any fun at all! It's hard work, goddammit!
Well, shit. A relationship with Nightstorm sounds like no fun at all. Sadly, people get what they ask for. If he ever finds a woman who lets him near her, I'm sure it'll end up being exactly as horrible as he says they all are. [name redacted] is almost certainly stupid, but she's lucky as hell.
Also: Is it just me, or does "Nightstorm" sound like a euphemism for "bedwetter" to anyone else?
ReplyDeleteIn the absolute worst relationship I was ever in, I think only 4 of the 45 actually applied. Six if you count the 2 about meeting parents and relatives, but actually I enjoyed that. (Her sister was cool; her mom was a great cook who insisted on feeding me until I was stuffed.)
ReplyDeleteIn my current relationship, only #1 applies: "Respect her."
I love how "Family" is in scare quotes for no apparent reason.
ReplyDeleteThe female chauvinist in this day and age is very common and passes as something that's sociacally acceptable and PC. Yet, that exact term (even that it's the ultimate truth) will get pulled under the rug
ReplyDeleteObeying a woman = respect
ReplyDeleteObeying a man = slavery
Where on Earth do you get the idea that respect equals obedience or slavery? Respect doesn't mean doing whatever the other person says. It means taking someone else's wishes and desires into account when deciding what you yourself want to do. It means not telling someone they're wrong just because they happen to disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteArticle: "To which there really is a very simple solution: If you don't want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don't seek out women who expect you to support them. "
ReplyDeleteI'm curious David, when was the last time you were in the dating scene? Put some perspective on your expertise on the subject matter.
Article: "The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men"
Attributing this guys one opinion with all MRA's? I thought you didn't do this? In addition, I don't see any indication that these are things MRA's see in ALL woman placing on ALL men. And just for clarification, I also don't think women are seen as doing everything on the list ether. I can't be certain, I'm not signed into that forum, but from what you've posted, that's what I get.
As for the list itself, some things are actually quite benign, and the fact he's adding them makes me think he's a bitter divorced 1930's style ex-husband.
Some of the things however are very typical, and I see them in almost every marriage amongst my friends. Several of the items aren't typical, but do show up in at least of the 1 marriages I know. The most common of these is the loss of access to male friends... We have a regular sunday's guys night, so it's not like opportunity isn't there. It's getting wife permission, or the inevitable consequences of going without it, that causes problems.
Bee: "I mean, this is the guy who already told us that he's never slept with anyone,"
There is an alternative, he may have married young to a woman, and devised the list based on that experience. In fact, that seems a far more likely scenario.
@nick:
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about obeying anyone? That's a connection you made yourself, that's straight out of your head.
I'm not willing to be in a relationship with someone who expects me to obey them, but I am equally unwilling to be in a relationship with anyone who expects me to lead them and make decisions which they obey. Both of those options seem like a recipe for a difficult relationship, and I have always believed that if one's relationships are hard work (more angst than elation) it's because it's the wrong relationship, and both members would probably be happier somewhere else.
Lady V: "It means not telling someone they're wrong just because they happen to disagree with you."
ReplyDeleteI find the irony of this being posted on this board to be immensely entertaining. Not making an accusation against you specifically, but the blog in general.
Kratch: I'm curious David, when was the last time you were in the dating scene?
ReplyDeleteLast summer. Again, I wonder where these guys are meeting women if the women they're meeting are all like this. (With Nightstorm, that's not the case: he's simply imposing his expectations on the women he's meeting, or at least on [name redacted] here.)
Attributing this guys one opinion with all MRA's?
Nope. I have seem numerous examples of MGTOWs/MRAs making very similar arguments. That's why I felt safe to generalize. The word "all" in my post is only a slight exaggeration. MGTOWs, after all, tend to swear off ALL women, or at least ALL western women.
As for the list itself, some things are actually quite benign, and the fact he's adding them makes me think he's a bitter divorced 1930's style ex-husband.
He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description.
The most common of these is the loss of access to male friends
Welcome to the real world, in which people have competing demands on their time. Of course, if one person in a relationship (male or female) is demanding that the other *never* see his or her friends, that's a problem. But that's not typical. For me that would be a sign that the relationship wasn't healthy and I would get out.
SallyStrange: I love how "Family" is in scare quotes for no apparent reason.
ReplyDeleteAll women are in the mafia.
Gee I guess it's too much to ask these menchildren to respect their SO's. Especially since respect is something that BOTH people in a relationship have to have for each other. I think nightstorm needs to get in line for one of the sex robots of the robotpocalypse instead of dating real women
ReplyDelete"Where on Earth do you get the idea that respect equals obedience or slavery?"
ReplyDeleteWhen feminists talk about "patriarchy" an awful lot.
In a social view, men are stereotyped to be domineering or control freaks. For that, when a man simply asks women to change this or that or do this or that, it more likely comes off in that way as the patriarchal, domineering male. Yet when a woman acts the same, the thought of her being domineering and controlling is a million miles away
If the woman you are in a relationship with is an 18 year old then chances are you might have to financially support her. You know why? BECAUSE SHE'S 18! Unless she's heiress to a fortune or has been in a very unusual circumstance then she isn't going to have much money. If you want her to dress a certain way, have the best hairstyle, and look like a model then you better pay for it. You know why?
ReplyDeleteBECAUSE SHE'S 18.
On the other hand you could find a woman who is older (mid 20s or 30s) who has gone to school and has a career. These women are less likely to expect you to buy them things because they can buy stuff for themselves. Then again, they are also going to have higher standards for the guys they want to date. Either because they are evil bitches (MRA answer) or because they have enough self-confidence that they would rather be single than date anything that comes along their path.
So, it's your choice. You can date women who can take care of themselves, but then you risk being rejected because these women don't need you. Or you can date helpless women and have to pay for them to survive because they are dependant on you.
Or wait for that sex robot to come along. But then that stupid bitch will probably expect you to change its oil or something.
"but then you risk being rejected because these women don't need you."
ReplyDeleteIt's perfectly fine for a woman to feel this way. But I think women take that concept too far these days and think very little of men. They dig it in and slap our faces with it
If the tables are turned, it's misogyny
If the tables are turned, it's misogyny
ReplyDeleteWell, not exactly. It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life" and another to say, "women (or all American or Western women) are evil, moneygrubbing whores, and to show how much I don't need them I'm going to spend all day on the internet talking about what moneygrubbing whores they are."
Nicko, you seem to be eternally perturbed that people sometimes adopt the attitude, "Thanks, but I'd rather not date someone who [X]."
ReplyDeleteEveryone, male, female and intersex, carries around their own internal list of qualities they're looking for in a partner, coupled with a list of deal-breakers. It's not misandrist to not want to date a man who can't hold down a job any more than it's misogynist to prefer redheaded artists. It is not bigoted or prejudiced to want to date someone who can take care of themselves and support themselves - after all, most people want to be partners, not parents.
If you feel like you are continually being slapped in the face by women, I'd suggest the problem is not women, but that you might have low self-esteem. I have found that people who value themselves often value other people as well; whereas people who think they aren't worth very much are the quickest to project that onto others.
Word to what Lady Victoria said, but I would add this:
ReplyDelete"It's not misandrist to not want to date a man who can't hold down a job any more than it's misogynist to prefer redheaded artists."
It would be misadrist to say "I only want to date men who work and all men who don't work are worthless assholes who don't deserve to live." It would also be misogynist to say "All women should be forced to dye their hair red because only red heads are worth anything in society."
I haven't really seen the former on any female centered blogs or sites. I have seen the other on MRA sites. Although it is usually something like, "I don't find fat women attractive and so fat women shouldn't be allowed outside."
Too often MRAs seem to think that any woman who doesn't fit into their definition of fuckable doesn't deserve any respect as a human being. I also think it's possible they are projecting their own views of fuckability=respect onto women. Therefore, if a woman doesn't want to fuck them they assume that the woman doesn't think they are worthy to live.
For most of us (men and women) we respect everyone because of their humanity. Not simply because they make our genitals tingle.
Actually Missy-it is "regardless of fuckablity, women are unworthy of respect."
ReplyDeleteAt least that is the view I am coming to when discussing this stuff with Nick and the gang.
Basically, these MRAs cannot accept that women reject them and cannot accept that the women they want are attracted to other guys. They are narcissists that believe they are entitled to women. It's why they hate women and bashes other guys by calling them manginas.
ReplyDeleteDavid: "Last summer. Again, I wonder where these guys are meeting women if the women they're meeting are all like this."
ReplyDeleteYou are a lucky man then. And again, there is no indication of "all" women being like that. There are enough like that out there that warnings are warranted.
"The word "all" in my post is only a slight exaggeration. MGTOWs, after all, tend to swear off ALL women, or at least ALL western women."
But you equated the attitude to MRA's as well, therefor the accusation of "all was more then just an "slight" exaggeration.
"He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description. "
Then he's a twit and deserves to stay alone.
"Welcome to the real world, in which people have competing demands on their time. Of course, if one person in a relationship (male or female) is demanding that the other *never* see his or her friends, that's a problem. But that's not typical."
Actually, it is quite typical, at least amongst my friends wives. I tend to drive a lot of them around when they do come out, so as not to leave the single car family without a vehicle, and I see the annoyance on the wives faces when the men come home. I hear the ridicule and shaming coming from the wives, at other social gatherings, for their husbands "wanting to go out and play with their little friends". and yes, it is a problem, and a far too common one.
Missy: "Then again, they are also going to have higher standards for the guys they want to date. Either because they are evil bitches (MRA answer) or because they have enough self-confidence that they would rather be single than date anything that comes along their path. "
Only one or the other? meet the "higher standards" or he's beneath you? Define higher standards? do you mean higher earner? of course not, you wouldn't admit to be so shallow... but think about this... Women's general insistence on finding a higher earner is what prompts them to sacrifice career for family, because generally, you don't sacrifice the higher earnings when there is a lower earnings to be given up instead. it's this tendency that put's women into the child caregiver role. basic economics. Just ask David, if a girlfriend/wife made more then him, would he be willing to stay home on paternity leave and tend to the kids while mom went back to work? I bet he would. I would. but generally speaking, I'm not high enough standards for a higher earning woman.
David: "It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life""
ReplyDeletebut that's not an example of the tables turned. nick noted that women are taking the "reject a man cause he's not needed" too far, for example, claiming men altogether aren't needed (IE, they are a novelty, something to amuse them), and if men considered women like that (using the sexdoll as an example), then there are rampant claims of misogyny.
being independent is one thing. not needing men because you are independent is something else akin to MGTOW's and players. And just to clarify, I realize there are different interpretations of need, there is needing something, as in, it's required, but then there is "not needing" something, as in not being of any use, in which case it often gets tossed aside or put away. While you may often be referring to required, when coupled with other attitudes common on these boards, it is very easy to take the "of no use" interpretation. Just a friendly FYI, be wary of your wording or you may find yourself on a counterpart to David's board.
David. Read missy’s post above talking about what MRA’s write and tell me again why I shouldn’t believe your blogs intention is to paint the entire MRM in the light of the worst examples you post here? She has a very distinct view of MRA's that would match what your site depicts, but not my own personal experience.
There is an assumption that dating is easy, or should be easy.
ReplyDeleteIt's not.
Dating, finding a relationship and maintaining it takes effort. 'Work' might not be the best word, but it certainly requires a certain expenditure of emotional and physical energy to keep a relationship healthy and fulfilling. It also requires a certain amount of risk - ask nearly anyone who is currently in a happy relationship about the worst heartbreak they ever experienced, and I guarantee you that, male or female, gay or straight, they'll all have stories. But instead of letting the experience turn them bitter against an entire gender, they learned from it, moved on and found someone else they could be happy with.
If you're not willing to expend the energy, make the effort and take the risk, then just don't date. And if you make the choice not to date, then don't spend all your free time whining about how every member of the gender you're attracted to are nothing but ungrateful, shallow wastes of space.
