Categories
a woman is always to blame antifeminism empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies grandiosity mansplaining mantrum men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA reddit

“I don’t believe there is any real love within them,” and other insights on women from a Men’s Rights Redditor

Women: Smug, soulless, incapable of making tea
Women: Smug, soulless, incapable of making tea

Bad news, ladies! Some dude who hates you thinks that you’re incapable of love!

In the Men’s Rights subreddit, a dude calling himself Cerehectus lays out his totally irrefutable argument against the women of the world. He’s a wee bit verbose, so I’ll put the best (i.e. worst) bits in bold.

A relationship in a woman’s mind is almost always an assessment of pros and cons. I don’t believe there is any real love within them. Rather, there is simply validation and security. If she gets bored, she can always trade up or cut loose and be supported. There’s no investment/risk in a woman’s prerogative. Therefor, she doesn’t have to mind her actions or develop a core being/principles.

Oh, you fickle, fickle women and your lack of a core being!

I’m not quite sure what a core being is, exactly, but I’m assuming that not having one is super duper bad.

But in the year 2015 in the United States of America, a relationship is no longer between a male and a female, but between a male and a female with her gynocentric legal and social system. The very system that takes away the power of men to be men; defining how they must behave and the consequences that befall them determined not by choices of their own, but of the female with whom they are in a relationship. The only way for men to protect themselves it to not be involved at all.

If you are going to go your own way, dude, I have several suggestions as to where you might go, and one of them starts with “Snake Island.” Well, it doesn’t really start with that, per se; Snake Island is the entire name.

Why wouldn’t a male want to go play video games, watch sports, and remove himself from a society that is openly hostile towards him? A society that believes he is not a creature unto himself, but a mule for the system itself and the women it favors?

I think it’s safe to say that most guys playing video games aren’t doing it because they think women have no souls. For example, I play Grand Theft Auto V because I like driving cars off of cliffs and not dying.

What are the redeeming qualities of women today?

They are not dependable. They’re not loyal. Very few have any domestic skills (my last girlfriend didn’t even know how to dice an onion, fold a pair of blue jeans, make a tea or how to use a can opener).

Huh. I’m pretty sure that every woman I’ve been involved with has been able to “make a tea” and use a can opener. Were you accidentally dating a blow-up doll?

They’re all on anti-depressants.

Hey, me too! Anti-depressants helped to rescue me from a life of crippling depression.

They’re aloof, narcissistic, and society is built from the ground up to worship them. They are not going to change and become quality people no matter how many liberal arts degrees they have until they learn about cause and effect and that their actions have consequences.

If the consequence of their actions is that guys like you stop pestering them for dates, I’m pretty sure there are very few women out there who would see this as a bad thing.

A female at this point is nothing more than a burden that can take everything if it chooses. In their effort to gain everything they’re going to lose everything.

And one day they will pay!!!! I will perfect my own race of people! A race of atomic supermen which will conquer the wor …

Sorry, I got carried away. It’s just odd that so many MRA and MGTOW speeches on the evils of women end up reminding me of Bela Lugosi’s famous rant in Bride of the Monster.

Given how often I am assured (by MRAs) that MRAs aren’t really the least bit misogynistic, you might expect that Cerehectus’s rant would have been downvoted all to hell. Nope! Last I checked it had nearly three dozen upvotes.

H/T — I think I found this via  r/TheBluePill or r/againstmensrights, but I lost the link.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fruitloopsie
Fruitloopsie
4 years ago

Iogrey
I’m so sorry to hear that hugs if you need them, what a total (insert any insult here)

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
4 years ago

Did she live in Canada, and we’ve just never met her?

If so, it would explain why he’s in such a sour mood, because I’m pretty sure she just dumped him for Justin Trudeau. Not to date him or anything, he’s a married man, after all. Just because he’s there and not being a dick to women.

Chiomara
Chiomara
4 years ago

@Strategos
Dude… When will you guys learn…. That we don’t give a SHIT if men don’t want to marry us?! We don’t give a damn. Especially if this man is you. I am sure great part of us would prefer marrying women, or not marry at all.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Aww. I see we have a new troll. It’s hard to do a good take down on the phone. Will do it in a bit after I get home

RosaDeLava
RosaDeLava
4 years ago

Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this post.

Well, it can’t possibly be the suggestion that women are incapable of love. /s

Anyone who thinks that the behaviours described are untrue has probably never dated or even met a woman in the Western World over the past 40 years.

So… my friend whose greatest dream is to be married and have kids is not a woman, and my friend who does all the housework for her parents and cooks superbly are not women. Kay.
Really, what is the type of women who it would be worthy to be in a relationship with?

What the post suggests is that overall, marriage or romantic relationships are not a very good deal for the vast majority of men any more.

