Has feminism jumped the shark?

It strikes me that the widely panned Dear Woman video is feminism jumping the shark.  The video wasn’t just panned in the Manosphere.  Bloggers as divergent as Advice Goddess (H/T Deansdale) Manboobz, and The Frisky all had the same take;  it was creepy.

What is interesting is what those guys were doing was buying into the basic selling point for feminism to men:  Adopt this groveling world-view and women will like you.  For single men the selling point has always been about sex, and for married men the pitch has been a blend of sex and a promise that it will make your wife happy.

Feminism has been so successful selling men on political groveling for sex and women’s approval that other left wing causes have joined the fray.  They may be selling a different message, but the fundamental point is the same;  follow the politics and world-view of women and you will be rewarded with sex.  Blogger Big Little Wolf utilizes this argument when making the case for redefined chivalry.

Clearly the guys who made the Dear Woman video were just following the feminist message to its logical conclusion.  How is it that even feminists found it creepy?

Sometimes you have to see an idea taken to its logical conclusion to really understand how ridiculous it is.  In that sense we all owe the neutered males of Dear Woman a debt.  They single handedly showed how ridiculous the foundation for selling feminism to men really is.

For feminists the problem is worse though, it isn’t just that their fundamental argument to men has been demolished;  in many ways they are losing ground with women as well.  Part of their problem is the spreading understanding of game.  Right now only a small fraction of men or women understand the science of attraction.  However, this is the kind of secret even the KGB couldn’t have kept from spreading.  How long before nearly every high school and college age man has a basic understanding of game (even if many lack the skills to put it into practice)?  Part of learning game is understanding how differently men and women think.  The whole women are just men who sit down to pee argument of feminism goes straight out the window.  And it isn’t just men who are learning about game.  Women are learning about it too and from what I have seen after some confusion/denial they quickly grasp the truth of it.  It may actually be easier for women to accept game than men, because they don’t have to admit that they have been doing it all wrong for so many years, and they also don’t have to overcome the resentment that men often feel when they realize that they were rejected for being too nice.

The other problem feminism has is momentum.  What have they achieved in the last 20 years?  What can they hope to achieve in the future?

Third wave feminism has largely focused on redefining terms they feel are harmful to women:

Words such as spinster, bitch, whore, and c*nt continue to be used in derogatory ways about women. Inga Muscio writes, “I posit that we’re free to seize a word that was kidnapped and co-opted in a pain-filled, distant, past, with a ransom that cost our grandmothers’ freedom, children, traditions, pride, and land.” Third-wave feminists believe it is better to change the connotation of a sexist word than to censor it from speech.

They have been extremely successful here.  The vast majority of women now either actively approve of female promiscuity or largely remain silent on the topic out of fear of promoting a double standard.  We also have seen a general embrace of bitchiness and selfishness/entitlement driven by a concern that any social restraints on women are proof of a diabolical patriarchal conspiracy.  Women generally also have a pathological fear of pleasing their husbands and boyfriends.  We also see the vast majority of women defending divorce fantasy movies and accepting the selling of divorce to women, or at the very least remaining silent about them.  Additionally, feminism has continued to successfully sell a sense of female martyrdom and unhappiness to women.

But all of the successes of feminism in the last few decades have been about changing attitudes.  When it comes to achieving their stated dream of a world where women were just as competent as men, feminists have generally lost interest.  I know a large number of women professionally and personally who are extremely capable and successful.  I’ve worked with competent women, for competent women, and managed competent women as part of a project team.  However, feminism isn’t about creating competent women.  Instead it is about lowering standards for women and making any lack in competence up with moxie.

Even feminists struggle to define any real advances they have made for women in the last few decades.  In Susan Walsh’s post I Earned a Denunciation from Now, commenter Jess set out to explain to non feminists how feminist activism had changed the world for the better:

People forget how things have changed due to feminist activism. Let me tell you about a case from the early 90s that I was involved with- a girl very nearly died due to a savage rape in london. Although the guy got a heavy sentence the judge actually said she had an element of blame because she wore a short skirt and get this, so did her mother! Naturally the feminist lobby went beserk and it was cases like this that did change attitudes. Any judge saying that now would be struck off in the UK.

So the real difference of 20 years of activism;  the rapist would not get any harsher sentence, but the judge would fear losing his job if he pointed out common sense precautions which might prevent another woman from being victimized.  In the area of women’s safety, feminists have generally chosen to pretend that women don’t face different risks to their safety than men do.  If someone points out that it isn’t a good idea for women to get into cars with strangers, feminists will mock them and minimize the risk.

There are some other achievements feminists can point to.  In many cases, men accused by women no longer have the presumption of innocence which until fairly recently was a foundation of our justice system.

More important than what feminists have achieved lately is the question of what they can hope to achieve in the future.  Feminists have a rather unique problem of having thoroughly conquered all social institutions in the west without having achieved their stated goals.  This past thorough success ironically spells a problem for future progress, as Welmer points out in his post The Tide has Already Turned:

Speculation aside, the reality is that feminism has already begun to decline. That so many media outlets and women are declaring its victory means nothing; the fact is that they have far less of value to offer women than they did ten years ago, and they will have even less in another ten years. Every man who is ruined so that his hormonally deranged wife can realize her soap opera fantasies, every business dismantled by a sexual harassment lawsuit, every man tossed in prison at public expense, and every productive job replaced by a woman pushing paper at a government-funded nonprofit is a material loss for women in aggregate. Because we no longer have significant excess wealth, women are going to have to pay for each feminist victory with a decline in their wealth and standard of living. It may not be entirely obvious yet, but it will be soon enough, and at that point we will see a rise in anti-feminism amongst women themselves.

This entry was posted in Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Has feminism jumped the shark?

  1. krakonos says:

    But feminism has things to achive. The ultimate target is complete matrilineal matriarchy (with men as slaves in best case).

  2. Dan in Philly says:

    When wifey talks about feminist role models and what they are saying, I explain exactly what they mean. She generally will then tell me that the feminist message is pretty stupid, and of course she is correct, almost everything feminism says goes contrary to common sense and most people’s experience. It is only fear of ridicule which makes most people go along with the basic message.

    As more and more people learn game and other such ideas, there will be a greater and greater philosophical platform from which one can refute the ideals of feminism (and other such post-modern anti-common sense philophies) without fear, for even if some ridicule you, others will cheer you. Brave souls who stand for what they know to be true in public, daring the radicals to mock them, allow other, more timid people of like mind to also disagree with the balony they know to be false.

    This is really what the feminist fears: that the tables will be turned and the ridicule they use as a weapon will be turned on them. They fear this because they know how well it works, they have used it themselves for decades. Once their monopoly on ridicule is broken, their entire facade will fade, as they have no real arguments or stats to back up their claims. The future will happen.

    [D: Great points. I agree on the turning the tables with ridicule. This also fits in with the lie that groveling will make you successful with women. Now that the lie is exposed, the last defense against ridiculing feminist white knights is broken down.]

  3. Badger says:

    Thanks for the links, this post is brilliant.

    [D: Thanks!]

  4. slwerner says:

    ”Because we no longer have significant excess wealth, women are going to have to pay for each feminist victory with a decline in their wealth and standard of living. It may not be entirely obvious yet, but it will be soon enough, and at that point we will see a rise in anti-feminism amongst women themselves.”

    Three months earlier on The Spearhead, a self-declared “Third Wave Feminist” provided her views on what it meant to be one, concluding:

    If feminism did anything, it took certain members of the power elite and stripped them of their ability to impose arcane and unreasonable limits on people, not just women. So maybe now would be a good time for the feminist movement to go off with its head held high, and some semblance of dignity and join all the other great struggles in the history books where they belong.
    Because the next struggle which we are already engaged in isn’t about Women, or Men or Blacks or Gays or Lesbians or Jews or Gentiles or Muslims or Catholics. It’s about the survival of the planet that we live on, and it is about time that we got around to that job rather than worrying over whether a garbage man or garbage person picks up your recycling.
    – Naomi Padowicz
    Which sounded very nice and concillatory…

    Of course, to most Speadhead commentators (myself included), her essay came off more as a call to “consolidate” the gains of feminism (tilted divorce law and other female privileges) while stepping back from the high demands of modern career-paths, so that women could continue to enjoy the benefits brought to them by feminism while returning to the benefits of having men serve as their breadwinners.

    Still, she clearly recognized that feminism was beginning to loose traction, and seemed to be more concern with the possibility of eventual backlash if feminists were to keep pushing for more “goodies”.

    I, as did numerous others, simply took her effort to be inspired by her seeking to find a way to not have to “give back” any of feminisms bounty while withdrawing from the fight. I likened it to Adolph Hitler suing for peace after over-running France (et. al.) so that he could consolidate his conquests.

    I think a similar sense that women who seem to support the ideals of the MRM are actually only looking out for the interests of women has been what has been fueling the recent tirade against “Traditional woman” at A Voice For Men, as it seems to be a point of convergence between feminists and traditionalists/social conservative woman. A lot of men in the MRM would prefer some discernible “roll-backs” of feminist influence rather than just an end to their demands for more and more.

    I would echo that thinking, and would like to see that feminisms having “jumped the shark” will actually result in some real “losses” for that movement.

  5. Eric says:

    Feminism has so ingrained itself into our culture that even women who claim to repudiate it adopt its fundamental attitudes. Read some of the posts by the so-called ‘traditional women’ on this forum, for example. Nothing but shaming/blaming men; bragging about how much jerks turn them on; and lecturing men about how the ‘real women’ are unfeminine, unattractive and uninteresting. NAWALT—LOL.

    There needs to be a fundamental repudiation of feminism and a re-awakening of actual femininity before American women will ever be worth the time for a decent man again.

  6. Dan in Philly says:

    Eric, what are you doing to re-educate women who are willing to learn about the truth of feminism and the truths you have learned in the manosphere?

  7. Eric says:

    Well, I tell the truth about it here and elsewhere a lot. But, of course, women overly aren’t interested in the opinions of ‘just another male pig’, so I pretty much ignore them otherwise.

  8. Dan in Philly says:

    What about in real life? I ask because I notice a lot of the kind of attitude you display here, which makes little sense to me. To me, learning game was one of the keys which had helped unlock women, and using game on my wife has resulted in a lot of change in her attitude. It seems to me that many men learn game and then spend all their time complaining about marriage and/or American women, rather than using what they have learned to influence women and either marrying a great one or gently pulling the one they are married to in the right direction. If game really works, it seems to me you could take the average vaguely pro-feminist gal and turn her into June Cleaver with a high sex drive.

