>
 |
| 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.
>@ JoeHow hard is it for a woman to pop in a tape of Dora the Explorer and throw a meal in the microwave for the kid?Random Brother
>Elizabeth said:"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"Wow. I am underwhelmed. Apparently stay at home mom's have it even cushier that I thought.Random Brother
>The pure idiocy the feminists are going on about here is that they think between a stay at home mum and a man; the man should earn the money from hard work to keep up the lifestyle for the woman and then come home and do more work on top of that.That means the man is putting in a huge amount more effort into the relationship than the woman.The feminists are too fucking stupid to see this. Their argument is god damn ridiculous and hilarious in a disturbing way. But really, what else can you expect from bigots?If stay at home mums want their husbands to do equal house work, go and get a fucking job and stop expecting the man to do ALL THE HARD YARDS to pay for all the expenses in living. Their clothes, shoes, makeup, jewellery, the food they eat, the roof over their head, the electricity they use, the water they use, is ALL paid by the man. So shut the hell up and do the house work or else get off your ass and get a job that pays half of expenses of living. That way, its validated for the man to be expected to do half the house work.I am sorry that you bigoted femitwits can’t see this simple logic.
>Elizabeth said… "Wytch,The problem I have with your statement is that too many of the MRM believe that women are monolithic. That each woman is exactly the same.Well they are not. If men all have differences, so do women and so do *gasp*"Then how come most of the feminist-minded here are practically saying the same thing?And for every Christine Hoff Sommers there are who knows how many Jessica Valentis, the later of which continue the party line. Sommers is one of the few who actually gives a damn about men and has been vocal about it. Most don't. As far the MRM is concerned, there are a plethora of men from different perspectives—more than feminists, I should think. They largely agree on a fews things, however: feminism is titled in women's favor, most men are getting the shaft in this culture, and there has to be something to do for men in order to stop this imbalance and bias.
>"Feeding a child is given less value than flipping a burger, welcome to capitalist patriarchy."—DarkSideCatThen don't procreate. Problem solved.
>"Wow. I am underwhelmed. Apparently stay at home mom's have it even cushier that I thought."—Random Brother No doubt. And I've been doing housecleaning for years. I wonder where my cut of the money is . . .Oh, wait—I'm not female so I don't my share.
>Should have read, "I don't get my share." Heh.
>BQ-if you wish to shorten my name, it is Beth, not Liz. Also, I think that Nick's claims of his male friends tasks ring hollow as he is not privy to the household divisions of cleaning or the negotiations that it took to get there.As for the list? That was a list to lessen the time spent cleaning.
>DarksiteCat: Paying 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)This is for sure not true.Show me ONE live-in maid, who is earning USD 130.000,- per year.Our very experienced Filipina office maid (same person since 22 years), who takes care of the office, but also of the rooms of our senior officer will do such cleaning/laundry work listed above easily within 3 hours and will do the cooking, shopping/taking care of children and many other duties for about USD 2000,- per month+nice room and Japan is NOT a cheap place for salaries for legally employed staff.Otherwise, if you cannot afford to pay for your maid, give it to professional services, laundries are not expensive. Take-out food is not expensive, some monthly cleaning service for your home is not expensive. For sure such professional services will not cost you USD 10.000,- per month, that's ridiculous.
>…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"…So in addition to the time spent performing those chores, her time must also be spent on devising a way that she can communicate her needs/wants/wishes to her husband in a manner that will NOT be seen as trying to usurp HIS authority, him being head of the household and all…I guess that should be added to the list.
>Richard…nannies would earn six-figure incomes instead of the sub-$25k rate they normally earn But … nannies can be dismissed for bad performance and have to move out of the house of their employer. I never heard about a maid receiving alimony for life.
>@ PamPam said: " So in addition to the time spent performing those chores, her time must also be spent on devising a way that she can communicate her needs/wants/wishes to her husband in a manner that will NOT be seen as trying to usurp HIS authority, him being head of the household and all…I guess that should be added to the list."I know it's a foreign concept for feminists, and I'm likely wasting my time putting it here, but for the two or three straight feminists that actually exist: When trying to get ones husband or boyfriend to do something, NOT being an obnoxious bitch, and being able to use some tact can often work wonders.I know, I know they never taught you that in Manhating 101.Random Brother
>Richard: "I know it's a foreign concept for feminists, and I'm likely wasting my time putting it here, but for the two or three straight feminists that actually exist: When trying to get ones husband or boyfriend to do something, NOT being an obnoxious bitch, and being able to use some tact can often work wonders. I know, I know they never taught you that in Manhating 101."I know it's a foreign concept for misogynists, and I'm likely wasting my time putting it here, but for the two or three MRA's who actually have any chance of getting some unfortunate woman to live with them: When trying to get your wife or girlfriend to not be an obnoxious bitch, NOT being a callous, inconsiderate ass can often work wonders. I know, I know, they never taught you that in How To Blame Women For Everything And the Kitchen Sink 101. Fair enough?As for the rest — I can only thank our resident misogynists for saving me the time in disproving John Dias' and Biscuit Queen's protestations that women's work in "patriarchal" families is valued and appreciated. You were kind enough to provide ample evidence to the contrary: that women's work in patriarchal families is devalued, ridiculed, and discounted, and that wives in such families are seen as nothing more than overpriced maids and prostitutes. Thank you for proving my argument that a woman is better off dead than taking care of children, the home and the Other Child full time.
