Categories
crackpottery creepy MRA reactionary bullshit sex white knights

>Guys, you’re not helping: The Dear Woman video

The video above, which has been making the rounds of the manosphere, is one of the creepiest and most off-putting things I’ve seen since watching Dogtooth a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I take that back: Dogtooth was much less creepy and off-putting. I was so repelled by what I saw in this video that it literally took me several tries to get through the whole thing. And no, it’s not some weird misogynistic rant by the likes of Bernard Chapin. Oh, no no no. The misogynists of the world are as repelled by the video as I am, though for radically different reasons. Titled “Dear Woman,” the video was actually put together by a couple of self-described “conscious men” who think they’re doing a great favor to the women of the world.

To which I can only say: Guys, stop it, you’re not helping.

If you can stomach it, the video is worth watching in its entirety. If not, here’s what you’re missing: The video is the work of a couple of New Age gurus — Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks, Ph.D – who, with the help of a little gaggle of guys, have written a little manifesto “apologizing” to the women of the world for all the bad shit done by men to women over the centuries. Or, as they put it:

I feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.

The first step in “making amends,” evidently, was to gather together a group of men – some of whom seem to have been roped into it in the middle of a garden party — and to somehow convince them to read out loud the entire text of this manifesto. (The full text is here, but it’s much creepier when it’s read out loud.)

There is something about this manifesto, and the men reading it, that is so “off” that it may well make your skin crawl, and make you wonder how many of the men in the video have dead bodies secreted away in the crawl spaces under their homes. A female friend I showed the video to could only make it through the first couple of minutes before switching it off in horror; one commenter on Metafilter reported that it “made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and not in a good way. Eeew.”

The creepyist, skin-crawliest part of the video has to be the section in which the assembled men talk about women’s bodies:

I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we worship each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, and I respect that your body belongs to you.

I honor your capacity to listen to your body and its needs for food, rest and playtime.

I feel confident that I speak for many when I say “ewww.” Somehow I’m reminded of Saturday Night Live’s hot-tub-loving “lovers.”

It’s worth pointing out that the written manifesto refers to men and women “nurture[ing]” one another’s body; apparently no one noticed that the dude reading this passage in the video had turned nurturing into “worship.”

As one commenter on Metafilter put it:

“We worship women” sounds like something Buffalo Bill would have said if he had a PR agent. My guess is that they’re sickos who seem really earnest at first but it turns out that they’re actually trying to collect used tampons for onanistic purposes or something.

So what is it, aside from all this worshiping, that makes the video so creepy? Part of the problem is that these “conscious men” are, in their own way, as patronizing and sexist as any manosphere dudes “mansplaining” about how all women only want to fuck alpha guys. Women, in their view, are inherently peaceful earth-mother types. “I commit now to … honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine,” the guys tell us. “I honor your deep connection to the earth.” 

The manifesto is overflowing with this kind of shit. No matter how “New Age” these guys think they are, these are some truly ancient, and quite thoroughly retrograde, notions.
But that’s just what makes them wrong and misguided. What is it that causes viewers to pick up that whole serial-killer vibe?
I think the answer to this can be found in a book called The Gif tof Fear by security expert Gavin de Becker. The book attempts to explain why our intuitions about creepy people are so often correct. There’s a good reason you feel uneasy around certain people; that’s your unconscious picking up on real, if hard to pin down, signals of danger.
De Becker also lays out some of the techniques predators use in an attempt to allay the suspicions of those they’re trying to victimize. One of the sneakiest? The unsolicited promise, which often means the very opposite of what is said. When someone tells you, out of the blue, that they “aren’t going to hurt you,” it’s often a very good sign that that’s exactly what they’re going to do. When someone feels the need to tell you, apropos of nothing, that he “honor[s] the beauty and integrity of your body” and “respect[s] that your body belongs to you,” you may well want to run screaming. 
Even more than the unsolicited promises, I think it’s the unsolicited apologies in the Dear Woman video – so similar in intent to unsolicited promises — are a large part of what is setting off alarm bells in so many viewers. When a young guy in the video takes personal responsibility “for dragging you into … wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them,” that’s just plain … weird, given that (unless he’s some young despot I’ve never heard of) he’s not actually responsible for any of this.
The “unsolicited promise” is similar to what de Becker calls “loan sharking” – offering unsolicited “help” in order to make victims feel obligated in some way to their unwanted helpers. In the manifesto/video, this “help” is abstract, but the strategy seems to be the same:
From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life.
 