And studies still suggest married people have longer life expectancy. http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/early/2013/09/18/JCO.2013.49.6489.abstract
And, yes, I know living longer does not equal living better, but at least I make a point besides “Females can’t dice onions”.

The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.

Citation needed.

And whatever mythology modern day feminists have created over what they call ‘Patriarchy’ it also crumbles on a more rational and detailed analysis. Unless, by ‘patriarchy’ one means the overall way of organising human societies worldwide since the advent of the agricultural revolution. Well, whatever these guys did it worked. Which is why we managed to progress to the point we are today. The truth of the matter is that there are no major examples of highly advanced civilisations that started and remained ‘matriarchies’.

Really? We have rockets, so women should get back to the kitchen? And why do you speak as if the only alternative to patriarchy is matriarchy?

And no one has managed to explain how this ‘patriarchal’ take over managed to take place. A worldwide male conspiracy to subjugate all women and somehow men managed to coordinate this everywhere (from the remote jungles of the Amazon to the deserts of Arabia) and this without any modern communications. This is absurd to say the least.

Which is why nobody is claiming there’s a conspiracy. Societies, with their rules and conventions, come about naturally (and by that I mean there doesn’t need to be a conscious brain-washing scheme), and they might even create and environment in which technological advances can thrive, it does not mean those societies are without fault. The Roman Empire conquered vast expanses of land – so, if a country wants to expand their zone of influence, they should have public baths. Oh, and slaves.
And patriarchy does not mean that all men have all the power and no women have any power whatsoever. But like every person who comes here defending traditional gender roles, you ignore cultural and economic differences. Whether it’s from plain ignorance or because it does not serve your argument I can’t say.

No system of ‘abuse’ and ‘slavery’ can survive and thrive for that long unless there are essential advantages to its use.

For how long can a system of abuse survive if it doesn’t have essential advantages? Our world owes much of its development to slave labor, would that then make slavery okay?

Through thousands of years of trial and error, human communities all over the world have established the social and political organisation that has the most benefits to survival and progress. And this for the most part happened with the consent of all parts (women included).

Which is why there was never any massive revolution that changed te course of his- Oh, no, wait.

Now, given the types of comments posted on this site, I expect the negative reaction of people to the points covered above and quite a few ‘ad hominem’ attacks to me personally. But people will try as much as possible to avoid the facts once more.

Oh, god, my hand is itching.

Over the past few years (esp since 2008 and the Great Crash) a combination of dire prospects both professionally and in the romantic/relationship/dating area (these two usually go together) is causing a lot of men to gradually withdraw from a lot of traditional institutions of society including marriage, higher education and the mainstream professions. Instead of these institutions (plus media and analysts) to spend some time to have a closer look to the causes of this phenomenon, they once more use men as the easy target for vile comments and accusations. They are all ‘lazy, no good, mommy’s boys’ who are ‘afraid of all commitments and adult responsibilities’.

Not always, actually. It’s become increasingly common for Japanese men to not want to have a relationship, because work expectations are too high and when you have a relationship with another woman being it follows that they can’t be supportive, cheerful and affectionate 24/7. It’s not the fault of men if they’re too stressed to deal with a relationship, and it’s not a fault of women if they can’t deal with the stress of having a relationship hinge solely on their end. I’m fully in favor people making decisions about their relationships, including men who don’t want to have one for any matter. Now, the moment they say I’m uncapable of feeling affection, I won’t be sympathetic towards them.
Now, if you’re complaining that you former girlfriend can’t make “a tea”, yeah, you’re a big baby.

Case closed. Let’s go for a beer now. Imagine if someone would do that for any women’s issue or problem. There would be complete moral outrage from all sides.

No, there fucking wouldn’t. An important exam in my country (that is often the determining factor for people getting into a university) had violence against women as the theme of its written part. A bunch of people were pissed of because apparently women are never victim of violence for being women. Stop pretending the world at large always takes women seriousy and you are one of the few chosen ones who see them for who they really are, you’re not fooling anyone.

This is why the phenomenon will continue and intensify as the economy gets worse and what is perceived as hostile attitude towards men just because of the fact that they are men, will continue to exist in the media, academia and the courts of law.

What even? No, seriously, you lost me after “worse” – I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

Women will have to get their brains together, think deep and think carefully on what world they want for their fathers, husbands and sons.

I want a world in which my little brother isn’t bullied because he’s sensitive and is not considered “a man” because of it.
But please indulge me – what should I do if I care for the men in my life? How should I behave, and what should be my positions?

Otherwise, there will come a day that these men will not even be willing to defend women as soldiers or leaders. Stop making them feel guilty for actions that their long dead ancestors did hundreds of years ago and to which they had no part of contribution.