>@Amused:"Thank you for proving my argument that a woman is better off dead than taking care of children, the home and the Other Child full time."No one is forcing any woman into that role; therefore any women who do choose it chose on their own to value a nurturing role more highly than working in a paid job (otherwise they would have gotten a paid job). Stop forcing your anti-nurturing, anti-self-deterministic values down women's throats; its misogynistic.
>John Dias: Oh please, don't get so melodramatic on me. I have no beef with women who buy into illusions, nor do I accept your ludicrous idea that having a career somehow precludes nurturing or self-determination. If anything, having a career promotes self-determination, and your insinuation that challenging your views by me is the equivalent of putting a gun to women's heads and forcing them to become brain surgeons is ludicrous.Second, the fact that women knowingly and voluntarily choose a lifestyle in which their contributions are devalued, unappreciated, mocked and criticized doesn't change the fact that their contributions ARE, in fact, devalued, unappreciated, mocked and criticized. A woman may, for example, knowingly and voluntarily become a prostitute — but the fact that she wasn't dragged into it kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact that prostitution is usually dangerous and degrading, and that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes end up exploited.And then, there is the question of whether the "nurturing" women you refer to actually take on the housewifely role in a properly informed manner. Because the comments here demonstrate a fundamental contradiction: you claim that housewives are valued and appreciated by their patriarchal husbands, but the majority of traditionalist men here have expressed the view that housewives are actually worthless pieces of shit, whose "nurturing" services can be cheaply obtained from maids, hookers, laundries and Chinese takeout. Therefore, it would seem to me that any woman who contemplates becoming a housewife should review such comments so that she can better understand how the majority of men in her circle (probably including her husband and the family's "benevolent" head patriarch) will regard her. That way, she can make an informed decision, instead of making one on the basis of illusions and distortions of patriarchy advocates that can be summed up in that brilliant phrase from George Orwell's "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." After that, let her do what she will: her life is hers to wreck, as far as I'm concerned.
>I know, I know they never taught you that in Manhating 101.WOW, what a comedian!! And SO darn ORIGINAL, too!!
>"I know it's a foreign concept for feminists, and I'm likely wasting my time putting it here, but for the two or three straight feminists that actually exist: When trying to get ones husband or boyfriend to do something, NOT being an obnoxious bitch, and being able to use some tact can often work wonders."Oh, really? I find it that not hanging around with people who call women obnoxious bitches works even better.But the main component in getting anyone to do something, including husbands and boyfriends and wives and girlfriends, is them being interested in your happiness. If they don't care, it doesn't matter if you ask nicely, or bitch, or passive-aggressively leave their dirty socks in their breakfast pancakes. If men don't do their share of the housework, it means that they don't believe that they should. And, in my experience, it is much easier to find a different partner than it is to convince someone to change. But, what do I know, women are just crazy and no one could possibly figure out what they want, amirite?
>The thing is; where are all these men with a girlfriend/wife WHO IS EMPLOYED TOO!, where she does most or all the house work?Feminists seem to be talking about them an awful lot but I never see these men. Sure, a very small percentage of men may exist who are like this, just like there are women. But in a feminist world, women can't be as bad as evil oppressive menz
>@Amused:"Second, the fact that women knowingly and voluntarily choose a [stay-at-home] lifestyle in which their contributions are devalued, unappreciated, mocked and criticized [by feminists] doesn't change the fact that their contributions ARE, in fact, devalued, unappreciated, mocked and criticized [by feminists]."Maybe you feminists should knock it off, then?@Amused:"…you claim that housewives are valued and appreciated by their patriarchal husbands, but the majority of traditionalist men here have expressed the view that housewives are actually worthless pieces of shit, whose 'nurturing' services can be cheaply obtained from maids, hookers, laundries and Chinese takeout."I challenge that. If a husband supports his wife by financially empowering her to voluntarily exercise a life choice to stay at home, then both partners are making a choice and both are valuing the roles of the other. This breaks down, however, when one party uses State-imposed force to obligate the other while simultaneously shirking their own obligation. A stay-at-home wife who files for divorce can obligate her ex-husband to pay alimony to her in order for her to continue receiving the benefit of staying at home, but her ex-husband cannot obligate her to provide all of the nurturing benefits that she used to provide to him. All of this is enforced by the State, meaning enforced by violence — at the behest of the divorcing wife.That is why the men that you seem to be referring to have such a low opinion of marriage. It's not because they necessarily hate marriage (since getting married is a voluntary choice), but rather it's because they hate the obligations of divorce, in which ex-wives shirk their former obligations while simultaneously forcing ex-husbands to continue theirs. It's fundamentally unfair, and more to the point, it's about the coercive power of the State (whose power is enforced through violence). The former husband goes on providing, whereas the former wife is released from nurturing; if the ex-husband does not comply with this unfair State-imposed arrangement, he can be jailed by a judge for contempt of court and his wages can be garnished. Current policy on divorce law has thus made marriage too risky, and feminists were the ones who originally promoted this injustice.
