>
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.
>"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?"—IrisNope. Why would you think that? Seriously? What I meant—and it's not that difficult to understand—those things exist in favor of women. Our "sexist" culture makes them happen.
>"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?"—IrisLet me ask you this—what do you think when you imagine a sexual predator?It's always a man that comes to mind, doesn't it?You still think women are perceived as more corrupt and tainted? Think again.
>WytchTell me about your female friends.
>Let me ask you this—what do you think when you imagine a sexual predator?Well, that was a fun leap. As a feminist I know that sexual predation is about power, not sex, and predation is not something I think of as a reflection of sexuality.
>"Well, that was a fun leap."—Sophia XNot a leap at all. You made a strawman after that—we were talking about what gender was often percieved as more corrupt sexually (lecherous), not sexuality in general. "predation is not something I think of as a reflection of sexuality."Not for many people, men or women, but you are purposefully glossing over my point. Or you just don't get it.
>"although surely you must know that some MRAs do exactly this."And some feminists are like Mckinnon and Dworkin, or write articles about how men are not humanhttp://feminazi.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/proof-men-arent-human/Both sides have @$$hats we'd rather not be associated with. But here, the assumption is that the MRA @$$hats are the norm, rather then the exception, despite Davids own disclaimer that he search's out the "worst examples" to specifically highlight. I won't deny that Many MRA's are angry and bitter. The attrocities of the family court are far worse then what women in the 70's had to deal with, as they were dealing with ignorance and long standing gender roles based on old world traditions, where the men today are actually suffering deliberate injustices… and despite that, when feminism began, it had just as many angry women as the MRA has now… But that little fact is also conveniently forgotten. it seems it was OK for women to get angry and stand up for themselves, but now that it's men's turn to do the same, anger is unacceptable and standing up for yourself is attempts to return to the old patriarchy (yeah, because presumption of shared parenting is divorce is old school)."The misogyny is in attributing ugly attributes to…women because they are women."So, you can't label many women as being a gold digger without being misogynistic? But I suspect all those Mass media accusations of men as abusers and rapists is perfectly acceptable and not misandric (clarification, you actually acknowledge it is, but those posters keep coming, and not a feminist opposes the misandry, despite claims of being for equality)? Even though, my own personal experience puts about 10% of men and women I know as Violent and 0% as rapist, but a good 40-60% of women as gold digger and 0% of men as gold diggers. And I'm talking people I know, not strangers."raised by socially conservative @$$holes to have a grandiose sense of entitlement strictly based on their gender."Gold diggers come from all walks of life. whether you want to accept it or not, there is a study showing women want to "marry up", and it shows a significant number seeking to do so. Additionally, marrying up is still exceptionally common, I've even read a feminist ask "why do I need to forfeit children in order to maintain my career?" never once considering that perhaps, marrying a man for family traits, and having him tend to the children, would be an option. no, she assumes she will have to sacrifice her career when the only reason she would be expected to is if she was making less money (as the lower earner tends to make the sacrifices, as less is lost that way. This is how the one family I know with a higher earning wife lives. Husband took a further low paying job that allowed him to work from home… for the kids.). Why hasn't that gender role been addressed by feminism? They claim to be about breaking down gender roles, and yet, I have never once seen feminists insist on letting the men stay home and raise the kids and she be provider. Could that be a gender role feminists don't want to give up? Child custody laws and the feminist resistance to shared parenting would suggest I'm right.
>"Perhaps you can quote some things specifically?"An accusation for actually agreeing with Davidhttp://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296445097937#c8497035496766406337A response to a single sentence from an entire paragraph that specifically questions Missy’s statement on women’s standards.http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296440898758#c7253654495974942680(my initial comment… last paragraph http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296438210703#c6831052043048494252 )Note: triplanatary never once responded back regarding my question of his long term eligibility with these higher earning women of his. Despite calling me disrespectful of women (claiming generally women want (equal or) higher earning men isn’t disrespectful of women any more then claiming men generally like younger, pretty girls is disrespectful of men. It’s not always true, but often enough for a generalization to be valid), full of shit, calling women gold digging whores (never said anything about sexual promiscuity, not once in this entire thread).Lucy then equates my equating “enough to generalize” as meaning I’m saying 99%. Truth is, if 40% of a particular group does something, it is enough to generalize that that group does that (not all the group, nor even most of the group, but enough of the group do to acknowledge it as something to look for if you don’t like it). She then becomes condescending with the last paragraph.http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296484793027#c8132846751010392780The there is your post directed at me…ending in “Perhaps if any of you attacking feminism”. I have not attacked feminism (in this thread, but My position on feminism has been very clear, with reasons, in other threads. I don’t associate this current subject matter with feminism)http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296489130816#c7237178490443906281Then there are all the MRA’s are this, MRA’s are that flying around. It offends me as much as accusations and “attacks” against feminism offends you.