That’s fine – we’ll have our women soldiers and leaders if that ever happens (I don’t know why there are people who don’t think women will organize and fight if they have or even want to) – which I think it’s highly unlikely, as even your run of the mill sexist wouldn’t think the letting the opposite gender die is a very good idea.
And we’re not asking men to atone for crimes of the past, but to not commit them again. If they help perpetuate something bad, then they should be held accountable for it.

I think my post is too long already and I will have to stop here. Any rational and well expressed arguments/responses are welcome.

And I presume you will decide which ones are rational and well expressed, and we’ll just have to accept your position?

RosaDeLava
RosaDeLava
4 years ago

@Chiomara
Bullseye!

contrapangloss
4 years ago

Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this post.Anyone who thinks that the behaviours described are untrue has probably never dated or even met a woman in the Western World over the past 40 years.

Weird. Do we live on different planets, good sir? Because I seem to know many who are loyal, have domestic skills, are dependable, and who don’t take antidepressants.

I also know some people who are loyal and dependable, but also take antidepressants… and I know some who have terrible domestic skills, but are otherwise awesome.

So many people in my world. I’m not sure you’re one of them, though.

What the post suggests is that overall, marriage or romantic relationships are not a very good deal for the vast majority of men any more.

Really? Science begs to differ!

Okay, yeah, this is just a goofy summary article, but still. There are numerous studies out there, and I’ll go hunting behind the university’s paywalls if I must.

The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.

80/20 rule? Like, what?

I did a brief search to try and find these scientific surveys of which you spoke, and I didn’t really find anything in the database on mate selection and women. I found a nursing article! And I found a few business articles!

…and I found this gem!

“Fabrication of electrospun poly(D,L lactideco-glycolide)80/20 scaffolds loaded with diclofenac sodium for tissue engineering.”

When I tried narrowing down the search a bit by adding in “mate selection” to the search parameters, I still got zilch. Well, not quite zilch. I got one article on wife abuse in forager-farmers and one paper analyzing the mate selection strategies of women in Jane Austen novels.

Jane Austen novels. Not reality. Novels.

Please direct me to your scientific sources, good sir.

Because I’m not seeing them.

I’ll carry on with the rest of this later, maybe. I need to go do some offline stuff, though, first!

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

Not the paywalls contrapangloss! You gonna look behind the tin foil the conspirators are hiding the studies behind!

I’m sorry (so not sorry), but I just can’t take seriously anyone who legit said we must not know any western women if we don’t agree that they can’t make a tea.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Anyone who thinks that the behaviours described are untrue has probably never dated or even met a woman in the Western World over the past 40 years.

*is a woman in THE WESTERN WORLD who has had relationships (Platonic, friends and friends with benefits) with other women from THE WESTERN WORLD and is under the age of 40 and still thinks the reddit OP is full of garbage*

But then again, I most likely don’t exist to Red Pill dudes because I’m over the age of 21, fat, I’m pansexual, and don’t think their boners and the pleasures thereof, or indentured servitude to be their second mommy are my life’s goal.
comment image

Ace
Ace
4 years ago

@PI No, you exist. They hate you because you exist and don’t bow down to them (and can’t make tea) but you do exist. How dare you! /sarcasm.

I made the mistake of dating a man who literally never did his own laundry. I did it one or two times right away, then after realizing he did nothing for me, ever, stopped. He got mad one day because, after three weeks at least, he didn’t have any clean clothes. After all, I did laundry once a week, so why hadn’t I thrown in his nasty work clothes? I’m so unfair! It’s not hard! He also left cups in his room so long that they grew moldy to the point of being dangerous- why couldn’t I just pick up after him?

I thought about answering the troll, but figured I’d do better to sit back and watch the masters work their magic. Was absolutely not disappointed. Waiting to make popcorn for round two, if he answers back.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
4 years ago

“The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.”

80% of women are with the top hottest 20% of dudes out there? Nope. Assortive mating is the global rule.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

*Cracks knuckles and prays to the Blockquote Mammoth to let me pass in peace*

Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this post.

What is this fuss you speak of? Another day, another manosphere wank for us to mock

Anyone who thinks that the behaviours described are untrue has probably never dated or even met a woman in the Western World over the past 40 years.

Well, let’s see. I am a western woman. As was my mom. So are all my female relatives and the majority of my female friends and coworkers and classmates over the year. Yeah, no. These behaviors aren’t ringing a bell. In fact, just over the past week I’ve both made tea and used a can opener. Wow!

What the post suggests is that overall, marriage or romantic relationships are not a very good deal for the vast majority of men any more.

Says who? You? Got anything to back that up? Sure, on an individual basis, there are plenty of men who are better off single. But as others have already covered, as a group, men benefit greatly from marriage.

The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.