>Very precise John. But feminists will still try to make out one way or the other that women are the true victims in all of this and what you are saying is all a big misunderstanding.
>@nick81m:"…feminists will still try to make out one way or the other that women are the true victims in all of this and what you are saying is all a big misunderstanding."You know feminists pretty well, Nick. But the ideological cesspool contains even worse varieties, as I suspect you also already know. I'm always on the lookout for the likes of Amanda Marcotte, who I've recently noticed lurking around this blog. She and her kind have a knack for taking a woman's malicious allegations against her peaceful and law-abiding male victims, and somehow conflating their outcries for justice into a male-imposed expectation of entitlement to rape and pillage, such as the way she described the Duke Lacrosse players who were maliciously victimized with a fabricated allegation of rape by a female predator. Ideologues like her don't care too much for the "just a misunderstanding" card; people like her instead go straight for the rhetorical kill.
>John, it's a little hard to take your complaints that people are "assassinating your character" seriously when you devote post after post to, well, assassinating other people's characters. I especially like the increasingly loaded language you're using. Someone reading this blog is in your mind "lurking" here. (Meanwhile, you "lurk" here every day and sometimes recruit "your kind" to come and post here.) When I asked you about some of your beliefs last night, because I honestly don't fucking understand them (I still don't), this became in your mind me "lying about your views" and "assassinating your character," and using some sort of dastardly techniques out of the "Futrelle playbook."
>"Thank you for proving my argument that a woman is better off dead than taking care of children, the home and the Other Child full time."—Amused Then don't get married, have a family, or do household chores. Since you are so condescending and borderline hostile at times, staying away from that proverbial jail for you should not be problematic.
>@ AmusedAmused said: "I know it's a foreign concept for misogynists, and I'm likely wasting my time putting it here, but for the two or three MRA's who actually have any chance of getting some unfortunate woman to live with them: When trying to get your wife or girlfriend to not be an obnoxious bitch, NOT being a callous, inconsiderate ass can often work wonders. I know, I know, they never taught you that in How To Blame Women For Everything And the Kitchen Sink 101. Fair enough?"I see what you did there! You took MY words and then changed them just enough to make it look like YOUR view actually has merit! Wow! You're such a clever little girl! SUCH A CLEVER GIRL! Congrats! You are a tribute to a feminist education, yes you are dearie! Yes you are!But the point remains, honey, that if you want someone to do something, an ADULT should:1. Not assume the other person automatically knows what he or she wants.2. Should ask nicely.I know, I know the thought of an empowered, strong, proud, independent, morally evolved, superior to all males WOMYN (TM) having to ask a mere man for something just burns your penis despising loins, but for normal heterosexual adults this is the way it acutally works, okay honey?The clever, clever girl continues: "As for the rest — I can only thank our resident misogynists for saving me the time in disproving John Dias' and Biscuit Queen's protestations that women's work in "patriarchal" families is valued and appreciated. You were kind enough to provide ample evidence to the contrary: that women's work in patriarchal families is devalued, ridiculed, and discounted, and that wives in such families are seen as nothing more than overpriced maids and prostitutes. Thank you for proving my argument that a woman is better off dead than taking care of children, the home and the Other Child full time."Wow! That was brilliant! You deduced from your feminist interpretation of the comments on this board that ALL men devalue stay at home moms! Clever girl! I mean, some patriarch oppressor might note that it doesn't matter how the men here or even most men feel, but the matter would be if that individual woman's husband values her contribution THAT should be one of the main factors for her to decide whether to stay at home or not, but fuck that! Why should a woman care what here husband thinks! She should base her decision based upon your interpretation of what the men on this board have said. Oh, you feminists! Random Brother
>@ PamPam said: "I know, I know they never taught you that in Manhating 101.WOW, what a comedian!! And SO darn ORIGINAL, too!!"Thanks dear. I really appeciate your sincere compliment. And by the way I think you're smart and sexy!Random Brother