  9. Oak says:

    Even if Eric ‘shouted it from the rooftops’ you can forget about most women listening to the message. Women will not change until men start refusing to marry, en masse. At that point, they’ll start to ask questions: “How can I get a man to act against his own best interest, and marry me?”

    When the answer is: “You can’t. They aren’t interested any more.” THEN, something interesting and useful may occur.

    Women will never march for men’s rights as men marched for women’s rights. Says a lot to me.

  10. Lovekraft says:

    It has gotten to the point where one doesn’t have to hear their opinions to determine that he is a mangina or she a feminist.

    Just looking at their demeanor, their eyes, give away a very unbalanced, scarred psyche.

    I found this skill by watching videos with the sound muted. There is a deranged look in the eyes of feminists/leftists.

  11. Dan in Philly says:

    Oak, the implication is that men don’t really have any influence over women’s behavior, which is counter to what game teaches. This is why I truly don’t understand the viewpoint, I cannot reconcile the idea that confident men are magnetic shapers of women with the idea that men are helpless to change a woman’s mind about anything. Either game works or it doesn’t.

  12. Oak says:

    I just have to say this: The current wave of folks encouraging men to use ‘game’, sound an awful lot like the people who blame men for women’s problems in the first place.

    Maybe ‘game’ works… I doubt it, but maybe it does. However, the realization I have to utilize ‘game’ in the first place, is enough to put me off marriage for life.

  13. Dan in Philly says:

    Oak, what do you expect, that you will never have to work on marriage? That all you have to do is show up in the marketplace and say “here I am!” and a cross between June Cleaver and Heidi Klum will show up and take care of you? I was raised to believe that marriage takes work on both parties, and everything I have learned over the years has reinforced that.

    Lookit, I once thought that to be good in bed all you have to do is show up. I realized that, with just a little bit of effort to learn how, I could enjoy sex way more. Similarly, I learned that with a little bit of effort to learn how, my marriage (and other aspects of my life) can improve by leaps and bounds, which it has. If you are rejecting marriage, fine I am not going to stop you. But this is a blog dedicated to the idea that we can understand how women tick and by understanding, influence them. Some do this to get more sexual gratification, some to get revenge. Others do it to improve their own lives and the lives of the women they love.

  14. Herbal Essence says:

    Also note the increasing frequency of women making NAFeministsALT and “No True Scotsman” arguments as Feminist corruption is exposed. I.E. “Women who hate men aren’t true feminists” “Women who call all men rapists aren’t true feminists” “Women who oppose paternity testing/shared parenting aren’t true feminists” “Women who oppose marriage and heterosexual coupling aren’t true feminists” etc etc etc. Of course we know that is all BULLSHIT as each one of those things are among the core tenants of the ideology.

    Related, is the conflict arising between radical feminists and average women. Radical feminists are outraged at normal women’s negative attitudes towards the term “Feminism” and continued refusal to become lesbian communist apparatchiks. Normal women (including our frenemies on the political Right) seem to be looking for a soft landing back into the protective arms of male good graces, while still holding onto every single one of their ill-gotten gains.

    With that said, I’m afraid our struggle is just beginning and I still expect it to get worse before it gets better. (President Hillary?)

  15. Herbal Essence says:

    It is especially hilarious seeing Manboobz tear into this video, as he is even worse than these guys.

  16. Oak says:

    @Dan In Philly: As someone who has sworn to never marry, yes you could say I expect I’ll never have to ‘work on marriage’. But that’s a bit of a trueism and not really what you are getting at I assume?

    The reason I’m not a car salesman isn’t because I hate cars. And the reason I don’t game women isn’t because I hate women or relationships.

    You can’t end up in the Halls of Misandry (Family Court) unless you have a child, or willingly marry. I think willingly participating in a code of law that is written specifically for disenfranchising your own gender is… well, it’s bizarre. Man’s uncanny ability to act against his own best interests has to be a gender handicap of some kind. You rarely see women act that way!

    My GF treats me better than most wives precisely because she has nothing to gain by leaving me. I have little need for ‘game’, other than giving her the vague impression that the fish is not quite on the hook. It makes her work harder.

    It seems to me that a woman who knows anything about divorce laws knows that she’s the one in the driver seat, no matter what ‘game’ you play with her or yourself.

    But I’m happy it works for you and your wife. May you always be her best option!

  17. Oak says:

    Just another comment… I ‘get’ and appreciate what you are doing, and it may work for some men.

    I simply don’t see it as a solution to the problem of broken marriages in the Western World.

    Because the probem is the marriage contract itself. Until men have actual parity with women in Divorce Court, no husband can call himself free.

    Since actual parity will never happen, all men must avoid marriage. Relationships? Sure, have them. You can even cohabitate in non-commonlaw states… Just refuse to willingly be subjugated.

    I can’t think of better ‘game’ than that.

  18. Paige says:

    You guys make divorce sound like winning the lottery. Almost all the women I know dread divorce like the plague.

    What is the best case scenario for a middle-class homemaker divorcing a middle-class husband? I can’t fathom any scenario other than trading-up with a richer guy that would be financially beneficial for the wife. And how many well-to-do guys are itching at the chance to raise another womans kids?

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Eric
    Feminism has so ingrained itself into our culture that even women who claim to repudiate it adopt its fundamental attitudes. Read some of the posts by the so-called ‘traditional women’ on this forum, for example. Nothing but shaming/blaming men; bragging about how much jerks turn them on; and lecturing men about how the ‘real women’ are unfeminine, unattractive and uninteresting. NAWALT—LOL.

    I’m reading a lot of this basic sentiment lately, and I really don’t get it. Women bloggers like grerp, Laura Breathing Grace, and Alte all add a great deal to the discourse, and all strike me as genuine. I do get a sense of “men need to fix this because women are incapable of making better choices” from Paige and Haley at times, but I don’t doubt either’s sincerity and their perspective in that regard is the opposite of feminism. The only female blogger in the manosphere who seems to fit the trad-con “man up” description is Laura Wood, which I have already addressed.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    You guys make divorce sound like winning the lottery. Almost all the women I know dread divorce like the plague.

    Fair point. Even if you go with what seems to be the worst case stat of 50% of marriages ending in divorce, that still leaves 50% which don’t. Obviously a very large number of women (and men) are deciding to stay married out of some combination of:

    1) Liking being married.
    2) Honoring their promise.
    3) Being realistic about their options and the impact of their choices would be on their kids.

  21. Lurky the Lurker says:

    My GF treats me better than most wives precisely because she has nothing to gain by leaving me. I have little need for ‘game’, other than giving her the vague impression that the fish is not quite on the hook. It makes her work harder.

    *comes out of lurking mode* I’m curious. Do you spend every day trying to outmaneuver her, or just remind her daily that she is just this side of unwelcome?

  22. Oak says:

    @Paige… They apparently ‘dread divorce’ only half as much as men. And they initiate it twice as often. Actually, that statistic is a real problem for your assertion.

    The Best Case Scenario for a middle class housewife:
    1. The House.
    2. Full custody of the children.
    3. The car.
    4. Hefty child support payments, and in some States, Alimoney.

    The Best Case Scenario for men looks quite different.
    1. The House (Provided she doesn’t want it.)
    2. Full Custody of the Children, (Provided she’s in prison at the divorce hearing.)
    3. The Car, (Provided she doesn’t want it.)
    4. Child support (Provided… wait… nevermind. I’ve never met a single male that received child support from a woman.)

    In other words, any decent outcome for a man in a divorce hearing is the direct result of a woman deciding she wants to play fair.

    Been reading Athol’s book… I’m still stumped on one point:

    If women’s attraction is due to a man’s Alpha status…

    And marriage automatically put’s men in Beta status… (see above)

    See what I mean? Seems to me the best way to stay Alpha, is to stay single.

  23. Paige says:

    But if the woman stays married she keeps the house, the custody of the kids, the car, and gets 100% of her husbands income. If she leaves she *may* get the house, the car, the custody of the kids and much smaller % of her husbands income.

    So even though she is likely to come out *better* than the husband…it is still a downgrade from the previous arrangement.

    If the woman has been out out of the job market to raise kids then she has even more to fear, because her odds of getting a job in this competitive economy are very low.

  24. Paige says:

    And one more thing:

    Another huge deterrent to divorce is the fear of sharing your kids with a step-parent. The idea of having to share my kids with whatever floozy shacked up with my ex gives me vapors.

  25. Badger says:

    “I’m reading a lot of this basic sentiment lately, and I really don’t get it.”

    I’m actually reading a lot less of this sentiment lately. Game and MRA are “crossing the chasm” and penetrating the broad market, thus we are getting more moderated and diverse voices instead of the first wave which was guys who had been fu**ed by the system. That’s not even including the young game bloggers for whom women are more a tactical problem to be solved (i.e. moved into the sack) than a strategic pox on their lives.

  26. greenlander says:

    Women will never end feminism voluntarily. As Eric pointed out, feminism is so ingrained in our culture that even non-feminists can benefit from feminism even while they disavow it.

    Men don’t do “groupthink” like women do. Women tend to act politically as a group, but men don’t: they’ll easily throw their fellow men under the bus just as they’re evolutionally wired to do. Feminism benefits alpha males (who are largely the ones driving the system), so they have no real incentive to help betas.

    Feminism is backstopped by Big Government through a combination of make-work jobs, entitlement programs for poor mothers, high taxes and “family” court. The good news is that the cracks in the system are starting to show. The promises that the government has made can’t be paid for long-term at any level of income tax, even if you assume that people’s work habits wouldn’t change if you taxes them at 100%.
    For better or for worse, this will come to an end. You can already see the cracks in the system starting to form if you look at it. We are all Greece now. When it happens, women will be back to looking at “providers” (betas) to support them directly instead of having Big Government do it.

    You guys make divorce sound like winning the lottery

    Certainly, divorce can be bad for women, but on the whole it is much worse for men. Upper betas really get screwed by divorce.

  27. CSPB says:

    Paige,

    You provide a rational reason why many women would avoid divorce. But as you know some women do not think rationally, especially those with a “Cluster B” disorder. The number of these women are NOT insigificant. Therefore they will extract as much as possible during the divorce and afterwards. Such women are even willing to kill the goose that laid the golden egg in the process, so they can sell the goose feathers and down.

  28. Oak says:

    @ Paige: A man living with you is going to exert control over what is rightfully part his.

    By divorcing a man, you eliminate any say he has in your life, his children’s life, and you get the estate in the process.

    You still haven’t addressed why women divorce twice as often as men if divorce is so horrible to them.