>KrtachThe biggest news is women don't want You.Right?
>@iris…See? There is no point in discussion. Only attacks on character will come of it. Not once in this entire thread have I suggested women don't like me or that it is women's fault if they don't. I have simply acknowledge the exact same thing you yourself have said, that women do tend to be attracted to money ( traditional sex roles have a side effect on many people – unfortunate and ugly, in my view – in that they instill and condone a sense of entitlement in both sexes, for example, males to sex and authority, and females to financial support.), yet I am accused of it simply for answering your request for quotes.
>But that is not what you wrote Kratch. Maybe what you were thinking, but not what you wrote.
>Gold diggerism is alive and well in America, despit the advent of feminism. Look no further than the ridiculousness of the diamond engagement ring scam.http://www.singledudetravel.com/2011/01/the-diamond-ring-scam/
>wytchfinde555 said:What is wrong with gaining confidence with dealing with women? The normal way to gain confidence with women is to talk them regularly and have female friends, not approaching women in clubs. And the normal way to find a girlfriend is to have female friends, it's not going in clubs. Most women go in clubs to have one-night-stands, not to find a boyfriend. The only type of relationship that most MRAs can have with women is paying a prostitute or having pity-fuck with a woman they met in a club.
>Hey Single Dude… scroll up, you'll see a couple feminists talking about how they don't like engagement rings, either.
>"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."Different topic. We are discussing negative attributes of women, so it is not surprising that it has been acknowledged by both sides. Women's redeeming attributes aren't being discussed (which is not the same as denying them), you'll notice the feminists on this board also haven't openly recognized the redeeming qualities of women ether. but just for you… yes, women have redeeming qualities, and not just the physical.I could likewise say feminists are slow to recognize redeeming qualities of MRA's (given negative perception of MRA's are also being discussed). But I won't hold my breath.
>wytch: Amused said with respect to MRAs met online: Caring little or nothing about women's suffering and always characterizing it as something women "deserve" You come back with, "Nonsense, shelters, VAWA, etc."I asked whether you were actually suggesting MRAs support those things. You: "Nope. Why would you think that? Seriously?"Because you said it. Also: 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.Do you believe there is truly no need for a "female-centric" movement? If so, you might have a point if Western civilization was not steeped in oppressive patriarchy for millennia. And I agree with you that some feminists are not egalitarians, but the feminism I subscribe to, and the feminists I interact with IRL and online are. But blaming feminism per se for the non-egalitarians found within its ranks is like blaming civil rights activists for black supremacists. Last, because that IRL stuff presently intervenes and I may not return to this thread for many hours, I just wanted to thank you for this:"I honestly think you are geniune with your ponderous inquiry here, but it this point you may not care for my answers."I am being genuine, and I appreciate your recognition of it. And you're probably right: I may not care for your answers, but I do still want to hear them and try to understand where you are coming from. I will revisit this thread as soon as I am able.
>"I could likewise say feminists are slow to recognize redeeming qualities of MRA's (given negative perception of MRA's are also being discussed)."Yup. That's because most MRAs I have encountered have been selfish, narrow-minded assholes. However, I am not extrapolating that to assume all men are selfish, narrow-minded assholes. That being said, I think the MRM has a couple good points – I mean, both feminists and MRAs absolutely loathe the idea that a man is obligated to financially support his wife just 'cause. Feminists and MRAs would both be thrilled to see a greater social acceptance of stay at home dads and paternity leave. If anything, many of the complaints of the MRA (that aren't bitching about women or accusing other men of being manginas) are perfect, sterling examples of 'the patriarchy hurts men, too.' It's too bad that the MRAs can't see that they have a common enemy with feminists, rather than seeing feminists as the enemy. But then they might end up supporting programs or laws that benefit women. Or laws that benefit women more than they benefit men.
>Kcatch.Again I ask. Tell us about your female friends.
>Kratch, when I get back to this I also want to follow up on your comment here:http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/now-i-aint-sayin-shes-gold-digger.html?showComment=1296496748336#c799799313085963537Thanks for the discussion everyone.PEACE.
>Truth is, if 40% of a particular group does something, it is enough to generalize that that group does that (not all the group, nor even most of the group, but enough of the group do to acknowledge it as something to look for if you don’t like it).So, if I'm following you right, here:- if 40% of women do a particular thing, it's fine to say "Women do [thing]";- if 40% of MRAs do a particular thing, it's not fine to say "MRAs do [thing]," without clarifying that you don't mean all MRAs and many MRAs disagree and it's not fair to let some MRAs define the whole movement.Whether or not 40% of women act like Nightstorm's worst nightmares above is a whole other issue, of course. I very much doubt 40% of women in the Western world expect men to provide all their money; most of us have jobs.
