>
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.
>Iris Vander PluymAs you are talking about patriarchy quite a bit, please explain in logical detail how America or any western society is a patriarchal society in year 2011?It always amuses me to see how truly delusional many of these feminists are. heh
>KaveAs you seem to be going on with the typical ridiculous crap with asking "are you friends with women" "you can't get laid" etc etc… me as an anti feminist is friends with plenty of women and these women are aware of my views. I also have casual sex on occasion with a few of these women.These types of views you have, Kave, and pretty much the majority of feminists in here have the same; can easily be defined as female supremacy. As it's saying in ways that women are superior and they hold a superiority over men with sex. And for this, the only reason why men complain about feminism/women is because we are angry and desperate due to the assumption that we can't have superior women that make us feel like this. If we got laid, we wouldn’t be complaining.It’s pretty obvious that this notion is blatantly female supremacy/chauvinism.I know you’re a man Kave but you and men like David support female supremacy when you go on with this crap
>Captain BathrobeHaving standards is one thing. Thinking you are better than most of the male population when you are just the plain Jane your self is another thing. It's called narcissism and chauvinism
>Lady Victoria:That being said, I think the MRM has a couple good pointsIn those few cases, they're right for the wrong reasons. They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchy, and live in some sort of bizarre, up-is-down world where women are the privileged ones in our society. And, of course, they keep attacking this straw-feminism that hates men and thinks all women are "perfect princesses."So I mean, in those cases of "patriarchy hurts men too" they're still blaming women. So I would never ally myself with the MRM on any issue, even one they were accidentally right about. Just a personal choice.Side note to MRAs: The above conversation is intended for the grown-up table. I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother whining about my "bigotry" against you.
>"They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchy,"This is one of the biggest problems with feminism. They blame absolutely everything on patriarchy/men. Nothing can ever be the fault of perfect women because women are superior and stuff. Women are too morally high to be at fault"they keep attacking this straw-feminism that hates men and thinks all women are "perfect princesses."Your whole post is pretty much expressing that very thing
>The sad and delusional MRAs are out in force on this one, eh? Thanks for the laugh, guys.
>Captain BathrobeHaving standards is one thing. Thinking you are better than most of the male population when you are just the plain Jane your self is another thing. It's called narcissism and chauvinism That's as may be, Nick, but plain Jane has a right to think that way if she so chooses. There is no great social injustice being committed here.
>BTW, I feel the same way about women who go on in the same self-pitying way. The fact that a rich guy who looks like Richard Gere will generally not date an average looking woman is exactly as socially unjust as the fact that Scarlett Johannsen look-alikes generally don't date schlubs like you and me–which is to say, not at all.
>> They blame women and feminists for all sorts of things that are actually a function of patriarchyThis is *exactly* it, triplanetary.And it's the whole point of the OP. Nightstorm complains that women expect men to support them financially (which under pre-feminist patriarchy, would have been pretty much their only choice other than to live in a convent, or on the street), then *offers to financially support the woman he's trying to date*. Again, the woman never even asked for that; the assumption that this is the appropriate arrangement comes from patriarchy, not feminism, and in this case is coming from the man, not the woman. Removing feminism from Nightstorm's life is not going to solve his problem; under that scenario, pretty much any woman he's trying to date *will* expect him to support her financially.