Kratch, I'll get back to your comments later.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I want to second this from Lady Victoria: "But instead of letting the experience turn them bitter against an entire gender, they learned from it, moved on and found someone else they could be happy with."
Exactly. I've had girlfriends who were clingy and demanding. I didn't like it. What I learned from this wasn't "all women are clingy and demanding" but "maybe I should find a women who isn't clingy and demanding, and see if I can date her." And lo and behold that worked.
but generally speaking, I'm not high enough standards for a higher earning woman.
ReplyDeleteI've dated multiple women who make more than me. I'm a pretty unambitious guy. Kind of a slacker.
But I find that when I look for the kind of women I like to interact with, they respond well to the fact that I appreciate those qualities in them that I like. It's not a woman thing, everybody responds well to that. And some women like me enough in return that they don't care that I don't make a lot of money.
So, I mean, I guess all I'm saying is that you're full of shit. More to the point, you disrespect women, they pick up on that and so don't want to date you, and you've decided it's actually their fault because they're gold-digging bitches.
Kratch, MRAs are obsessed by the idea of finding slutty women in clubs or finding money grabbing women that are below them and then they bitch because these women are not good companions. As one commenter said on another blog ( http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/06/sex-and-city.html?showComment=1275871002567#c7537574413053948406 ) :
ReplyDelete================================================
I personally think that there is some male personality type that delights in “revealing” womens’ promiscuity. Blandishing it as a ‘cruel fact of life’ to wake the listener from a supposed romantic dream he has fallen into about female purity. They do this, it seems, to paint a picture of a world where women are adventuresome whores, yet pretend not to be. It is always implied that “I have seen so much crazy shit, stuff you wouldn’t believe” – and the person listening is simply naive to this deviousness of women.
Completely aside from the actual phenomenon of women’s promiscuity, for myself I like to notice the steadfastness with which this viewpoint is emphasized by those who adhere to it. I also notice the delight they take in ‘revealing womens’ dirty side’. Then I notice the ambiguous nature of most of the evidence, and the fact that it generalizes the behavior of the 12-20% of women who I know are genuinely promiscuous and slutty, to the totality of women (or would like to).
I personally think it is a way for these men to justify to themselves neglecting emotional development, by “revealing” women not to be worthy of an emotionally developed man. According to these guys, it’s all just a game, and we are all just lying to each other: women are whores – with this premise one sidesteps all the questions about emotional commitment, trust, and intimacy which otherwise crop up.
I write this only because I have now encountered 4+ men giving me these kind of assurances about the devious sexual lives of women, all with the same tonality and emphasis, all pointing to the same understanding. Each of them was also unhappy in their relationships, I may note by the by.
=============================================
The biggest single dating advice my wife and I have given our children is simple: Never date anyone without good freinds of the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteThese mra and mgtow don't seem to have freindships with women. Huge red flag for me.
Kratch said:
ReplyDelete"He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description. "
Then he's a twit and deserves to stay alone.
sigh, I hate virgin shaming for men.
Has nothing to do with his virginity, And I have no idea where the assumption even came from. Nether Twit not stay alone have any relation to ones past sexual experience. I do however think that if he doesn't have the experience, his list has very little justification and far to much accusation and/or expectation. A far cry from Virgin Shaming
ReplyDelete"I've dated multiple women who make more than me."
ReplyDeleteAnd how many of those were looking for a good time vs wanted to settle down with you?
"Then I notice the ambiguous nature of most of the evidence, and the fact that it generalizes the behavior of the 12-20% of women who I know are genuinely promiscuous and slutty, to the totality of women (or would like to)."
isn't that what you're doing to MRA's right now? Well, with the exception that 4+ doesn't even come close to 12-20% of the MRM
It's kind of amazing that the argument always seems to come back to how they're annoyed at having to buy stuff. I've never had a woman ask me to buy her anything. I've offered to buy things for them - they've offered to buy things for me. I'd say the occurrences are actually pretty equal, (in fact, in retrospect, I've dated quite a few women who were quite generous with the check book). As it turns out, if people actually enjoy the pleasure of your company, you don't need to pay them to stick around.
ReplyDeleteavpd0nmmng said...
ReplyDeleteBasically, these MRAs cannot accept that women reject them and cannot accept that the women they want are attracted to other guys.
Basically, MRAs are interested into a long-term relationship with ONE honest woman.
We reject women, who prefer a wild nightlife in alcohol and drugs and with various rich playboys and/or violent thugs instead of a serious relationship.
MRAs reject women in their 30s and 40s who are suddenly looking for a NiceGuy, demanding he takes care of them and their children.
For better understanding we have to point out, that exactly these women were making scornful fun of us, when we all were still young men.
You did not need us in your past, and we do not need you in our future.
Sorry ladies, but finished is finished.
Men (still) have the right to choose and to accept or reject certain women.
Johnny said...
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of amazing that the argument always seems to come back to how they're annoyed at having to buy stuff. I've never had a woman ask me to buy her anything...
I do not know if you are telling the truth or not, but why should you lie? Good for you.
You met women demanding 'nothing' from you.
In my case, I was not lucky, women were demanding from me all and everything, from diamonds up to a private horse - and I was only a simple office worker with a little income.
OK, you were lucky, many other men are not.
Please do not expect EVERY woman treats every man as an equal...
FWIW, I've never demanded anything from my boyfriends except companionship, love and support. I take pride in being able to support myself, and even offered to support my current boyfriend if he needed it.
ReplyDeleteSo, I suppose, Yohan, please do not expect EVERY woman treats every man as an ambulant ATM.
I, too, have never had a woman ask me to buy her things. Virtually all the women I have dated, including my wife, make as much or more than I.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's more than just a matter of luck?
It isn't luck, it's being a good judge of character. Something that MRA's suck at.
ReplyDeleteYohan
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should have dated a feminist who would not ask these things of you?
Question for you. Have you had any female friends? Women who you will meet for a pint or a round of golf, women who you simply enjoy their company without a hope of a sexual relationship?
If you don't enjoy the companionship of women why would you expect them to enjoy yours? It’s like a white supremacist wanting to live with a black guy, if you don’t like them then why in heck would you be looking for one to live with.
This is what is most disturbing about this post we are talking about. Nightstorm knows nothing about this girl, has never met her, yet he's willing to just draw up a contract and get himself a wife, if he ever did find a woman insane enough to say o.k. to that how do you think that would play out?
Yohan
You say you are married and happy. I cannot believe you are either. I think you are more like my brother and living out a fantasy where you get to be the big guy in the mgtow world. My brother has even taken pictures with prostitutes and bragged about his new women on your site. I doubt he’s the only schizophrenic regular on your site.
Speedlines
ReplyDeleteI think that the people mra's engage tend to have a decent abilty to judge character, hence they get the cold shoulder.
Uh... no.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.singledudetravel.com/2011/01/the-diamond-ring-scam/
http://www.singledudetravel.com/2010/11/american-girls-suck/
David
ReplyDelete"Well, not exactly. It's one thing to say "I want to live an independent life" and another to say, "women (or all American or Western women) are evil, moneygrubbing whores, and to show how much I don't need them I'm going to spend all day on the internet talking about what moneygrubbing whores they are."
No David, you are trying to cover up the truth. Women practically scream with neon flashing lights “I don’t need a man” and rub it all over your face. It’s done in a fashion that gives the impression that men are useless idiots and they are superior princesses.
It’s amazing how sexism that’s so obvious coming from women, feminists will be full of excuses and make shit up to twist the truth. Yet when it’s men acting sexist, it’s misogyny, end of story, no excuses.
You can deny being a feminist bigot all you want, David. A feminist bigot is someone who will make up any excuse in the world for terrible behaviour or actions from women but then be the first to call out on sexism within a second when men are acting terrible.
Lady Victoria von Syrus
"If you feel like you are continually being slapped in the face by women, I'd suggest the problem is not women"
Look shit titts, the problem is women when they act in such a sexist and chauvinistic manner as what I have been pointing out. It’s perfectly fine for a woman to feel that she doesn’t need men. On the other hand to shout it out, rub it in a man’s face in the attempt to intimidate men and act like a superior princess is another thing.
Yohan: So let them demand. There is no law saying that you have to buy them anything. Just like there is no law saying they have to have sex with you. Everyone has their own unique desires. I think so many of the things the MRA types complain about could be solved if they just walked away from people that annoy them. For what ever reason (sex? I suppose) they seem to linger in relationships they hate - and dwell heavily upon not being able to impress the types of women they deplore.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call my dating life "luck", really. I just happen to tend to only date who share my values and who seem to me to be sensible.
Look, yes, I can understand that in your simplistic model of the world, diamond rings are mandatory.
ReplyDeleteBut one of the funny consequences of regarding women as people is that you can talk to them about these issues rather than just feeling perpetually aggrieved. So if you for any reason don't want to buy your fiancee a diamond ring, you can tell her so and explain why.
But of course you have it in your head that almost any woman would dump you for that. Some women might. I don't know. I don't date women like that. I was very nearly engaged to my first girlfriend (we were young and silly) and she said when I proposed I'd better not buy her a diamond ring. I laughed and said I had no intention of doing so.
In that particular case it was because we both personally boycott blood diamonds. (Not that it's hard to boycott diamonds...) There's really no point to this anecdote except that, like everyone else here, I'm kind of hoping that enough examples will eventually get into your head that WOMEN ARE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.
Yeah. I used all caps. Deal with it.
Look shit titts, the problem is women when they act in such a sexist and chauvinistic manner as what I have been pointing out.
ReplyDeleteAnd...not a trace or irony there, folks.
But one of the funny consequences of regarding women as people
ReplyDeleteWhat I find funny is that feminists don't see men as people as men are never allowed to disagree with women or have freedom of speech.
If men think different to what many women think, they are wrong. If women think different to what many men think, they are not wrong.
We live in a society that tells men if you don't shut up and agree with women or do what women want, we will never get laid or we are not good enough for women
Thanks to political correctness that always seems to favour women (the so called second class citizens)
In a political correct view, women are never wrong
"And...not a trace or irony there, folks."
ReplyDeleteTelling someone that they have shit titts is not sexist or chauvinistic, dumbass.
If women went around telling men they have shit dicks, I can bet my bottom dollar that feminists wouldn't consider it to be sexist. Feminists (the equality police) are full of dumbass double standards
@ Nicko
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you think it's perfectly fine to call me 'shit titts' when complaining about female chauvinism says more about you than I could ever hope to.
@ triplanetary
When my current boyfriend and I were first discussing living together, he said he'd probably propose if things were going well after a year or so. I told him right then that I didn't want an engagement ring. It's not even blood diamonds that bug me, it's that I think the concept of an engagement ring encapsulates everything wrong about American consumer culture. I'd much rather have a proposal inscribed in a book of love poetry.
Explain in logical detail how it's chauvinism to tell a woman she has shit titts?
ReplyDeleteHere we have feminists in this very thread telling men that we have to accept the fact that some women think we are too shit to date.
I guess these certain women who think I am shit to date are chauvinists too heh
Straw man is made of straw, Nick. Try again.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteYou are not making any sense.
Anyway, right now I feel like being a chauvinist.
Can feminists please go back to the kitchen and clean my shit up?
It's not even blood diamonds that bug me, it's that I think the concept of an engagement ring encapsulates everything wrong about American consumer culture.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree. It's a wasteful, exorbitant show of wealth. Plus I can't help thinking they're supposed to symbolize bondage (and not in the kinky way).
Yeah, dude.
ReplyDeleteYou have to accept that some women just won't want to date you. Women don't want to date men who are whiny babies... *gasp* *shock* *horror* THE FALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!!
I'm sure there are also men who don't want to date me (why, I've even been broken up with a few times!), but I don't hold all men accountable for the actions of a few, or insist that all men are whiny douchebags just because some are. Nor do I take it personally when someone points out that some men have standards for women they date that I don't personally meet.
nicko81m:
ReplyDeleteHere we have feminists in this very thread telling men that we have to accept the fact that some women think we are too shit to date.
