>
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.
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.
I’m not even sure what the fuck he’s even talking about with half of this shit.
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.
>You have an odd fixation with MRA sexuality; would you like to explain that to everyone? Yes. It's hilarious.
>You have an odd fixation with MRA sexuality; would you like to explain that to everyone?Yes. It's hilarious.
>Hide and Seek said… …..that doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence because feminists surely don't think that MRA's are all gangster rappers. Feminism does not think about men in general to be something, which should be respected.Husbands? Fathers? Feminists consider them rather as something useless excect for payments after divorce.Femeinist frequently call on men, especially those who are MRAs to be rapists, pedophiles, wife-beaters, perverts, and of course – not to forget to mention – misogynists.
>Feminism does not think about men in general to be something, which should be respected.Absolutely correct. Feminism does not think that respect should be given on the basis of genitalia. And that's a bad thing?Husbands? Fathers? Feminists consider them rather as something useless excect for payments after divorce.Actually, it was feminists in the U.S., for example, who were lobbying for legislation that would abolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife including after divorce. Anti-feminists fought against it.
>Well 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.And some would argue the we are living in an Angloarchy given racial politics and then there are those that have even better arguments about Plutarchy. Maybe you are the one with the fantasy and the aforementioned are closer to the truth. And given the demographic changes in southern border states can you really say concerns over immigration policy are a right wing fantasy rather than right wing concern? Unless you are some sort of NEO who can see the matrix as others can't, I would argue that so often what you view as "effort towards equality" is not that at all. "Blame the patriarchy" automatically assumes men have privilege, when "privilege" is specific to the circumstances. Do you know what the biggest privilege white people have? Do you know the biggest women have? Nope. You don't. Like I said before "Patriarchy equals men"
>Pam said… (Yohan) Feminism does not think about men in general to be something, which should be respected.Absolutely correct. Feminism does not think that respect should be given on the basis of genitalia. And that's a bad thing?Well I wonder why feminism then in general insists, women should be respected because of their genitalia.
>Having read nice guys it seems that thugs are the young men who can actually get laid without paying for it.
>nicko81m said… It would be great if a feminist can explain how America is a patriarchal society in 2011 Maybe it is a privilege now, compared to some decades ago, that young American men cannot be forced to die in Vietnam anymore?The same is true and can be said about many countries in Europe – it's not only about America and not only since 2011.Privileges for male poor workers in Central Europe during the last 100 years? What privileges should that be?The privilege to die either in a submarine facing the Americans, or to die facing the Russians during winter-time maybe?Or the privilege of my father for a court ruling, that the divorce is solely the fault of his ex-wife because of her bad life-style?At that time no-fault divorce did not exist and courts were ruling sometimes in favor to badly cheated man – that's patriarchy! Well, sounds nice, but patriarchy did not help my father very much as he had to pay back his ex-wife's debits over 2 decades deducted from his salary, as she never worked anything after the divorce until her death. Privileges? I never had them in my entire life and I am now near to 60. My father never had privileges in his life either, he died some years ago, he was 101.The patriarchy – truly a piece of feminist BS…
>Having read nice guys website thugs are men who can get laid without paying. Or the men that impregnate nice guys wives.
>Kave said… Having read nice guys it seems that thugs are the young men who can actually get laid without paying for it. Yes, correct, see reference below.http://www.thelocal.se/24578/20100125/ A convicted rapist considered to be one of Sweden’s most dangerous repeat sex offenders is set to become a father following a secret romance with a female prison guard…..The father of the soon-to-be-born child is a 38-year-old man who was first convicted in 2001 for repeatedly raping a female friend of his girlfriend. Selling sex is ok, but paying for it is a crime… I recommend to read also the follow-up comments of this articlehttp://www.thelocal.se/31342/20110110/… the court accepted that no proof could be presented that Hedman had paid directly to have sex with the woman, it argued that he should have realised the women who came to the apartment were prostitutes or paid escorts on account of their clothing and make-up and the fact that they spoke English with a thick accent.By having sex with one of them, the man took a conscious risk and he should therefore be convicted of purchasing sexual services, the appeals court wrote in its ruling. Feminism = Equality?
>@nick,Do you have any idea what the forced labor convention is?Are you aware that it is an international diplomatic convention and does not have the force of law?Are you aware that it was superseded *in 1956* by a convention that calls for the abolition of *all* forced labor by *all* member states, with no exceptions such as the ones that some states pushed to get included in the 1930 convention?Are you aware of the universal declaration of human rights, adopted in 1948?No, you're not.
>@David Futrelle "I love the whole "feminists are all female supremacists because the word feminist starts with fem" argument."Don't be silly. When "black" is associated with bad as in Black Friday… Black Sheep… that surely is not a good thing for "black" people. Likewise when "(fem)inism" is worshipped as savior of the world and "(patriarch)y" is the problem those who argue about the sentiment and impact behind the word "feminism" have a valid point. Is it really that miraculous that "humanists" never get the heat that feminists or masculinists get for their name choice?
