>
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.
>Oh, and you're also discounting that women *did* put their lives at risk, quite frequently, when they had children.
>If 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?And not just in factories, but in places like the coal mines, where they certainly didn't all sit in air conditioned offices doing clerical work. And after a 12-hour day of manually hauling the ore cars from the depths of the mine to the surface (yes, that was one of the jobs that was bestowed upon women), being beaten (sometimes by their own husbands and while pregnant) if they didn't haul the cars up fast enough, women were still expected to take care of the daily family needs at home… THAT was NOT expected of the man.So please, enough of the "wooly mammoth"-type stories.
>Hi Kratch, I'm back albeit it may only be briefly, and I apologize that I may not be able to catch up/keep up with the posts here.You said (quoting me) ["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? My issue with "gold digger" is that it is a gendered insult, in the same way that "deadbeat dad" is a gendered insult. Some women are extremely shallow and materialistic in terms of what they value, and to no one's surprise, in their choice of mates. But here's the thing: some men – including my father, and sister's any my exes, and at least a dozen others I know personally – are also materialistic and shallow. They've exploited the women in their lives financially, recklessly spending money their female partners earned, often plunging them deep into debt, on personal luxuries, drugs, gambling, mistresses, etc. while refusing to work themselves. Now I admit it's been tempting – especially in the case of my sister's ex – to throw around the term "deadbeat dad," because she, my elderly mom, and me have all had to pick up the financial slack for many years to help raise their kids, who are now teenagers. But this behavior does not occur because of the presence of a Y chromosome: it is, in fact, exactly the same phenomenon as your "gold digger." Genderizing that kind shallow materialism, and the accompanying sense of entitlement to other peoples' earnings while you mistreat them, is sexist, because the behavior itself is simply not linked to gender. I try to see it for what it is (in both sexes), and call it what it is in non-gendered terms. Looking at it as sex-linked is not just offensive but unhelpful and unproductive, that is, if we want to figure out how to do anything constructive about it. Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?How about this: I detest shallow and materialistic people who have a sense of entitlement to other people's earnings while treating them like $#!+. Don't you? Shouldn't this be common ground? There is much to unpack in the rest of your comment, but I want to specifically address this:"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?" I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I will say that is the exact opposite of my experience, IRL and online. Feminists are HUGE supporters of paternity leave and shared parenting, and many, MANY of them are the so-called "breadwinners" in their households. Do you honestly believe that men (or women) with a non-feminist, traditional view of gender roles, support men staying home to raise kids and women being the providers? Seriously? And as far as your question re: childcare being a gender role feminists don't want to give up, the point is not who gets what role, but in men and women both having options, and making decisions together to come to an arrangement that works best for everyone. And it's not a permanent state of affairs, by the way: it can be fluid and change. E.g., my close friend was out of the work force taking care of young children for three years; now she's back to full time and he's the primary caregiver at home. It's feminism that makes this arrangement possible for them – believe it or not.
>*yawn*http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029"C29 Forced Labour Convention, 1930Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour (Note: Date of coming into force: 01:05:1932.)…Date of adoption:28:06:1930…Article 11. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.2. With a view to this complete suppression, recourse to forced or compulsory labour may be had, during the transitional period, for public purposes only and as an exceptional measure, subject to the conditions and guarantees hereinafter provided.…Article 111. Only adult able-bodied males who are of an apparent age of not less than 18 and not more than 45 years may be called upon for forced or compulsory labour."
>Kave: "If 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?"because they were Irish, IE, poor immigrant labour, and cheaper then men (and before you blame them being cheaper on patriarchy, ask why mexican labour tends to be cheaper in modern days), and labour no longer required physical strength due to machinery. This is where jobs began changing, as I stated above.Lady V: "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. "that's an issue of religion, I am not a religious man and can not speak for against it. But as far as I'm aware, the church was nether a family or clan (in the traditional sense), not had women and children as legal dependents to any man within it."Oh, and you're also discounting that women *did* put their lives at risk, quite frequently, when they had children."Not sure if this was directed at me or not, the previous comment was and the "oh, and" implies a continuation… but I don't remember risking life as being something I claimed men did more then women (then). I don't remember risk of anything ever being said.
>KratchWrong. Pick up a history book and try again.
>Iris: "Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?"I get what you're saying, but I need to clarify two things. I don't see gold digger as gender specific (there is nothing in the term gold nor digger that implies gender, unlike dad in deadbeat dad). It is often attributed in women because it is far more visible in women (the tendency to marry for material wealth, not just being shallow and materialistic), but it is not restricted to, nor denies the existance of, male versions.Secondly, Calling a male dear a Buck and a female dear a doe is not being somehow disrespectful to gender. IE, having different names for the same attributes based on gender does not, to me, constitute sexism. Arm candy vs cabana boy, Gold digger vs gigilo (I may be getting the relations mixed up, but I hope you get my point)."I detest shallow and materialistic people who have a sense of entitlement to other people's earnings while treating them like $#!+. "I don't care, to be honest. I generally take people for who they are, flaws and all. I won't, however, date a person like that, but as I also won't date a guy (and I don't feel I'm being sexist for saying that), I have no need to identify/categorize that trait in men often enough to name it (hence why I'm not positive I got the relations right above)."I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but I will say that is the exact opposite of my experience, IRL and online. Feminists are HUGE supporters of paternity leave and shared parenting, "I would agree with you with what I would define as "the average armchair feminist" (akin to airchair quarterback), but those who actually define feminism, as far as I'm concerned, by their actions in the political/industrial world… nuh uh, not a chance.
>Iris: "Do you honestly believe that men (or women) with a non-feminist, traditional view of gender roles, support men staying home to raise kids and women being the providers? Seriously? "lets be clear, I don't correlate non-feminist and traditional as the same thing. Traditional people, no, they would not support that. Non-feminists, some will, some won't. In my limited experience, almost all child care workers claim they are feminists. Child services Canada (and other child care organizations, which themselves aren't necessarily feminist organizations) have actually stated, and openly enforced the belief that a child removed from their mother is better off in foster care their their own fathers. It is not a direct relation, but there is a tenuous connection, and not one I'm prepared to ignore in good faith."the point is not who gets what role, but in men and women both having options," And yet, there is resistance by feminist organizations to resist these options for men. NOW actually opposes shared parenting in divorce. This is an example of men being denied the opportunity to break their gender roles by feminists. They want to be parents, they just aren't allowed."It's feminism that makes this arrangement possible for them – believe it or not."But not because they broke the male gender role away from not being the caregiver. Feminism created that opportunity by allowing women to work and be the provider. This left those who wanted to to take it further and reverse the roles, feminism has not supported that dynamic specifically though. Feminist organization still maintains men must be providers, even when women don't specifically "need" that providing. Current Child custody and alimony laws, and some current paternity laws, and the resistance to changing them, are examples.This is changing in the UK, but only because Dominic Raab brought media attention to it by calling feminists bigots and stating his opinions on male injustices in the same interview/speech/article/whatever it was. Feminism ether needs to play along (while damning him for his attack on feminism), or they resist the changes and prove themselves bigots. The fact they seem more interested in damning him then making changes not already on the table makes me believe this wholeheartedly.Sorry for the long posts.
>Kave… Let me guess, your history book says the patriarchy made them do it?
>Iris Vander Pluym said… …..My issue with "gold digger" is that it is a gendered insult, in the same way that "deadbeat dad" is a gendered insult. Some women are extremely shallow and materialistic in terms of what they value, and to no one's surprise, in their choice of mates. But here's the thing: some men – including my father, and sister's any my exes, and at least a dozen others I know personally – are also materialistic and shallow. They've exploited the women in their lives financially, recklessly spending money their female partners earned, often plunging them deep into debt, on personal luxuries, drugs, gambling, mistresses, etc. while refusing to work themselves. ….Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here? Not really, because a deadbeat father is forced by law/biased execution into bankruptcy, while all these females you mention had the choice anytime to get away.The law is not supporting men, who are gambling or are into drugs etc. to take away money from women who are living with them – but the law is highly supportive to women against men, as the victim, in any case you mentioned in your comment is the woman, not the man.If the man is gambling and into drugs and taking the money of the woman, it's the fault of the man, it's abuse.If the woman is gambling and into drugs and taking the money of the man, it's the fault of the man who is abusing her…A male gold-digger is an asshole, but a female gold-digger is taking the money out of assholes…etc. About the bad choice of a partner, feminists are telling men in this blog: Don't date them, your problem, you are the man. MRAs. you are whiney even to talk about it.In case of a woman, feminists will claim, she is so poor and how can she know….?To use your own words:….Am I making any sense to you with what I am saying here?
>For starters Kratch try the Irish in Ireland.
>Kave. I don't jump through hoops for people. If you care to make a point, make it, otherwise, I choose to ignore you.
>"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."—Iris Please don't blow smoke—we know better. Even the name gives the female-centrism away.
>"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.
>avpd0nmmng said… "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."Apparently, you have limited understanding of men's behavior because you claim many MRAs go for prostitutes and one-night stands. You have an odd fixation with MRA sexuality; would you like to explain that to everyone?
>@wytchfinde555:We're going to change the name for "feminism" to the "Bunny/Kitten Brigade" but continue to work on social justice issues and to further an egalitarian worldview. Would you be interested in joining now? You get to decide if you'd like a bunny or a kitten on your membership card. *smile*
>The problem with that hide and seek, is he's probably looking at it like this now…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKdybPh8YY
>Kratch,I try and make this really simple for you.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. It worked quite well, hence the stereotype of the drunken Irish. Today however, men are increasingly staying at home while the women work. In fact in Canada one in eight stay at home parents are male. What made this option socially acceptable for men? You mra types always go on about the good old days but you don’t know a thing about what it was really like. The patriarchy hurt men too.
> Kave said… YohanPerhaps you should have dated a feminist who would not ask these things of you? Hahahaha, no, thank you… great joke…and after divorce SHE decides, she is not a feminist anymore and I pay alimony for the next 40 years to a helpless female?Question for you. Have you had any female friends? Women who you will meet for a pint or a round of golf, women who you simply enjoy their company without a hope of a sexual relationship?Not with Western females in Europe. Never. Not even for 30 minutes.Neither with nor without a hope for a sexual relationship YohanYou say you are married and happy. I cannot believe you are either. I am married since 1976 in Japan, never divorced, 2 daughters already adults, and 1 fostergirl, 15, in Philippines. —–I think you are looking into all MRA-related issues from the wrong point of view.It's not only about equal men/women in a relationship or looking for partners and rejected a few times.Q: What makes you to be an MRA? A: Long-term bad experiences. It's about how you – as a male – were treated in the past – as a small child, as an elementary student, in high-school, as a young employee etc. – by various females, who were not your equal, but above you.It's a wide range of females, including mother, females living nearby, sisters, half-sisters, female class-mates with rich parents, female teachers, female employees in a higher position next to you etc. etc.Western feminist BS-talk telling me I have privileges because I am a man is openly scorn to me. I never had such 'privileges'.How do Western females treat males of any age, who are NOT their equal but below them?And to answer your question, I am happy now and do not miss anything in my life. I see however no reason why I should be silent about my problems in the past. Hopefully my advice will help young men to avoid certain mistakes in their future life.Any reason for me to shut up? Maybe because to talk about this MRA-stuff is not politically correct?
>Kave said: You mra types always go on about the good old days but you don’t know a thing about what it was really like. The patriarchy hurt men too.Nonsense. I do not know about a single case in the 'good old days' where a CHEATED man was subject to pay alimony to his wife for the next 4 decades.I also do not remember any man paying child-support to his ex-wife for HER children despite he was not the biological father.Men were frequently treated badly by women in the past, but such behavior was never supported by law.
>avpd0nmmng said… There is guy called "Mike C" that comment regularly on hookingupsmart and he reads MRA/PUA forums …..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. YOHAN says:There is guy called "DAVID" that comment regularly on MANBOOBZ and he reads MRA/PUA forums …..he claims that he's an expert on women and dating because of that. I'm sure many 'DATING-EXPERTS' are like that. They have very limited experiences with women and they generalize the behavior of a few MEN to all MEN. wytchfinde555 said… avpd0nmmng said… "There is guy called "Mike C" ….. 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."Apparently, you have limited understanding of men's behavior because you claim many MRAs go for prostitutes and one-night stands. This person 'avpd0nmmng', whoever this might be, has no idea about anything. It's a part of feminist shaming language to claim that thug-boys and MRAs are the same people.
>What's a thug-boy?
>The opposite gender of a thug-girl…
>What's a thug-girl? What attributes, when possessed, makes one a thug-person? When I think of a "thug" I think of Suge Knight holding people out of windows, but that doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence because feminists surely don't think that MRA's are all gangster rappers.
>Yohan, I'm not expert on dating and don;t claim to be. I do, however, know a little bit more about it than a 25-year-old virgin who thinks that when you "deflower" a female virgin she spews blood like a fire hydrant. wytch, I love the whole "feminists are all female supremacists because the word feminist starts with fem" argument. So what does that make the "Men's Rights" movement, then?