>Do we really need so many comments? Here, I'll make a summary:David: A lot of MRAs do XYZ.MRAs: HOW DARE YOU GENERALIZE US! FEMINISTS ALL DO ABC!!Feminists: Wait, did you just generalize us the same way you just complained we did to you?MRAs: NUH-UH! IT'S DIFFERENT! BECAUSE ALL FEMINISTS DO ABC BASED ON MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF KNOWING NO ACTUAL WOMEN, BUT ONLY SOME MRAS DO XYZ BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY OVERWHELMINGLY ALL SEEM TO DO IT.No, really, it must be hard living in the MRA version of the world. These are people who, instead of trying to get more men to vote, blame women for voting in droves when we haven't even had that right for a century. My dad honestly wouldn't vote if my mom didn't remind him to. And somehow this is the fault of feminists. For getting the right to vote.
>There is guy called "Mike C" that comment regularly on hookingupsmart and he reads MRA/PUA forums and he thinks like many of the guys there. The guy was a bouncer in a club and he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that. I'm sure many MRAs are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few women to all women.
>"Feminists and MRAs would both be thrilled to see a greater social acceptance of stay at home dads and paternity leave. "If I didn't see regular feminist resistance to shared parenting in divorce, child support reform and paternity issues, I might be willing to believe you. But the feminists with actual political influence don't seem to fit your definition of feminist… or more appropriately, you don't fit the definition of feminists, as defined by those actually doing things in it's name."'the patriarchy hurts men, too.'"GAH! again with blaming men. What If I don't believe in the patriarchy ideology? I do not identify gender roles as imposed by men for men's benefit."It's too bad that the MRAs can't see that they have a common enemy with feminists, rather than seeing feminists as the enemy."When I suggest a men's minister is needed, to provide an egalitarian counterpart to the women's minister, because all none gender based political figures are required to be gender neutral, so having only one minister who is allowed to be gender biased for one gender, but nothing for the other, is received with hostility and calls for "men don't need one" or "men can have one once all women's problems are solved" or "if you want one, get one yourself, why do feminists have to do all the work (notice my suggestion never said feminists had to do the work, just acknowledge the discrepancy, which never happened) and not a single person in that discussion stands up and says "as a feminist, I agree men should also have a gender minister" not one … you'll have to excuse me for considering feminists as opposition. The evidence doesn't support the claims that feminism (as defined by actual activists) is about equality.
>"And yet quite a few men–not rich, not alphas, just ordinary guys–manage to get laid and have relationships with women every day. And somehow they seem to do it without sacrificing their personal integrity."—Captain BathrobeAnd yet, somebody mentioned the "advice" that men should lower their standards in order to have more results. (This would imply compromising their personal integrity).Would that be you, CB? Well yes, witch, I suppose you've got me there. If your most deeply held personal value is "no fat chicks," then, yes, I guess marrying one would compromise your personal integrity. I stand corrected.
>@ Kave:Kave said: "Richard.No one hides their intentions until after they are married male or female. Some people are to stupid to see the very obvious signs."I strongly disagree with this and it seems to indicate a naive view of marriage/relationships. Yes some people do miss signs, but I don't think this eliminates people who are good at deception.Also, if this is true and a man ignores his fiance's gold digging tendencies, marries the women and during the divorce he is taken for most of his worth by the courts then I ask you:1. Does he deserve it?2 Does being stupid mean that a person should be forced to live in poverty via government decree for the rest of his life?3. If the scenario were a woman who marries a physically violent man who escalates the violence as the marriage goes on, why should we care? And should we not aid her because she should have seen what he was prior to marriage?Kave asked: "Do you have female friends Richard? Not one mra has answered that question."Yes, I have a two good female friends. One is married and working on her second kid with her husband. It's funny viewing their relationship form afar (I moved to a different state) it almost gives me hope about marriage. Then reality hits me and I go back to life.Kave asked: "Do you really think a woman of quality would date a man who doesn’t like women?"The wiggle phrase here is of quality. Women seem to have a different value set than men, and while I don't think most women want an in your face he man woman hater, I do believe that if a man has other qualities that a woman likes misogyny won't be much of an issue. Random Brother
>Seriously though, wytch, the context of my "advice" to lower standards was that Nick was complaining that women had standards that were too high, and that this was unfair. My "advice" to Nick was an attempt to make the rather simple and obvious point that everyone has standards, and why should women lower theirs when he is (apparently) unwilling to lower his?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. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about…