Uh, who the fuck asked you to treat anyone’s heart as a “sacred temple?”
The manifesto/video is also filled with examples of “forced teaming,” another strategy favored by predators who want to convince their victims that they are in fact working together to do the very same thing:
I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.
(For a fuller explanation of some of de Becker’s ideas, take a look at this post on saying “no” on Captain Awkward’s excellent blog, which I’ve drawn on heavily here.)
But there’s something else about the video that adds to the sense that something is not right here: no matter how earnest all the men in the video are trying to sound, none of them (except perhaps the two ringleaders) seem to really believe the ridiculous things they’re saying. Instead, they seem to be, with varying degrees of insincerity, mouthing a series of essentially meaningless New Age platitudes – in short, simply saying what they think women want to hear.
No one is buying this bullshit, guys. Give it up.

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.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

216 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Yeah, Dave, U R teh ghey! Boy, he really told you a thing or two. Yes indeedy.

MertvayaRuka
9 years ago

>What's this "us" shit, sport? Far as I can tell, only person you're qualified to speak for is you. Maybe. You damn sure don't speak for me or any other "hetero male" around here who hasn't dedicated their lives to being a miserable crotch lesion because you're not getting the top-shelf women you think is your genetic due.

Discount
9 years ago

>Lol the old you just can't get laid remark…classic….sport : ) Unlike yourself I don't define myself around the acceptance of women. Your comment is very revealing. This seems to be central to your validation of your masculinity…what a shame.

Discount
9 years ago

>Us meaning heterosexual men… I wasn't talking about you. David does not speak from the heterosexual man's experience nor does he live it in relation to women…does that make any sense to you?

Discount
9 years ago

>Besides you do know whey David's blog exists don't you…poison in, poison out. The damage has already been done. He is part of the fallout. It will only grow. What is it that you plan to do about it?

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Discount: he was saying you have unrealistic standards that you cannot attain not that you cannot get laid. And you make very little sense. Please go back to trolling on Reddit. I am sure you can come up with some new not very witty name.Scarecrow: most of the guys on there seem earnest if misguided but a couple of them I would not want to be alone with ever.

MertvayaRuka
9 years ago

>No, you define yourself around your contempt for women. Elizabeth is correct, the standards you lot tend to have is entirely what I'm talking about, but if you've convinced yourself that the real or perceived personality problems you encounter in the world around you can be tracked mainly to one gender, you're a fucking idiot and I could care less whether your motivation is an abysmal track record with women or not. I just usually find that most of the douchebuckles like yourself end up where you are because you'd rather blame other people for your own failings. My apologies if your douchebucklery comes from an entirely different source.And mourn not for my masculinity, sparky. I'm in much better shape there than anyone who lives in constant fear that his male peers might catch him doing something considered "feminine". 🙂

Discount
9 years ago

>"I'm in much better shape there than anyone who lives in constant fear that his male peers might catch him doing something considered "feminine". :)" You must mean male value is defined by external utility and that a man is not something that is by default but one must "be a man". You must mean that unlike women men do not carry inherent value to the opposite sex for the simple fact that we exist…in this you would be correct. You must mean other men police each other to exemplify their external utility or "being a man" over another..true. The only person I have to "be a man" for is myself. We as men owe women nothing in external utility…they are on their own. It is not men who place these expectations of external utility and uninherent value upon men….it is women. Men simply are the enablers of women's expectations and exemplify their status of external utility of being men over one another. In this I do not participate because again, the only person I have to "be a man" for is myself. Again, men do not owe any form of expectations to "be a man" to women. Women can "woman up" by themselves.

Discount
9 years ago

>"but a couple of them I would not want to be alone with ever." Don't worry, none of them would ever want to be with you because you would probably rape them, deprive them of rights and control over their own bodies, the fruits of its labor, and rob them of their children. Those men..like many know that they owe women, women's families and women's fatherless bastard children nothing. Take your "liberation" and shove it up your ass. Get a job and support yourselves and your own families and your own children. Men have no obligation to contribute to the matriarchal family..get it.

