>
 |
| Charles Atlas is sick of this shit. |
It seems I have been suffering from a misapprehension. I have been assuming that pretty much every single last guy in the Men Going Their Own Way crowd just hates, hates HATES feminism. But apparently I am wrong, and some of them — well, at least one of them — really loves, loves LOVES it. That guy calls himself womanhater, and he recently posted about his deep appreciation for feminism on the MGTOW proboards forum.
Brace yourself, because there are a few gigantic logical zigs and zags coming here.
Womanhater starts off his post with a bold, contrarian statement:
We ghosters have been falsely accused of hating feminism. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, feminism has been the greatest liberation of men since the end of feudalism.
Whaaaaaa!? How so, womanhater?
In the past, men obtained employment and pursued a career. This involved soul crushing conformity, precious hours of our lives spent in inhuman working conditions supporting unconscionable corporate interests while paying confiscatory taxes. We were denied sex by fat shrews who had duped us into marrying them with no hope of escape, and we were nagged incessantly by those same diabolical beasts with whom we had to share living quarters.
Soul-crushing conformity! No-sex-having shrews! Sounds like this situation was truly teh suck. So what changed?
Then, it all began to change. The women who had dominated our deeply empty consumerist lives declared us to be the enemy, abandoned their traditional domain of the home, outsourced the raising of children, and began to compete with us for jobs thereby lowering our economic value.
That also sounds like teh suck. But no! in fact, womanhater explains,
The man-haters like Steinem and Friedan and Dworkin had in fact done us an enormous favor!
We were freed from OUR bondage to the home. We no longer had to work for money solely to provide a home. We no longer had to tolerate nagging cunts who extorted us by manipulating our sexual desire. We were FREE!
Sounds great! Let’s round up some hot chicks and have a party!
Oh, wait.
Womanhater continues:
Women have criminalized our showing interest in them and in attempting to engage them sexually. Good! Now we are free to avoid them. They have repeatedly told us how useless we are, and how we are wrong. Fine. They can have the university educations and get the bullshit managerial jobs where they oppress the men who actually do the work. So much the better! They can live in their little townhomes and tend their cats all alone freed from men. And we are now free from having to work in soul crushing corporate environments in order to placate the bitch at home.
All us dudes need to do to take advantage of our new freedom is to deliberately take shit jobs and completely ignore all women.
We can now live off the grid – intentionally avoiding working with or for women. We can make enough money to live frugally and happily on our own, while intentionally earning too little to pay taxes.
Aw yeah! And don’t assume just because we take shit jobs that we aren’t really the bestest guys in the fucking universe, much better than mere women.
Among our ranks you will find men with the intellect to be engineers and physicians who instead flip burgers and park cars. You will find men with the physical strength and courage and wits to be military leaders and ferocious warriors – who instead of risking their lives for the benefit of a state that hates them, now paint houses or mow lawns. We men have found that we are infinitely more happy alone in a studio apartment or living communally with other men for very little money, than we were killing ourselves to provide a bullshit Brady Bunch lifestyle in the suburbs for the greedy twat.
But, gosh, what will happen to society once all these magnificent dudes take their marbles and go home?
Women and their conspirators in the halls of power will soon find out … When men are no longer willing to work at the level needed to finance the social programs that favor women, what will happen? When men are no longer willing to enlist in the military to become amputees for the benefit of a state that despises them and to make the world safe for corporate looting, what will happen? When men simply fade away, own nothing, contribute nothing, and merely watch smiling as the world burns, what will happen?My brothers, we are soon to find out!
OMFG! It’s almost as though — bear with me for a moment here while I work out this metaphor. It’s almost as though these dudes are like Atlas — not Charles Atlas, silly, you know, that Greek dude — holding up the world, and then all of a sudden they say “screw you guys, I’m going home.” And then everyone is like, oh noe! What’s going to happen to the world! And then the dudes are all like, *shrug.* Not my problem! C-ya, suckers!
That is such a perfect metaphor. Much better than anything some dumb bitch could come up with. You guys are totally free to use it if you like.