Well yes, women do have the right to decide who is and is not up to their standards. Men have that right too. We all have that right! Yay rights!
You're just bitter because you feel like women should give you pussy whenever you demand it and they shouldn't have a right to reject you.
We grown-up men can deal with the fact that not every woman on the planet wants our mighty cock.
I guess these certain women who think I am shit to date are chauvinists too heh
No, they're not. And you're not sexist for deciding you don't want to date a particular woman. You're sexist for a lot of reasons, such as for reducing a woman to her tits just because you can't best her in an argument.
@ triplanetary
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that bugs me about engagement rings is that only the woman wears one (at least, traditionally speaking. Two friends of mine just got engaged, and they are both wearing rings. Another couple, she proposed to him and he is the one wearing the ring. They all couldn't be happier). It also does seem to symbolize the sexism that both feminists and MRAs complain about - the man must provide an expensive piece of jewelry to convince a woman to marry him.
I don't mind wedding rings so much, since those seem like more of an equitable exchange - they're worn by both. Also, most rings are just gold bands - no blood diamonds to worry about!
Either way, I'd rather my boyfriend put his DeBeers-recommended three months' salary to a down payment on a house we buy together... or at least blow it on the reception/honeymoon, if it absolutely must be spent on a luxury.
We live in a society that tells men if you don't shut up and agree with women or do what women want, we will never get laid or we are not good enough for women
ReplyDeleteAnd yet quite a few men--not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys--manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity. How do you suppose they do that, Nick? Are they deluded? Just lucky?
What do you think, Nick: how do so many men manage to have successful relationships with women every day? Maybe, just maybe, the problem doesn't lie with women, Nick--or even with the cartoonish perception of feminism that you seem to have. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you.
Is there any part of your situation for which are willing to accept responsibility? Anything at all? Is there anything wrong with Nick's dating and relationship life, or lack thereof, that can be blamed on something other than feminism?
@ Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteYou're forgetting, this is where the convenient term 'mangina' comes in. Any ordinary guy managing to get laid on regular or semi regular basis is obviously a mangina.
I'm not even sure what a mangina is, except that it's something bad.
Lady Victoria:
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that they're sexist, but like most things MRAs complain about, they're very much a function of the patriarchy. In a patriarchy, one of the ways rich men show off their wealth is by buying expensive things for their wives.
That doesn't mean the pressure to buy expensive-ass engagement rings isn't something men face. Of course it is. In this case it's largely because the tradition of buying expensive-ass engagement rings trickled down into the middle class because the middle class is constantly trying to emulate the upper class.
But I mean, seriously, MRAs, you're adults. If you don't want to buy a diamond ring, don't. If your partner doesn't understand, clearly you don't share their values, so it's time to reconsider the relationship. The idea that women are all wallet-sucking harpies who won't give you sex unless you buy them expensive shit is just getting trite.
Re: manginas, from what I gather, MGTOWs are convinced that any man who gets poon must be selling out by suppressing his identity and mindlessly agreeing with his partner's every silly demand.
ReplyDeleteThis is how they justify it to themselves, at any rate.
Lady:
ReplyDeleteI think the logic regarding the term "mangina" runs thusly:
Women are bad.
Women have vaginas.
Therefore, vaginas are bad.
A man with a vagina (or who is a vagina, I'm not sure which it is) is bad because he has (or is) something that a woman has. And that's bad, because, you know, women are bad. QED.
It's really hard to take seriously any supposed adult who hasn't matured beyond the "girls are icky and have cooties" stage of development.
Also, I think triplanetary is correct as well.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....
ReplyDeleteSo we infer that a 'mangina' is a term for a guy who's getting laid regularly... and, from what I can tell, *not* a practitioner of Game.
So we can assume therefore a fair number of these 'manginas' are in relationships.
... so the worst thing you can be, according to an MRA (apart from being a woman, of course), is a guy in a satisfying relationship?
That reveals quite a lot about the MRA mindset, methinks.
Women practically scream with neon flashing lights “I don’t need a man” and rub it all over your face.
ReplyDeleteWeird. I've never run into these women. It seems like they would be easy to spot, what with the neon signs and all.
We live in a society that tells men if you don't shut up and agree with women or do what women want, we will never get laid or we are not good enough for women
No we don't. Admittedly, we do live in a society in which guys who use the term "shit tits" might have a harder time than most getting laid.
I love how the list mentions that men get to watch us "decay" in front of them. Because, you know, men don't age.
ReplyDeleteAlso it mentions how the woman took the man's virginity and moves into the man's house. Psh. Right, because women are ALWAYS the participant who're slutty sluts and take the man's virginity while the man has to settle with a used pussy, right?
Also, my boyfriend's moving in with me. So... I don't know where that puts that bit of the list.
What's the use of opening a door after a person?
If Nicko can't figure out why calling someone "shit tits" is sexist, he needs more than lessons on how not to be a jerk.
[20:58] shawnz: someone who has ambition
ReplyDeleteAmbition to do WHAT, exactly? Cook, clean the house and have anytime sex??
LOL!! Have anytime sex after having robbed you of your virginity, of course.
ReplyDelete"The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men . . ."---David
ReplyDeleteShould read, "The list is long fairly astute, and filled with various things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to experience that many women demand of all men . . and in David's imagination never happens in his own little world of innocent, angelic women."
Fixed.
"So we infer that a 'mangina' is a term for a guy who's getting laid regularly... and, from what I can tell, *not* a practitioner of Game."---LVvS
ReplyDeleteIncorrect.
A mangina (among many things) is someone who tries to get laid and places women of higher sexual value than himself, but does not get sexual attention regularly and doesn't know much Game. You feminists also diagnose him with low self esteem; in this case you would be right with the latter.
"So we can assume therefore a fair number of these 'manginas' are in relationships."---LVvS
ReplyDeleteThat's if he's willingly taking a backseat to his partner's demands and not standing up for/neglecting his own. Only then the answer is "yes."
"And yet quite a few men--not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys--manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity."---Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, somebody mentioned the "advice" that men should lower their standards in order to have more results. (This would imply compromising their personal integrity).
Would that be you, CB?
triplanetary
ReplyDelete"You're just bitter because you feel like women should give you pussy whenever you demand it and they shouldn't have a right to reject you."
Really? Even I didn't know that
“such as for reducing a woman to her tits just because you can't best her in an argument.”
ahuh, I am sure that's the case even though that I know my argument is 100 percent correct. But you femitards are always in denial
“And yet quite a few men--not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys--manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity. How do you suppose they do that, Nick? Are they deluded? Just lucky?”
I manage to get laid occasionally too. But in a bigoted feminist view, the reason why a man disagrees with feminism and/or has masculine views is because he can't play with the superior puss puss. It’s the only answer isn’t it? It can’t be that men have legitimate problems too and women can do wrong too. nooooooo
But this type of crap is basically the chauvinistic argument from feminists a lot of the time.
"What do you think, Nick: how do so many men manage to have successful relationships with women every day? Maybe, just maybe, the problem doesn't lie with women, Nick--or even with the cartoonish perception of feminism that you seem to have. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you."
1. Not every woman is an idiot but it's not hard to find one.
2. Many men would do anything to get a woman, even give up their own integrity. Such men like David.
This is the laughable thing about you extreme feminist bigots. Not all women are perfect princesses who can never do wrong. There are just as many shitty women than there are men.
But when a man complains about these shitty women, the typical bigoted feminist argument is that the problem lies within the man and not the perfect princesses who can never do wrong.
The feminist argument in this thread says it all. They are so deluded in their bigotry that a man is wrong even when he complains about the wrong things women do. Bigotry really can't get any worse than this. It's absolutely woeful
Anyway I've been a bit lazy to make this response and couldn't be assed to respond to the other stuff said about me in here. It's pretty much pointless trying to talk sense into bigots anyway.
Oh, I found a good article today that exposes the idiotic hypocrisy of feminism.
Enjoy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8281812/Are-men-victims-of-obnoxious-feminism.html
Not all women are perfect princesses who can never do wrong. There are just as many shitty women than there are men.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we know. Don't date them.
Look at Nightstorm here, so convinced that all women are shallow, manipulative gold-diggers that he thinks that's just part of the deal in heterosexual relationships. He thinks it's normal to end up in relationships where you argue three times a week, cry yourself to sleep, and have to continually buy cars and shoes for someone who laughs about you to her friends and makes your children hate you.
How well is that going to suit him in the future, if he ever does get over some of his issues with women and end up in a relationship with someone? If she treats him badly - well, that's just what women do. If people tell him the world's full of women who won't treat him badly - well, that's just feminist propaganda and lies, all women are like that!
I've met shitty men, as well. My first serious relationship, God help me, was with a whiny, lying brat who wanted me to financially support him while he played computer games all day. Did I decide that meant all men were whiny, lying brats who wanted women to financially support them? No - I broke up with that guy, and found one who wasn't.
That's the best way to deal with shitty people who want a relationship with you. Don't spend years bitching about their whole gender - just remove them from your life and move on. It's not actually that difficult.
@ David
ReplyDeleteDavid said: "Manosphere men often complain about evil women attempting to drain them of their money. To which there really is a very simple solution: If you don't want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don't seek out women who expect you to support them."
And those women that hide their intentions until after the man is married, David?
Also, couldn't one say the same thing to women who end up being "abused" by their boyfriends?
Random Brother
“Kratch, I'll get back to your comments later. “
ReplyDeleteI noticed that never happened… Whatever. I didn’t expect it to.
Booboo: “Kratch said:
"He's a 25-year old virgin, by his own description. "
Then he's a twit and deserves to stay alone.
sigh, I hate virgin shaming for men.”
This, David, is why MRA’s typically won’t say anything to other twits who say stupid stuff. If someone makes a stupid comment, it’s up to them to defend themselves when it gets criticized. As you yourself have said, I am not responsible for what others say. If it truly is a stupid comment, it will not be defendable, except by stuborness. And there is little reason to speak out against it, because even if we do, like I just did, we’ll be seen as some “bad guy” and called names or accused of something anyways. I actually agreed with you, this guy was a twit for making this list. He didn’t have the bad personal experience that I feel could have explained the list, he had simply sworn off women due to stereotyping, and I get SHAMED and attacked for stepping up and calling him on it, LIKE YOU ASK, no DEMAND of MRA’s… And you don’t say a damn thing to booboo. Like you expect of us. Why should I ever do it again? What’s the point? If MRA’s speaking out against other MRA’s is going to be seen as just more bad behaviour, let the twits defend themselves and the feminists mock who they want and I’ll stick to the debates I believe in and leave the rest to who’s interested.
"Not all women are perfect princesses who can never do wrong. There are just as many shitty women than there are men.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we know. Don't date them."
You're missing the point. We don't date them, and we recomend to others not to date them as well, and are being called misogynists accusing all women of acting that way for doing so. Saying women look for men with money is a generalization that doesn't apply to all women. The generalization assumes enough do to justify leaving out a limiter such as "some", or "the occasional", and the degree of that assumption can be challenged, but coming at it with an all or nothing assumption like David did is not helpful. If you want to make the claim that no women are like that or that very few are, you'r better suited to try actually arguing that point then trying to shame men for acknowledging it exists and telling others to avoid it, like you yourself are doing. No-one is talking about what ALL women expect of ALL men, and yet, that's the accusation David made (not an MRA, let alone all MRA's like many here believe).
No-one is talking about what ALL women expect of ALL men, and yet, that's the accusation David made
ReplyDeleteTo quote Nightstorm: 'the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together.'
To quote you: 'The generalization assumes enough do to justify leaving out a limiter such as "some", or "the occasional"'
So it's just, like, 99% of women, and rounded up to all women for ease of conversation, but hey, that's not misogynistic, that's just The Facts. Gotcha.
Most of us who've been badly treated by romantic partners (male or female) manage to get on with our lives without deciding the whole gender is like that. It's a surprisingly relaxing way to live. Try it out some time!
Yohan said :
ReplyDeleteBasically, MRAs are interested into a long-term relationship with ONE honest woman.