  29. A Lady says:

    A woman who has only ever made 25k max at a job, who is married to a guy making 90k has a strong financial incentive to guarantee herself a stream of protected income in the neighborhood of 3-4k/month (child support) for what will now likely be 26 years instead of 18-21 (thank, Obamacare!). And in fact, you see it a lot with engineering types married for a time to some very low earning wife. The second wife is pretty screwed in such scenarios, if there is one.

  30. Paige says:

    A lady:
    The scenario you speak of is foreign to my experience since I am middle-class and really only rub-elbows with other middle-class women, but I can see that in that instance child-support would provide a liveable income.

  31. Paige says:

    Of course, even in that case it is a huge risk. Ex-hubby could get depressed, quit his job, and go off the grid. Then you are screwed living with your 25k income.

    I am not much of a risk taker so I tend to play out all the worst possible scenarios of an action. I can’t really relate to women who take needless risks because of some ridiculous post-divorce fantasy.

  32. Oak says:

    @ Paige: We have something in common! I can’t relate to men who take the needless risk of marriage.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @Oak
    Even if Eric ‘shouted it from the rooftops’ you can forget about most women listening to the message. Women will not change until men start refusing to marry, en masse. At that point, they’ll start to ask questions: “How can I get a man to act against his own best interest, and marry me?”

    When the answer is: “You can’t. They aren’t interested any more.” THEN, something interesting and useful may occur.

    I don’t think we will see men refusing marriage en masse, or if we do at that point we probably have passed the tipping point of bringing things back into balance and marriage as an institution is probably done.

    However, I don’t think it will take that many men to tip the balance. If an additional 5-10% of men (the right 5-10%) decide marriage isn’t for them, that would send shock-waves through the culture. Over time this would bring back sanity to the law, courts, etc. This kind of change wouldn’t require men to act as a block, it only requires a group of men on the margins to make a different choice about what is in their own best personal interest. I suspect we are already seeing the beginning of this, and it will be fueled initially at least by the decision of so many more women to postpone marriage past their most marriageable years.

  34. Pingback: A Way For Gamers To Prove Themselves Right « Omega Virgin Revolt

  35. Oak says:

    LOL! “The RIGHT 5%-10%.”

    Well said, as usual Dalrock. I agree. Although I would call 10% of marriagable young men refusing to marry as ‘en masse’.

    [D: Thanks. It sounds like we are in agreement.]

  36. Lurky the Lurker says:

    If an additional 5-10% of men (the right 5-10%) decide marriage isn’t for them, that would send shock-waves through the culture. Over time this would bring back sanity to the law, courts, etc.

    Which 5-10% is the “right 5-10%”?

    Also, why should that push the balance back, rather than resulting in more, increasingly intrusive governmental invasion of men’s lives and pockets, both generally and specifically?

  37. Susan Walsh says:

    Thanks for the link Dalrock. Re the decline of feminism, I do think it is real. It’s true that many young women may passively reap the benefits of feminist efforts, but the fact that so few young women identify as feminist means that there just won’t be many women to carry the flag. It’s lost its momentum as a movement. That’s been true for a long time, and sex-positive feminism arose to fill that vacuum, but I don’t really see where else it can go from here. It’s sputtering. In addition, few ardent feminists will reproduce – no one is raising children to appreciate feminism or encourage activism on behalf of women’s rights.

  38. Clarence says:

    Susan:

    Yes, as much as I respect and like Clarisse Thorn, she seems to be an extreme of “poly” type of woman. I don’t suppose she’ll ever have a kid or two, for all the sex and play she is having.

    And she’s just one example and not vehemently anti-child. Many -probably most- of the sex possies are anti-child, after all a child might spoil all that fun.

    So it’s a self-limiting movement.

  39. Clarence says:

    Regarding marriage:

    Paige is forgetting that the government won’t give the man the option to be broke. He’ll work or he’ll sit in jail with a ruined life. That this is often unfair, unconstitutional even when deserved (debtors prison is outlawed), and often counterproductive doesn’t matter. They don’t really have any other options and they wouldn’t know a carrot instead of a stick if both things poked them in the eye.

  40. sestamibi says:

    “The whole women are just men who sit down to pee argument of feminism goes straight out the window.”

    These days more like men are just women who stand up to pee . . . and who knows how much longer we’ll be able to do that!

  41. PT Barnum says:

    People have such insane rationalization hamsters.

    Times are bad for 80-90 percent of the American population right now. Even the oldsters. 14% of the population is on food stamps. Pretty much +90% of young people are very, very unhappy. America IS a third world country. Yeah, yeah, 1-in-7 Americans on food stamps doesn’t mean anything. Spare me, I don’t care.

    So women have decided it is time for the male-animal to get in the drivers seat. Yeah. I got that. Don’t care. But I do get it.

    Kinda like when Susan Walsh said she had to break up with that football player guy IN THE NASTIEST WAY POSSIBLE cause he cried about his father having died. Cause you know, she didn’t have attraction for him. Well, that’s why she broke up with him. She hurt him because she decided to, wanted to, be nasty and evil.

    I know, I know, I’ve like made things so complicated by dividing not-having-sex-with-someone and how-you-treat-someone-you-are-not-having-sex-with into two categories.

    That’s like so complicated. Dude. Like way.

    Yeah, women are willing to latch unto that meal-ticket now. Yeah, I imagine they are.

  42. Paige says:

    I am not forgetting that an inability to pay child-support is sometimes punishable with jail time, but I also know many men who have somehow managed to divert the obligation without jail. Perhaps they are living off the grid or perhaps they found another way to avoid jail.

  43. jack says:

    Turning on them with ridicule is a winning strategy.
    Feminists have been using the chivalry and honor of men as a safe harbor from which to launch their attacks.
    Once men (like myself) learn that no concession is ever going to be enough, we stop conceding anything.

    I have ridiculed feminist talking points to great effect in recent months.

    Girl: blah blah feminisnt talking point blah

    Me: That’s ridiculous. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Girl: Stunned silence.

    Shit-test the females for a change.

  44. Clarence says:

    PT Barnum:

    You provide much entertainment as a clown, but not much in terms of a purveyor of lies.
    You should go back to hooking up smart and read Susan’s post on shit-tests if you are going to comment on it.

  45. Clarence says:

    Paige:

    It is true that men who cannot be found, and sometimes men who have never had much of anything and are currently living off the grid as you say, can avoid this stuff. But try being a married man with even so much as one really lucrative job and you’ll be imputed faster than your head can spin. It’s also true that most of the guys and gals on the deadbeat lists don’t have steady employment or if they have, it’s always been low level.

  46. Opus says:

    Paige says that fear avoid Divorce like the plague. That strikes me a rather strange given that some forty per cent of Marriages end in Divorce and of those nearly all are instigated by females. If Paige is right then it would seem that women have a very strange way of reacting to fear i.e. by doing the very thing they fear.

    I conclude therefore that there must be something they dislike more than Divorce, namely, remaining married.

  47. Paige says:

    According to this only 40% of couples with children divorce.

    http://www.divorcestatistics.org/

    I’d like to know the ages of the children but I couldn’t find a statistic for that.

  48. Brendan says:

    An interesting thread.

    1. While it’s true that some men may opt to go off the grid to avoid paying C/S, this is not going to be that common. If a guy is trained professionally as an engineer or a lawyer or a doctor or even a business exec, going off the grid doesn’t really have any appeal at all, because his own ability to make a living is dramatically compromised by doing so. Guys who are more likely to go off the grid are the guys at the two ends: the ones who are marginally low (and can live off the grid in a way that is more comparable as to what they would living on the grid) and those who are marginally high (who can shunt assets to a numbered account in Switzerland, leave the country and expatriate/naturalize themselves in a country without an extradition treaty with the US). But most guys are in the middle of these two extremes, and are not going off the grid. It’s true that divorce leads to higher costs for both parties, but the reality is that in SAHM marriages if the husband is a significant earner, he is harshly punished financially in a divorce … the same often holds true in the converse situation, but not always, as there are cases where SAHDs have not been given custody of the kids in a divorce, meaning they are S.O.L. financially (it’s the kids and the annuity of C/S that make divorce potentially lucrative for the custodial spouse).

    2. As for why women initiate divorces more often, finances play a big role, but a more central role is custody/control over the kids. The two issues are, of course, linked, because our legal system links large payouts with winning custody. But it’s not just money — it’s also exerting unilateral control over the kids, which is a way of disenfranchising and disempowering the husband that they are so pissed at which is a motivating factor as well. This is the same reason so many women play around with visitation as well — it’s a means of exerting control over the situation and disempowering their exes. In short, it’s about power, which is not surprising as male/female relations in our culture have been largely redefined to be viewed and experienced as relationships based on power, either in a balanced or imbalanced way.

    3. Regarding feminism, I wouldn’t count the movement out yet. It’s true that the “rank and file” support for feminism has become less vocal and common — probably because most women seem to feel that the “big stuff” has been mostly won. However, as a political movement feminism continues to be a huge player behind the scenes. The influence of the political feminist cadre on the Obama administration has been substantial, and groups like NOW and Emily’s List punch above their weight. Feminism is also disproportionately represented in the academy and the mainstream media as well. It may very well be that the rank and file of women are not going to be marching in the streets anytime soon to any large degree, but the cadre of feminist activists remains hugely influential and punches well above its weight.

  49. Dalrock says:

    I linked this on Reddit yesterday, and found this comment from aetheralloy this morning:

    Right now feminism relies on one simple thing – appearing to be counterculture. That’s what keeps it from being perceived as just another lame propaganda thing. It is why feminists constantly have to portray themselves as victims, when they’ve clearly actually become the system. How else could you have mainstream college classes and degrees about it while still pretending to be fighting the system? The moment feminism loses that, it’s dead – utterly dead. Feminists know this and so keep inventing new “outrages” to get upset about. Anger sells, and feminists market the shit out of it.

    Feminism can never let itself be perceived as mainstream, because the moment it does – it will become uncool – and will be rejected as openly and easily as things like spanish club and abstinence groups.

  50. Clarence says:

    “Only” 40 percent of couples with children divorce, Paige?

    I don’t know where you come from but 4/10 is nearly half. That’s a disaster of epic proportions esp for the poor children. I’d bet that 3/4 of those divorces wouldn’t have been allowed if we had the old “fault” system.

    And “only” 4/10? Would you like to try those odds at Russian roulette?

  51. Clarence says:

    Nova:
    While I have no doubt that custody plays a huge role in things and arguably a bigger role than it did even 30 years ago what with all the financial incentives for the custodial parent, this still doesn’t explain why divorce spiked so much around the “irreconcible” differences and “no fault” eras. Remember we had the “tender years” doctrine for nearly 100 years before we did the no-fault legal stuff. I suppose it’s the combination of almost guaranteed custody and rigourously enforced financial support that drives divorce now. Back in the days before no fault getting a CS order enforced across state lines, even if the man was NOT working in the underground economy was very hard.

