Today, some Deep Thoughts about men, women, children, empathy, mini-vans, and patriarchy, from the inimitable Men’s Rights activist and proud misogynist Rob Fedders, whom I found being quoted with approval and even some relish by MGTOWer elder MarkyMark on his little blog today.
Mr. Fedders starts off with a classic misogynist trope: women are like children.
Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.
This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to “explain things” to women.
Women just don’t care. We are here for their purposes, not ours. …
Women will never “care” about men in the same way that men “care” about the wellbeing of women. …
We are designed like this by nature … .
Mr. Fedders offers proof of this evolutionary design by considering a dilemma that preoccupied our ancient ancestors on the African savannah. Namely: who gets the minivan?
You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to “protect them” etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work… when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, “We had to get Joe a new truck… because the last one wasn’t safe and we don’t know what we would do if something happened to him.
That’s the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be.
Apparently, men hunted the mammoth in crappy old pickup trucks.
Fedders returns to his main theme:
Men are a tool to women… a “business.” And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don’t cry don’t get milk… and women who don’t get attention don’t get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, women have ruled the world from time immemorial.
Women do control society’s values and mores… they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.
And, oh, women invented patriarchy as well.
Women “are” society. What women’s wants are is what society’s want’s are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded “patriarchy.” The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally – causing the men to follow suit.
Turns out that patriarchy is basically just a way to make all men slaves to their women:
This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women… it is going to be between women who want a “traditional man” and those who want a collective “government husband.” In both cases, the women are advocating for men to take care of women – with little concern for the man’s wants and needs – one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.
It’s the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same.
I knew women were sneaky, but I had no idea they were this sneaky.
“I hate you because I care.”
Interesting,
Not “woman will never care about men in the same way that men care about women”.
Not “Women will never care about the wellbeing of men in the same way that men care about the wellbeing of women”.
Nope, apparently women should care about men in the same way that men care about the wellbeing of women.
I’ll read the whole article in just a minute because I just had to comment *now* on how the title alone made me laugh. It’s more funny than surprising, really, since women’s mere existence is enough for them to be blamed for anything and everything.
Nonono, he cares about women by hating them. Don’t you see?
It’s like how homophobic Christians who run pray the gay away camps hate the sin but not the sinner!
Wow. Me being sick (just a cold) is getting to me, cuz the moment I read:
I started cracking up. I mean, it’s funny, but obviously clearly wrong. Women usually get the minivan/ SUV because they’re expected to cart around the kids. *headdesk*
Also, next time we make a system for men to be our slaves, can it be a little more direct? I’d like that. I could be general coolio genetically bred cat lady with my army man slaves. Oh god I don’t make any sense today.
Proving men are wrong is misandry 😉
I should ask my parents if I did this. I mean, if I didn’t, I was just being damn inconsiderate XD
Right! Only that he hates women, not womanhood…(?)
But only with hate we will set women straight!
caring=hating!
God Hates Hags!
I’m sorry, there was drinks and stuff, it’s Saturday night…
God Hates Nags could be the slogan of the religious arm of the MRM.
I thought that was their slogan.
I really love the idea of mgtow elders i can see them now sitting around the fire roasting mammoth meat, stroking their beards and gravely pointing to the no girls allowed sign when women come to try and seduce meat from them.
How could they even have a slogan?
They can’t decide whether they are opressed or if women are(and should stay that way)
How could they have a consensus on what to shout in the streets?
You know how Fedrz has a “Married With Children” theme on his blog? His sitcom-esque examples fit with this.
Off-topic, but dammit Spearhead, can you even make an almost-touching point without spewing some shit about “female nature?” http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/04/06/the-triumph-of-institutional-marriage/
All you had to do was write about your dead gay friend, Price, but you can’t even do that, can you? At least Amelia Bedelia’s fuck-ups were endearing, not terrible.
I got four paragraphs in with WTF Price, and I can’t. He doesn’t even know the history of marriage. The man is beyond ignorant.
It’s, as I’ve said, his belief’s about “female nature.” Many other MRA’s, while terrible, are at least fairly straightforward with hating women. When they pretend to actually care, however, well, C.S. Lewis, tyrants acting with their own conscious, etc.
“If you’ve never had a kid come up to you, put their hand on your arm, and go “don’t be sad!” then it’s not that kids can’t empathize with you, it’s that they don’t like you.”
Cassandra, some of us don’t know any children. I have no nieces or nephews or young cousins. I don’t mix with children. Please don’t assume children form part of everyone’s life.
Broadly, on the article, before I read the rest of the comments: this tosser really thinks men are incredibly stupid, doesn’t he? Led by the nose all the time.
If he really believes that women run everything & that this is due to EVOLUTION and BIOLOGY and cannot be changed because SCIENCE, then following that line of “logic”, and given mra’s belief that humans are all mindless slaves to biological urges, wouldn’t the mrm be inherently doomed to failure? Wouldn’t even daring to disrupt the “natural order of things” lead to horrible consequences, like collapsing evolution or reversing the atmosphere, or something?
Also apparently women existing is “misandry” now?
Kitteh’s: I didn’t get the sense that Cassandra was assuming that at all. Children aren’t a part of my life at all, but come on.
I get it. It bugged me a little too.
But I know many kids and they never told me not to be sad, so… mah.
Also, kids might get when a grown up is sad, but they can’t always understand why, and depending on the age don’t really care, and will put their own needs first(of course, they are children, they should)
But that wasn’t the point anyway. He doesn’t specify what kids he means there anyway, and a 9year old gets a lot more about other people than a 4year old, so there’s that.
It was too much a blanket statement for my liking. Nothing about kids you know, kids you might intereact with casually – just “never”. Whether Cassandra meant it like that or not (magic intent!) it came out all wrong.
You’re really going to drop “magic intent” on this? I can’t speak for Cassandra, so I’ll stop at that.
I’m very much not into kids, but they’re everywhere, so maybe a little tolerance?
All I can say is, I *really* need to have a talk with Mr. AK regarding our car situation. He’s in the 2011 FJ Cruiser, I’m in the 1989 Ford pickup. I had no idea that I was entitled to the better vehicle just because I’m a woman. Thanks, MRAs! 😀
hellkell, it’s nothing to do with tolerance of kids or liking them or not. Cassandra made a blanket statement that if this has never happened to you, it means kids don’t like you. I don’t socialise with kids, I’m not crying in public to be getting sympathy from strangers of any age, and I don’t like being lumped in with unlikeable MRAs because of my circumstances – and no, I don’t think that’s what Cassandra had in mind, but that’s the way the statement reads (and I wasn’t the only one bugged by it), so please don’t go jumping down my throat about it.
You really think you’re being lumped in with shitty MRAs? Please, no. That’s a bit of a stretch.
Trust me, I’m not jumping down your throat.
Dictionaries, and logical connections between words? Totally misandry!
That’s my point: blanket statement that read the wrong way. Not just me, anyone whose family/social life simpy doesn’t include children (whether or not they like children isn’t relevant). It pushes buttons when you’ve had total strangers tell you you’re a nasty piece of work simply because you don’t want kids.