In the other thread you said that women that goes in clubs in Thailand do that to have the chance for a lucrative introduction to rich men. You think these women are honest and good for long-term relationship ?
Kave said:
These mra and mgtow don't seem to have freindships with women.
That's the reason they become obsessed by Game and PUA techniques, they are completely alone and the only way for them to find a woman is to approach totally unknown women in clubs or in public places.
Richard.
ReplyDeleteNo one hides their intentions until after they are married male or female. Some people are to stupid to see the very obvious signs.
There are exceptions to the rules like head injuries or mentally ill people going off their medications but for the vast amount of people what you see is what you get. You just need to see it.
Do you have female friends Richard? Not one mra has answered that question.
Do you really think a woman of quality would date a man who doesn’t like women?
I've tried to feel sorry for MRAs. It's such an ugly, sad and counterproductive way of viewing the world. The men who adhere to it cause themselves so much harm. But I just can't muster any sympathy, because the healthier choices are so obvious and so commonly made.
ReplyDeleteI almost felt just the barest hint of "oh, dear" sympathy reading commenters at the Spearhead talk about the best ways to actually change society to their liking. Because, oh dear, sunshine... you've already lost. That anger you feel is a sense of loss of privilege. And it's never coming back. You're not some noble outliers with truth and reason on your side, you're like Fred Phelps and the WBC showing up to protest soldiers' funerals trying to convince people the soldier died as a punishment from God because our society tolerates homosexuality. Reasonable people find you repulsive. That's not going to change.
How I met my wife.
ReplyDeleteWe were both married to our careers. She’s a real estate investor and I’m in manufacturing. We are both diehard Capitalists from privileged backgrounds.
I was casually dating an older woman, no thoughts of a long-term relationship on the horizon. A friend of mine introduced us; he was casually dating her at the time. I didn’t know but he was setting us up.
We feel in love over dinner. Our friend was rather smug knowing that we’d be the perfect match.
MRA’s just don’t get it…at all.
nick:
ReplyDelete["Where on Earth do you get the idea that respect equals obedience or slavery?"] When feminists talk about "patriarchy" an awful lot.
Perhaps that's because in patriarchy, respect does equal a woman's obedience to a man. (See, e.g., traditional marriage vows, covenant marriage, etc.) It's telling that this hierarchical paradigm for relationships is projected onto feminists. Matriarchy is not the only alternative to patriarchy: partnership is, and that is what the vast majority of feminists I know seek (mostly successfully).
Also, re: women not needing a man, "But I think women take that concept too far these days and think very little of men. They dig it in and slap our faces with it."
Why do you care what women who are cruel and belittling in the way you describe think of you? I stay far away from such people (regardless of gender), and don't find doing so difficult at all, since the vast majority of people are not like this at all. Why don't you?
Kratch: "nick noted that women are taking the "reject a man cause he's not needed" too far, for example, claiming men altogether aren't needed (IE, they are a novelty, something to amuse them), and if men considered women like that (using the sexdoll as an example), then there are rampant claims of misogyny."
If a woman views men strictly as novelties for her use and amusement, then I would definitely stay far away from such a sociopath. (Putting aside consenting BDSM relationships, obviously.) Such a person would indeed be a misandrist. Curiously, I have never met such a woman. (I guess I've been "lucky"?) But I have known many men IRL and online who explicitly and openly hold this view of women. No feminist/humanist I've ever known would condone objectifying anyone like this. I am wondering where you find all of these women, and whether subconsciously or not, you seek them out?
I note that there are plenty of men and women who view ALL other men and women as put on this earth solely for their personal use, amusement, professional advancement, domestic slavery, human ATM, etc. I've learned to stay far away from narcissistic @$$holes too. I am not saying this is easy: I was raised by one, and I was married to one (not a coincidence, methinks...).
nick, you said, quite correctly: Not all women are perfect princesses who can never do wrong. There are just as many shitty women than there are men.
I would go even further: no women are perfect princesses who can never do wrong, just as no men are perfect, either. We all have flaws, more than we usually care to admit, and I don't know anyone - except the aforementioned narcissists, of course - who thinks otherwise. But then you say this:
But when a man complains about these shitty women, the typical bigoted feminist argument is that the problem lies within the man and not the perfect princesses who can never do wrong.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see this. When a man frames complaints about shitty people as being about women (and only women) in general, due to something biologically innate and/or culturally ubiquitous to female-ness, then yeah, women are rightly offended, justifiably defensive, and call it sexist bullshit - because it is. You yourself just said there are as many shitty men as shitty women.
"That's the reason they become obsessed by Game and PUA techniques, they are completely alone and the only way for them to find a woman is to approach totally unknown women in clubs or in public places."---avpd0nmmng
ReplyDeleteOf course, you say that as if it is a bad thing. What is wrong with gaining confidence with dealing with women? I bet you felt self-righteous writing that.
So what is your solution that your offer other than your weak observations? And not all MRAs are fixated with Game, btw.
"But I just can't muster any sympathy, because the healthier choices are so obvious and so commonly made."---Sophia X
ReplyDeleteI can't muster any sympathy for feminists because there are better ways of living, thinking, and behaving.
BTW, something that is common isn't always healthy---and feminism seems pretty darn prevalent these days.
Also, Kratch - in the OP David didn't say "all MRAs," he said "many MRAs."
ReplyDeleteLast, might it not be more productive to discuss, oh, I don't know... how about the ways traditional gender norms encourage and enable @$$holes of both sexes to thrive, and how to stay away from them? Here, I'll start: traditional sex roles have a side effect on many people - unfortunate and ugly, in my view - in that they instill and condone a sense of entitlement in both sexes, for example, males to sex and authority, and females to financial support. This unquestioned sense of entitlement is a problem, especially if it is not a shared value in a complementary way between both parties, and often even when it is.
I am not trying to be antagonistic here. I am a very, extremely, deliriously, happily married feminist, yet I know my relationship (a real, honest-to-goodness partnership) may not work for everyone. I am genuinely interested in trying to understand whatever legitimate issues you may have, but failing. Perhaps if any of you attacking feminism here would be so kind as to answer my questions above, something productive - or at least interesting - might result?
The shear amount of shaming being applied to all MRA's in a thread condemning "all" MRA's for supposedly applying negative attributes that some women DO existent to all women is incredibly ironic. You are doing to all the MRA's out there there very thing you are damning them of doing, taking the actions of an undetermined quantity and attributing it to the whole. That's what we call Hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteI also find it amusing that we're being condemned for seeing negative traits in "Some" women (I myself have already acknowledged repeatedly that I do not believe these things apply to all women, and yet, have been repeatedly personally accused of doing just that" and yet, I'm told, "if I don't like someone like that, don't date them"... how can I not date them if I don't acknowledge those attributes exists? But if I acknowledge those attributes exists, I'm called pathetic and lonely and not capable of having friendships with women and misogynistic etc etc etc.
"To quote Nightstorm: 'the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together.'"
To quote nightstorm in full, rather then just what David choose to show you:
"You may ask "What is the list?" Its the soul draining demands a woman..."
IE, it's a list of demands a woman puts out that drains your soul. a woman, not all women, not demands a woman does make. This is a list of demands that can and sometimes are made. But then, I have already acknowledged that many are benign and shouldn't be on the list, and others are rare, and that the guy who wrote the list is a twit... but none-the-less, I have been attacked for both acknowledging that some things on the list are present in women, AND for calling the guy a twit. It seems all you people want to do is attack MRA's, which makes you no better then them.
"Also, Kratch - in the OP David didn't say "all MRAs," he said "many MRAs." "
ReplyDeleteI never made the accusation David has attributed this to all MRA's, That accusation is reserved for those making the comments. You can claim they are not talking about all MRA's because (most) don't actually use the term "all MRA's", but rather "MRA's are...", but those quoted by David in the OP didn't say "All women" ether. What's good for the goose...
wytch: I can't muster any sympathy for feminists because there are better ways of living, thinking, and behaving.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's theoretically possible that I could be happier in life than I am, and I am %100 willing to be shown the error of my feminist ways. What are these better ways I should consider living, thinking and behaving? Please, enlighten me.
As I’ve said before my brother is mentally ill and he’s a frequent poster on many mra/mgtow boards. The guy hears voices but I’ve never seen anyone call him on his delusions. He’s threatened his ex-wive and children’s lives on those boards (real life is very scary around my brother) and the only feedback he’s gotten besides positive is “ watch the language”.
ReplyDeleteMy family financially supports him. And to cover everything up supports his ex-wife and “ex” children in an undisclosed location.
His horrible ex-wife’s crime was leaving after he decided the family had to die.
He is a victim of mental illness, not a victim of any sort of feminism. He’s learned to blame women for his problems. He started out on Stand your Ground; he got a lot of sympathy and handholding. He’s graduated to mgtow boards and the spearhead.
We all have roles in our family to deal with him, mine has been for the last ten years to monitor his online activity. That’s the reality of the “mra” world.
Knock it off the bullshit, Kratch: What do you mean you "never made the accusation David has attributed this to all MRA's"?
ReplyDeleteYour very first comment on this thread, directed to David:
Article: "The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men"
Attributing this guys one opinion with all MRA's? I thought you didn't do this?
He didn't do this.
"how about the ways traditional gender norms encourage and enable @$$holes of both sexes to thrive, and how to stay away from them?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, Can't do that. An MRA acknowledging an @$$holes of the female gender is deemed to be attributing those attributes to all women, and thus, he is a misogynist. Just look at the accusations against MRA's flying around here. Nowhere has any MRA said all women make the demands on the list. I myself have spoken against parts of the list and the list writer, and I am deemed just as evil and pathetic a man as the writer himself. I have been gien the attributes these people deem all MRA's have. They have placed their prejudices upon me just as they condemn MRA's of doing to women, and It's me you have issue with.
Iris----
ReplyDeleteHow come nearly every openly feminist in life I've met or in cyberspace has:
-Been emotionally combative at times
-Wanted to glean both the spoils of traditionalism (sans the role) and still demand equality
-Complained about their boyfriends/husbands
-Cared little or nothing about men's suffering or acts as if it is lesser than women's
-Eschewed responsibility in serious situations
-Blamed war as a "menz thang"
-Treated men (typically) harder than women in roles of authority on the job
-Done little to make laws favoring women impartial
-Given little or no credence to reproducive rights for men
-Treated white heterosexual men as (generally) the big bad guy in the amalgam
-Demonized men that doesn't like their views and placate their egos
-Acted as if they are liberated and yet doesn't live their life always accordingly
-Claimed they don't need men but always have men doing something for them in their personal spheres
-Not respected many men until men don't put up with much shit (or these feminist women) act as if their kindness and respect is weakness
-Treated male sexuality as lesser or corrupt
Etc . . . I could write more.
I don't have all the answers, but from what I've seen living a feminist life doesn't have anything positive for me.
"Your very first comment on this thread, directed to David: "
ReplyDeleteI asked him if he was (notice the question mark?), not a direct accusation, as you claimed I made, but rather, an acknowledgement that he was coming very close to a claim he has repeatedly denied IE, that his posts are representative of MRA's in general, rather then just examples of the worst of the worst. I was being facetious (and I suspect he knew that)
wytchfinde555, how come nearly every MRA I've met on the net has exhibited all of those tendencies against women? Emotionally combative, check. Wanting to enjoy the spoils of traditionalism without carrying the burdens, check. Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check. Eschewing responsibility for their own conduct, check. Blaming war on women and their vaginas, check. Treating women (typically) harsher than men in roles of authority on the job, check. Doing nothing to make laws truly impartial, check. Giving little or no credence to reproductive rights of women, check. Treating Western women as (generally) the evil witch in the amalgam, check. Demonizing women that don't like their views and placate their egos, check. Acting as if they are liberated from women and yet n ot living their lives accordingly, check. Claiming they don't need women but always having women doing something for them in their personal spheres, check. Not respecting many women until women don't put with much shit -- and then often not even AFTER women put up with their shit -- and treating kindness and respect as an entitlement, rather than something that has to be earned, check. Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt, check.