Discount
9 years ago

>How dare women call the fathers of fatherless bastard children "deadbeats". How dare "independent" women expect men to support a woman's family. Women initiate 70% of divorce and of the 30% initiated by men few involve children. Men know damn well what Marriage 2.0 laws women created are about.comment image

Discount
9 years ago

>Go have your sex in the city lifestyles. 1 in 4 women carry a disease, their cervix and wombs rot from their body while any sign of life is vacuumed out and thrown in the garbage. Our marriage rates are at an historic low, fatherless bastard children at historic highs and our domestic birth rate below replacement levels. This is a demographic nightmare for any civilization and can not be maintained without immigration.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Huh. I'm not gay at the moment. But after reading all this from Discount here I'm thinking of converting. Women sound terrible!

Discount
9 years ago

>By the way this is not the first time this has happened in history. Some short years before the Roman Republic descended into dictatorship the Roman family was in tatters and its birth rate below replacement levels. Women routinely left their newborn children on the steppes to die of exposure and this was legitimized by the philosophers and common culture of the time. Families were no longer formed and debauchery became normalized:"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become."Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure." Go forth…enjoy your temporary pleasures and the newfound decomposability of men from a place in the family and the lives of our children. Live your liberated sex in the city lifestyle. Go buy some shoes.

Discount
9 years ago

>disposability

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>I preferred "decomposability."

Discount
9 years ago

>"Women sound terrible!"No they are just incapable of seeing themselves as fallible or culpable for the state of our social fabric, gender relations, marriage and family in any way.

Discount
9 years ago

>I preferred "decomposability."I'm sure you do.

The Jerk Store
9 years ago

>"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor."Isn't this the whole theme of MTGOW in a nutshell?

The Jerk Store
9 years ago

>…"MGTOW" I mean.

Geti
9 years ago

>Discount, as a Hetero Male I'd appreciate it if you didn't make statements on behalf of such a vast group. The people within such a large group are likely to have experienced a large array of events and have a large array of opinions; based on my experiences with women and the literature I have read, I don't agree with a lot of what you have said, whereas I expect you do agree with a lot of what you have said.Let's do this case by case, more or less from the top.Italicised font is yours, or a summary by me with notes in parentheses. I've cut as much of the vertical whitespace as possible while retaining readability.Hate to break it to you David but men are the primary purveyors of comedy, romance, poetry, song, magic etc. Call it plumage of whatever the f**k you want but these things are overwhelmingly male. In fact I'd venture to say that rather than love, women dream of being loved…two drastically different things.Can you point out a single song a woman wrote that elevates and romanticizes the masculine???…how about a poem..??? It's not because of some sort of oppressive patriarchy either. Women don't do anything because they don't have to. Their inherent value makes their ego eclipse that of men's by many magnitudes. It also leads to a gynocentric narcissism that is intolerable at times.I'd say that you're being presumptuous and hypocritical here, because later you challenge David's ability to speak out as a member of his gender based on your evaluation of his sexuality yet here you assert that you know what women as a collective dream of (rather than love… of being loved).The aim of feminism is also not to be put on a podium and idolised (that was the whole point of making this blog post as far as I can make out), or to be elevated and romanticised; it's to be made equal, legally and socially. "Romanticising the feminine" usually amounts to objectification – "I don't mean to be rude but tonight I'm loving you ♫" essentially amounts to "I'm going to have sex with you".In relation to anything related to intellect (the arts included) the sexes are on an equal playing field. There may be more professionals of either gender within a field but that is not necessarily correlated with the gender's ability to perform in that field, it is merely indicative of make-up of that field at that given time, no more, no less.In fields such as basketball, where there is an element of physical strength and size involved, Men are more likely to perform better than women. That much is indisputable. In fields related to the mind, saying one gender is clearly superior to another is a fairly shortsighted judgement.edit: typo

Geti
9 years ago

>…I can't seem to post my reply to Discount, it's all getting eaten by the removed by author post. I'll just post them all in parts and assume they're going to a moderation queue?