>Saying 'I blame the patriarchy' is NOT the same thing as saying 'I blame men.' Both men and women can support the patriarchy, which is a social system that holds the belief that men are better than women. Everyone is harmed by the rigid definitions of patriarchy. By way of example: the patriarchy holds that women are weaker and dumber than men, and therefore it is men's duty to protect and support women. Therefore, women have the right to demand material support from men, since they are presumed to be incapable of providing their own support. The patriarchy teaches that the only thing a woman has of value is her looks and her body. The whole alpha/beta/omega man thing? Not an artifact of feminism, an artifact of patriarchy. The patriarchy says that some men are richer/better looking/more powerful than others, and they deserve access to women because of their power and wealth. The patriarchy teaches that child care is women's work. This means that women who choose to be parents are expected to do most of the work raising children, which places an undue burden on mothers. It also ignores fathers, because the patriarchy doesn't believe that men can be nurturers. So the fact that women get custody more often in a divorce? That's the fault of patriarchy, not feminism. Alimony, the idea that a man always needs to support a woman?That's patriarchy. The alternative to patriarchy (men being ranked above women) is not matriarchy. The alternative is a system which emphasizes individuality and forming equal partnerships. That's what feminism is looking for. We want equal pay for equal work, but we also want equality in parenting – which means valuing the emotional and nurturing contributions that fathers can provide their children. We want equitable marriages which are less likely to end in divorce – or the freedom to choose not to marry, as one wishes. Whether someone wants a career, family or both, they should be able to pursue that. We want people to be able to support themselves and not have to rely on someone else. We want everyone to be safe from violence and assault. So, when we talk about 'the patriarchy', we're not talking about how awful men are. It's not misandry. It's talking about a social system. You can call it 'traditional values' if it makes you feel better, it's pretty much the same thing. The patriarchy, or traditional values, hurts men, too, which is why it's such a tragedy that the MRM and feminism can't work together for things like paternity leave.
>"Saying 'I blame the patriarchy' is NOT the same thing as saying 'I blame men."Actually it is. When talk radio gripes about "the welfare system" they mean black people" and when they rant about "immigration policy" they mean Mexicans. Stop playing games. Patriarchy equals men.
>Joe"And it's the whole point of the OP. Nightstorm complains that women expect men to support them financially (which under pre-feminist patriarchy, would have been pretty much their only choice other than to live in a convent, or on the street), then *offers to financially support the woman he's trying to date*. Again, the woman never even asked for that; the assumption that this is the appropriate arrangement comes from patriarchy, not feminism, and in this case is coming from the man, not the woman. Removing feminism from Nightstorm's life is not going to solve his problem; under that scenario, pretty much any woman he's trying to date *will* expect him to support her financially."The funny thing is that most men and women in this generation never existed when the so called patriarchy existed. We in this generation have never experienced a patriarchal society. So what you are saying really doesn't make sense. How can patriarchy be all to blame when this very thing of women expecting to be financially supported still exists in this generation when we are not living in a patriarchal society in 2011?
>Actually it is. When talk radio gripes about "the welfare system" they mean black people" and when they rant about "immigration policy" they mean Mexicans. Stop playing games. Patriarchy equals men.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.
>It would be great if a feminist can explain how America is a patriarchal society in 2011
>The funny thing is that most men and women in this generation never existed when the so called patriarchy existed.The patriarchy still exists. The fact that women can vote and own property and hold jobs doesn't change that fact. Until we live in a society that doesn't regard rigid gender roles as a means of determining a person's value and potential, we'll be living in a patriarchy.
>Er… The fact that we live in a society where women expect to be supported, and where men expect they're going to have to support women, kind of indicates to me that our society still holds some patriarchial values.
>Lady Victoria:Don't be silly. Feminists are the ones who want women to be financially dependent on men. But they also don't need men. Because they're all lesbians. But they rent out their vaginas for diamonds. Which is a crazy radical feminist thing to do.It's all very confusing.
>I really don't have much time right now but just a quick responsetriplanetaryThis is not an explanation or an argument that indicates places like American is a patriarchal society in 2011.Lady Victoria von Syrus SOME men may expect to support women but the majority of men in this generation in the western world certainly don't.That said, how can being a financial slave to a woman indicate patriarchy? It's ironic to call it patriarchy don't ya think?A man buying a woman everything doesn’t indicate that he is controlling her
>2 part response:Lady V, Patriarchy, as defined by webster's dictionary is a "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power"This in no way gives any indication of the cause of division of work within the family. Men were quite capable, as the authorities within these households, of sending women off to do the field work while keeping the house choirs for themselves. It in no way dictates who raises the children and how, and would actually imply, as the authorities, that the man be the one instilling his ways and beliefs in the children IE, he is the child raiser (but that isn’t how it was). It also gives no indication of value, beyond who holds the position of authority. And this definition is far more feminised then it once was. As such, I take issue to all of societies ills be dumped onto patriarchy, a term distinctly acknowledging male authority. Traditional values is acceptable, but that and patriarchy are not the same thing, and should not be correlated as such. The accusation that women were deemed inferior to men due to patriarchy is incorrect. A Captain is not deemed to be inferior to a Major, he is merely ranked lower in the military chain of command. Therefore, who is in charge does not directly correlate to a person’s worth (or lack thereof). Traditional Values, as you call it, may have built upon the foundation of patriarchy (IE, men are the clan authority, therefore they are the owners of clan property as well), but it is a separate entity. Continual building of these traditional values upon the basic foundation may have resulted in discrimination against women, but it also resulted in privileges held by women (they could also not be jailed for debt, that was their husbands burden to bare). However, these privileges are not seen as tradeoffs, a system of checks and balances (if not completely even) but rather, further insults to women by the man, such as “women weren’t imprisoned because “the patriarchy” (IE men) saw women as to feeble to jail, or some such crap like that.