ReplyDeleteWytch
ReplyDeleteRebut Amused post.... then get back to us. I belive you have been owned.
Kratch: An MRA acknowledging an @$$holes of the female gender is deemed to be attributing those attributes to all women, and thus, he is a misogynist.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if I did not phrase my point clearly in my (admittedly rambling and overlong) comment. The misogynist label doesn't get slapped on every MRA for attributing ugly attributes to all women (and only women), although surely you must know that some MRAs do exactly this. The misogyny is in attributing ugly attributes to (a significant number of, many, nearly all, all Western, American - take your pick) women because they are women. And not, say, raised by socially conservative @$$holes to have a grandiose sense of entitlement strictly based on their gender.
In other words, I may say my patriarchal, manipulative, childish, tantrum-throwing, abusive, entitled prick of a father (or ex-husband) is a huge @$$hole. In fact, I do say that. But by doing so, I am not saying (1) that all, or most, or the vast majority of humans with Y chromosomes are this way - that would indeed be misandrist, not to mention demonstrably untrue, or (2) that all or most or the vast majority of men are like this simply because they are men, and I freely admit, like nick does, that there are an equal number of women exactly like this too. However, given the backgrounds of many women I know personally, I can understand why certain women might overgeneralize such a view and paint all or most men with it. Can you? And while I may understand where it comes from, when they do so I call them out on it, and point out to them factors (other than a Y chromosome) that tend to create an abundance of @$$holes - of both genders.
You said: "I am deemed just as evil and pathetic a man as the writer himself." I am not going to re-read the thread, but I did not notice that. Admittedly since "just as evil and pathetic as the writer" wasn't directed at me - although similar has been insinuated against feminists, such as myself - I would not be as perceptive of this as you. Perhaps you can quote some things specifically? Was it just one commenter, or many? I would sincerely like to address it.
"Rebut Amused post.... then get back to us. I belive you have been owned."---Kave
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in you. I could not care less what you believe.
Get lost.
"wytchfinde555, how come nearly every MRA I've met on the net has exhibited all of those tendencies against women?"---Amused
ReplyDeleteThey don't. You're projecting as usual. Typical for a feminist.
BTW, Amused, you've dismissed anything I said. And if there are men that do exhibit those traits, it doesn't negate the ones---or many others---I could provide as examples.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get the irony in your hidebound hypocrisy, do you?
Should read "Amused, you haven't dismissed anything I said."
ReplyDeleteDarn timeouts.
Are your finger in your ears right now wytch?
ReplyDeleteAnd Amused, since when are white heterosexual women viewed as the bad guy?
ReplyDeleteNever.
'Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check."--Amused
ReplyDeleteNonsense. There are anything from women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA, etc.
I could tear your "rebuttal" down easily.
"Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt . . . "
ReplyDeleteI honestly wonder what noxious substance you were smoking if you believe that.
Wytch
ReplyDeleteI have four adult children and they have all found sucess in dating, all lead happy lives, all good people.
WHy is it that you are not like them?
Wytch
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this get tiring after a while? Ever think that this is not how you want to spend your life?
"Giving little or no credence to reproductive rights of women, check."---Amused
ReplyDeleteThat's why abortions are a right, so are hospital dropoffs, and men don't have a choice whether the child is raised or aborted (or get punished if the mother wants CS and he doesn't want to pay, etc . . .) . . . correct?
This all too easy.
wytch: while I was responding to Kratch, Amused replied very much as I would. Tu quoque is, of course, a logical fallacy, but I strongly suspect "MRAs do it too!" is not Amused's point. Rather, it is my own: there are entitled @$$holes of both sexes, and they have a great deal in common with each other.
ReplyDeleteWhat causes this? Are the causes different for difference genders? What can eliminate or mitigate their toxic influence on the rest of us? What can prevent it from happening in the first place?
Inquiring feminists want to know.
"Treating Western women as (generally) the evil witch in the amalgam . . . "---Amused
ReplyDeleteThe Middle Ages are gone, Amused. Wake up
Wytch
ReplyDeleteDo you have close friends? Do you have female friends?
(in the real world)
"Tu quoque is, of course, a logical fallacy . . ."---Iris
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it is. But Amused has little to stand on to begin with.
"Inquiring feminists want to know."
Eliminating the female supremacy in feminism and having true men's rights would be a wonderful start.
"MRAs do it too!" is not Amused's point."---Iris
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the tone there. And not much else.
Wytch
ReplyDeleteDo you answer questions? I asked a couple and you ignored me.
WTF, wytch? ['Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check."--Amused]
ReplyDeleteNonsense. There are anything from women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA, etc.
I could tear your "rebuttal" down easily.
Whoa. Are you actually suggesting MRAs are responsible for, or supportive of women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA?
Citation fucking needed.
I find it interesting how the feminists on this board are willing to acknowledge that some women can be awful people; however, the MRAs are slow to recognize that some women have redeeming qualities.
ReplyDelete"What causes this? Are the causes different for difference genders? What can eliminate or mitigate their toxic influence on the rest of us? What can prevent it from happening in the first place?"---Iris
ReplyDeleteI honestly think you are geniune with your ponderous inquiry here, but it this point you may not care for my answers.
BTW, one of the reasons why I am against feminism is because it is female-centric and not truly egalitarian. I used to believe the latter, and over time many people (not just myself) concluded it was a bold-faced lie. And that it's inherently misandrist.
Gender reconciliation is not an easy thing---admirable, but not easy. However, it will never occur with feminism intact, that's for certain.
wytch: ["Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt . . . "]
ReplyDeleteI honestly wonder what noxious substance you were smoking if you believe that.
Not smoking, wytch, reading. Ever hear of the bible? You know, for centuries the most widely printed book in circulation in the West, the manifesto of social conservatism?
"Whoa. Are you actually suggesting MRAs are responsible for, or supportive of women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA?"---Iris
ReplyDeleteNope. Why would you think that? Seriously?
What I meant---and it's not that difficult to understand---those things exist in favor of women. Our "sexist" culture makes them happen.
"Not smoking, wytch, reading. Ever hear of the bible? You know, for centuries the most widely printed book in circulation in the West, the manifesto of social conservatism?"---Iris
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you this---what do you think when you imagine a sexual predator?
It's always a man that comes to mind, doesn't it?
You still think women are perceived as more corrupt and tainted? Think again.
Wytch
ReplyDeleteTell me about your female friends.
Let me ask you this---what do you think when you imagine a sexual predator?
ReplyDeleteWell, that was a fun leap. As a feminist I know that sexual predation is about power, not sex, and predation is not something I think of as a reflection of sexuality.
"Well, that was a fun leap."---Sophia X
ReplyDeleteNot a leap at all. You made a strawman after that---we were talking about what gender was often percieved as more corrupt sexually (lecherous), not sexuality in general.
"predation is not something I think of as a reflection of sexuality."
Not for many people, men or women, but you are purposefully glossing over my point. Or you just don't get it.
"although surely you must know that some MRAs do exactly this."
ReplyDeleteAnd some feminists are like Mckinnon and Dworkin, or write articles about how men are not human
http://feminazi.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/proof-men-arent-human/
Both sides have @$$hats we'd rather not be associated with. But here, the assumption is that the MRA @$$hats are the norm, rather then the exception, despite Davids own disclaimer that he search's out the "worst examples" to specifically highlight. I won't deny that Many MRA's are angry and bitter. The attrocities of the family court are far worse then what women in the 70's had to deal with, as they were dealing with ignorance and long standing gender roles based on old world traditions, where the men today are actually suffering deliberate injustices... and despite that, when feminism began, it had just as many angry women as the MRA has now... But that little fact is also conveniently forgotten. it seems it was OK for women to get angry and stand up for themselves, but now that it's men's turn to do the same, anger is unacceptable and standing up for yourself is attempts to return to the old patriarchy (yeah, because presumption of shared parenting is divorce is old school).
"The misogyny is in attributing ugly attributes to...women because they are women."
So, you can't label many women as being a gold digger without being misogynistic? But I suspect all those Mass media accusations of men as abusers and rapists is perfectly acceptable and not misandric (clarification, you actually acknowledge it is, but those posters keep coming, and not a feminist opposes the misandry, despite claims of being for equality)? Even though, my own personal experience puts about 10% of men and women I know as Violent and 0% as rapist, but a good 40-60% of women as gold digger and 0% of men as gold diggers. And I'm talking people I know, not strangers.
"raised by socially conservative @$$holes to have a grandiose sense of entitlement strictly based on their gender."
Gold diggers come from all walks of life. whether you want to accept it or not, there is a study showing women want to "marry up", and it shows a significant number seeking to do so. Additionally, marrying up is still exceptionally common, I've even read a feminist ask "why do I need to forfeit children in order to maintain my career?" never once considering that perhaps, marrying a man for family traits, and having him tend to the children, would be an option. no, she assumes she will have to sacrifice her career when the only reason she would be expected to is if she was making less money (as the lower earner tends to make the sacrifices, as less is lost that way. This is how the one family I know with a higher earning wife lives. Husband took a further low paying job that allowed him to work from home... for the kids.). Why hasn't that gender role been addressed by feminism? They claim to be about breaking down gender roles, and yet, I have never once seen feminists insist on letting the men stay home and raise the kids and she be provider. Could that be a gender role feminists don't want to give up? Child custody laws and the feminist resistance to shared parenting would suggest I'm right.
"Perhaps you can quote some things specifically?"
ReplyDeleteAn accusation for actually agreeing with David
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296445097937#c8497035496766406337
A response to a single sentence from an entire paragraph that specifically questions Missy’s statement on women’s standards.
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296440898758#c7253654495974942680
(my initial comment… last paragraph http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296438210703#c6831052043048494252 )
Note: triplanatary never once responded back regarding my question of his long term eligibility with these higher earning women of his. Despite calling me disrespectful of women (claiming generally women want (equal or) higher earning men isn’t disrespectful of women any more then claiming men generally like younger, pretty girls is disrespectful of men. It’s not always true, but often enough for a generalization to be valid), full of shit, calling women gold digging whores (never said anything about sexual promiscuity, not once in this entire thread).
Lucy then equates my equating “enough to generalize” as meaning I’m saying 99%. Truth is, if 40% of a particular group does something, it is enough to generalize that that group does that (not all the group, nor even most of the group, but enough of the group do to acknowledge it as something to look for if you don’t like it). She then becomes condescending with the last paragraph.
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296484793027#c8132846751010392780
The there is your post directed at me…ending in “Perhaps if any of you attacking feminism”. I have not attacked feminism (in this thread, but My position on feminism has been very clear, with reasons, in other threads. I don’t associate this current subject matter with feminism)
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296489130816#c7237178490443906281
Then there are all the MRA’s are this, MRA’s are that flying around. It offends me as much as accusations and “attacks” against feminism offends you.
Krtach
ReplyDeleteThe biggest news is women don't want You.
Right?
@iris...See? There is no point in discussion. Only attacks on character will come of it. Not once in this entire thread have I suggested women don't like me or that it is women's fault if they don't. I have simply acknowledge the exact same thing you yourself have said, that women do tend to be attracted to money ( traditional sex roles have a side effect on many people - unfortunate and ugly, in my view - in that they instill and condone a sense of entitlement in both sexes, for example, males to sex and authority, and females to financial support.), yet I am accused of it simply for answering your request for quotes.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not what you wrote Kratch. Maybe what you were thinking, but not what you wrote.
ReplyDeleteGold diggerism is alive and well in America, despit the advent of feminism. Look no further than the ridiculousness of the diamond engagement ring scam.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.singledudetravel.com/2011/01/the-diamond-ring-scam/
wytchfinde555 said:
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with gaining confidence with dealing with women?
The normal way to gain confidence with women is to talk them regularly and have female friends, not approaching women in clubs. And the normal way to find a girlfriend is to have female friends, it's not going in clubs. Most women go in clubs to have one-night-stands, not to find a boyfriend. The only type of relationship that most MRAs can have with women is paying a prostitute or having pity-fuck with a woman they met in a club.