Geti
9 years ago

>As a short aside ,I'd suggest that as far as artistic trends go (and therefore very generally speaking), popular music by female artists is either about loving someone, being loved by someone, or being hurt emotionally or physically, whereas most popular music by male artists is either about a woman being sexually attractive, loving someone, or overcoming some sort of obstacle in their life.Looking at the "bad" elements there, women seem to feel strongly about being hurt emotionally and physically and men seem to feel strongly about some woman being attractive, however looking at it as a whole, the scene is entirely contingent on whatever artist is popular at any given time.For example, Eminem makes music about his own life and the themes vary wildly. The Lonely Island (along with Akon) make music about having just had sex. Rhianna has made music about being unhappy with her relationship. Hellogoodbye make music about being sort of happy sometimes then unhappy but in a cute way about theoretical relationships.The only safe thing to draw from scenes as large as "Popular Music" is that people have different experiences and that those experiences are usually reflected in some way in their music. Anything more specific is contingent on the artists in the scene (feel free to prove me wrong with some data, this is conjecture)

Geti
9 years ago

>Patriarchy simply means that men are part of the family and have the God given natural right to fatherhood which they do not…so give up your blatant lies. Feminism is about the creation of matriarchycomment imageWomen have their own families. Men have no obligation to women, women's children or women's families. Men have no civic or social duties to look out for anyone but ourselves. Women are now a separate socio-political and socio-economic class that men are in competition with. Common felicity between genders was killed off by women some 45 years ago you misandrist bigots. Men are waking the fu*k up….Using the definition found here, you're wrong. Patriarchy means that males are in power, and you aren't at liberty to redefine that as you please in a discussion dependent on such definitions holding true.You're also approaching this discussion from a minority viewpoint, not to mention an illegal one, as in most developed countries as far as I'm aware both parents have a parental obligation to their children regardless of whether they maintain custody or not unless they lack the means to do so; if you sire a child and pack up and leave you're legally obliged to send money to go towards raising that child.As much as you might disagree with the cultural norm, you can't just ignore it or declare it as invalid, and if speaking out against such a norm it generally helps to bring forth suggestions for change rather than angrily stating your opinion.Or call men pigs, dogs, horses asses, jack ass donkeys and throw men into garbage cans. Women have to understand that this means war. This is not my subjective interpretation either.Men are waking up to what women have done and are fighting back. We will win and if you insist on taking the entire society and common felicity between men and women down with it so be it. Some men and some women have done horrible things to other people. The majority of people have done some bad things to some other people. Women as a collective do not target men. Men as a collective do not target women. Individuals therein, however, do.There is no war here. That's not the point.Be angry at the individual, not at the collective. That is the point.

Geti
9 years ago

>Yes…there is not question. Now…shave your heads, sign up for the draft and get your ass to the front line to secure your own territory and resources like men have had to do for you since the beginning of time. The reason you don't see this is that women are legally barred from being in frontline combat roles.However, women do take part in conflicts regardless, see here and here for two examples of women serving in the air force.Australia is undergoing various investigations at the moment into sexual misconduct in the military (both male-male (usually officer-soldier) misconduct and male-female misconduct, as well as female-male misconduct if such a case arises) but is also looking to allow women into all military roles contingent on fitness (physical, intellectual and psychological – same as for men). Good news for equality.Men have the God given natural right to be a part of their childrens lives. The goal of feminism was to create marriage 2.0 laws to absolve women of any liability, responsibility, commitment or reciprocal obligation to men and the sanctity of marriage. Feminists also seek to remove men's rights to our own bodies and the fruits of our labor and transfer such things to women by force. Wait, before you seemed to be stating that a man could pack up and leave whenever he liked and that the children were essentially the woman's property; which system are you an advocate of?Feminists also do not seek to remove men's rights to their bodies. Feminists seek equality for women, nothing more, nothing less. They don't really want much to change for men at all, I don't think we're actually a large part of the equation; there are aspects of general male behaviour that should change but for the most part it's a movement for large scale social and political change with the result that women and men are equal in the eyes of the law and that that is reflected in how they're treated by and large in society.Again, men owe women, women's children and women's families nothing. Oh no, wait, now you're back to "fuck women". This inconsistency bugs me a little.

Geti
9 years ago

>Deny the purpose of the gynocentric ideology of "women's liberation" all you want. Men don't have to win by restoring our collective relationship and common felicity with women. We will win by everyone losing both men, women, children, family, marriage and society.You will increasingly see it manifest. In all elements of societal dysfunction and even violence. About 90% of ALL prison inmates come from fatherless families. Boys without fathers do poorly in education, have higher rates of depression and higher rates of violent crime. Women are getting the men they seek to create by removing men from the family and pushing men to margins of society, the family and the lives of our children. You're again treating feminism as a "competition" to be "won"; that's not the case.Feminism isn't a eugenics excercise like you seem to believe, and women certainly aren't removing men from the family. The only data provided here are relevant to male child welfare issues and not feminism, the two fields are connected but distict: they're both about fair treatment.Women work less hoursAnd get paid less per hour.seek jobs out of a different modus of personal fulfillment (one which has little or nothing to do with appealing to the opposite sex)Why should anyone choose a career based on appealing to the opposite sex?