  52. Dalrock says:

    Paige

    In the interest of heading off a hamster hunt🙂 I’d like to clarify what your position is. I read your initial comment not as denying that divorce is frequent or that the system is unfair to men, but simply a statement that rationally it is still generally a very bad choice for women. Am I right?

  53. Paige says:

    yes, i meant “only” in the context of 50% being the norm. Not in the sense that it is not high in and of itself.

  54. Gorbachev says:

    Women don’t like the pansies that feminism turned men into.

    Once again, it’s women who are betraying the feminist cause.

  55. Eric says:

    Dan/Philly:

    It runs counter to ‘Game Theory’ because Game Theory doesn’t work. It can’t work in a cultural environment where women are conditioned to believe themselves superior to men. They will always gravitate to the worst men, not the better ones.

  56. Clarence says:

    Eric:

    You make no sense. Women are consistently attracted to strength and confidence. Sometimes the people who display these traits are sociopathic. Sometimes they are womanizers. Sometimes these men are good guys. It’s the same as its always been.

    I’d like to see your definition of a “good man”.

  57. PT Barnum says:

    You provide much entertainment as a clown, but not much in terms of a purveyor of lies.
    You should go back to hooking up smart and read Susan’s post on shit-tests if you are going to comment on it.

    Again, why do I care about whatever semi-sane lie you can produce today?

    You are like this BrotherDaniel in the comments of this youtube video:

    Sure, sure, people pushing BrotherDaniel’s “position”, on the wonderfulness of a college education in law, have been proven to be total liars. Deliberate, malevolent liars. Watch the video. But BrotherDaniel, ya see, he has a fall-back lie. The lie dialed down by a single degree. And can I prove that wrong? Can I? Well can I?

    The answer is, I don’t have to. I don’t care. To bad.

  58. Eric says:

    Dalrock:

    I’m not saying that men should even go so far as foregoing marriage; I think it’s a personal choice. If they do so, they can’t hope to do successfully with women raised and educated in our culture. Like Oak and Greenlander both put well: the culture has corrupted American beyond any hope of intervention.

    The reason I don’t think ‘men can fix the situation’ is because the majority of women in our culture have no interest in being ‘fixed’. They categorically despise men and regard us as their inferiors—why should any of us believe they care about our opinions when they could care less about us in every other respect?

    To give you an example, I’ve spoken with foreign men who’ve stayed in the US. All of them tell me that they never learned to appreciate the women in their own countries until they experienced how pathetic American women really are. When I’ve asked them what characteristics they see in American women, ‘selfishness’ comes up 100% of the time; and shallowness, ruthlessness, and an utter incapacity for empathy, respect, genuine affection come up frequently as well. Those square with my own experiences pretty closely; and I’m not alone either. The only demographic showing improvement in American marriages and families involves a foreign-born woman.

    I think women in our culture can’t be ‘fixed’; they need to be shunned and avoided by any decent man—none of us with whom they want a serious relationship anyway.

    That’s what I hope to do here and elsewhere; help men get out of this relationship hell before any more of them get damaged by it. Whether that means turning to women in other cultures or MGTOW, depends on the man’s choice. As for the women; they all agree that they need us like ‘fish and bicycles’ ; and prefer relationships with the weaklings, the unintelligent, and the dysfunctional—so they can either take care of themselves or let the bums they’re so attracted to take care of them.

  59. Eric says:

    Clarence:

    Sure, they’re attracted to strength to confidence. That’s why alpha studs like Justin Bieber are voted among the ‘hottest guys in America’. Probably also explains why the out-of-wedlock birthrate to unknown, alcoholic, abusive and drug-addicted fathers is so high.

    Also, if you need other men to explain to you what a ‘decent man’ looks like, nothing I could say here would make any sense to you either.

  60. Clarence says:

    Eric:

    Right. Which is why George Clooney and Justin Beiber are the same type of man.

    You have nothing worth to say since you can’t define your terms.

    Therefore, I expect people on this blog will start ignoring you soon.
    We all recognize trolls.

  61. Clarence says:

    PT. Barnum:

    I am going to alert Susan Walsh to your comment about her.
    I suppose you could say : well, it was just an INTERPRETATION of mine, but I doubt you could produce specific things from the incident in her life in question to back up your interpretation.

    Eric may be a troll; you seem to simply be a jerk.

  62. CSPB says:

    PT Barnum:

    Eggagerating and projecting motivation in the course of shaming others in not needed. SW shared her actions to explain female behavoir and for introspection. Now you use it for a different purpose. Useful personal revelations on the blogs is often too much for the jerks to resist. I applaud women that are honest and engage in discussion so all can learn and understand the innate behaviors of each sex.

    No one has led a perfect life and always treated others in the best possible way at all times in their past. But the people I respect are those that admit it to themselves and are honest with others. Ironically those people tend to not attack others either.

  63. Sweet As says:

    Finally, I found the time to be able to read this.

    I didn’t follow the links, and other than — as you say — cultural/social acceptance of women in men’s roles and men in women’s roles, feminism isn’t doing so much. But, cultural change is a lot. And yes, there are issues surrounding it. And, yes, I think feminism (particularly boomer feminism) is largely dying out.

    But, in regards to the rape case, I usually take issue in manner of dress. It’s a flimsy “reason/excuse/precaution.” The reason is this — in countries where women dress very conservatively by law, rape still happens. And the woman is often blamed (usually by law), as well as the man. Perhaps she showed too much wrist. Perhaps she giggled when she saw birds fly away and had a slight fright. Whatever the reason, she is to blame.

    This brings me to beg “are women to blame for rape?” I truly don’t think we are — no matter how we dress, giggle or what have you. To truly be free of rape, we have to be cloistered carefully (part of the reason why said muslim countries also have rules about women never traveling alone, or without a male escort from their family). And I’m not sure I want to be cloistered.

    And this is not apologizing for short skirts. I agree that the way a lot of very young women and even children dress is provocative. It’s a massive issue, in my opinion.

    Anyway, I have to run to work. Covered from neck to ankles, but well dressed, and without an escort!😀

    [D: I fear you have missed the point.]

  64. Doug1 says:

    Paige—

    What is the best case scenario for a middle-class homemaker divorcing a middle-class husband? I can’t fathom any scenario other than trading-up with a richer guy that would be financially beneficial for the wife. And how many well-to-do guys are itching at the chance to raise another womans kids?

    The fact remains that wives file for divorce 2.5x as often as husbands, and many divorce attorneys say that in college educated couples wives are really the one’s behind the divorce about 90% of the time.

    Maintaining two households on the same income is worse for both but it’s even worse for the ex husband.

    Marrying or living with a guy who makes about the same amount of income is much better for her. She gets child support=alimony plus a share of the new man’s income, plus generally the house and more than half her husband’s other assets, since he’ll have paid for her attorney’s fees and has transaction costs in getting a new place, new furniture, etc. Plus his kids are ripped from his life for the most part, and the mother often alienates the kids from their father.

  65. Dalrock says:

    @Eric
    That’s what I hope to do here and elsewhere; help men get out of this relationship hell before any more of them get damaged by it. Whether that means turning to women in other cultures or MGTOW, depends on the man’s choice. As for the women; they all agree that they need us like ‘fish and bicycles’ ; and prefer relationships with the weaklings, the unintelligent, and the dysfunctional—so they can either take care of themselves or let the bums they’re so attracted to take care of them.

    I assume my readers already know my own take on the issue, so I typically let your comments stand without reply. I don’t have anything against other points of view being included in the mix and I trust the reader to form their own conclusions. One thing I would say though is that I’m not convinced that finding women overseas for marriage is a better bet, especially if they return to the US after marriage. The absolute worst shrew wives I have seen have all been Filipino women married to US Navy men. I’m sure there are a great deal of feminine and faithful women in the Philippines, but none of them have married any man I know.

    To me it all comes back to men having their eyes open and making the best informed decision they can. For some that will mean not marrying, others will decide to marry women raised in the US, and some will follow the route that you suggest and marry abroad. Whatever choice they make there will still be risks and trade-offs.

  66. Doug1 says:

    Dalrock–

    They have been extremely successful here. The vast majority of women now either actively approve of female promiscuity or largely remain silent on the topic out of fear of promoting a double standard. We also have seen a general embrace of bitchiness and selfishness/entitlement driven by a concern that any social restraints on women are proof of a diabolical patriarchal conspiracy. Women generally also have a pathological fear of pleasing their husbands and boyfriends. We also see the vast majority of women defending divorce fantasy movies and accepting the selling of divorce to women, or at the very least remaining silent about them. Additionally, feminism has continued to successfully sell a sense of female martyrdom and unhappiness to women.

    All these attitudinal things need to be rolled back.

    [D: I think this is the easy part. From a practical perspective, most men only need to find one woman who has rolled this back, or at least mostly rolled it back and then lead her the rest of the way. You would have to roll back an entire harem, but that is your cross to bear. Those of us raising daughters have the additional task of countering the negative culture so they grow up well adjusted. All of the legal stuff you mention below is the hard part. I have no idea how long that part will take.]

    Plus divorce law reformed with child support=also alimony percentages assessed on after tax income, no alimony in this time when women can work in all levels of the workforce according to their education, training and abilities, which they and not their husband are responsible for, and assets increased during the marriage should be split according to who earned them, or that should be the case after some threshold is reached.

    The violence against women act (VAWA) with it’s men are guilty until proven innocent automatic 90 day orders of protection forcing the man to move out of his house on a mere accusation with no injury just a return slap or “feeling unsafe” despite no history of serious domestic violence, should be repealed. Assault and battery laws are plenty.

    Sexual harassment law with it’s ridiculously low thresholds should be repealed.

    Affirmative action for women, and all quotas, set asides and so on should be ended, and the disparate impact test of the EEOC should be repealed, as should Title IX of the civil rights law. The equal pay for equal work campaign should be laughed at. It’s not equal work. Who do they want to decide what is, other than employers? Another vast government bureaucracy? Similarly the glass ceiling thing should be ridiculed.

  67. Kerzon says:

    I’m reading a lot of this basic sentiment lately, and I really don’t get it. Women bloggers like grerp, Laura Breathing Grace, and Alte all add a great deal to the discourse, and all strike me as genuine. I do get a sense of “men need to fix this because women are incapable of making better choices” from Paige and Haley at times, but I don’t doubt either’s sincerity and their perspective in that regard is the opposite of feminism. The only female blogger in the manosphere who seems to fit the trad-con “man up” description is Laura Wood, which I have already addressed.