Hey Single Dude... scroll up, you'll see a couple feminists talking about how they don't like engagement rings, either.
ReplyDelete"I find it interesting how the feminists on this board are willing to acknowledge that some women can be awful people; however, the MRAs are slow to recognize that some women have redeeming qualities."
ReplyDeleteDifferent topic. We are discussing negative attributes of women, so it is not surprising that it has been acknowledged by both sides. Women's redeeming attributes aren't being discussed (which is not the same as denying them), you'll notice the feminists on this board also haven't openly recognized the redeeming qualities of women ether. but just for you... yes, women have redeeming qualities, and not just the physical.
I could likewise say feminists are slow to recognize redeeming qualities of MRA's (given negative perception of MRA's are also being discussed). But I won't hold my breath.
wytch: Amused said with respect to MRAs met online: Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve"
ReplyDeleteYou come back with, "Nonsense, shelters, VAWA, etc."
I asked whether you were actually suggesting MRAs support those things.
You: "Nope. Why would you think that? Seriously?"
Because you said it.
Also: one of the reasons why I am against feminism is because it is female-centric and not truly egalitarian. I used to believe the latter, and over time many people (not just myself) concluded it was a bold-faced lie. And that it's inherently misandrist.
Do you believe there is truly no need for a "female-centric" movement? If so, you might have a point if Western civilization was not steeped in oppressive patriarchy for millennia. And I agree with you that some feminists are not egalitarians, but the feminism I subscribe to, and the feminists I interact with IRL and online are. But blaming feminism per se for the non-egalitarians found within its ranks is like blaming civil rights activists for black supremacists.
Last, because that IRL stuff presently intervenes and I may not return to this thread for many hours, I just wanted to thank you for this:
"I honestly think you are geniune with your ponderous inquiry here, but it this point you may not care for my answers."
I am being genuine, and I appreciate your recognition of it. And you're probably right: I may not care for your answers, but I do still want to hear them and try to understand where you are coming from.
I will revisit this thread as soon as I am able.
"I could likewise say feminists are slow to recognize redeeming qualities of MRA's (given negative perception of MRA's are also being discussed)."
ReplyDeleteYup. That's because most MRAs I have encountered have been selfish, narrow-minded assholes.
However, I am not extrapolating that to assume all men are selfish, narrow-minded assholes.
That being said, I think the MRM has a couple good points - I mean, both feminists and MRAs absolutely loathe the idea that a man is obligated to financially support his wife just 'cause. Feminists and MRAs would both be thrilled to see a greater social acceptance of stay at home dads and paternity leave. If anything, many of the complaints of the MRA (that aren't bitching about women or accusing other men of being manginas) are perfect, sterling examples of 'the patriarchy hurts men, too.'
It's too bad that the MRAs can't see that they have a common enemy with feminists, rather than seeing feminists as the enemy. But then they might end up supporting programs or laws that benefit women. Or laws that benefit women more than they benefit men.
Kcatch.
ReplyDeleteAgain I ask. Tell us about your female friends.
Kratch, when I get back to this I also want to follow up on your comment here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296496748336#c799799313085963537
Thanks for the discussion everyone.
PEACE.
Truth is, if 40% of a particular group does something, it is enough to generalize that that group does that (not all the group, nor even most of the group, but enough of the group do to acknowledge it as something to look for if you don’t like it).
ReplyDeleteSo, if I'm following you right, here:
- if 40% of women do a particular thing, it's fine to say "Women do [thing]";
- if 40% of MRAs do a particular thing, it's not fine to say "MRAs do [thing]," without clarifying that you don't mean all MRAs and many MRAs disagree and it's not fair to let some MRAs define the whole movement.
Whether or not 40% of women act like Nightstorm's worst nightmares above is a whole other issue, of course. I very much doubt 40% of women in the Western world expect men to provide all their money; most of us have jobs.
Do we really need so many comments? Here, I'll make a summary:
ReplyDeleteDavid: A lot of MRAs do XYZ.
MRAs: HOW DARE YOU GENERALIZE US! FEMINISTS ALL DO ABC!!
Feminists: Wait, did you just generalize us the same way you just complained we did to you?
MRAs: NUH-UH! IT'S DIFFERENT! BECAUSE ALL FEMINISTS DO ABC BASED ON MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF KNOWING NO ACTUAL WOMEN, BUT ONLY SOME MRAS DO XYZ BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY OVERWHELMINGLY ALL SEEM TO DO IT.
No, really, it must be hard living in the MRA version of the world. These are people who, instead of trying to get more men to vote, blame women for voting in droves when we haven't even had that right for a century. My dad honestly wouldn't vote if my mom didn't remind him to. And somehow this is the fault of feminists. For getting the right to vote.
There is guy called "Mike C" that comment regularly on hookingupsmart and he reads MRA/PUA forums and he thinks like many of the guys there. The guy was a bouncer in a club and he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that. I'm sure many MRAs are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few women to all women.
ReplyDelete"Feminists and MRAs would both be thrilled to see a greater social acceptance of stay at home dads and paternity leave. "
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't see regular feminist resistance to shared parenting in divorce, child support reform and paternity issues, I might be willing to believe you. But the feminists with actual political influence don't seem to fit your definition of feminist... or more appropriately, you don't fit the definition of feminists, as defined by those actually doing things in it's name.
"'the patriarchy hurts men, too.'"
GAH! again with blaming men. What If I don't believe in the patriarchy ideology? I do not identify gender roles as imposed by men for men's benefit.
"It's too bad that the MRAs can't see that they have a common enemy with feminists, rather than seeing feminists as the enemy."
When I suggest a men's minister is needed, to provide an egalitarian counterpart to the women's minister, because all none gender based political figures are required to be gender neutral, so having only one minister who is allowed to be gender biased for one gender, but nothing for the other, is received with hostility and calls for "men don't need one" or "men can have one once all women's problems are solved" or "if you want one, get one yourself, why do feminists have to do all the work (notice my suggestion never said feminists had to do the work, just acknowledge the discrepancy, which never happened) and not a single person in that discussion stands up and says "as a feminist, I agree men should also have a gender minister" not one ... you'll have to excuse me for considering feminists as opposition. The evidence doesn't support the claims that feminism (as defined by actual activists) is about equality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"And yet quite a few men--not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys--manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity."---Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, somebody mentioned the "advice" that men should lower their standards in order to have more results. (This would imply compromising their personal integrity).
Would that be you, CB?
Well yes, witch, I suppose you've got me there. If your most deeply held personal value is "no fat chicks," then, yes, I guess marrying one would compromise your personal integrity. I stand corrected.
@ Kave:
ReplyDeleteKave said: "Richard.
No one hides their intentions until after they are married male or female. Some people are to stupid to see the very obvious signs."
I strongly disagree with this and it seems to indicate a naive view of marriage/relationships. Yes some people do miss signs, but I don't think this eliminates people who are good at deception.
Also, if this is true and a man ignores his fiance's gold digging tendencies, marries the women and during the divorce he is taken for most of his worth by the courts then I ask you:
1. Does he deserve it?
2 Does being stupid mean that a person should be forced to live in poverty via government decree for the rest of his life?
3. If the scenario were a woman who marries a physically violent man who escalates the violence as the marriage goes on, why should we care? And should we not aid her because she should have seen what he was prior to marriage?
Kave asked: "Do you have female friends Richard? Not one mra has answered that question."
Yes, I have a two good female friends. One is married and working on her second kid with her husband. It's funny viewing their relationship form afar (I moved to a different state) it almost gives me hope about marriage. Then reality hits me and I go back to life.
Kave asked: "Do you really think a woman of quality would date a man who doesn’t like women?"
The wiggle phrase here is of quality. Women seem to have a different value set than men, and while I don't think most women want an in your face he man woman hater, I do believe that if a man has other qualities that a woman likes misogyny won't be much of an issue.
Random Brother
Seriously though, wytch, the context of my "advice" to lower standards was that Nick was complaining that women had standards that were too high, and that this was unfair. My "advice" to Nick was an attempt to make the rather simple and obvious point that everyone has standards, and why should women lower theirs when he is (apparently) unwilling to lower his?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm flattered that you would even remember something from several posts ago that I just threw off the top of my head in an effort to needle Nick. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...
Iris Vander Pluym
ReplyDeleteAs you are talking about patriarchy quite a bit, please explain in logical detail how America or any western society is a patriarchal society in year 2011?
It always amuses me to see how truly delusional many of these feminists are. heh
Kave
ReplyDeleteAs you seem to be going on with the typical ridiculous crap with asking "are you friends with women" "you can't get laid" etc etc… me as an anti feminist is friends with plenty of women and these women are aware of my views. I also have casual sex on occasion with a few of these women.
These types of views you have, Kave, and pretty much the majority of feminists in here have the same; can easily be defined as female supremacy. As it's saying in ways that women are superior and they hold a superiority over men with sex. And for this, the only reason why men complain about feminism/women is because we are angry and desperate due to the assumption that we can't have superior women that make us feel like this. If we got laid, we wouldn’t be complaining.
It’s pretty obvious that this notion is blatantly female supremacy/chauvinism.
I know you’re a man Kave but you and men like David support female supremacy when you go on with this crap
Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteHaving standards is one thing. Thinking you are better than most of the male population when you are just the plain Jane your self is another thing. It's called narcissism and chauvinism
Lady Victoria:
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think the MRM has a couple good points
In those few cases, they're right for the wrong reasons. They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchy, and live in some sort of bizarre, up-is-down world where women are the privileged ones in our society. And, of course, they keep attacking this straw-feminism that hates men and thinks all women are "perfect princesses."
So I mean, in those cases of "patriarchy hurts men too" they're still blaming women. So I would never ally myself with the MRM on any issue, even one they were accidentally right about. Just a personal choice.
Side note to MRAs: The above conversation is intended for the grown-up table. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother whining about my "bigotry" against you.
"They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchy,"
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the biggest problems with feminism. They blame absolutely everything on patriarchy/men. Nothing can ever be the fault of perfect women because women are superior and stuff. Women are too morally high to be at fault
"they keep attacking this straw-feminism that hates men and thinks all women are "perfect princesses."
Your whole post is pretty much expressing that very thing
The sad and delusional MRAs are out in force on this one, eh? Thanks for the laugh, guys.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteHaving standards is one thing. Thinking you are better than most of the male population when you are just the plain Jane your self is another thing. It's called narcissism and chauvinism
That's as may be, Nick, but plain Jane has a right to think that way if she so chooses. There is no great social injustice being committed here.
BTW, I feel the same way about women who go on in the same self-pitying way. The fact that a rich guy who looks like Richard Gere will generally not date an average looking woman is exactly as socially unjust as the fact that Scarlett Johannsen look-alikes generally don't date schlubs like you and me--which is to say, not at all.
ReplyDelete> They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchy
ReplyDeleteThis is *exactly* it, triplanetary.
And it's the whole point of the OP. Nightstorm complains that women expect men to support them financially (which under pre-feminist patriarchy, would have been pretty much their only choice other than to live in a convent, or on the street), then *offers to financially support the woman he's trying to date*. Again, the woman never even asked for that; the assumption that this is the appropriate arrangement comes from patriarchy, not feminism, and in this case is coming from the man, not the woman. Removing feminism from Nightstorm's life is not going to solve his problem; under that scenario, pretty much any woman he's trying to date *will* expect him to support her financially.
Saying 'I blame the patriarchy' is NOT the same thing as saying 'I blame men.' Both men and women can support the patriarchy, which is a social system that holds the belief that men are better than women. Everyone is harmed by the rigid definitions of patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteBy way of example: the patriarchy holds that women are weaker and dumber than men, and therefore it is men's duty to protect and support women. Therefore, women have the right to demand material support from men, since they are presumed to be incapable of providing their own support. The patriarchy teaches that the only thing a woman has of value is her looks and her body.