>Joe, thanks for the rebuttal there. MRAs are forever citing this as an example of anti-male oppression. Another example of a ridiculous myth that's achieved the status of "truth" in MRA circles. Many are so blinkered in their focus on perceived male oppression that they know nothing about human rights in general. And despite all their claims that the notion of "patriarchy" means some simplistic conspiracy theory that "all men lord it over all women," many MRA types are completely unaware that feminists who talk about patriarchy understand that patriarchy works hand in hand with other forms of oppression, like class and racial oppression. (Again, I'd recommend Gerda Lerner's books on patriarchy as an intro to the subject for any MRAs who actually want to know what feminists really think, and the way patriarchy really has worked historically.) I doubt any of the MRAs here will ever pick up that book or any other serious feminist discussion of the subject. (With one exception: John, I know you have actually read it, but you seem to have rejected her historical analysis in favor of an idealized ahistorical notion of patriarchy. At least that's my interpretation of the things you've said on the subject: that patriarchy started in the Garden of Eden rather than being something that developed historically over time in the manner suggested by Lerner, and that patriarchy is a "tried and true" method of organizing human civilization. If this is a misrepresentation of your views, I apologize, but that's what your comments on the subject have suggested to me.)Sorry to go off on a tangent here but it's amazing how persistently MRAs cling to myths rather than attempt to actually learn about history, what feminists really believe, and about broader issues of human rights.
>Well I wonder why feminism then in general insists, women should be respected because of their genitalia.And yet traditionalists, men and women, criticize feminism for (so they say) disrespecting women who choose to stay in the domestic sphere rather than opting for careers or working outside the domestic sphere. So I guess feminism actually does NOT insist that women should be respected based on genitalia.
>Kave: "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. "So then my first answer was correct… "Because they were Irish (not so much because they were cheaper, but I know this played a part too) and because men's strength wasn't required due to machinery.". Sounds to me the reasoning’s, even by your own account, were more inspired by national bigotry (racism?) rather then anything contrary to what I said in my discussion of division of labour. You are trying to distract away from the point. Since you obviously don’t seem interested in actual debate, like Lady V and Iris have been (your repeated personal attacks on me (based on assumptions derived from your bias against MRA’s and nothing more) and MRA’s in general, and the fact you posted 3 times with drivel before I forced you to come out and state your point, which in no way proves my original point wrong, shows me this), it is unlikely I will respond to you here again. David: "amazing how persistently MRAs cling to myths"You mean the way feminists cling to patriarchy theory? Everything, including women being sexualization on TV, has been attributed to patriarchy. How does a man being head of the family/Clan and it’s property, and having wives and children as legal dependents, translate into women being sexualized on TV? If anything, patriarchy would (and did re: Burka… Yes, the burka I do blame on patriarchy (as does feminism…**) it isn’t without it’s faults) demand the opposite, as, at least before feminist’s sexual revolution, such a thing would actually embarrass/dishonour a husband or father. To have his wife or daughter, his dependents, those he is expected to protect, being trucked around and displayed in an overtly sexual way would be an embarrassment. So how is the over-sexualization of women patriarchy's fault? The answer, patriarchy was redefined by feminism to mean something else, something more damning to men, something away from the truth. Earlier in this thread I gave an alternative explanation for the development of gender roles (and it's these gender roles the drive society's past and current gender discriminations, these, not patriarchy, are feminists real enemy, well, except when they benefit women), an explanation that would likely persists even in a matriarchy (and largely does in matrilineage’s). What the current Patriarchy theory does, is vilify men for historically (and as found in nature) wanting to ensure the offspring he was (and is) prepared to give his life to protect, is actually his (what’s the feminist view on surrogacy?)… And also for a division of labour (IE, the establishment of traditional gender roles, which is at the root of many feminist complaints) that is in no way relevant to household authority, property ownership and/or familial linage.** Think about that a second. Feminism blames the over sexualiation of, and the stripping away of, a women’s sexuality, two conflicting ideal’s, as both being the fault of patriarchy. Which is it, does patriarchy want women’s sexuality publicly displayed, or publicly denied?
>"And yet traditionalists, men and women, criticize feminism for (so they say) disrespecting women who choose to stay in the domestic sphere rather than opting for careers or working outside the domestic sphere. So I guess feminism actually does NOT insist that women should be respected based on genitalia."Ether you're admitting feminists disrespect women who choose to stay home, or you're countering his argument by claiming an untruth as a valid counterpoint. You're basically saying "Those people say we disrespect women, but it's not true, but because they say we do, we can't be accused of doing otherwise.In addition, demanding women be respected because of their genitalia does not mean their actions can strip them of that respect. Yohan's accusation describes a variance in the base assumption, before ones actions be considered. men are not to be respected until they earn it, but women are to be respected unless they do something to lose it. A perfect example of this in action is radical gender** feminist arguments on pornography… A women is to be given the choice to do whatever she wants, but (some feminists believe) if she chooses to do porn, it is because she has been brainwashed and thus, her choice to perform it are irrelevant. IE, she is entitled to choose to do whatever she wants, unless it is something these gender feminists don't agree with, then her choices aren't hers to make. **Please don't ignore my acknowledgement that this is from radical gender feminists and not the view of feminists in general.
>"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 BathrobeYou shouldn't be flattered because it was shitty advice. Well, you know what they say: "opinions are like assholes–everybody has one, and everybody thinks everyone else's stinks."Don't be such an opinion, wytch.
>Holy crap.And all this time I thought most men actually ENJOY things like romance, sharing a home, having family time, seeing their partner laugh/giggle (ie: enjoying their company), taking a woman out on fun dates, shopping for the "baby stuff" for the baby you and your partner chose to have, etc…..Thank goodness we have these MRA lists to remind us that even when we *think* we're just enjoying a mutual adult relationship, men are dreaming of being single and alone…oh, and virgins!That explains all the websites and forums geared toward helping those deliriously happy single men find women!/sarcasmSeriously, though…it's sad that Nightwolf (no wait, that's a Mortal Kombat character) thinks relationships with women are something men hate.I guess he doesn't realize that most men choose a woman who they genuinely like/love and WANT to do special things for!
>My personal favorite is "taking out the garbage." Unless that's a euphemism for something else, it seems to imply that not only do MGTOWs have bags and bags of trash lying around their house, they LIKE it that way and no harpy will change that, dammit.