—
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.
>@Sal> is there a blanket term that covers all of these phenomena?Yes: post-colonialism. It's broader than just the phenomenon of privileged groups co-opting identity politics, but it includes that phenomenon.
>Joe,Ah, thank you. Kind of a dumb question, I guess, but (obviously) my academic background is in other fields. That'll help for a Google Scholar search.
>Elizabeth,Don't you know women are like the Borg? That does drive me insane, but on the otherhand posts above where women as again the borg are all working sixty hour weeks then coming home to do the housework.What ever happened to treating individuals and individual situations as; individual?
>@Sal> Kind of a dumb question, I guessNot a dumb question; I still don't know what the specific term for privileged groups trying to claim the perceived benefits of "oppressed minority" status.I think it's endemic to late capitalism. The reality of globalization is colliding with entrenched national and ethnic identities. The problem is, the the new, super-rich multinational aristocracy that have essentially sold the future of the other 99.9999% down the river has no loyalty to our national or ethnic identities, which we're only just now noticing, and we don't like it one bit.
>Joe,which we're only just now noticingUnfortunately that "we" in the U.S. doesn't yet include lower- and middle-class Republicans, who still staunchly defend the rights of the aristocracy to screw them over. It's a backwards "Eff us, they've got theirs". Makes no sense.
>@SalIt makes perfect sense. If you see no option for changing the power structure, you nevertheless can ingratiate yourself to the powerful, in the hopes that they will grant you some special treatment. This goes back to feudalism, if not way before that.
>(Foregoing the "Joe" since everyone else seems to have left)If you see no option for changing the power structure, you nevertheless can ingratiate yourself to the powerfulI'll have to read more about that, because I don't fully understand how that operates on an individual level, particularly among people (like my parents) who don't seem to receive any real benefits from ingratiating themselves to anyone powerful. (I have some ideas what smaller (mostly social, not economic) benefits there might be. And knowledge that people's intuitive cost-benefit analyses have been repeatedly shown to be illogical.)Anyway, thread derail. Thanks for entertaining random thoughts from a stranger. đŸ™‚ Coming back to the topic at hand:(from LexieDi)I know what would happen! The world would go on. And every once in a while someone would stop, stare at the handful of men marching around with "Hate Women, Live Free" picket signs, blink, confused, and then go on with his or her life.We've seen this with the fabled extreme feminists, too. There may always be a few who've chosen to live as man-free as possible; their numbers and influence on more common strands of feminism are way overestimated (esp. among MRAs). The world has gone on.
>@Yohan, for someone who likes to whine about being poor (even though it does not seem as if you have actually ever really been so), you sure don't know how much things cost. I also yo pity your wife (as if I didn't already) as you think all of her work put into raising your kids and housework is worthless.A similar point applies to 'womanhater' who somehow thinks you can afford even a studio apartment on less than $5000 a year (standard federal tax deduction for single adult http://www.freeusaguide.com/ftax_exemption.htm which you must file taxes for if you make more than). I think his strategy for not paying taxes is known as 'tax evasion' and is a crime. Also, given that women are so keenly 'competeing for jobs' it would be pretty obvious what they would do if men just didn't do them, i.e. take the jobs.
>Kave, on that point-the second shift thing apparently has been studied to be a fairly common problem.One of the reasons I think some women divorce their husband (and this is strictly a guess) is if he is not producing much for the family, does no housework and/or much of the child care, why does she have him around? Sex is usually also a major factor in that he may not be up for it regularly enough for her in addition to all of the other problems with her doing the housework/childcare. I understand male libidos are NOT the stereotypical all the time like in the media.So she leaves him and he has no idea why. And she may be resentful for all of the time spent doing what should have been a 50/50 division in the first place so she takes it out on him during the divorce. To him this is unreasonable but to her it is reasonable because she is tired of being the one who has to clean, cook, child care, and still work with barely any or inadequate input from him. At any rate, the idea that it is all about the individual is not quite perfect since most humans have similar traits (which is why you can claim someone is normal even if they are not from that town.)