The whole alpha/beta/omega man thing? Not an artifact of feminism, an artifact of patriarchy. The patriarchy says that some men are richer/better looking/more powerful than others, and they deserve access to women because of their power and wealth.
The patriarchy teaches that child care is women's work. This means that women who choose to be parents are expected to do most of the work raising children, which places an undue burden on mothers. It also ignores fathers, because the patriarchy doesn't believe that men can be nurturers. So the fact that women get custody more often in a divorce? That's the fault of patriarchy, not feminism. Alimony, the idea that a man always needs to support a woman?That's patriarchy.
The alternative to patriarchy (men being ranked above women) is not matriarchy. The alternative is a system which emphasizes individuality and forming equal partnerships. That's what feminism is looking for. We want equal pay for equal work, but we also want equality in parenting - which means valuing the emotional and nurturing contributions that fathers can provide their children. We want equitable marriages which are less likely to end in divorce - or the freedom to choose not to marry, as one wishes. Whether someone wants a career, family or both, they should be able to pursue that. We want people to be able to support themselves and not have to rely on someone else. We want everyone to be safe from violence and assault.
So, when we talk about 'the patriarchy', we're not talking about how awful men are. It's not misandry. It's talking about a social system. You can call it 'traditional values' if it makes you feel better, it's pretty much the same thing. The patriarchy, or traditional values, hurts men, too, which is why it's such a tragedy that the MRM and feminism can't work together for things like paternity leave.
"Saying 'I blame the patriarchy' is NOT the same thing as saying 'I blame men."
ReplyDeleteActually it is. When talk radio gripes about "the welfare system" they mean black people" and when they rant about "immigration policy" they mean Mexicans. Stop playing games. Patriarchy equals men.
Joe
ReplyDelete"And it's the whole point of the OP. Nightstorm complains that women expect men to support them financially (which under pre-feminist patriarchy, would have been pretty much their only choice other than to live in a convent, or on the street), then *offers to financially support the woman he's trying to date*. Again, the woman never even asked for that; the assumption that this is the appropriate arrangement comes from patriarchy, not feminism, and in this case is coming from the man, not the woman. Removing feminism from Nightstorm's life is not going to solve his problem; under that scenario, pretty much any woman he's trying to date *will* expect him to support her financially."
The funny thing is that most men and women in this generation never existed when the so called patriarchy existed. We in this generation have never experienced a patriarchal society. So what you are saying really doesn't make sense. How can patriarchy be all to blame when this very thing of women expecting to be financially supported still exists in this generation when we are not living in a patriarchal society in 2011?
Actually it is. When talk radio gripes about "the welfare system" they mean black people" and when they rant about "immigration policy" they mean Mexicans. Stop playing games. Patriarchy equals men.
ReplyDeleteWell no. When talk radio gripes about "the welfare system" they mean a system that they perceive favors black people. Same for immigration policy and Mexicans.
Of course, those two notions are right-wing fantasies, whereas the patriarchy is a reality. And following the model above, the patriarchy is a system that favors men. Individual men aren't to blame for it. But men like MRAs, who demand that their privilege and superior social position be left entirely intact, and that any move toward equality is an unfair burden on men, are detestable. And the only way they can deflect attention from the repugnance of their attitudes is by pretending that we're not living in a patriarchy.
Although to be fair, most of them actually believe this. They see male privilege as the natural order of things, and so any attempt to chip away at male privilege is denounced as an assault on men, rather than just an effort toward equality.
It would be great if a feminist can explain how America is a patriarchal society in 2011
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is that most men and women in this generation never existed when the so called patriarchy existed.
ReplyDeleteThe patriarchy still exists. The fact that women can vote and own property and hold jobs doesn't change that fact. Until we live in a society that doesn't regard rigid gender roles as a means of determining a person's value and potential, we'll be living in a patriarchy.
Er...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we live in a society where women expect to be supported, and where men expect they're going to have to support women, kind of indicates to me that our society still holds some patriarchial values.
Lady Victoria:
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Feminists are the ones who want women to be financially dependent on men. But they also don't need men. Because they're all lesbians. But they rent out their vaginas for diamonds. Which is a crazy radical feminist thing to do.
It's all very confusing.
I really don't have much time right now but just a quick response
ReplyDeletetriplanetary
This is not an explanation or an argument that indicates places like American is a patriarchal society in 2011.
Lady Victoria von Syrus
SOME men may expect to support women but the majority of men in this generation in the western world certainly don't.
That said, how can being a financial slave to a woman indicate patriarchy? It's ironic to call it patriarchy don't ya think?
A man buying a woman everything doesn’t indicate that he is controlling her
2 part response:
ReplyDeleteLady V, Patriarchy, as defined by webster's dictionary is a "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power"
This in no way gives any indication of the cause of division of work within the family. Men were quite capable, as the authorities within these households, of sending women off to do the field work while keeping the house choirs for themselves. It in no way dictates who raises the children and how, and would actually imply, as the authorities, that the man be the one instilling his ways and beliefs in the children IE, he is the child raiser (but that isn’t how it was). It also gives no indication of value, beyond who holds the position of authority. And this definition is far more feminised then it once was.
As such, I take issue to all of societies ills be dumped onto patriarchy, a term distinctly acknowledging male authority. Traditional values is acceptable, but that and patriarchy are not the same thing, and should not be correlated as such. The accusation that women were deemed inferior to men due to patriarchy is incorrect. A Captain is not deemed to be inferior to a Major, he is merely ranked lower in the military chain of command. Therefore, who is in charge does not directly correlate to a person’s worth (or lack thereof).
Traditional Values, as you call it, may have built upon the foundation of patriarchy (IE, men are the clan authority, therefore they are the owners of clan property as well), but it is a separate entity. Continual building of these traditional values upon the basic foundation may have resulted in discrimination against women, but it also resulted in privileges held by women (they could also not be jailed for debt, that was their husbands burden to bare). However, these privileges are not seen as tradeoffs, a system of checks and balances (if not completely even) but rather, further insults to women by the man, such as “women weren’t imprisoned because “the patriarchy” (IE men) saw women as to feeble to jail, or some such crap like that.
Life sucked for everyone 200+ years ago, based on our standards of living today, but feminism, who has rested upon patriarchy blaming, has blamed the patriarchy, rather then social evolution (here’s a hint, 200+ years ago, there were no comfy air conditioned offices to work at, “jobs” required hard work, significant strength, and paid (if you got paid at all), not by the hour, but by what could be done within the hours spent. Men are physically stronger then women (the fact that hormone treatment on a female to male transgender actually causes an increase in physical strength (in addition to other mental and physical changes) within the very same person demonstrates this is a biological fact), they can therefore get more physically demanding actions completed within the same timeframe. This is a far better explanation for why men worked and women stayed home, and has absolutely nothing to do with who had authority. After centuries of working like this, it became incorporated into traditional values, and when the nature of work changed, those values took their time to adjust. But it’s easier to blame “the patriarchy” and claim men choose the backbreaking manual labour for 12 hours a day in order to send women to the kitchen and tend the children (don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying women had it easy ether, but explanations beyond female victimhood/subjugation exist). The fact many… MANY women are acknowledging now, after having the opportunity to work, that they would rather stay home with the kids or work part time (once in school), and this is most certainly their choice now, demonstrates that raising the kids and being a homemaker was not the demeaning, subjugated task many patriarchy theorist claim it to be.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if a feminist can explain how America is a patriarchal society in 2011
ReplyDeleteYou could try this little experiment, even at home, if you like...
Tell a woman or women (separately, not as a group) that she thinks like a man and take note of how she reacts.
Now, tell a man or men (separately, not as a group) that he thinks like a woman and take note of how he reacts.
I'd wager that the woman, or women, would feel varying levels of having been complimented, and that the man, or men....well.....maybe not so much.
Kratch
ReplyDeleteIf this is all true then why did the British use Irish woman and children in factories instead of men at the start of the industrial revolution?
Bone up on your history before you post!
Also, it's not like every job in the days of yore was backbreaking labor. It's not too physically demanding to be a priest, but women were still barred from the clergy.
ReplyDeleteRead up on some of the old writings by leaders about women. The Malleus Maleficarum is a good place to start.
The fact many… MANY women are acknowledging now, after having the opportunity to work, that they would rather stay home with the kids or work part time (once in school), and this is most certainly their choice now, demonstrates that raising the kids and being a homemaker was not the demeaning, subjugated task many patriarchy theorist claim it to be.
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point. Homemaking isn't necessarily a demeaning task. The issue is that until recently women didn't really have a choice, especially middle and upper class women. And women still face significant obstacles in the career world that men don't, which may be the reason some women choose homemaking today.
Hell, I'd like to be a househusband. I'm pretty domestic. I can cook and everything. But for lots of other reasons I'd rather have an income of my own, so I'm not going to do that. My point is as a choice, homemaking isn't some horrible thing. As an expectation from which women can't escape, it is subjugation.
And yes, most women in our society can escape that expectation nowadays. That is one of the advancements away from patriarchy that our society has made. But it does not mean patriarchy is dead.
Don't be silly. Feminists are the ones who want women to be financially dependent on men. But they also don't need men. Because they're all lesbians. But they rent out their vaginas for diamonds. Which is a crazy radical feminist thing to do.
ReplyDeleteIt's all very confusing.
The source of that confusion might be because you have some inclinations towards feminism, which makes you think emotionally..... being guided by your feeeeeelings.....rather than thinking rationally and logically, which is a hallmark of MRA/MRM/MGTOW thought.
Oh, and you're also discounting that women *did* put their lives at risk, quite frequently, when they had children.
ReplyDeleteIf this is all true then why did the British use Irish woman and children in factories instead of men at the start of the industrial revolution?
ReplyDeleteAnd not just in factories, but in places like the coal mines, where they certainly didn't all sit in air conditioned offices doing clerical work. And after a 12-hour day of manually hauling the ore cars from the depths of the mine to the surface (yes, that was one of the jobs that was bestowed upon women), being beaten (sometimes by their own husbands and while pregnant) if they didn't haul the cars up fast enough, women were still expected to take care of the daily family needs at home... THAT was NOT expected of the man.
So please, enough of the "wooly mammoth"-type stories.
Hi Kratch, I'm back albeit it may only be briefly, and I apologize that I may not be able to catch up/keep up with the posts here.
ReplyDeleteYou said (quoting me) ["The misogyny is in attributing ugly attributes to...women because they are women."] So, you can't label many women as being a gold digger without being misogynistic?
My issue with "gold digger" is that it is a gendered insult, in the same way that "deadbeat dad" is a gendered insult. Some women are extremely shallow and materialistic in terms of what they value, and to no one's surprise, in their choice of mates. But here's the thing: some men - including my father, and sister's any my exes, and at least a dozen others I know personally - are also materialistic and shallow. They've exploited the women in their lives financially, recklessly spending money their female partners earned, often plunging them deep into debt, on personal luxuries, drugs, gambling, mistresses, etc. while refusing to work themselves. Now I admit it's been tempting - especially in the case of my sister's ex - to throw around the term "deadbeat dad," because she, my elderly mom, and me have all had to pick up the financial slack for many years to help raise their kids, who are now teenagers. But this behavior does not occur because of the presence of a Y chromosome: it is, in fact, exactly the same phenomenon as your "gold digger." Genderizing that kind shallow materialism, and the accompanying sense of entitlement to other peoples' earnings while you mistreat them, is sexist, because the behavior itself is simply not linked to gender. I try to see it for what it is (in both sexes), and call it what it is in non-gendered terms. Looking at it as sex-linked is not just offensive but unhelpful and unproductive, that is, if we want to figure out how to do anything constructive about it.
Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?
How about this: I detest shallow and materialistic people who have a sense of entitlement to other people's earnings while treating them like $#!+.
Don't you? Shouldn't this be common ground?
There is much to unpack in the rest of your comment, but I want to specifically address this:
"I have never once seen feminists insist on letting the men stay home and raise the kids and she be provider. Could that be a gender role feminists don't want to give up?"