I hate to break it to you, but a poll of angry MGTOW is not exactly scientific. Here’s why
http://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=Selection%20bias

The only “evidence” I’ve seen for the claim that only 20% of lucky alpha males get laid is some very dubious charts floating around the manosphere. If you’ve got something from a credible source, by all means, share!

And whatever mythology modern day feminists have created over what they call ‘Patriarchy’ it also crumbles on a more rational and detailed analysis.

Are you defining rational as a man’s opinion and irrational as woman’s opinion?

Unless, by ‘patriarchy’ one means the overall way of organising human societies worldwide since the advent of the agricultural revolution. Well, whatever these guys did it worked. Which is why we managed to progress to the point we are today. The truth of the matter is that there are no major examples of highly advanced civilisations that started and remained ‘matriarchies’.

You’re succumbing to the very flawed logic that this blog is named for. You’re assuming that men alone are responsible for progress and for organizing society. That is simply untrue. You’re also making an assumption that because we’ve technologically progressed over the years that means the status quo is optimal. How do you that equal – not matriarchal – society wouldn’t have progressed faster? How many geniuses have been unable to use their intelligence to advance culture simply because they were born in the wrong gender, race, class, religion, etc.? There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s highly likely this has happened often and still happens.

And no one has managed to explain how this ‘patriarchal’ take over managed to take place. A worldwide male conspiracy to subjugate all women and somehow men managed to coordinate this everywhere (from the remote jungles of the Amazon to the deserts of Arabia) and this without any modern communications. This is absurd to say the least.

Yes. It is absurd. Good thing nobody ever said this. There’s a huge middle ground between unalterable bio truths and vast global conspiracy. If this needs to be explained to you, you’re not quite as rational and logical as you think you are.

No system of ‘abuse’ and ‘slavery’ can survive and thrive for that long unless there are essential advantages to its use. Through thousands of years of trial and error, human communities all over the world have established the social and political organisation that has the most benefits to survival and progress. And this for the most part happened with the consent of all parts (women included).

First of all, why are abuse and slavery in scare quotes? Are you suggesting they don’t exist?

Second of all, I’ll reiterate the point that just because we managed to progress under cultures that contain inequality, does not mean that this is the most beneficial. How do you know there isn’t another race of beings somewhere in the universe that is of comparable age and intelligence and lives on a similar planet to Earth but is more peaceful and just and as a result is more advanced? How can you assume that what we’ve done as a species is the best when there isn’t another, similar species to compare it to?

Third of all, you don’t seem to understand what consent is. Why am I not surprised?

Now, given the types of comments posted on this site, I expect the negative reaction of people to the points covered above and quite a few ‘ad hominem’ attacks to me personally. But people will try as much as possible to avoid the facts once more.

Can you tell me how you’re defining ad hominem? Because in my experience, most trolls seem to think it’s defined as “people not being deferential and nice to me.”

Over the past few years (esp since 2008 and the Great Crash) a combination of dire prospects both professionally and in the romantic/relationship/dating area (these two usually go together) is causing a lot of men to gradually withdraw from a lot of traditional institutions of society including marriage, higher education and the mainstream professions.

Citation needed. Actually, men want kids more than women do. http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/03/when-men-want-kids-and-women-arent-so-sure.html
Just for example.

Instead of these institutions (plus media and analysts) to spend some time to have a closer look to the causes of this phenomenon, they once more use men as the easy target for vile comments and accusations. They are all ‘lazy, no good, mommy’s boys’ who are ‘afraid of all commitments and adult responsibilities’. Case closed. Let’s go for a beer now.

You haven’t established that this phenomenon exists, so how do you expect anyone to respond to it? Who exactly is saying men are all lazy and no good.

Imagine if someone would do that for any women’s issue or problem. There would be complete moral outrage from all sides.

Women’s issues are always dismissed. What are you even talking about?

This is why the phenomenon will continue and intensify as the economy gets worse

Which economy? Compared to which other economies? Economic varies across countries. In larger countries, it can even vary greatly in different regions of the country. So, whose economy do you speak of? Generally, the economy is not getting worse since the start of the great recession, it’s getting better. Perhaps you are conflating income inequality with the economy? Income inequality is a huge, important issue. But it’s a problem with capitalism. Feminism is not to blame for income inequality which has been around far longer. Besides, weren’t you just saying that the status quo is great and obviously works? If you think we have an unstable economy and high income inequality now, what do you think it was like before democracy was a thing?

and what is perceived as hostile attitude towards men just because of the fact that they are men, will continue to exist in the media, academia and the courts of law.

It’s interesting that you use the word “perceived.” It’s almost like some part of you knows that society is not really hostile to men and you and your manosphere buddies have just deluded yourselves into thinking that it is. So close to an epiphany. Yet so far away.

Women will have to get their brains together, think deep and think carefully on what world they want for their fathers, husbands and sons.