>@evilwhitemalempire:I would not go back to a mechanic who did not clean out the floorboards. Or at least lay down those paper things. Re: marriage. It makes sense to me that women initiate most divorces because they aren't happy with the deal they are getting out of marriage. Sure, there was a time when women were pregnant or had dependent children for the majority of their adult lives, when women were barred from the levels of employment that could comfortably support themselves and their children. During that time, it made economic sense for women to continue to trade housework and sexwork for security even after when the spark had gone out of their marriages.But now Western women will be pregnant and have dependent children for a small portion of their adult lives and have the ability to support themselves, the marriage equation has changed. But I can't see how it's a bad thing. There is a really good book about this, Wifework by Susan Maushart.
>Where on earth do feminists get this crap from that all these evil men are making women do the majority or all the house work and child care?Sure, it may happen in some relationships and vice versa. But all the relationships I see around me, I never see this. All I see is both the man and woman employed, both the man and woman doing their share of work around the house depending what suits best on that day.However, if a woman is a stay at home mum, I think she should be expected to do the majority or not if all house work as the male is the financial slave. Don't expect a free ride ladies.All I want is an equal 50/50 relationship. I think most men in my generation pretty much want the same. But unfortunately we live in a generation where male bashing/misandry is rampant. Feminists/ some women will make such ridiculous generalisations about men such as the house work topic.What Elizabeth is saying above is absolute rubbish.
>> However, if a woman is a stay at home mum, I think she should be expected to do the majority or not if all house work as the male is the financial slave. Don't expect a free ride ladies.So: 40hrs/wk of child care, *and* all the housework, vs. 40hrs/wk at a full-time job.> All I want is an equal 50/50 relationshipIt sounds like you want more like a 33/66 relationship.
>Nice try Joe. Let’s put it this way; the man earns ALL the money. Yes, the money that puts the roof over her head, puts the cloths on her back, puts the food on the plate. The money that allows her to get spoilt with a nice pair of shoes, a nice dinner out, jewels etc.Don’t give me this rubbish that a man is expected to come home from a hard days work to provide the woman all these things and do more work on top of that when he gets home. How hard is childcare? Really? Change nappies every now and then, provide 3 meals a day. WOW so hard. my god. I think that job is easier than nearly any job in the work force. And is housework really a full time job? I don't think so.More than anything, in most cases, what the man is doing in the workforce is probably a lot more hard yacka than house work and childcare put together.To be someone’s financial slave, I think that should come with a price. Don’t you think?Anyway, I am off for the next 6 hours. I will be happy to come back then and see your poor argument for a laugh
>"How hard is childcare? Really?"A question which can only be asked by someone who has not spent any time responsible for the safety, well-being, and mental stimulation of a 5-year old. Young children never shut up or leave you alone, and if they are awake they have to be supervised or they will find some novel way to die. But other than that, you're right, it's a vacation.
>Yep, sounds like Nick has no concept of housecleaning and child care.Housecleaning:Kitchen * Dishes washed and put away * Sinks cleaned and shined * Counters and backsplash clean * Appliances and cabinet doors wiped and cleaned * Floors swept/vacuumed and mopped * Trash dumpedBathrooms * Sinks cleaned and shined as well as vanity tops * Toilet cleaned and disinfected * Tub/shower cleaned and disinfected * Mirrors cleaned * Towels changed * Trash removed * Floors swept/vacuumed and moppedBedrooms/Family Room/Living Room * All areas picked up and items put away * Bed linens changed * All furniture dusted * Trash taken out * Mirrors and pictures cleaned * Electronics dusted * Carpet vacuumed————–http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm has a break down of the time spent doing all the activities a person does a day. Averages of course.