Geti
9 years ago

>Your human ego deceives you. It's all a social construct right. Gender, society, gendered behavior, differences and interrelations are all a mailable social construct. I've heard it before. Listen David, my point is simply that we are not separate from the world around us. Human beings do not exist in a vacuum apart from other processes we see in the world around us. Human beings are animals whether you like to admit it or not. We are not Gods, we are not something special beyond our adaptive trait of intelligence. I don't think David's ego is the problem here.Your point previously was not that we're separate from the world around us, it was that women were kicking men out of the family (which they're not), then that men didn't have to be a part of the family if they don't want to (which they do, at least in a monetary sense), then that women's liberation was a competition.David never challenged that we were animals nor posited that we were special, you're putting words in his mouth.The fact that our social constructs are based on that trait of intelligence means that human behavioural studies must be conducted in a different way to most other animal behavioural studies: most human behaviour is learned, whereas to a large extent most animal behaviour is genetically determined. You can't apply the label "territorial behaviour" to everything a male does that's agressive as he may be doing it for a large array of reasons (stress, substance, hormonal imbalance due to puberty, peer pressure).My point is that we have a lot more in common with the world around us than not. My point is that we do not operate from Free Will alone and that despite what feminists will tell you there are real biological differences between male and female and different roles we play hence the existence of two genders to begin with. In fact I venture to say that men and women in many regards are opposites in every way. Despite what feminists believe we are supposed to be complimentary and operate in symbiosis. We are supposed to fit together like a glove. We are supposed to need each other. Believe me I have heard ENOUGH about "toxic masculinity". I had to sit through a semester of "women's studies" constantly being demeaned and denigrated for being male. Indeed there are differences but for the most part they are not really manifest, men and women these days are rarely at their biological peak. You are wrong in venturing that men and women in many regards are opposites in every way, men and women are very similar in many ways (very similar anatomy (genital differences and secondary sex characteristics aside), near-identical ways of learning, indistinguishable differences in cognitive capacity) and to say they are opposites is about as rational as saying "soap is for all intents and purposes identical to cheese".Feminism is also not about dividing the sexes, though I think I've covered that.

Geti
9 years ago

>There is a reason for this David: "After analyzing the imaging data for the entire group, the researchers found that the participants showed activation in the brain's mesocorticolimbic center, the region typically associated with reward and addiction. Male brains, however, showed much greater activation, and the amount of activation was correlated with how much territory they gained. (This wasn't the case with women.) Three structures within the reward circuit – the nucleus accumbens, amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex – were also shown to influence each other much more in men than in women. And the better connected this circuit was, the better males performed in the game." The findings indicate, the researchers said, that successfully acquiring territory in a computer game format is more rewarding for men than for women.As interesting as that is, cherry picking one study doesn't "prove" anything, nor does indicating that men are more territorial than women do much good for your point. I'm not aware of anyone here disputing that there are differences in how men and women operate, they just want women to be treated equally.If women don't like it they can go to their own land, acquire their own resources and leave men the hell alone. I will not tolerate misandrist bigotry pouring out of the mouths of women and their pseudo scientific bullshit courses that denigrate the masculine. It's worth noting that throughout your comments you've sounded fairly biased yourself. Note that no-one here is being misandrist or denigrating the masculine, they are commenting on mysogynistic events on the internet and deploring those mysogynists, not deploring men as a collective.Well none of you here speak the message of main stream gender feminism now do you. Am I angry yes I'm angry. I and many other men have the right to be. I think you'll find that almost everyone here speaks the message of mainstream feminism, actually. You seem to equate radical feminism with mainstream feminism. Why do you have the right to be angry, and what about? About feminism? About people supporting the right for women to be treated as social and legal equals? That seems like an illogical thing to be angry about, not to mention fairly rude, similar to being angry at a starving child for requesting food.You'll notice I've missed a few points but I'd appreciate it if you payed attention to what I have said not what I haven't; then go on to enquire as to a response to your other words, I've likely just missed them as it's getting late here.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>Women initiate 70% of divorceYeah, that's because women are more likely to be the victims of spousal abuse, so they have a hell of a lot more reason on average to get out of a marriage.@DavidHuh. I'm not gay at the moment. But after reading all this from Discount here I'm thinking of converting. Women sound terrible! I know. I used to love cupcakes but now I can't eat them because I'm afraid they'll bite me. 🙁