How very condescending of you to imagine we haven’t spent time thinking about we how we want the world to be. I’ve wanted a peaceful, just, and safe world for all people. Regardless of gender. That’s more than I can say about you, who apparently want a world in which women are walking, breathing blow up dolls who like to fold your blue jeans.

Otherwise, there will come a day that these men will not even be willing to defend women as soldiers or leaders. Stop making them feel guilty for actions that their long dead ancestors did hundreds of years ago and to which they had no part of contribution.

So, it’s be nice to you or you’ll kill us, huh? Nice! As others have pointed out, asking you to not continue to perpetuate injustice is not the same as blaming you for past injustices. This is pretty rich though, considering the fact that manospherians tend to blame the entire female gender for every problem they have. Do you intend to stop trying to make us feel bad because some girl turned you down for sex once?

I think my post is too long already and I will have to stop here. Any rational and well expressed arguments/responses are welcome.

Oh, honey. You aren’t entitled to dictate what kind of responses you receive.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Thanks for sparing me Blockquote Mammoth! I’d like to just amend my post a little tiny bit. For some reason I referred to my mom in the past tense even though she is alive and well.

mockingbird
mockingbird
4 years ago

*claps for wwth*

I have some baklava that wold like to share with you in thanks.
Since I can’t, I hope that you enjoy this:
http://i.imgur.com/f9I3xhR.jpg

Wetherby
Wetherby
4 years ago

Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with this post. Anyone who thinks that the behaviours described are untrue has probably never dated or even met a woman in the Western World over the past 40 years.

I’ve met and dated untold numbers of women in the Western World over the past 40 years, and I simply don’t recognise these “behaviours” as anywhere even vaguely close to the norm.
 
But I do acknowledge that it’s highly plausible that people who don’t do what I do, which is treat my female friends and dates as fellow human beings instead of potential fuck-toys or personal slaves, might have differing experiences. I wonder if there’s a simple explanation for this curious phenomenon?

What the post suggests is that overall, marriage or romantic relationships are not a very good deal for the vast majority of men any more.

I suspect that’s because given the poster’s attitude he naturally gravitates to people who have what I shall charitably describe as “relationship difficulties”. By contrast, because I’m extremely happily married, my friends tend to be in a very similar position, so from my perspective “the vast majority of men” are getting an excellent deal.

Which perspective is closer to reality depends on whether this has been the subject of scientifically sound research. Which brings us to…

The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.

Consistently, eh? In which case you should have little problem citing three such surveys, all published in reputable journals and carried out by scrupulously recorded and reproducible research methods. In fact, I’m very surprised that you don’t cite even one such survey, because surely this would instantly defuse people’s scepticism?

And whatever mythology modern day feminists have created over what they call ‘Patriarchy’ it also crumbles on a more rational and detailed analysis. Unless, by ‘patriarchy’ one means the overall way of organising human societies worldwide since the advent of the agricultural revolution. Well, whatever these guys did it worked. Which is why we managed to progress to the point we are today.

“Progress” and “worked” for whose benefit?

The truth of the matter is that there are no major examples of highly advanced civilisations that started and remained ‘matriarchies’. And no one has managed to explain how this ‘patriarchal’ take over managed to take place.

…aside from trivial things like men generally being bigger and stronger, of course. But I’m sure that’s completely irrelevant.

A worldwide male conspiracy to subjugate all women and somehow men managed to coordinate this everywhere (from the remote jungles of the Amazon to the deserts of Arabia) and this without any modern communications. This is absurd to say the least. No system of ‘abuse’ and ‘slavery’ can survive and thrive for that long unless there are essential advantages to its use. Through thousands of years of trial and error, human communities all over the world have established the social and political organisation that has the most benefits to survival and progress. And this for the most part happened with the consent of all parts (women included).

I’m afraid we’re back in the realms of “citation needed” – where’s your evidence? What form did this consent take, and was the consent unconditional? And if not, how can it be considered consent?

Now, given the types of comments posted on this site, I expect the negative reaction of people to the points covered above and quite a few ‘ad hominem’ attacks to me personally. But people will try as much as possible to avoid the facts once more.

What facts? I see a lot of sweeping claims, but a distinct paucity of verifiable evidence. Produce some, please.

Over the past few years (esp since 2008 and the Great Crash) a combination of dire prospects both professionally and in the romantic/relationship/dating area (these two usually go together) is causing a lot of men to gradually withdraw from a lot of traditional institutions of society including marriage, higher education and the mainstream professions.

At the risk of repeating myself, citation needed. A clear and checkable definition of “a lot of men” would be particularly appreciated.

Instead of these institutions (plus media and analysts) to spend some time to have a closer look to the causes of this phenomenon, they once more use men as the easy target for vile comments and accusations. They are all ‘lazy, no good, mommy’s boys’ who are ‘afraid of all commitments and adult responsibilities’.