>Well, the 'second shift' is BS. Men on average work 10 hours more a week than women on average. The idea that women work more hours is ridiculous. Women and men often have different standards of cleanliness and organization, and women seem to think that their standards are the way the house has to be. If a man was insistant on maintaining his (higher) level of cleanliness it would be seen as abusive, but it is a common joke that men are slobs and women have to clean up after them or 'teach' them how to be clean. Elizabeth has provided us with a perfect example. In her mind, all these things must be done weekly, I am assuming. She feels all these things must be done in order for her home to be acceptable. If she is married, maybe her husband would only do these things every other week, or once a month. Sheets maybe every other week. Things like mirrors, pictures, electronics, or cupboards washed, many people only do twice a year. So if Elizabeth wants them done every week, and her husband only needs them done twice a year, why should he have to work more when they are not necessary and she is the one who wants them done?BTW, that list should take 4 hours tops to complete, and I live in a 4000 sf house. I used to clean houses and a normal size house would take me 2 hours to clean. This is a form of gatekeeping. Women often think their standard is THE standard, and they tell their husbands how to do the jobs. Then they correct their husbands. And they minimize their husband's contributions. Say a woman works an extra 4 hours a week doing housework. A man may once a month have to spend a whole weekend on a home improvement project, or fixing broken plumbing, or changing out the alternator on the car. Sure, she worked here and there all month, but in one weekend he has put in the same hours. Women tend not to see these things. I certainly did not see these things until 10 years ago when I started researching men's issues. The debate is NOT as simple as women working a double shift and men sitting on their asses all the time. Anyone with a grain of intelligence knows that things are never that simple. I think men and women in general work about the same all told. But I guess that is not victim enough.
>BQ:That's fine, but when you talk to women who got divorced the trigger is usually some tiny thing that piled up over years and years until they are just unwilling to pick up their husband's socks (or whatever)one more time. The husbands are shell-shocked and thought everything was fine and can't believe that she wants to destroy their family.But the truth is what it takes to keep someone willing to live with you has changed, and if, "she feels all these things must be done in order for her home to be acceptable," then that's her prerogative. Being a good roommate is becoming the price of staying married/in a relationship, just bringing home a paycheck is not enough.
>Sorry BQ-not only am I not married, I also pay someone to come clean once a week or twice a month depending on how bad the pets have been. I posted a common list that can take as little as two hours to however long it takes to thoroughly clean a home regardless of size. However, some women have a certain standard that they wish their family to live in and a husband should be willing to compromise on that *just as she should be.*
>Compromise is great….when it is truly compromise and not just the guy gives in and does it her way. The "yes dear" syndrome, which is so common there are t-shirts.What does your "married and paying a housekeeper" have to do with my point? Perhaps if more working women were willing to pay another person to do the extra work they required rather than expecting their husband to do what he considers a waste of time, they would not get to the point where a dropped sock would end a marriage. If a woman divorces because of a cleaning issue, and she has failed to communicate her issues to her husband in a way he understands (and is not just seen as criticism), or she is not compromising her standards to meet his halfway, then she IS destroying the marriage unfairly. Just as he would be if the situation were reversed. I don't buy into the quiet martyr for years until a sock ends it all. That is called a failure to communicate. Just as it would be if the situation were reversed.
>Hey, Liz, thanks for proving my point. Your link to the list of daily activities shows women do around 1 hour a day more of "household activities", and men do around 1 hour more of "work related activities". Sounds about even.
>BQ: Hearing how many men still talk about their household work in terms of "helping" their wives, even in families where wives work longer hours outside the home and earn more money, I think it's not that men have a "different standard of cleanliness", but that society still perceives household chores as women's work. That's why so many men congratulate themselves on doing their own laundry, on loading the dishwasher, on changing a diaper. Any one of those things is perceived as practically an act of heroism when done by a man, yet something that women simply do as a matter of course."Standards of cleanliness" can indeed differ. But when certain men make their homes practically unlivable for their partners, I don't see why it's the women who should suck it up. Not to mention the fact that men who leave their stuff all over the place generally have a habit of expecting their wives to know where their shit is at any given time. Hide & Seek is right: having to pick up after someone who is a walking disaster and gives no thought to how his habits affect those who live under the same roof, eats away at your soul. I'd say men who are slobs should only marry women who are also slobs. That way, there won't be any "nagging" and complaining about scum-encrusted bathrooms. That, and in families where both spouses work outside the home, each person should do his or her own laundry and iron whatever needs to be ironed. That way, no one's "standard of cleanliness" will be disrupted by "unnecessary" washing.