>Life sucked for everyone 200+ years ago, based on our standards of living today, but feminism, who has rested upon patriarchy blaming, has blamed the patriarchy, rather then social evolution (here’s a hint, 200+ years ago, there were no comfy air conditioned offices to work at, “jobs” required hard work, significant strength, and paid (if you got paid at all), not by the hour, but by what could be done within the hours spent. Men are physically stronger then women (the fact that hormone treatment on a female to male transgender actually causes an increase in physical strength (in addition to other mental and physical changes) within the very same person demonstrates this is a biological fact), they can therefore get more physically demanding actions completed within the same timeframe. This is a far better explanation for why men worked and women stayed home, and has absolutely nothing to do with who had authority. After centuries of working like this, it became incorporated into traditional values, and when the nature of work changed, those values took their time to adjust. But it’s easier to blame “the patriarchy” and claim men choose the backbreaking manual labour for 12 hours a day in order to send women to the kitchen and tend the children (don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying women had it easy ether, but explanations beyond female victimhood/subjugation exist). The fact many… MANY women are acknowledging now, after having the opportunity to work, that they would rather stay home with the kids or work part time (once in school), and this is most certainly their choice now, demonstrates that raising the kids and being a homemaker was not the demeaning, subjugated task many patriarchy theorist claim it to be.
>It would be great if a feminist can explain how America is a patriarchal society in 2011You could try this little experiment, even at home, if you like…Tell a woman or women (separately, not as a group) that she thinks like a man and take note of how she reacts.Now, tell a man or men (separately, not as a group) that he thinks like a woman and take note of how he reacts.I'd wager that the woman, or women, would feel varying levels of having been complimented, and that the man, or men….well…..maybe not so much.
>KratchIf this is all true then why did the British use Irish woman and children in factories instead of men at the start of the industrial revolution?Bone up on your history before you post!
>Also, it's not like every job in the days of yore was backbreaking labor. It's not too physically demanding to be a priest, but women were still barred from the clergy. Read up on some of the old writings by leaders about women. The Malleus Maleficarum is a good place to start.
>The fact many… MANY women are acknowledging now, after having the opportunity to work, that they would rather stay home with the kids or work part time (once in school), and this is most certainly their choice now, demonstrates that raising the kids and being a homemaker was not the demeaning, subjugated task many patriarchy theorist claim it to be.You're missing the point. Homemaking isn't necessarily a demeaning task. The issue is that until recently women didn't really have a choice, especially middle and upper class women. And women still face significant obstacles in the career world that men don't, which may be the reason some women choose homemaking today.Hell, I'd like to be a househusband. I'm pretty domestic. I can cook and everything. But for lots of other reasons I'd rather have an income of my own, so I'm not going to do that. My point is as a choice, homemaking isn't some horrible thing. As an expectation from which women can't escape, it is subjugation.And yes, most women in our society can escape that expectation nowadays. That is one of the advancements away from patriarchy that our society has made. But it does not mean patriarchy is dead.
>Don't be silly. Feminists are the ones who want women to be financially dependent on men. But they also don't need men. Because they're all lesbians. But they rent out their vaginas for diamonds. Which is a crazy radical feminist thing to do.It's all very confusing.The source of that confusion might be because you have some inclinations towards feminism, which makes you think emotionally….. being guided by your feeeeeelings…..rather than thinking rationally and logically, which is a hallmark of MRA/MRM/MGTOW thought.