Again, citation needed. You certainly won’t see any comments like that on this blog – or at least not from the regular commentariat. Indeed, such comments are usually shot down very very quickly.

Case closed. Let’s go for a beer now. Imagine if someone would do that for any women’s issue or problem. There would be complete moral outrage from all sides.

Why do you need to imagine this, when this blog highlights real-world examples of this sort of thing happening all the time – and often to a reaction that’s anything but “complete moral outrage”. Even actual murderers with misogynist agendas are being held up as bona fide heroes in some quarters. So I fear that your definition of “complete moral outrage from all sides” and mine may be somewhat different.

This is why the phenomenon will continue and intensify as the economy gets worse and what is perceived as hostile attitude towards men just because of the fact that they are men, will continue to exist in the media, academia and the courts of law.

Citation needed to back up what you describe as “the phenomenon”. It’s impossible to take vague comments like this seriously without hard numbers that illustrate in an independently verifiable way whether this is an actual phenomenon influencing a substantial percentage of men or merely the grumblings of a statistically irrelevant minority.

Women will have to get their brains together, think deep and think carefully on what world they want for their fathers, husbands and sons. Otherwise, there will come a day that these men will not even be willing to defend women as soldiers or leaders. Stop making them feel guilty for actions that their long dead ancestors did hundreds of years ago and to which they had no part of contribution.

Ah, the apocalyptic fantasy. I guessed we were revving up to one. Was that better? Do you need a tissue?

mockingbird
mockingbird
4 years ago

Wellll, I’m a middle class white woman in the US and I agree with Chi, PI, etc., though I do think I see merit in the choice.

Emma Watson being the UN’s face of feminism is pragmatism all the way down.
She’s non-threatening, attractive, already has notoriety she can leverage, and has loads of privilege to shield her from the worst of what some others might face in such a public role.

She’s not ideal or at all globally representative, but she’s a sound tactical choice – especially if she uses her platform to introduce / support others active in global feminism and then either shares with or cedes the platform to them rather than using it as opportunity to showcase herself.

mockingbird
mockingbird
4 years ago

Dammit, wrong thread.

*curses phone*

bekabot
4 years ago

I’m not quite sure what a core being is, exactly

Maybe it’s something like an engulfed twin.

MexicanHotChocolate
MexicanHotChocolate
4 years ago

This guy reminds me of one of my cousins who posted a rant on facebook about how women are basically soul-less and then whined about not having a girlfriend. I keep waiting for a quote from my cousin to show up on this page.

Moocow
Moocow
4 years ago

@WWTH

How many geniuses have been unable to use their intelligence to advance culture simply because they were born in the wrong gender, race, class, religion, etc.? There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s highly likely this has happened often and still happens.

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos series, the first human being to even imagine an “infinite god” or a world in which there are millions of planets, each with their own sun and stars, was put to death for challenging the status quo of religious belief at the time.

Also gotta love this troll’s literal “How dare you make me feel guilty for how women are treated by men!”. Like dude, if you feel the emotion of guilt when we discuss the shitty ways that men treat woman, what exactly does that say about you? This is what happens when you automatically label “the ability to recognize emotions” as a ‘feminine’ skill.

@kupo & @mockingbird

b) women must be lying about how much they dislike problematic games if they’re the majority of console owners.

I <3 how they don't think that people can enjoy media while still wishing that the more problematic elements weren't there.

Basically summarizes all of gamergate. “THIS EVIL WOMAN IS TRYING TO TAKE VIDEO GAMES AWAY FOREVER AND CENSOR EVERYTHING THROUGH THE OPPRESSIVE POWER OF………………pointing out problematic elements that are obvious to anyone who’s head isn’t stuck 10 feet in the sand”.

The stupidest part is that these guys will also say “so and so game sucks”. But apparently, when they don’t like something, that doesn’t automatically mean a call for censorship.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

@Strategos_Aner

The 80/20 rule of mate selection in women is not a myth, it has been consistently proven in scientific surveys but most major media refuse to acknowledge the facts despite reporting them. It’s not some kind of conspiracy orchestrated by the ‘patriarchal scientific elite’.

The scientific elite has scienced the shit out of this with scientific surveys. Have I mentioned science, because that’s what we’re now witnessing.

I kid.

I hate to break it to you but the MRAs, incel, anti-feminists, etc who bandy this bullshit factoid all around the internet aren’t the “scientific elite” and there isn’t any body of studies that verify this goofball hypothesis.

In the future you should either familiarize yourself with the social sciences or leave them the hell alone because there is no way “80/20 rule of mate selection in women” is a truism that can exist without a specific historical and social context. Sorry, I know you manospherians love scientific-ish terminology like “mate selection”, but combining random jargon with your bitterness towards women isn’t going to turn TeRPer grousing into usable social theory.