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>@Discount, my BA is in philosophy, I considered going for a Ph.D., and I have written twenty page arguments on details of Frankfurt style counterexamples. The group of people who know more than me on this topic is a rather small one. Try again, assface. Note: Learning the meanings of words and concepts prior to using them could be helpful to you.@David, maybe you could come be gay with me, considering that Discount has made huge assumptions about my gender and suggested I fuck more guys. What's a trans masculine bisexual genderqueer to do, eh?

Amnesia
9 years ago

>Discount, if you actually believe half the BS you're writing, I'd suggest wrapping yourself in caution tape and carrying a megaphone around to warn women to stay as far away from you as possible."Don't worry, none of them would ever want to be with you because you would probably rape them, deprive them of rights and control over their own bodies, the fruits of its labor, and rob them of their children. Those men..like many know that they owe women, women's families and women's fatherless bastard children nothing."So, men don't have children or families, because women rob them of it? Sounds like somebody has a case of womb envy. You know, once we can get that incubator developed, you won't have to worry about women aborting babies you want to keep. Unless, you know, you're controlling and/or abusive and she honestly couldn't stomach the thought of you dealing with children. Then maybe you got a few more problems than an incubator can solve.And dudes, seriously, you have more control here than you realize. You have the right to refuse sex without protection. If the women forces herself on you anyway even after you make it clear that you don't want unprotected sex, it's rape. You can take it to court if you want. Also, if you do have protected sex, but she gets pregnant anyway and decides to keep the baby, you don't have to claim paternity (though if you're married, it's assumed that you're the father). Or at least, that seems to be the way it works in the United States.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Discount-the only way you would be happy is if women were simultaneously subordinate to men and able to completely support themselves and any children that they only had with permission from you.Which is contradictory in of itself again. Also, accusing me of being a rapist is not very logical since I said I would not want to be anywhere near these men. If I was, why would I rape them? Try to actually use some kind of logic here.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>What's especially odd about these MGTOW guys is that the women they describe bear no resemblance to the women I actually know if my life–and I work in a profession that is comprised of at least 2/3 women. I don't know any female rapists (though I'm sure they exist). Virtually all of the women I know are employed and support themselves–sometimes making more money than their husbands/partners. I don't even know any women who truly want to make a go of family life without any male influence whatsoever. Even the lesbian couples whom I know have male friends and recognize the importance of having male role models for their children. It's almost as if the MGTOWers are projecting, or something.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>Okay, so taking into account Captain Bathrobe's last comment, let's consider some of the things MRAs in general appear to believe about reality:1) Everybody lives an upper-class lifestyle2) Wars only affect the soldiers who fight them3) Women think men have cooties4) Women are all housewivesSo it's official. MRAs have the worldview of a 6-year-old.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>1 in 4 women carry a disease, their cervix and wombs rot from their body while any sign of life is vacuumed out and thrown in the garbage.Per this comment, Trip, I would add:5) Girls do have cooties.6) Ladyparts are icky, except for making babies.I wouldn't be so unfair to 6 year-olds as to compare them to MRAs or MGTOWs, however.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>FWIW, my five year-old son plays with girls all the time.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Geti, for some reason the spam filter grabbed a whole bunch of your comments. I let them through and they're all up now. Everyone else, especially Discount, I'd recommend scrolling up to see them.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>A natural born charmer eh CB?

Geti
9 years ago

>David, good to know, they seemed to be vanishing so I kept a backup but I'm relieved that they're up now.Glad you approve, keep doing what you're doing.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Elizabeth said… A natural born charmer eh CB? April 11, 2011 3:59 PMApparently so. He now has a little friend whom he insists he's going to marry. He also has said that he intends to set a trap for her and keep her in a cage. This was the point where I felt obligated to step in and (after validating that he likes his friend very much) explain the voluntary nature of marriage in modern society. I'm not sure he was convinced. Fortunately, most 5 year-olds outgrow this sort of thing.