    Maybe I can shed some light on this. No one is complaining about women like Hestia, LGR, grerp, etc. The complaints I believe apply to Laura Wood, Alte, Kathy etc. and maybe Paige and Haley, etc. (I’m not familiar with Paige and Haley to say for sure.) For example, “Nothing but shaming/blaming men; bragging about how much jerks turn them on; and lecturing men” definitely applies to Alte and Kathy. Alte has explicitly said as much.

    It’s clear why women like Hestia, LGR, and grerp are here. It’s not clear why women like Alte and Kathy are here. The latter group of women seems to spend most of their time attacking the unmarried men of the manosphere for not being married/having sex outside of marriage and several other sins they made up. They never attack women for these sins (and in the case of premarital sex women are doing that more) so it exposes what their real agenda is. Yes, they say they’re against premarital sex in both men and women, for example, but their actions show us otherwise.

    Women like Hestia, LGR, and grerp don’t make up sins to claim the men of the manosphere are sinners, and then try and hide behind the Catholic Church. They also don’t manufacture baseless attacks like Alte did against Hawaiian Libertarian. We men get enough misandry from the churches so we avoid them. We don’t need church misandry in the manosphere. That’s why there’s a lot of sentiment against “traditional” women.

  68. Sweet As says:

    No, I understood your point. I’m just questioning the point where there is victim-blaming.

    In a culture where skirts have been short for more than 50 years, and where most men seem capable of keeping themselves from raping women just for wearing them, it seems a bit obtuse to say that the cause of the young woman’s rape — in part — was the length of her skirt. That is victim blaming.

    I agree that people should understand how their mode of dress affects others. I speak about this to lots and lots of young women (I’m even considering starting a deportment, etiquette, and elocution component to my business), but it’s more about understanding the gaze of others (male and female) and NOT about providing crimes against them.

    Also, I’d like to understand what people say and have people behave more kindly. Manners are so important to me. I’m “old school” about it (or “stodgy”).

  69. Kathy says:

    “For example, “Nothing but shaming/blaming men; bragging about how much jerks turn them on; and lecturing men” definitely applies to Alte and Kathy”

    You obviously have not read too many of my comments Kezron. I have never said once, that jerks turns me on.. Because they never have.. Lol..

    What I have said is that I love my husband very much (have been married to him for 15 years).. I have also mentioned more than a couple of times, that in all those years, I have not once had thoughts of sleeping with another man.. Such is the deep and loving bond and connection that we share..

    As for shaming and lecturing men? If they dish it out, I just give it back.. Simple as that.

    ” The latter group of women seems to spend most of their time attacking the unmarried men of the manosphere for not being married/having sex outside of marriage and several other sins they made up. They never attack women for these sins (and in the case of premarital sex women are doing that more) so it exposes what their real agenda is.”

    What have you been smoking, man.. I have never ever said that MEN should get married (women either) Some people are not meant for marriage.. I have also said many times that it is a huge risk for a man to marry, as it is so easy for him to be taken to the cleaners and have his kids whisked away if a wife chooses to divorce him.. So, I don’t blame men for not wanting to marry, because I can sympathize with them.

    I am a practicing Catholic and so I am against pre-marital sex…It is a sin regardless of whether you are a male or a female.. I have indeed attacked women for being sluts, as I have men.. I am bringing my daughter up to be chaste, and she understands that apart from it being a sin a girl will be viewed as a slut if she sleeps around, and will not be considered to make a good wife and mother..

    “Yes, they say they’re against premarital sex in both men and women, for example, but their actions show us otherwise.”

    Where have my actions shown otherwise?

    Put up or shut up!

  70. Clarence says:

    Kerzon:

    Do you need me to link you to Alte’s blog today where Hawaiian Libertarian is commenting on a food thread?

    These people are FRIENDS, you silly gimp. I’ve been hanging over at Alte’s a lot the past month or so and I can assure you attacks bad behavior in women plenty. Her and LGR recently buried the hatchet a bit too.

    God, all the gossip around these places, sometimes..

  71. Kerzon says:

    As for shaming and lecturing men? If they dish it out, I just give it back..

    So you have been lectured by the manosphere about not having premarital sex. I don’t think so…

    Where have my actions shown otherwise?

    Show us a link where you attack women for premarital sex like you have attacked many of the men of the manosphere for the same thing. All you have to do is provide a link to prove me wrong but I will take additional emoting as proof I’m right.

    These people are FRIENDS, you silly gimp.

    For now. There were other men Alte considered friends until she imagined some sleight as an excuse to declare a jihad against them. It almost happened to Hawaiian Libertarian. It will happen to guys like him, Novaseeker, and Elusive Wapiti sooner or later.

  72. Paige says:

    Mature adults can have a disagreement and then work things out.

    Some men are comfortable sparring with women the same way they do men. Most men aren’t, and that is why Alte and those like her are not every manosphere guys cup of tea, but the guys who do like her appreciate her candor.

  73. Kathy says:

    YOU are the one making unsubstantiated accusations. It’s up to you to prove them. If you had been following my comments at various blogs you would have seen the proof for yourself.. One particular young woman, I called out as a slut some time ago, was defended by a man, because she had less then 10 partners.. Lol.

    There are many who have read my stuff for a longtime now, and know that I have spoken out against women and men engaging in premarital sex. In any case, as I pointed out fornication is a sin.. I am a practicing Catholic. Do you have a comprehension problem..?

    “So you have been lectured by the manosphere about not having premarital sex. I don’t think so…

    What a ridiculous statement. You are trying to deflect, here.. LOL!
    In any case you originally said this

    “For example, “Nothing but shaming/blaming men; bragging about how much jerks turn them on; and lecturing men” definitely applies to Alte and Kathy”

    Lecturing men is what you specifically said. Now you are twisting your own words.

    I have had shaming language directed at me many a time. Told to run along cause the men are talking. They have even tried to shame my husband by refering to him in a derogatory manner. Been called a c*nt a bitch.. etc.. I have been lectured many a time on how stupid I am, and asked what have I done for the MRM.. ? Also ben told what I should be doing..

    This just off the top of my head.

    So, I sucked it up.. Bitching and moaning like some others over at The Spearhead was futile because I’d get down voted into oblivion. Lol!

    “It will happen to guys like him, Novaseeker, and Elusive Wapiti sooner or later.”

    You are a fool. These men are held in high estem by Alte and myself. We have great respect for them. And there are many others like them too.

    Sluts of either sex, don’t command respect.

  74. Kerzon says:

    Some men are comfortable sparring with women the same way they do men. Most men aren’t, and that is why Alte and those like her are not every manosphere guys cup of tea

    Of course lots o men aren’t comfortable sparring with women. Many women when they don’t get their way just start crying and accusing the man of being a bully. That’s exactly what Alte did to Hawaiian Libertarian even if they made up later.

    I am a practicing Catholic.

    The Catholic Church is misandrist. The Catholic Church attacks men for things that aren’t sins and acts as if women are sinless. I spent years going to quite a few Catholic churches and never once were women criticized. Men were criticized for things they didn’t do and for things which weren’t sins in the Bible all the time. I left that feminist institution and never looked back. Being a “practicing Catholic” is being misandrist.

  75. PT Barnum says:

    I am going to alert Susan Walsh to your comment about her.
    I suppose you could say : well, it was just an INTERPRETATION of mine, but I doubt you could produce specific things from the incident in her life in question to back up your interpretation.

    Susan won’t comment, because Susan knows *bleep* well when the “Never Be Mean To Females No Matter What” shield is down. And buddy, the shield is down.

    Eggagerating and projecting motivation in the course of shaming others in not needed. SW shared her actions to explain female behavoir and for introspection. Now you use it for a different purpose. Useful personal revelations on the blogs is often too much for the jerks to resist. I applaud women that are honest and engage in discussion so all can learn and understand the innate behaviors of each sex.

    I distinctly remember the first time I ever shit-tested a guy. I was in the eighth grade and he was a freshman at the high school. I had just moved into his neighborhood. He was a big guy, a very promising football player, and cute. He liked me, and was extremely attentive and sweet.

    One day he talked about his father’s funeral the year before. As he described the feelings that had come over him as he approached the open casket, he broke down and began to sob. His huge, masculine body shuddered as he poured out his heart and his grief. I felt a surge of empathy, but also alarmed. I had never been in this role, and felt unprepared to cope. I also felt repelled as the tears streamed down his cheeks and fell from his cleft chin.

    What I did next will undoubtedly strike you as heartless and indicative of the true nature of women, which of course it is. I share this admission because of its potential to reveal a glimpse of the female psyche, and because I do not believe that my response was in any way unusual or unpredictable.

    A couple of days later, we hung out and he was back to his cheerful self, but now truly emotionally tethered to me. He gazed at me adoringly and told me how lucky he was to have found such a nice girl. He asked me for my photo, so that my face could be the last thing he saw before he went to sleep each night.

    Here is what I said.

    “I’ll give you a photo, but only if you do something first. You have to earn it. My favorite song is Band of Gold by Freda Payne. Tonight when you get into bed, turn on your radio. Promise me you won’t go to sleep until you’ve heard it.”

    He promised.

    The next day after school he came over and excitedly reported that he had stayed awake until 3 a.m., but that they had finally played the song. He’d been exhausted all day, but had done exactly as I asked.

    I gave him the photo, and dumped him three days later.

    I took this out of context. How amusing. Really.

  76. PT Barnum says:

    The second set of blockquotes contain to seperate groups. One is the person claims that I somehow misunderstood Susan’s maximum damage behavior, and the other the tale of Susan ripping flesh off as much as she could.

    Did the football player kill himself? I wonder. Would that have made Susan happy in a Drama Generating way? A better question.

    It wasn’t a “shit-test”. She had already decided to break up with him, certainly by the time she gave him her picture. So really, don’t be stupid.

  77. greenlander says:

    In any case, as I pointed out fornication is a sin.. I am a practicing Catholic.

    So, you’ve come to thump your Bible at a bunch of atheists seeking to impose your deity’s value system on everyone else? Well, that’s really helpful.

    Kathy, it’s shocking how obtuse you are. Can’t you see what’s going on in our culture? (Oh, I almost forgot: it’s been fifteen or more years since you went on a date.) Most women of marriageable age don’t want to get married. So, staying celibate until he is married really isn’t an option unless he wants to be a virgin until he is thirty-five, at which point he can marry a perimenopausal woman in her thirties… who probably is far from a virgin. And it would probably be the case that she wouldn’t want him at that point: the damage to his self-confidence and psyche from never being laid would probably make him seem “creepy.” Even if he succeeds, he’s facing marriage 2.0. And without extensive experience handling women, he’s probably facing divorce 2.0.

    The only real situation where a man can reliably marry his SMP peer early is if he is religious and he also lives in a religious community, such as the Mormons in Utah. Anywhere on the urban coast it’s pretty close to impossible.

    Facing that situation, the logical thing for him to do is to go get at least some skill at seducing women, and to do that you have to bang them. That’s why men are doing exactly that. It’s why there are all these “game” blogs and instructional materials.

    So, I sucked it up.. Bitching and moaning like some others over at The Spearhead was futile because I’d get down voted into oblivion. Lol!

    Well, there’s a reason for that. It’s because you waltz in with an arrogant attitude and spew sectarian BS at everyone without offering a real solution to the problems that men face. So, it’s pretty predictable that everyone is going to think you’re a raging cunt.

  78. Clarence says:

    PT:
    “Kinda like when Susan Walsh said she had to break up with that football player guy IN THE NASTIEST WAY POSSIBLE cause he cried about his father having died. Cause you know, she didn’t have attraction for him. Well, that’s why she broke up with him. She hurt him because she decided to, wanted to, be nasty and evil. ”

    No, dipshit, she gave him a shit test without even consciously knowing what she was doing. And he failed it.

    Read it: a few days later he has intense one-itus for her, and she shit tests him. Oh, how terrible.

    You totally failed to prove she tried to “maximize” his suffering – nastiest way possible? What planet do you even live on? And by the way, she was a freaking 14 year old girl. A little cruelty and stupidity is expected of both sexes at that age.

    Decided she wanted to be evil..no, you decided you wanted to be a jerk. Congratulations, you’ve succeeded. Difference between her and you is that she was a young teen acting partly unconsciously, and she regrets how it went down. Meanwhile you are a grown-ass adult , or at least you pretend to be, and you imagine you can read her teenage heart and mind so you can make cruel and vindictive posts about her as a person.

    I think somewhere in your past there was either a really really bad breakup, or maybe mommy was just mean to you.

  79. Kathy says:

    “In any case, as I pointed out fornication is a sin.. I am a practicing Catholic.

    So, you’ve come to thump your Bible at a bunch of atheists seeking to impose your deity’s value system on everyone else? Well, that’s really helpful. ”

    Er, no…. keep your shirt on. Greenlander…

    Kerzon accused me of not taking women to task for being sluts, which is rubbish.

    How could I be a practicing Catholic that abides by the tenets of my faith, if I only shamed men for being sluts, eh?

    I would be a hypocrite..My faith means a lot to me, and I mentioned it to point this fact out. Not to bible bash.. (rolls eyes)

    So you see, you are approaching this from an incorrect premise, Greenlander..

    As for the rest of your rant, you don’t have to justify your actions to me.

    There are certain men for whom I have great admiration and respect.. Whose opinions I value. Some have succeeded in changing my mind on certain matters..

    Then there are others who are arrogant, boastful, belligerent and unethical.. They use people up.. I have no time for such people..(male or female)

    “Well, there’s a reason for that. It’s because you waltz in with an arrogant attitude and spew sectarian BS ”

    Umm, no, it was because I was a woman. When I commented on the Spearhead, I avoided all talk of religion (unless a post was specifically of a religious nature.) because I respected the fact that many who commented were atheists.. I was not there to proselytize.. I was there because I found many of the articles informative and interesting. I did indeed have a lot of sympathy for many of the men there who had been treated shabbily by women.. Particularly, the younger guys….

    It is ironic that you accuse ME of offering no solution for men, because that is one of the reasons that I left TS.. Lol.. No real solutions to help the younger guys.. Just the tired old mantra “Don’t Marry”
    Easy to say for the older guys who had been married and had kids. Not a solution however.. Reproducing is a biological imperative, and no matter what
    is said sooner or later many of these guys would indeed marry..I found it very disheartening..And, I felt very sorry for these men.. I still remember reading comments from men who would dearly love to find a good woman and have a family..

    What about them?

    “So, it’s pretty predictable that everyone is going to think you’re a raging cunt.”

    “Everyone” eh? Lol….

    You seem to miss the point once again.. I was responding to Kezron’s accusations, not whingeing..The name calling was really water off a ducks back to me.. I knew that it was a tough gig at the Spearhead.. I could choose to leave anytime.. And, I eventually did. It drained me mentally. (my husband could see this, and told me to stop reading TS and I did 🙂 )

    A very nasty element had crept in, and basically women were not welcome.. Most opinions were down voted into oblivion unless they were of a fawning nature.

    Even a dumb blonde like me can take a hint, eventually😉

  80. tspoon says:

    Kathy you seem to lack an understanding of why people, men and women, believe that a persons clothing and behaviour are germane to the issue when things like rapes occur. This is a standard behaviour for humans in any situation involving unforeseen occurrences, where the unfortunate person or group find themselves needing assistance from others.
    For instance if two people went hunting and became lost, needing rescue services to help them from their predicament, the question is always asked, what were their preparations? News items commonly feature the disparaging comments of rescuers, upset that the people they helped were woefully under prepared for the events that occurred.
    Really it all boils down to this : If you don’t care enough about your personal safety to take simple easy steps to protect yourself, why on earth should I care what happens to you, let alone expend any effort to help?

  81. Opus says:

    There seems to be an Inverse Rule that:

    The more provocatively a woman dresses, the more she will complain about Male Attention,

    and there is a corollary that:

    The more Provocativley a Woman dresses, the less hot she is (or at least perceives herself to be).

    Men do not dress in a Provocative manner. Were they to do so, they would be shunned by Women and Avoided by men (as it come over as Gay).

  82. Back to the original point…

    If feminism hasn’t jumped the shark, we need to do everything to encourage feminism to jump the shark.

  83. Paige says:

    Greenlander: women who want to save themselves for marriage still exist though they are increasingly rare (you probably have to stalk conservative Churches to find them). Those women DO want to get married sooner rather than later because they are horny and want to get started having babies.

  84. slwerner says:

    tspoon – ”Kathy you seem to lack an understanding of why people, men and women, believe that a persons clothing and behaviour are germane to the issue when things like rapes occur.”

    Returning late, I’m a bit confused here. I don’t see a comment from Kathy regarding immodest dress & rape.

    I may be wrong here, but I believe that “strawman” was erected by Sweet As (April 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm & April 19, 2011 at 10:28 pm). I’m not even sure why she brought that up – it’s as if she was having her own private conversation with herself about this notion that women are widely blamed for getting themselves raped due to the way they dressed (yes, that does happen sometimes, but it comes almost exclusively from other women, not from men, as it seems to me she tries to imply).

    There is, however, much to be said about the way women dress and what “message” it sends to men. There was a good deal of discussion of the matter on MarkyMark’s blog some time back, and the thing that became quite clear – from women – is that those who chose more appropriate dress (even what one might call modest), they received a great deal of respect from the men they encountered. On the other hand, they observed their female counterparts who (for the sake of ease and clarity) dressed like sluts were treated like sluts by men. Almost as if their chosen dress was mean to project the type of woman they were.

    It goes a long with what Opus says (April 20, 2011 at 4:30 am):

    ”There seems to be an Inverse Rule that:
    The more provocatively a woman dresses, the more she will complain about Male Attention,
    and there is a corollary that:
    The more Provocativley a Woman dresses, the less hot she is (or at least perceives herself to be).”

    If anyone wishes to discuss the outcomes that women can expect based on the way they chose to dress, it would make sense to NOT fall into the trap of engaging anyone who tosses out the notion that women are blamed (by men) for getting raped, but rather focus on the level of respect a woman id likely to be shown based on the way she dresses.

  85. tspoon says:

    my bad Kathy…

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    As I mentioned way up at the top, the men in the video have eyes that are full of pleading. Therefore, they trigger all sorts of “unfit” reactions in the subconscious of women, although some women can rationalize themselves to find one or more of them tolerable/passable.

    I went to Futrelle’s well of misandry and examined both the posting, and the thread of comments. Two things stand out:

    First, Futrelle and the other misandrists continue to repeat the falsehood that feminine-ism (cite: zed) is about “equality”. The men in the video are all doing what feminists have claimed for 30-40 years they want men to do: they are Sensitive to a fault, they are publicly anti-patriarchy, they are New Age. They are SNAGs. They are clearly willing to do anything a woman asks them to do — and that’s the definition of “equality” in fish/bicycle land. Just as die-hard Marxists continue to claim that Marxist-Leninist dictatorships are all about “equality”, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Feminism not only looks more and more Marxist every day, it also more than a bit resembles a cult.

    Second, all of the women dislike the men in the video. All of them, apparently, are feminists. As a novice student of Game, I fully know why they dislike the men in the vid and proclaim them to be “creepy”; it is that limbic system reaction, the “gut level” reaction to men that are acting like Betas or Omegas or Sigmas. All the reasons given are after-the-fact justification of the initial, female, reaction to men who clearly are unable to fight, or provide, or lead.

    So we have men who are doing as they have been told, and the universal reaction from that particular small sample of feminists is “yuck”. Once again, Roissy and other men are vindicated: do not pay attention to what women say, watch what they do. In this case, what the feminist women are saying today directly contradicts what they and their sisters have been saying for decades.

    No, feminism has not jumped the shark. But I believe it is getting closer and closer to that stage.

  87. Herbal Essence says:

    Paige-“women who want to save themselves for marriage still exist though they are increasingly rare (you probably have to stalk conservative Churches to find them)”

    Dear Paige, Kathy, and any other traditional woman reading this: Three of my male friends married women just like as you described above.

    #1 – After five years of marriage, the wife has pushed out one kid and has gained about 80 pounds. She is a stay-at-home mom, and shrieks at her husband (my friend) 24/7/365 about how grateful he should be to work 60 hours a week for her and her son.
    #2 – The woman pushed my friend into a fast marriage and pregnancy soon after meeting him. After having two kids, the husband got laid off due to no fault of his own. She DIVORCED him and promptly re-married some new provider she had waiting in the wings.
    #3 – Immediately after becoming pregnant, the wife told my friend “I am no longer sexually attracted to you, but we have to stay married for our child.” She has not let her husband touch her for THREE YEARS and has sworn to turn any divorce he initiates into the Inquisition.

    These are the “Traditional Women” men have to choose from these days. Do you not understand why men are avoiding marriage?

  88. Paige says:

    Greenlanders complaint was that there were not any marriage-ready virgins. I said there were. You responded with more “but marriage sucks” commentary which is a totally different argument.

  89. Eric says:

    Clarence:
    The readers recognize trolls, they also recognize manginas. Go back to surfing Match.com now, Angloboy.

  90. Eric says:

    Dalrock;

    I’m not saying that marriages to foreign women is for everybody; but all the canards American women use against them apply much more forcibly to themselves. Foreign women are lampooned in our culture as scammers, sexually loose, or willing themselves be preyed upon by unscrupulous men. As is the case with shaming tactics, the projection here is obvious. American women scam men in divorce courts, slut around with bums so much that THEY are the ones being laughed at by women in other countries.

    You’re right that in a committed relationship there are risks and trade-offs. But American women believe that a relationship is an entitlement program where men risk and commit to everything while she does nothing but give back abuse. Foreign women tend to see the partnership on an equal basis. This is especially true when children are involved. American women believe themselves the exclusive ‘owners’ of sex and reproduction. Foreign women want men who are husbands and fathers.

    The ultimate point here is that a meaningful relationship with an American woman is an exercise in sheer futility. At least with a woman from another culture—one that doesn’t categorically hate men—a man has a reasonable chance of making a permanent union work. If that option doesn’t appeal to him, he’s better off MGTOW.

  91. PT Barnum says:

    Clarence:

    *bunch of lies*
    *stock ‘wit’ that he has been saying since he was in his 20s*
    *bunch of lies*
    *more lies*
    *tells me how “it is” like I’m a woman and that would work AT ALL on me*
    *various insults*

    Clarence, you failed to address why she gave him her picture though she already intended to break up with him. I’ve already given you a pass on “shit-tests” that are inhumanly cruel, you now expect me to ignore just being cruel? I guess that’s the “next level”. You can just be open and “be yourself” rabid animal biting everything in sight and all. I expect better. And I’m pretty sure any religion you care to name expects better. Though maybe a Santa Muerte cult in Mexico or Kail worshippers in India might not. What do you think? I doubt the voodoo sorta-Christian cults in Brazil would agree though.

  92. Clarence says:

    Eric:
    I’ve probably been on mens rights websites and involved with it almost half as long as you’ve been alive.

    In any case, you’d get respect if you had an argument. But I can recognize a loud mouthed retard when I see one. And you fit to a “t”. Knowing this, you make grandiose claims you do not back up. Thus I consign you: useless troll.

  93. Clarence says:

    PT Barnum:

    Here’s what your sub-normal IQ fails to grasp:
    A. She probably would have considered having a relationship with him if he had passed that test.
    B. She had made a promise. The promise wasn’t : I’ll be your girlfriend if you do this. The promise was, he’d get the photograph.

    He got the photograph.

    Do I have to hold your hand any longer?

  94. Kathy says:

    Clarence is neither a troll or a mangina..

    I know this is probably not gonna help things for you much, Clarence. (Hey I’m a woman.)
    But, I can’t let Eric bad mouth you like that because I think that he is wrong.

    I’ve read lots of your comments.. You get stuck into the women and put ’em straight when you think that they are wrong..

    Sheesh, you’ve given me a good old telling off too!

    Definitely not a mangina or a troll.

    Let it go Eric..

  95. Clarence says:

    Thanks, Kathy.

  96. Susan Walsh says:

    @Clarence
    You’ve always struck me as one of the most open- and fair-minded people on the various comment threads, so I appreciate your understanding of what I was trying to do in my controversial post. Of course I anticipated some responses like PT Barnum’s and it’s fair enough – I say straight out in the post that my behavior undoubtedly seems heartless, and that I am ashamed of it. I wrote the post to make a larger point though, one that has nothing to do with me personally, and I’m glad you were able to see that.

    Perhaps not all of us have failed the test of empathy in our lifetimes. I have done so on numerous occasions. I remember them all very clearly, and have used them as opportunities to teach my own children. I view that as my penance. Funny, I recall my own sins far more clearly than any of the wrongs that I’ve suffered at someone else’s doing.

  97. Dan in Philly says:

    Susan, you did the guy a favor by dumping him in the manner you did. If he had half a brain, he would start wondering why, and maybe he thought about changing his approach. If you had lingered on, he might not have associated the dumping with his pathetic behavior, and might have truly thought that kind of thing was approved of by desireable women. At any rate, you didn’t owe him anything, and he was a big boy. Even if he learned nothing else, he would be able to learn that you gets dumped, life goes on…

  98. PT Barnum says:

    You’ve always struck me as one of the most open- and fair-minded people on the various comment threads, so I appreciate your understanding of what I was trying to do in my controversial post. Of course I anticipated some responses like PT Barnum’s and it’s fair enough – I say straight out in the post that my behavior undoubtedly seems heartless, and that I am ashamed of it. I wrote the post to make a larger point though, one that has nothing to do with me personally, and I’m glad you were able to see that.

    Perhaps not all of us have failed the test of empathy in our lifetimes. I have done so on numerous occasions. I remember them all very clearly, and have used them as opportunities to teach my own children. I view that as my penance. Funny, I recall my own sins far more clearly than any of the wrongs that I’ve suffered at someone else’s doing.

    I remember a quote of some stupid man made about his Grandmother. Grandmother claimed she stayed with her husband because “she had made a commitment” and that was “important” in “her day”.

    In “her day” 1 in 6 marriages ended in divorce and there is an appallingly huge divorce spike immediately following the end of WWII as almost every women who had a slightly damaged man jumped ship.

    That stupid man ate up her claims like the white knight idiot he was.

    So Susan, you say a lot of pat lies. The problem is that you are used to playing for a bunch of white-knight suckers who could be “tricked” by any woman in any thing no matter how stupid the story.

    Susan’s responses to posters who question her “ideas” in any way shows that she haven’t changed at all. If you, dear Susan, wish me to actually waste the time digging up what a nasty little harpy YOU STILL ARE then you have but to ask. I am at your disposal.

  99. PT Barnum says:

    B. She had made a promise. The promise wasn’t : I’ll be your girlfriend if you do this. The promise was, he’d get the photograph.

    He got the photograph.

    Do I have to hold your hand any longer?

    Well, now I know to never buy a used care from you, eh Clarence?

    Ha.

  100. Eric says:

    Clarence:

    I really have more important things to do than talk to punks like you; if you weren’t cowering behind a keyboard somewhere, you’d be having your insults answered right now with my fist across your nose. So back off, Slimebag.

    [D: Don’t make me stop this car and separate you two.]

  101. Clarence says:

    Coming on a website and acting like one is the second coming to reveal the Mysteries of Manhood and Women and then not even being able to back up said big talk is rather pathetic. I have no apologies about noticing this, Eric.

  102. Susan Walsh says:

    @PT Barnum
    Blackmailing me with threats to reveal what I have written on my own blog is rather hilarious. No one needs you to dig up dirt – it’s all right there in the archives, even highlighted in Best Posts!

    I will refrain from making any guesses about your status in life or relationships with women, because that would be shaming language.

  103. Clarence says:

    Susan:

    That’s the way to deal with that person.
    Just remember his name is associated with clowns, circuses, and other such things that take one’s attention off the important stuff.

  104. Kathy says:

    I remember this old saying.. I did it right, I heard it never.. I did it wrong I heard it ever..
    Everyone makes mistakes. We learn from these mistakes and grow .. and become better people as a result, able to empathize and understand how others feel.

    No one should be hounded for something they did a long time ago, when clearly they were sorry for those actions and learnt from them.

    .”Funny, I recall my own sins far more clearly than any of the wrongs that I’ve suffered at someone else’s doing.”

    And, I do too Susan.

    Of course there will always be the few clowns out there, quick to point the finger at your own inadequacies and failings, whilst, (completely lacking in introspection) failing to acknowledge their own.

    I remember what Dr Carl Sagan said :

    “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    Bozo is best laughed at and ignored I reckon. 😀

  105. Anon says:

    I will refrain from making any guesses about your status in life or relationships with women, because that would be shaming language.

    Susan, there is no excuse for saying a man’s worth is based on his relationships with women or how much he is getting laid, like you have done here. I have no idea who “PT Barnum” is but I don’t care if he’s the reincarnation of Hitler because a man’s value isn’t based on his utility to women.

  106. Kathy says:

    Lol! Another clown.. This one anonymous..

    Barnum tries to dig up the dirt on Susan, hoping to cast her in a poor light, by discrediting her. (yet all is there for everyone to see on her blog)

    He refers to her as a nasty little harpy, and also calls her a liar, and YOU take her to task for this statement below:

    “I will refrain from making any guesses about your status in life or relationships with women, because that would be shaming language”

    And, from that one sentence, you extrapolate THIS?

    “Susan, there is no excuse for saying a man’s worth is based on his relationships with women or how much he is getting laid, like you have done here.”

    BWWWWWHHHHAAAAAAAA!

    A clown indeed 😀

  107. Anon says:

    He refers to her as a nasty little harpy, and also calls her a liar, and YOU take her to task for this statement below:

    “I will refrain from making any guesses about your status in life or relationships with women, because that would be shaming language”

    And, from that one sentence, you extrapolate THIS?

    “Susan, there is no excuse for saying a man’s worth is based on his relationships with women or how much he is getting laid, like you have done here.”

    Yes I take Susan to task for that statement. I don’t know who “PT Barnum” is. I don’t care. I don’t care if he’s the mutant lovechild of Hitler and Satan. I don’t care about what’s going on between Susan and PT Barnum. What I care about is how not getting laid/not being in a relationship is a go to argument against any man for disagreeing with a woman. Why don’t you and Susan tell him he has a small penis too? I would object to that as well.

  108. Kathy says:

    ” What I care about is how not getting laid/not being in a relationship is a go to argument against any man for disagreeing with a woman.”

    She said nothing of the kind.

    You read into Susan’s statement something which is not there..

    Pure projection on your part..

    After the ill considered and malicious rant from Barnum in which he attempts to impugn Susan’s character (and which you so conveniently ignore because, hey.. it’s only a woman) I am surprised that she contained herself as well as she did..

    I suppose you think that she should take the insults and suck it all up , eh?.. shakes head in disbelief…..

    Barnum deserved a good shellacking for that poor show…(metaphorically speaking)

  109. PT Barnum says:

    Blackmailing me with threats to reveal what I have written on my own blog is rather hilarious. No one needs you to dig up dirt – it’s all right there in the archives, even highlighted in Best Posts!

    You’ve actually never had a male be actually cruel to you, have you?

    I suggest you look at my posts in the next thread for my ability to research.

    You wanted the thunder, bitch, then you are going to get it.

    I’ll take a day or two to get a nice good block. And then, and this is the key part,

    I WILL NOT STOP.

    Have a nice next few days.

  110. PT Barnum says:

    ” What I care about is how not getting laid/not being in a relationship is a go to argument against any man for disagreeing with a woman.”

    She said nothing of the kind.

    She says it all the time on her blog, more or less constantly. This is why you delusional harpies imagine yourself to be good. You live in a fantasy world where the things you said yesterday, well, you would never say such things!

  111. Eric says:

    Clarence:
    You’re the one who talks pretty big when hiding in the safety of Cyberspace. I live in Seattle, Washington; two train stations from the airport. Feel like paying a visit and backing up your words, Tunnelmouth?

  112. PT Barnum says:

    You know, what’s really interesting is that Kathy seems to imagine I care what the Susan claims to think. Susan has already admitted that she lies and deliberately deceives people in order to hurt them. I have no idea why I would take anything she says seriously.

    Really, it’s a good question. You are dealing with a liar who enjoys hurting people. And I take the babble coming out of it’s mouth seriously why?

    I don’t like the arrogance though. The imagination that she is tough. THAT is an insult.

  113. Dalrock says:

    @PT Barnum
    I’ll take a day or two to get a nice good block. And then, and this is the key part,

    I WILL NOT STOP.

    Have a nice next few days.

    I’m pretty open with what I allow in the comments, but I won’t let my forum become a platform for a personal vendetta against another blogger. If you have something you think is relevant, share it by all means. If you want to wage a war of attrition do it somewhere else.

  114. Clarence says:

    Eric:

    And if I was to fly across the country and beat you to within an inch of your life, your argument would still be just as idiotic. Why should I bother?

    Simply back up your arguments with facts rather than insults and you, too, can use the internet for fun and profit. Or something like that.

  115. davey says:

    the worst thing is that it’s 4/10 MARRIED couples who divorce with children.

    The last i heard 40+ per cent of children were born out of wedlock…..

    and so if you do the simple math thats easily 60+ per cent of children living in very questionable circumstance in this day and age.

    God help these bastards.

  116. Doomed Harlot says:

    The “Dear Woman” video was unfeminist because it was condescending. As a feminist woman, I don’t need to have my intelligence insulted with the suggestion that women possess special earth mother “feminine energy” that magically renders me perfectly gentle and all-nurturing. I know I am a human being with human flaws. I would ask these men to not blow smoke up my ass by suggesting otherwise.

    Feminists have always been opposed to placing women on a pedestal. Placing women on a pedestal has often been used to keep women out of politics or the workplace — the idea being that women’s purity shouldn’t be corrupted by the rough-and-tumble of politics or the evil influence of filthy lucre. Placing women on a pedestal is dehumanizing and often results in excessively harsh controls in women of normal human drives like ambition and lust. And we also know that it’s a long, hard fall off that pedestal. I see that in the manosphere often in comments from men who sound extremely angry when they realize that a woman they’ve idealized isn’t a perfect princess.

    As for feminism jumping the shark — we’re a victim of our own success. Many young women today have NO idea what it was like just 30 years ago, so it’s tough for them to see why feminims is important. They take the gains of feminism for granted. It’s also tougher to identify discrimination or poor treatment of women because sexist attitudes are not as blatant as they once were. That said, I think jumping the shark because women have benefited so much they don’t see the need for feminism is a fairly good problem to have as problems go.

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    Doomed Harlot
    The “Dear Woman” video was unfeminist because it was condescending. As a feminist woman, I don’t need to have my intelligence insulted with the suggestion that women possess special earth mother “feminine energy” that magically renders me perfectly gentle and all-nurturing.

    Ah, more solipsism. It may or may not interest you to know this, but there have been plenty of feminists who have indeed insisted that women have special “earth mother feminine energy”. As I’ve pointed out before, one of the arguments of the sufragettes 100 years ago was that when women got to vote, politics would be cleaned up, because women were “more moral” than men.

    Feminists have always been opposed to placing women on a pedestal.

    More solipsism. It is trivial to find feminists who argue that women are better than men (that is one form of pedestalization), in fact the media have been full of such articles in the last few years. Feminists nod approvingly at the growing imbalance of men & women in college, for example, in some cases the same feminists who screeched “discrimination!” in the 1990’s when the population percentages were reversed.

    Placing women on a pedestal has often been used to keep women out of politics or the workplace — the idea being that women’s purity shouldn’t be corrupted by the rough-and-tumble of politics or the evil influence of filthy lucre.

    But you women are more than ready to place yourselves on pedestals when it serves your purposes. As any review of workplace deaths will reveal…

    Placing women on a pedestal is dehumanizing and often results in excessively harsh controls in women of normal human drives like ambition and lust. And we also know that it’s a long, hard fall off that pedestal. I see that in the manosphere often in comments from men who sound extremely angry when they realize that a woman they’ve idealized isn’t a perfect princess.

    It is indeed a long fall off of the pedestal that you feminists have placed yourselves upon, and in the coming decades I think we will begin to see that. The fact that many men still foolishly idealize women merely demonstrates how badly they need to learn the truth about women — Game teaches that.

    What pedestal? Oh, for a start the one that feminism teaches with “women’s only custody, men’s fault divorce”, the feminist anti-Family court system, the feminist right to make a false rape accusation any time or place for any reason, paying no price at all if found out…and I can go on, oh, yes.

    As for feminism jumping the shark — we’re a victim of our own success. Many young women today have NO idea what it was like just 30 years ago, so it’s tough for them to see why feminims is important. They take the gains of feminism for granted. It’s also tougher to identify discrimination or poor treatment of women because sexist attitudes are not as blatant as they once were. That said, I think jumping the shark because women have benefited so much they don’t see the need for feminism is a fairly good problem to have as problems go.

    I’m sure that you see the current system as pretty good, because no one you know is suffering. More solipsism. Here’s a clue for you: all the things around you that you take for granted, from clean water to electricity to reliable food supplies, are provided mainly by men. Actively discriminating against men in education starting in kindergarten is already having an effect, and will have more effects in the future. If you are as smart as you claim to be, you’ll see where that leads.

    Feminism in the long run will disappear. Maybe into a burkha…

  118. AJ says:

    Thank you Doomed Harlot for the insightful comment.

    It saddens me to read blogs like this. I feel sorry for these people who seem to hate and/or be terribly afraid of women.

    I’m a young woman and I am very thankful for efforts of the feminists of the generation before me. Aside from the dramatic legal, social and economic gains, I think perhaps the most important achievement of first wave feminists was to endow me (and my generation) with the inherent belief that I have *options* in life, that there are no closed doors for the hard worker, and that my value or worth is not solely derived from what kind of *woman* I am, but from what kind of *person* I strive to be. And for that, for making women’s identity about more than just their sex, I am incredibly grateful.

  119. Pingback: More proof feminism has jumped the shark | Dalrock

  120. Bob says:

    All I want to say here is that I’m a senior in high school with a girlfriend who is not feminist at all, and accepts the hypocrisy (without me saying anything before hand). The stigma I face as a growing boy in this new society seems to be focused on how boys are failures, just playing video games and staying at home; doing nothing and wasting away. I go to an accelerated program, where the education is very rigorous, yet I still somehow receive this stigma from people. Feminism isn’t dieing, its still alive. My generation is not perpetuating it at all, if there’s an arrogant woman who thinks she is better than men (of which there are some, maybe due to the immature, radical opinions associated with teenagers in general), she is known as a mean person, by women and men both, because constantly having something judgemental or trash-talking to say gets old fast. Who are perpetuating it seem to be people like Kathy (no offense I don’t really know a lot about you), who are older women who are still in the old mindset of 60s-90s feminism. They support the view that men are pigs, that they are bad; and that they will have sex whether you want it or not; that they aren’t going anywhere; I’ve even heard one parent state that men are good for nothing but procreating anyways… This seems crazy and insane to me, but its things I hear everyday. The children don’t give a shit because they’ve grown up in an equal world as far as we are concerned; our generation accepts the differences of women and men but accept that they can both do whatever they want (access to higher education etc.), it’s the mothers who are still stuck in the 60s feeling the “pain” of their supposedly persecuted D1 Lacrosse Scholarship athlete daughter that are the issue. Men of my generation need not be scared of their girlfriends, for women don’t feel the need to be superior now, since everyone knows its just unfair and mean (this also applies to douchy guys) and that they have all the opportunities they could ever want. Men fear the girlfriend’s mother, for the mother tells the daughter of persecutions that they don’t even exist. It’s somehow become ok for older generations to look down on my generation of men. Our generation of women have respect for us, and we them. Why do we have to be hated on and doubted by older women who honestly don’t even know what is going on these days? Because if you were to come down to high school level, or college level, its nothing like you keep saying it is. Both the men and women in this feed may be right for their generation, but seriously guys. Men shouldn’t fear women because women shouldn’t be out to get men in the first place. The women in my generation aren’t. So, Kathy, Clarence, Eric, Barnum and the rest, take it from a high schooler. Grow the fuck up. Don’t act like men are out to get you Kathy, and Clarence your calling of Barnum a troll was uncalled for and brown nosey. Susan and Dalrock, way to have an interesting conversation. Susan, I get what you were saying about the picture, but honestly the guy didn’t get it and he obviously liked you. You were 14, I get that, and you represent the mother that taought her kids how to be nice. Yay😀 You and Dalrock I respect because you didn’t just fight, bitch and shame each other like Barnum, Kathy and the rest did. You three got nothing good done. Kathy, you are going about it the wrong way. Don’t defend Susan’s meanness (no offense Susan), provide a nice way she coulda done it. Don’t blame the guy or say it was ok. Same with you Clarence. How could you look at that and be instantly like “troll”? You seem just very out of line, and are doing more ad hominum than actually refuting Barnum’s points, no matter how biased and angry they were. You then just like more of a bad guy than him. All three of you, grow up and be like our generation. The way to stop all this shit is not through game or superiority or bitchiness. Just accept that women have a goddamn vagina and men have a penis, and that neither really matter in the long run because women are not naturally bitchy. Nor are men naturally misogynistic. And vaginas and penises don’t prevent either sex from doing anything. Just go do it. By reacting to each other, you have created the bitch and the misogynist, because that’s the only way to challenge the other. Women can do whatever, and I speak for my generation when we say we don’t give a shit. Women should be equal, and if you all would stop fucking it up and hating each other, we would be equal and we wouldn’t have overshot it into man-hating territory. Even the feminist of my gen have respect for everyone. The solution is not rebellion or anti-man/anti-female. Its cooperation. No offense to anyone btw🙂

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s