Luzbelitx
4 years ago

@Moocow

I think privilege and entitlement lead mean to the idea that if women say something that makes them feel guilty, then it must have been done with that purpose -and no other.

This is also true for people who are used to manipulating others: They will usually consider any emotion they feel must be caused in order to manipulate them, regardless of the topic at hand or what triggered an emotion in the first place.

I guess there’s also a load of projection in there.

Divided Line
4 years ago

Didn’t Shulamith Firestone already argue in the 70s that men can’t love? I doubt she was alone in making that argument. Isn’t that what most you believe?

Divided Line
4 years ago

“I hate to break it to you but the MRAs, incel, anti-feminists, etc who bandy this bullshit factoid all around the internet aren’t the “scientific elite” and there isn’t any body of studies that verify this goofball hypothesis.”

You know it’s interesting that 13% of women and 26% of men now go without children now in Norway, even though researchers can show that men and women equally expect to have children and families when they are younger. It’s only half as likely to pan out for men though. Think about how that statistic works. It would mean that average women are more likely to share above average mates. Who cares though, right? They should just “man up,” “quit whining,” or whatever because patriarchy.

And of course there’s Japan. After a 20 year recession, you have a million men cut off from society because they are no longer of any use to women if they can’t produce income like mules apparently. A very similar phenomenon is developing in the United States if Hannah Rosin’s book is any indication.

Married men out earn women and unmarried men, which kind of suggests that the strong independent women in gender equality land weirdly enough don’t want to marry plumbers and janitors. And of course, 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

We could sit here all day and point to evidence that men probably need women a lot more than women need men, which would probably make them socially disadvantaged relative to women, not privileged. The wider implications of that in every facet of life, from politics, to economics, to culture, are pretty profound, but my hunch is none of you will be too interested in considering what it might mean.

The 80/20 rule persists as a belief because it does seem to describe a real world phenomena. It’s also consistent with what can be observed about human sexual biology. Men really can mate many times a day while women have to screen for parental investment. What logically follows from that is that most women will have value in an economy of mates while only some men will. We also know that our species is descended from twice as many females as males, so, y’know, it’s as good a theory as any.

I mean, do you really need all this data to convince you of it? Just look at a mob of teenage girls chasing the Beatles or Justin Bieber around. Could you imagine men behaving that way? It seems pretty obvious that most women are attracted to a minority of above average males. And since what we’re talking about here isn’t incels and embittered man babies who should just man up and quit whining, but the basic foundation of family and community formation, as well as gender relations generally, maybe it’s time to grow up, dispense with the juvenile and petty shaming, and start to consider the prospect that women have, and have always had, forms of social power and privilege specific to their gender. And like all forms of power, it comes with consequences for others and therefore moral responsibilities.

You can accuse me of being embittered because I “can’t get laid.” I don’t care, Apparently I’m not he only one, so whatever. Maybe it’s time to stop blaming men and start asking questions about women’s expectations of the opposite sex. Isn’t it obvious that those expectations and demands would amount to women’s contribution both to the culture and to the construction of the very same masculinity all of you complain so much about? You guys act like men get to decide what women want and expect. It seems pretty clear to me that the selection pressure flows from women to men more than it does the other way around. This fact alone probably explains more about existing male behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and whatever else that you’re complaining about than some dopey patriarchy theory.

” Sorry, I know you manospherians love scientific-ish terminology like “mate selection”, but combining random jargon with your bitterness towards women isn’t going to turn TeRPer grousing into usable social theory.”

He loses credibility for using the term “mate selection,” but you lose credibility for trotting out “bitterness.” Have you not figured out that this is identical to what conservatives said about feminists for decades? Y’know, that the only reason they were feminists was because they were angry and unattractive? It was just a means of shaming them out of speaking and disregarding their views, wasn’t it? What’s the difference between that and what you guys do when you trot out unimaginative stereotypes about men with neckbeards in their mother’s basements? Are people only allowed to question double standards and potential social injustice with a smile on their face? Are they only allowed to speak on these issues if they are all well educated, attractive, gainfully employed “winners” with awesome sex lives?

Divided Line
4 years ago

“I’ve met and dated untold numbers of women in the Western World over the past 40 years, and I simply don’t recognise these “behaviours” as anywhere even vaguely close to the norm.

But I do acknowledge that it’s highly plausible that people who don’t do what I do, which is treat my female friends and dates as fellow human beings instead of potential fuck-toys or personal slaves, might have differing experiences. I wonder if there’s a simple explanation for this curious phenomenon?”

