>
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.
>"Your very first comment on this thread, directed to David: "I asked him if he was (notice the question mark?), not a direct accusation, as you claimed I made, but rather, an acknowledgement that he was coming very close to a claim he has repeatedly denied IE, that his posts are representative of MRA's in general, rather then just examples of the worst of the worst. I was being facetious (and I suspect he knew that)
>wytchfinde555, how come nearly every MRA I've met on the net has exhibited all of those tendencies against women? Emotionally combative, check. Wanting to enjoy the spoils of traditionalism without carrying the burdens, check. Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check. Eschewing responsibility for their own conduct, check. Blaming war on women and their vaginas, check. Treating women (typically) harsher than men in roles of authority on the job, check. Doing nothing to make laws truly impartial, check. Giving little or no credence to reproductive rights of women, check. Treating Western women as (generally) the evil witch in the amalgam, check. Demonizing women that don't like their views and placate their egos, check. Acting as if they are liberated from women and yet n ot living their lives accordingly, check. Claiming they don't need women but always having women doing something for them in their personal spheres, check. Not respecting many women until women don't put with much shit — and then often not even AFTER women put up with their shit — and treating kindness and respect as an entitlement, rather than something that has to be earned, check. Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt, check.
>WytchRebut Amused post…. then get back to us. I belive you have been owned.
>Kratch: An MRA acknowledging an @$$holes of the female gender is deemed to be attributing those attributes to all women, and thus, he is a misogynist.I apologize if I did not phrase my point clearly in my (admittedly rambling and overlong) comment. The misogynist label doesn't get slapped on every MRA for attributing ugly attributes to all women (and only women), although surely you must know that some MRAs do exactly this. The misogyny is in attributing ugly attributes to (a significant number of, many, nearly all, all Western, American – take your pick) women because they are women. And not, say, raised by socially conservative @$$holes to have a grandiose sense of entitlement strictly based on their gender.In other words, I may say my patriarchal, manipulative, childish, tantrum-throwing, abusive, entitled prick of a father (or ex-husband) is a huge @$$hole. In fact, I do say that. But by doing so, I am not saying (1) that all, or most, or the vast majority of humans with Y chromosomes are this way – that would indeed be misandrist, not to mention demonstrably untrue, or (2) that all or most or the vast majority of men are like this simply because they are men, and I freely admit, like nick does, that there are an equal number of women exactly like this too. However, given the backgrounds of many women I know personally, I can understand why certain women might overgeneralize such a view and paint all or most men with it. Can you? And while I may understand where it comes from, when they do so I call them out on it, and point out to them factors (other than a Y chromosome) that tend to create an abundance of @$$holes – of both genders. You said: "I am deemed just as evil and pathetic a man as the writer himself." I am not going to re-read the thread, but I did not notice that. Admittedly since "just as evil and pathetic as the writer" wasn't directed at me – although similar has been insinuated against feminists, such as myself – I would not be as perceptive of this as you. Perhaps you can quote some things specifically? Was it just one commenter, or many? I would sincerely like to address it.
>"Rebut Amused post…. then get back to us. I belive you have been owned."—KaveI'm not interested in you. I could not care less what you believe. Get lost.
>"wytchfinde555, how come nearly every MRA I've met on the net has exhibited all of those tendencies against women?"—AmusedThey don't. You're projecting as usual. Typical for a feminist.
>BTW, Amused, you've dismissed anything I said. And if there are men that do exhibit those traits, it doesn't negate the ones—or many others—I could provide as examples.You don't get the irony in your hidebound hypocrisy, do you?
>Should read "Amused, you haven't dismissed anything I said." Darn timeouts.
>Are your finger in your ears right now wytch?
>And Amused, since when are white heterosexual women viewed as the bad guy?Never.
>'Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check."–AmusedNonsense. There are anything from women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA, etc.I could tear your "rebuttal" down easily.
>"Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt . . . "I honestly wonder what noxious substance you were smoking if you believe that.
>WytchI have four adult children and they have all found sucess in dating, all lead happy lives, all good people.WHy is it that you are not like them?
>WytchDoesn't this get tiring after a while? Ever think that this is not how you want to spend your life?
>"Giving little or no credence to reproductive rights of women, check."—AmusedThat's why abortions are a right, so are hospital dropoffs, and men don't have a choice whether the child is raised or aborted (or get punished if the mother wants CS and he doesn't want to pay, etc . . .) . . . correct?This all too easy.
>wytch: while I was responding to Kratch, Amused replied very much as I would. Tu quoque is, of course, a logical fallacy, but I strongly suspect "MRAs do it too!" is not Amused's point. Rather, it is my own: there are entitled @$$holes of both sexes, and they have a great deal in common with each other. What causes this? Are the causes different for difference genders? What can eliminate or mitigate their toxic influence on the rest of us? What can prevent it from happening in the first place? Inquiring feminists want to know.
>"Treating Western women as (generally) the evil witch in the amalgam . . . "—AmusedThe Middle Ages are gone, Amused. Wake up
>WytchDo you have close friends? Do you have female friends? (in the real world)
>"Tu quoque is, of course, a logical fallacy . . ."—IrisIndeed, it is. But Amused has little to stand on to begin with."Inquiring feminists want to know."Eliminating the female supremacy in feminism and having true men's rights would be a wonderful start.
>"MRAs do it too!" is not Amused's point."—IrisThat's exactly the tone there. And not much else.
>WytchDo you answer questions? I asked a couple and you ignored me.
>WTF, wytch? ['Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" for one reason or another, check."–Amused]Nonsense. There are anything from women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA, etc.I could tear your "rebuttal" down easily.Whoa. Are you actually suggesting MRAs are responsible for, or supportive of women's shelters, women's health providers, VAWA, IMBRA, college funding for women, other laws designed to protect women, ERA? Citation fucking needed.
>I find it interesting how the feminists on this board are willing to acknowledge that some women can be awful people; however, the MRAs are slow to recognize that some women have redeeming qualities.
>"What causes this? Are the causes different for difference genders? What can eliminate or mitigate their toxic influence on the rest of us? What can prevent it from happening in the first place?"—IrisI honestly think you are geniune with your ponderous inquiry here, but it this point you may not care for my answers.BTW, one of the reasons why I am against feminism is because it is female-centric and not truly egalitarian. I used to believe the latter, and over time many people (not just myself) concluded it was a bold-faced lie. And that it's inherently misandrist. Gender reconciliation is not an easy thing—admirable, but not easy. However, it will never occur with feminism intact, that's for certain.
>wytch: ["Treating female sexuality as lesser or corrupt . . . "]I honestly wonder what noxious substance you were smoking if you believe that.Not smoking, wytch, reading. Ever hear of the bible? You know, for centuries the most widely printed book in circulation in the West, the manifesto of social conservatism?