MertvayaRuka
9 years ago

>"Go have your sex in the city lifestyles. 1 in 4 women carry a disease, their cervix and wombs rot from their body while any sign of life is vacuumed out and thrown in the garbage. Our marriage rates are at an historic low, fatherless bastard children at historic highs and our domestic birth rate below replacement levels. This is a demographic nightmare for any civilization and can not be maintained without immigration. "And at this point, Discount, I don't see how it could be any clearer that you define yourself by your hate. Deprived of it, I would not be surprised if you simply collapsed in upon yourself like an oil rig fire deprived of oxygen.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Was that not the plot of Boxing Helen or whatever that movie was called?

triplanetary
9 years ago

>Deprived of it, I would not be surprised if you simply collapsed in upon yourself like an oil rig fire deprived of oxygen. And then he would sink and cause an open well to start spewing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the ocean?

MertvayaRuka
9 years ago

>"And then he would sink and cause an open well to start spewing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil into the ocean?"Currently the only difference between this and the toxic crap he's all ready spewing is that the damage he's causing to the environment around him isn't as obvious.

Discount
9 years ago

>"The aim of feminism is also not to be put on a podium and idolised (that was the whole point of making this blog post as far as I can make out), or to be elevated and romanticised; it's to be made equal, legally and socially." What are you talking about??? Women have more "rights" "choices" "privileges" and dominance over the social, political, economic and over all resource distribution than men do. Most resources flow to women. They own 60% of the nations wealth, earn 60% of college degrees, have all the rights in marriage and thus divorce, are the only gender that has conception rights both pre and post conception, rights over the fruits of their labor and outearn men by an average of 8% in every major metro city in the U.S. They have better healthcare provided to them, better health in every measure, longer life span, are not required to serve their country by Selective Service OF ANY KIND, better educational opportunities through women first Affirmative Action and have ownership over men's bodies and the fruits of men's labor including owning children. Men are not even considered a necessary part of the process of conception. Male genes are sold through the mail according to what celebrity they look like. Men are not even considered a necessary part of the family. I have no idea what you are talking about!

Discount
9 years ago

>"if you sire a child and pack up and leave you're legally obliged to send money to go towards raising that child." Men don't pack up an leave in nearly the proportion that women do. Women initiate 70% of all divorce and of the 30% initiated by men few involve children. Women are the majority of those who abandon their families.

Discount
9 years ago

>"Or call men pigs, dogs, horses asses, jack ass donkeys and throw men into garbage cans."-"Be angry at the individual, not at the collective."If you haven't noticed the above portrayal of men IS the collective pop cultural expression toward men as you can see by the links I posted with the comment. The links are screenshots from Sony commercials, Roomba Robotics commercial and others. The commercials that display men this way are primarily aimed at appealing to women. There is a reason they validate women's view of men in these commercials…because it is true of women's view of men…it works….it sells.

Discount
9 years ago

>"Men have the God given natural right to be a part of their childrens lives. The goal of feminism was to create marriage 2.0 laws to absolve women of any liability, responsibility, commitment or reciprocal obligation to men and the sanctity of marriage. Feminists also seek to remove men's rights to our own bodies and the fruits of our labor and transfer such things to women by force." -"Wait, before you seemed to be stating that a man could pack up and leave whenever he liked and that the children were essentially the woman's property; which system are you an advocate of?" No I am referring to after the fact…when women abandon their family.

Discount
9 years ago

>"Women work less hours""-And get paid less per hour."No…the Raw Wage Gap is based on a measurement of the whole of the workforce and the disparity between what men and women produce as a whole of the labor market. "seek jobs out of a different modus of personal fulfillment (one which has little or nothing to do with appealing to the opposite sex)""-Why should anyone choose a career based on appealing to the opposite sex?" Don't play stupid.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Discount, women *also* get paid less per hour, on average.

Discount
9 years ago

>"indistinguishable differences in cognitive capacity"No it is a proven fact that men are represented at the top and bottom of the dimorphic curve in broad spectrum IQ tests. This is due to hypergamous female preferences in sexual selection. The curve is proportional at the top and bottom. Feminists don't care about the bottom of the curve, those men can end up under a bridge like the 85% of street homeless men sleeping under bridges. They also seek to remove men from the top percentiles of representation by creating Affirmative Action and Title IX laws to forcefully remove men from these ares of representation. Here is the curve:comment image There is more dimorphic variance between males in sexually selective traits for a reason. HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the PeacockMore Dumbbells But MMore Nobels: Why men are at the top:http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin