>
 |
| MRAs: Bigger Drama Queens than Batman |
Drama queens: so annoying, but so, so entertaining. Tammy Wynette, singing about failing marriages with that little choked-up quiver in her voice. Chris Crocker, begging us to “leave Britney alone!” Emo kids whining about whatever it is they’re always whining about. Cats, being cats.
And, of course, Men’s Rights activists, seriously in the running for biggest drama queens of all.
Over on A Voice For Men, guest blogger “Tom Snark” recently wrote about a little incident in his life in which he heard the woman who lived next door to him yell at her husband because she didn’t like the way he was trimming some branches.
Not much of a story, you’d think. But Snark, showing considerable ingenuity, stretched it out into a 1200 word post. The woman didn’t just yell; she “yapp[ed] at him like a menopausal Chihuahua.” The man wasn’t just embarrassed to have a neighbor overhear the exchange; he
know[s] that their facade of marital bliss was now forever shattered in my mind. … Is this his terrible secret, hidden from the world: that he is continually disrespected behind closed doors, by the very woman who said to him “I do”?
Needless to say, Snark answered this question with a resounding “yes.” And then decided that all marriages are like this — ultimately concluding that the women of the world are quite literally nagging their hubbies to death:
One needlessly stressful incident after another is sure to raise the blood pressure. But actually living with a person who does this, combined with the stress of full-time work five days a week? The origin of the life expectancy gap [between men and women] becomes clear.
Never mind that married men actually live longer than unmarried men, as approximately two seconds of Googling will show. Snark was just getting going:
marriage has no benefit at all for men. It is not even a stretch to say that, in this day and age, marriage is systematically abusive for men. While women can up and leave at any time they like, with minimal resistance from the law, family courts, or society as a whole (we continue to suffer from Eat, Prey, Love syndrome) – men cannot leave women without paying the price.
Yes, he did say “prey,” not “pray.” But wait, there’s more:
Married men are literally trapped, stuck supporting the poisonous predators that will eventually kill them. Plenty of women know this; perhaps this is why they are so keen on the idea. A little legal tweaking was all it took for feminists to remake marriage in their own image: men are now the dehumanised tools for women’s personal use. Sex roles have not simply been reversed, because men continue to do most of the work. What has changed is that the paycheque is now handed directly over to the wife, and his time at home will be spent completing endless ‘honey-do’ lists.
Oh, the terrible tyranny of the “honey-do” list! Hitler had nothing on these foul shrews and their endless branch-trimming demands!
Now, I don’t mean to make light of verbal abuse. It happens, and it’s real abuse. I once had a neighbor, an elderly Italian man, who was continually yelling at his wife. Most of it was in Italian, so I don’t know exactly what he was saying, but every sentence or two was punctuated by what was evidently his favorite English word, “asshole,” a word he delivered with so much contempt it was chilling. In between these verbal barrages, I could hear his wife softly responding, trying to placate him. I don’t think he physically abused her – he was in a wheelchair – but this verbal abuse was constant. I doubt there was a single day I didn’t hear it. Had I known then what I know now, I would have called the police.
But not every overheard argument is a sign of abuse. Snark has heard one nasty exchange in the ten years he’s lived next to this couple – and he’s concluded from this one data point not only that his neighbor is being abused but that virtually all married men are prisoners to “poisonous predators [who] will eventually kill them.”
Naturally, the regular commenters on A Voice For Men found this conclusion eminently reasonable. Indeed, in one heavily upvoted comment, Barbarossaaa managed to out-queen Snark’s already impressive drama queenery:
All one has to do is to observe these married men, i mean really look at them… dont let them catch you looking, observe the married man is his natural habitat, and if you look close you can see the dulled eyes of a man simply waiting to die.
he is the fly caught in the spider web, that has accepted its fate and stopped struggling. he now waits for the black widow to climb down and consume him slowly but surely…this is not freedom it’s subtle servitude … you are dancing her dance, she is the initiator you are the reactor, and SHE decides whether you pass or fail she is in complete control.
Yes, married men are all dead-eyed puppets in the hands of their evil wives. When I read this last bit, I couldn’t help but think of this little scene in Ed Wood’s perplexing bad-movie masterpiece Glen or Glenda, in which Bela Lugosi, himself a drama queen of considerable ability, shouts out “pull the string!” for no apparent reason:
—
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.
>no matter how much women have I am unaware that it does not preclude us from looking for the same driving forces in men we have always looked for and lead to their obsession over territory and resources to begin with for which as a woman I am the only gender who is able to freely benefit by for the simple fact that I am a woman and I exist. I can't really make any sense of this. Wait, no, I'm getting it–I just had to reference hundreds of other conversations that went down the same path. It's women's fault that men want to gain territory and riches because women will only have sex with rich guys who have lots of territory (because women hate sex and have to be bribed into having it). Again, I have to ask: aren't you glad that women are achieving economic independence now? Logically (I know, I know–don't laugh), according to your own premises, women's economic independence should lead to a reduction or even cessation of territorial and resource-driven conflict.
>But of course at a societal scale they are now in bitter conflict and the results are evident. Yeah, they are–I can vote, and I have a job that pays me enough money to buy my own food and pay for an apartment. I don't have to trade access to my vagina to a man in order to avoid poverty. Go your own way..have fun..men are. Well, some of them. At least they say they are. We're still waiting to see if they're actually going to do it. Don't hate it, embrace it. I'll embrace as soon as you actually Go Your Own Way–still waiting, you see!Men need women like a fish needs a bicycle. Isn't that how it goes.Of course! And I don't "need" a man–which allows me to better enjoy the company of a man. I'm making money, he's making money. We don't need each other, we just get together because it's fun.
>In agricultural societies, everyone works–men, women, and children. Historically there haven't been many women of leisure among the peasant class pretty much anywhere. In early industrial societies, poor women generally worked as well–either in factories or at home doing piece work.The idea of middle-class women staying at home not working is largely a Victorian innovation, though their days were often filled with drudgery nevertheless. Also, until very recently, childbirth was a very dangerous undertaking, with death in childbirth commonplace.
>"Second, how did you find out that there were no women whatsoever involved in building the roads I drive on, the computer I work on, and the houses I've lived in?" lol uh huh sure thing. You don't have to feel inferior or less valued because of it. Women do other things. "I myself have built several houses as part of a carpentry team, and roofed a few more." Uh huh and I think it's wonderful that women spend their efforts volunteering their spare time in their lives of comfort rather than competing for status and resources to be worthy of the opposite sex and use that time to help others. It's very nurturing of you. I like that."aren't you GLAD that women are working more now? It means that they don't need men to provide them with money, so no more wage slavery for the poor men who need money in order to persuade sex-hating women to have sex with them." Not really, as far as providing money or having less responsibility toward and for women nothing has changed. You know… having to court women because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males it simply makes it more difficult.
>Go your own way..have fun..men are. Don't hate it, embrace it. Men need women like a fish needs a bicycle. Isn't that how it goes. Speak for yourself, dude.
>Oh if only he would just speak for himself.
>I'm relatively new to this blog and the one thing that really stands out to me in MRA's attempts to make themselves seem like the exact opposites of feminists–MRAs talk about women a lot. (Women as a massed collective, obviously, because 3 billion of us aren't different from each other.) About men and their issues, not nearly as much. It's women this and feminists that.And most feminist spaces really aren't that way about men. They mostly talk about women and women's issues. To the extent there's an "enemy," it's more like society as a whole, or specific groups working against women's interests. But there really aren't many feminists who'd call "men" their opposition. Moreover, there just plain aren't many feminists who talk about men, positively or negatively, that MUCH.Maybe because a lot of us have gotten to the point where we realize that "men" aren't one thing, any more than "women" are, so saying that "men do this" or "men are like this" is patently absurd if you end the sentence with almost ANYTHING other than "identify as men, yep.""Convert oxygen and nutrients to energy and carbon dioxide," I guess. Men all do that. Sheesh, MEN.
>"Second, how did you find out that there were no women whatsoever involved in building the roads I drive on, the computer I work on, and the houses I've lived in?"lol uh huh sure thing. You don't have to feel inferior or less valued because of it. Women do other things. Idiot child, I am asking you a direct question: how do you know for sure that no women were involved in building roads, etc. Your response reveals that you don't know, you are just making things up, and would prefer to insult women rather than acknowledge that once they were given the opportunity to join the workforce, women did so with gusto. "I myself have built several houses as part of a carpentry team, and roofed a few more."Uh huh and I think it's wonderful that women spend their efforts volunteering their spare time in their lives of comfort rather than competing for status and resources to be worthy of the opposite sex and use that time to help others. It's very nurturing of you. I like that.More transparent insults from the insecure idiot child. No, I wasn't volunteering. I was getting paid. Not a whole lot, but it was how I survived for about three years. Again, your writing is so incoherent it's difficult to parse, but it seems you think I was helping relieve the competitive economic pressure on men to impress women or something? It doesn't really follow–just another demonstration of how "not even wrong" you are. "aren't you GLAD that women are working more now? It means that they don't need men to provide them with money, so no more wage slavery for the poor men who need money in order to persuade sex-hating women to have sex with them."Not really, as far as providing money or having less responsibility toward and for women nothing has changed. Ah, so it seems as if you're saying that the feminist movement hasn't gone far enough then, because women still can't make enough money to survive by themselves and still rely on trading access to vagina for their means of survival. You know… having to court women because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males it simply makes it more difficult. I had heard that men court women because they desire sex and like to spend time with women, certain of them anyway. Now I learn, to my surprise, that men court women "because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males". So, your low social status, relative to that of women, forces you to make money in order to court women in order to… do what exactly?
>@Captain… It doesn't necessarily mean you have to avoid women. You simply don't have to commit to them or have a family which is entirely understandable now a days. If you do have children it is wise not to get emotionally close to them or make any type of paternal investment lest your heart get torn out when women take their property away and your money. Marriage is obsolete. The tech is there. More and more women are going to fertility clinics for IVF treatment and also using sperm donors. You can even purchase your human genes through the mail according to what hollywood celebrity your male specimine looks like. Heck I don't think artificial wombs are to far around the corner. We may soon be able to purchase female eggs and grow life in the comfort of our own homes. Many women agree that it is a good idea to freeze their eggs now a days and somehow find a way to artificially make their womb gestate life in some way. Anyway..Just live your life for yourself like women do. There is no need to commit to one. I've posted the single woman birth rate before on here. Understand that women have their own families now. As long as men don't fight it and go along with it we can use it for what it is. Take whats left of the wreckage and improve our lives. Some of these aspects are a part of MGTOW. The MRM is growing for a reason. We can adapt to the new order and can support each other in doing so.
>"We may soon be able to purchase female eggs and grow life in the comfort of our own homes."Okay, who besides me instantly thought of the patriarch of the Tessier-Ashpool family in William Gibson's Neuromancer? And then was instantly squicked out by the reference and the thought process probably going on in Discount's melon?
>I don't look down upon women what so ever. "I'm totally not racist!""I'm not bluffing.""The check is in the mail.""I was at a business meeting, honey." File under: Things people feel compelled to say because they actually mean the exact opposite.
>"I had heard that men court women because they desire sex and like to spend time with women"Yes, somehow we have to find a way to remove female privilege. Ahah, so finally it is revealed, the true nature of "female privilege": it consists entirely of the ability to give men boners. Seems like hormonal therapy may be the best option for combating the pernicious influence of female privilege.
>"Now I learn, to my surprise, that men court women "because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males". So, your low social status, relative to that of women, forces you to make money in order to court women in order to… do what exactly?"More like lower biological status. AhahahahhI have joked in the past about a lot of MRA doodz being motivated by uterus envy, but I've never had one come right out and say it before.
>Shit, man, what if the baby's a GIRL?Or for that matter, what if the baby's a boy? Are you really that thrilled about bringing him into the world just to tell him "no one will ever really love ya, son, so if you turn out heterosexual I'm so sorry and here's the machine you'll use when it's time for grandkids"?
>Discount said… @Captain… It doesn't necessarily mean you have to avoid women. You simply don't have to commit to them or have a family which is entirely understandable now a days. If you do have children it is wise not to get emotionally close to them or make any type of paternal investment lest your heart get torn out when women take their property away and your money. Marriage is obsolete. Again, I say: speak for yourself.
>At this point I'm just asking questions about Discount's weird parallel universe out of sheer curiosity–this isn't a "debate" in the sense of anybody ever changing their mind about anything–but if a woman isn't sexy, does she still have female privilege? Say a woman is fat and butch and old (and say these aren't sexy to you), does she still have this "privilege" to control men at her whim?Is she an honorary man at that point or is she just a total non-entity in this equation?
>Seriously, Discount, what are you smoking?
>"What??? Like women men may soon have the technology to cut women out of the process of reproduction, harvest their genes and even select women based on how hot they are online, in the comfort of our home and have their eggs sent to us by mail with a simple doctors note. What is the difference?"Congratulations, now I'm more skeeved out by you than I was a few minutes ago.
>@Holly:"Is she an honorary man at that point or is she just a total non-entity in this equation? "I'm sure if I put some thought towards it I could probably figure out how folks like Discount rationalize it. But to be perfectly honest, I don't really feel like being any more disgusted than I all ready am.
>Wait… if you're only getting the eggs, why do you need the women to be hot?I mean, is it just the principle of the thing, or do you want a daughter after all… augh… I'm sure it's not that.
>MertvayaRuka – I'm thinking Discount's opinion on that doesn't go much beyond "well, then she's icky, ha ha," and obviously the discussion ends there, because anything else would require viewing people–male or female–as fully rounded people rather than purely sexual actors, and I don't think that's in the cards.
>@MertvayaRukaOn top of that, he assumes other men would want this. I guess this is what happens when you spend all your time on MGTOW and MRA forums. You start to really believe their "tomorrow the world" brand of propaganda. I wonder if he's eagerly anticipating the sexy robot women.
>Woop, no, I was wrong, he just didn't make any sense at all.Discount – Look, our hypothetical woman here is post-menopausal, and by any standard you're likely to hold, she's UGLY. Does she have female privilege by still being female, or what?…God, I can't even remember what we were talking about originally. It all mushes into one giant rambling "Resolved: Women are horrible monsters–pro or con?" thing.
>What's really weird about this (besides the way Discount posts completely random pictures), is that while this thread is going on, I'm IMing my boyfriend in another window. And it's… it's just not this big hairy power dynamic. We're talking to each other, the way people do. Jokes, common interests, making plans, that kind of stuff. I'm not making any demands on him and he's not supplicating to me (nor dominating me). We're just talking like friends. This isn't weird. This is how a whole lot of couples I know are.It seems like another universe from this one.
>@ Avicenna,A lot of cases exist where the parent with dominant custody simply bars the other from contacting the child. Very little is done to police this because no one figured it was an issue (IMHO). That may be, but there are legal remedies for parent when the other parent violates a visitation order. These remedies aren't easy or cheap, but they do exist. I've known a woman who had her son taken away by police because she refused visitation. The father got a court order, and she had to hand the son over. Not the best of all possible outcomes, to be sure, but it isn't as if it's not considered a problem by the courts.