Y’know, I used to have a decent job and a girlfriend. This pretty how I thought about it. You look at other guys who question how these things work and you think “what losers.” But really, it was just because I was projecting my own insecurities on to them, probably because I, like most guys, want to believe they have a purpose in women’s lives, like protecting them and defending them from the bad guys. Men have been doing that since the beginning.

It’s easy to see why, isn’t it? Women are on display and have sexual value by default, even if they don’t want it or the attention it garners. But men are invisible unless they successfully contribute to social structures, have status, good jobs, money, achieve things, affect particular personality characteristics that women identify as masculine, and so on.

But do you think it’s possible that these are really kind of self-serving myths? Did it occur to you that women might treat you a lot differently if you weren’t so fortunate in life? We *know* for a fact that married men out earn women and unmarried men. There’s no debate about it. There is research which can link the likelihood that a man will be married directly to his income, that’s how strong the correlation between men’s income and their apparently acceptability to women is.

You believe things about women which are comfortable to believe. You idealize and pedestalize them and this is why they are always assumed to be more moral, fair, reasonable, and so on. Naturally they need you to defend and save them from the misogynist hoards who want to lock them up in the kitchen and treat them like “fuck toys.” But how true is any of this, and how exactly do you square something like this with equality or even progressive politics? Isn’t this what people always believed about the genders? Going back centuries, I mean. Your attitudes look more like unexamined sexism than gender egalitarianism to me, but whatever.

Divided Line
4 years ago

If women were anything less than fair and if the cultural conventions that result from their expectations of the opposite sex were anything less than moral, fair, and reasonable, or if they contributed to wide spread social dysfunction, animosity, anxieties, injustices, and so on, how would you ever know?

We can *never* have an honest discussion about what women’s expectations of the opposite sex means. Ever. It’ll be shut off with mocking, blaming, hysterics, accusations of misogyny and evil or involuntary celibacy and bitterness. Whatever contribution women make to the given arrangement, we’ll never know what it is because people like yourself apparently regard it as a thought crime to even consider the question.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I could refute your evo psych arglebargle. I could be offended at the implication of having a conversation about women’s expectations for men which sounds more like a demand that women have sex with men they aren’t attracted to.

But I’m too busy trying not to laugh out loud on public transportation at the notion that Justin Bieber is an “above average male.”

dhag85
4 years ago

Unironically using the term “thought crime” is an offense punishable by severe eyerolling.

Eyerolling in progress.

dhag85
4 years ago

Why is it that the dumbest trolls always think they should write the longest posts? Dudes, know your limitations. If you can barely express a coherent thought, at least try to keep it brief. Nobody’s going to read a 4-part word salad.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
4 years ago
weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I just love how more than one troll actually came here to defend this. I mean, this post was about a guy who thinks women can’t fold jeans or make tea. Is that really the kind of person who inspires one to nod sagely and exclaim “good point!”

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Jesus Christ, this fuckfart again? He’s been banned at least three times already, how did his mangry methane even get through?

Huntingthesabretooth
Huntingthesabretooth
4 years ago

Well I don’t think women are incapable of love or are evil. But I can understand some pangs of frustration they have toward the world because truth be told they kind of have a point that men have to jump through hoops or fight 99 dragons in order to be masculine or attractive. Instead of just being inherently masculine or defining their own version of masculinity it’s a bit strict. Plus a women landing a job, being independent, having a car, etc isn’t considered a requirement and is instead seen as empowering. Very rarely do women get judged for being a shut in neckbeard who lives with his parents and is a Virgin. However women have to put up with looking like super models and wearing makeup to the point of being perfect and if a dude wears makeup it’s considered empowering. My point isn’t that men have it worse but rather that there isn’t a safety movement for them to help them address toxic masculinity and other shit because men still need to be held by gender rolls while women are kinda allowed to break from them.

And I think having selective empathy for them like “fuck them because they are evil misogynists” is kinda problematic because not only are they still human but do the same standards apply to say a white women saying racist things about men of color? Or how about some women of color saying ableist things to disabled people? Where does the line get drawn at empathy? Am I allowed to have selective empathy toward Isis because they murder, rape, and kill other people despite having legitimate issues? Or am I allowed to say “fuck them no empathy for them?”

Steve D
Steve D
4 years ago

Well, don’t leave us in suspense. Did he create a race of atomic supermen or not? If so, where can I get one? My gutters need cleaning.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

Welcome, Steve. I assume you’re new since you have been posting on a bunch of old threads, which is common for newcomers to do when browsing through the random post feature. 🙂

@Sabertooth

Very rarely do women get judged for being a shut in neckbeard who lives with his parents and is a Virgin.

That’s true, it is very rare for women to get judged for being a shut-in neckbeard who lives with his parents and is a virgin.

P.S. Why is “Virgin” capitalized? Are we talking about the record studio? The airline?