>BQ:I think you are making my point. If a wife has a problem with something her husband does she has to communicate that problem; she must also communicate it in a way he understands, which is somehow different from regular, normal communication; she must also make sure that her communication does not come across as "criticism" but instead comes across as a gentle, friendly reminder that adults are expected to clean their own messes; and, on top of all of that, she has to pick up the socks, or whatever, over and over and over again. Eventually, it would seem, living alone and not having to do any of that starts to look like a sweet deal, even if getting to that point means going through a divorce. And, in a final sense, getting divorced is also a kind of communication, one which is difficult to misunderstand.
>Ah, Bisquit Queen's defense boils down to "Men are filthy pigs, women are neat freak bitches, har har."Hide and Seek, I'm with you on the childcare thing, as nick's version would probably count as criminal negligence in a serious wayPaying for someone to do labour comparable to a stay at home mother would cost over $130,000 if they were paid for their time like workers doing similar tasks (and the US has notoriously low minimum wages and notoriously low pay for child care workers for a developed country). http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/ThePriceOfAMom.aspx It is worth noting that this income would be far greater than average and far greater than these women's likely standards of living. And this study did not even take into account the fact that plenty of these women are qualified for higher wage jobs than low paying service jobs (cooking, cleaning, etc.). Only work traditionally done by men gets consider real work and is renumerated. While as work that women do that is essential for any functioning society, like caring for and raising children, preparing food, etc. is not called work at all or seen as deserving of pay. Feeding a child is given less value than flipping a burger, welcome to capitalist patriarchy.
>Amused said:"but that society still perceives household chores as women's work"My god feminists are delusional twits LOL. Yes, this was the case a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's hilarious how feminists pull the same old cards that were in place generations ago and try to make out it's still happening in the present as a poor attempt to claim female victim status.Or if feminists are not delusional, they may feel that they are running out of things to claim victim status on so they recycle the same crap that was in the past, hoping people are dumb enough to not know better.Observing all my friends and family around me; I see the men doing house chores all the time. Such as cooking, washing dishes, doing the laundry etc etc. Some times the male does it, other times the female.What I quoted from Amused is obvious that it's totally false as if a male even dares to tell women in today's society that it's a woman's job to do house work, he would be deemed as a chauvinist pig. In other words, he would be looked down upon by society and not seen as a worthy husband or boyfriend to think so little of women.And as for the list of chores Elizabeth provided, for one, most of these things are short task that are hardly time consuming. Secondly, plenty of things on that list are things that only need to be done once a week or even once a month or longer.Then for the rest of the time, these certain stay at home mums are usually having tea parties, shopping for clothes, talking on the phone for hours, watching Oprah and them silly soap shows. etc etc etcWhile these stay at home mums have so much spare time to do these things, they are usually doing them while their husband is still at work busting his butt for the next dollar to keep her standard of living.
>@ DarksidecatThat salary.com study is bullshit. It, like so many feminsit canards has been debunked over and over again. I quote from walletpop.com"The survey calculated Mom's market value by studying pay levels for 10 jobs titles including Child Day Care Worker, Teacher, Taxi Driver, Facilities Manager, Short-order Cook, Laundry Attendant, Janitor, Counselor, CEO, Administrative Assistant, Accounting Clerk, Licensed Practical Nurse, Plumber, Automotive Mechanic, and Cake Decorator. The biggest driver of stay-at-home mom theoretical earnings is overtime pay, since many stay at home moms report working more than 90 hours per week. Here's the thing: It's garbage. If the theoretical value of a stay-at-home mom were really $117k, far fewer women would have to work at jobs that pay far less than that. And nannies would earn six-figure incomes instead of the sub-$25k rate they normally earn.It's not that stay-at-home moms aren't awesome and extremely valuable. It's that they're too valuable to be exploited by cynical marketing experts looking to drum up press for Salary.com."Random Brother