I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I will say that is the exact opposite of my experience, IRL and online. Feminists are HUGE supporters of paternity leave and shared parenting, and many, MANY of them are the so-called "breadwinners" in their households. Do you honestly believe that men (or women) with a non-feminist, traditional view of gender roles, support men staying home to raise kids and women being the providers? Seriously?
And as far as your question re: childcare being a gender role feminists don't want to give up, the point is not who gets what role, but in men and women both having options, and making decisions together to come to an arrangement that works best for everyone. And it's not a permanent state of affairs, by the way: it can be fluid and change. E.g., my close friend was out of the work force taking care of young children for three years; now she's back to full time and he's the primary caregiver at home. It's feminism that makes this arrangement possible for them - believe it or not.
*yawn*
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029
"C29 Forced Labour Convention, 1930
Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (Note: Date of coming into force: 01:05:1932.)
...
Date of adoption:28:06:1930
...
Article 1
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
2. With a view to this complete suppression, recourse to forced or compulsory labour may be had, during the transitional period, for public purposes only and as an exceptional measure, subject to the conditions and guarantees hereinafter provided.
...
Article 11
1. Only adult able-bodied males who are of an apparent age of not less than 18 and not more than 45 years may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour."
Kave: "If this is all true then why did the British use Irish woman and children in factories instead of men at the start of the industrial revolution?"
ReplyDeletebecause they were Irish, IE, poor immigrant labour, and cheaper then men (and before you blame them being cheaper on patriarchy, ask why mexican labour tends to be cheaper in modern days), and labour no longer required physical strength due to machinery. This is where jobs began changing, as I stated above.
Lady V: "Also, it's not like every job in the days of yore was backbreaking labor. It's not too physically demanding to be a priest, but women were still barred from the clergy. "
that's an issue of religion, I am not a religious man and can not speak for against it. But as far as I'm aware, the church was nether a family or clan (in the traditional sense), not had women and children as legal dependents to any man within it.
"Oh, and you're also discounting that women *did* put their lives at risk, quite frequently, when they had children."
Not sure if this was directed at me or not, the previous comment was and the "oh, and" implies a continuation... but I don't remember risking life as being something I claimed men did more then women (then). I don't remember risk of anything ever being said.
Kratch
ReplyDeleteWrong. Pick up a history book and try again.
Iris: "Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?"
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying, but I need to clarify two things. I don't see gold digger as gender specific (there is nothing in the term gold nor digger that implies gender, unlike dad in deadbeat dad). It is often attributed in women because it is far more visible in women (the tendency to marry for material wealth, not just being shallow and materialistic), but it is not restricted to, nor denies the existance of, male versions.
Secondly, Calling a male dear a Buck and a female dear a doe is not being somehow disrespectful to gender. IE, having different names for the same attributes based on gender does not, to me, constitute sexism. Arm candy vs cabana boy, Gold digger vs gigilo (I may be getting the relations mixed up, but I hope you get my point).
"I detest shallow and materialistic people who have a sense of entitlement to other people's earnings while treating them like $#!+. "
I don't care, to be honest. I generally take people for who they are, flaws and all. I won't, however, date a person like that, but as I also won't date a guy (and I don't feel I'm being sexist for saying that), I have no need to identify/categorize that trait in men often enough to name it (hence why I'm not positive I got the relations right above).
"I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I will say that is the exact opposite of my experience, IRL and online. Feminists are HUGE supporters of paternity leave and shared parenting, "
I would agree with you with what I would define as "the average armchair feminist" (akin to airchair quarterback), but those who actually define feminism, as far as I'm concerned, by their actions in the political/industrial world... nuh uh, not a chance.
Iris:
ReplyDelete"Do you honestly believe that men (or women) with a non-feminist, traditional view of gender roles, support men staying home to raise kids and women being the providers? Seriously? "
lets be clear, I don't correlate non-feminist and traditional as the same thing. Traditional people, no, they would not support that. Non-feminists, some will, some won't. In my limited experience, almost all child care workers claim they are feminists. Child services Canada (and other child care organizations, which themselves aren't necessarily feminist organizations) have actually stated, and openly enforced the belief that a child removed from their mother is better off in foster care their their own fathers. It is not a direct relation, but there is a tenuous connection, and not one I'm prepared to ignore in good faith.
"the point is not who gets what role, but in men and women both having options," And yet, there is resistance by feminist organizations to resist these options for men. NOW actually opposes shared parenting in divorce. This is an example of men being denied the opportunity to break their gender roles by feminists. They want to be parents, they just aren't allowed.
"It's feminism that makes this arrangement possible for them - believe it or not."
But not because they broke the male gender role away from not being the caregiver. Feminism created that opportunity by allowing women to work and be the provider. This left those who wanted to to take it further and reverse the roles, feminism has not supported that dynamic specifically though. Feminist organization still maintains men must be providers, even when women don't specifically "need" that providing. Current Child custody and alimony laws, and some current paternity laws, and the resistance to changing them, are examples.
This is changing in the UK, but only because Dominic Raab brought media attention to it by calling feminists bigots and stating his opinions on male injustices in the same interview/speech/article/whatever it was. Feminism ether needs to play along (while damning him for his attack on feminism), or they resist the changes and prove themselves bigots. The fact they seem more interested in damning him then making changes not already on the table makes me believe this wholeheartedly.
Sorry for the long posts.
Kave... Let me guess, your history book says the patriarchy made them do it?
ReplyDeleteIris Vander Pluym said...
ReplyDelete.....
My issue with "gold digger" is that it is a gendered insult, in the same way that "deadbeat dad" is a gendered insult. Some women are extremely shallow and materialistic in terms of what they value, and to no one's surprise, in their choice of mates.
But here's the thing: some men - including my father, and sister's any my exes, and at least a dozen others I know personally - are also materialistic and shallow. They've exploited the women in their lives financially, recklessly spending money their female partners earned, often plunging them deep into debt, on personal luxuries, drugs, gambling, mistresses, etc. while refusing to work themselves.
....Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?
Not really, because a deadbeat father is forced by law/biased execution into bankruptcy, while all these females you mention had the choice anytime to get away.
The law is not supporting men, who are gambling or are into drugs etc. to take away money from women who are living with them - but the law is highly supportive to women against men, as the victim, in any case you mentioned in your comment is the woman, not the man.
If the man is gambling and into drugs and taking the money of the woman, it's the fault of the man, it's abuse.
If the woman is gambling and into drugs and taking the money of the man, it's the fault of the man who is abusing her...
A male gold-digger is an asshole, but a female gold-digger is taking the money out of assholes...etc.
About the bad choice of a partner, feminists are telling men in this blog: Don't date them, your problem, you are the man. MRAs. you are whiney even to talk about it.
In case of a woman, feminists will claim, she is so poor and how can she know....?
To use your own words:....Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?
For starters Kratch try the Irish in Ireland.
ReplyDeleteKave. I don't jump through hoops for people. If you care to make a point, make it, otherwise, I choose to ignore you.
ReplyDelete"but the feminism I subscribe to, and the feminists I interact with IRL and online are. But blaming feminism per se for the non-egalitarians found within its ranks is like blaming civil rights activists for black supremacists."---Iris
ReplyDeletePlease don't blow smoke---we know better. Even the name gives the female-centrism away.
"Frankly, I'm flattered that you would even remember something from several posts ago that I just threw off the top of my head in an effort to needle Nick."---Captain Bathrobe
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't be flattered because it was shitty advice.
avpd0nmmng said...
ReplyDelete"There is guy called "Mike C" that comment regularly on hookingupsmart and he reads MRA/PUA forums and he thinks like many of the guys there. The guy was a bouncer in a club and he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that. I'm sure many MRAs are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few women to all women."
Apparently, you have limited understanding of men's behavior because you claim many MRAs go for prostitutes and one-night stands.
You have an odd fixation with MRA sexuality; would you like to explain that to everyone?
@wytchfinde555:
ReplyDeleteWe're going to change the name for "feminism" to the "Bunny/Kitten Brigade" but continue to work on social justice issues and to further an egalitarian worldview.
Would you be interested in joining now? You get to decide if you'd like a bunny or a kitten on your membership card. *smile*
The problem with that hide and seek, is he's probably looking at it like this now...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKdybPh8YY
Kratch,
ReplyDeleteI try and make this really simple for you.
The English owned the Irish, and they didn't like them much.
One of the ways they emasculated the Irish was by not employing men in the factories. They believed that by having the wives work and the husband’s unemployed it would destroy the men’s will.
It worked quite well, hence the stereotype of the drunken Irish.
Today however, men are increasingly staying at home while the women work. In fact in Canada one in eight stay at home parents are male. What made this option socially acceptable for men?
You mra types always go on about the good old days but you don’t know a thing about what it was really like. The patriarchy hurt men too.
Kave said...
ReplyDeleteYohan
Perhaps you should have dated a feminist who would not ask these things of you?
Hahahaha, no, thank you... great joke...
and after divorce SHE decides, she is not a feminist anymore and I pay alimony for the next 40 years to a helpless female?
Question for you. Have you had any female friends? Women who you will meet for a pint or a round of golf, women who you simply enjoy their company without a hope of a sexual relationship?
Not with Western females in Europe. Never. Not even for 30 minutes.
Neither with nor without a hope for a sexual relationship
Yohan
You say you are married and happy. I cannot believe you are either.
I am married since 1976 in Japan, never divorced, 2 daughters already adults, and 1 fostergirl, 15, in Philippines.
-----
I think you are looking into all MRA-related issues from the wrong point of view.
It's not only about equal men/women in a relationship or looking for partners and rejected a few times.
Q: What makes you to be an MRA?
A: Long-term bad experiences.
It's about how you - as a male - were treated in the past - as a small child, as an elementary student, in high-school, as a young employee etc. - by various females, who were not your equal, but above you.
It's a wide range of females, including mother, females living nearby, sisters, half-sisters, female class-mates with rich parents, female teachers, female employees in a higher position next to you etc. etc.
Western feminist BS-talk telling me I have privileges because I am a man is openly scorn to me. I never had such 'privileges'.
How do Western females treat males of any age, who are NOT their equal but below them?
And to answer your question, I am happy now and do not miss anything in my life.
I see however no reason why I should be silent about my problems in the past.
Hopefully my advice will help young men to avoid certain mistakes in their future life.
Any reason for me to shut up? Maybe because to talk about this MRA-stuff is not politically correct?
Kave said: You mra types always go on about the good old days but you don’t know a thing about what it was really like. The patriarchy hurt men too.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. I do not know about a single case in the 'good old days' where a CHEATED man was subject to pay alimony to his wife for the next 4 decades.
I also do not remember any man paying child-support to his ex-wife for HER children despite he was not the biological father.
Men were frequently treated badly by women in the past, but such behavior was never supported by law.
avpd0nmmng said...
ReplyDeleteThere is guy called "Mike C" that comment regularly on hookingupsmart and he reads MRA/PUA forums
.....
he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that.
I'm sure many MRAs are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few women to all women.
YOHAN says:
There is guy called "DAVID" that comment regularly on MANBOOBZ and he reads MRA/PUA forums
.....he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that. I'm sure many 'DATING-EXPERTS' are like that.
They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few MEN to all MEN.
wytchfinde555 said...
avpd0nmmng said...
"There is guy called "Mike C" ..... I'm sure many MRAs are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few women to all women."
Apparently, you have limited understanding of men's behavior because you claim many MRAs go for prostitutes and one-night stands.
This person 'avpd0nmmng', whoever this might be, has no idea about anything.
It's a part of feminist shaming language to claim that thug-boys and MRAs are the same people.
What's a thug-boy?
ReplyDeleteThe opposite gender of a thug-girl...
ReplyDeleteWhat's a thug-girl? What attributes, when possessed, makes one a thug-person?
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of a "thug" I think of Suge Knight holding people out of windows, but that doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence because feminists surely don't think that MRA's are all gangster rappers.