The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Why Feminists Hate Us

Feminists loathe anyone who participates positively in the Manosphere – PUA, MRA, MGTOW (defined below). I used to attribute that feminist loathing to simple man-hating. That was too basic, too binary for me and didn’t seem wholly accurate. I finally figured something out with the help of a blogger, “girlwriteswhat” and video a found over at Dalrock’s blog. She has an interesting blog and at least one excellent (if long) video.

While some radical feminists might be up for some righteous hate upon men, the average, card-carrying feminist simply can’t loathe all men. That’s because they need men, they just can’t admit it. As girlwriteswhat states clearly in her video and in some of her excellent posts, men are still expected to sacrifice their very lives on the alter of womanhood. Men have the social obligation to put the needs of women before the needs of themselves. This is the ultimate privilege that women possess.

Us Manosphere guys, the Red Pill men, the guys who figured it out, we know better. We don’t put a woman’s needs before our own. Run into a burning building to save an unknown woman? We’d think twice. It’s that hesitation which galls feminists so much.

A PUA sees an attractive woman? He doesn’t think twice about her relationship status, his needs come first. That galls feminists, too. A man eschews a committed relationship with a woman to live on his own terms? How dare he put his own needs first? He must be a man-child.

When I read Amanda Marcotte (no link from me) rail against MRAs, I know that it’s simply an expression of her incredible fear that she won’t be rescued first from the burning building. Yet she and her ilk continually denigrate the aggressive nature of masculinity – they use the rape culture proxy – that provided the vital attitudes of ambition, achievement, competitiveness, and assertiveness that built our civilization. Note the hellish hypocrisy of women bashing masculinity yet still expecting men to suborn their needs to those of women.

Even women who don’t identify themselves as feminists feel extremely awkward when confronted by a typical Red Pill question: “What do you bring to the table in terms of dating and a relationship?” The sense of awkwardness is a manifestation of fear that perhaps the man asking the question has learned too much about female privilege and male sacrifice.

Feminists tore up their side of the social gender contract and are desperate to keep men upholding their unbroken side of that contract. But the Manosphere keeps shining a bright spotlight on how that contract is so badly broken and that men should simply no longer sacrifice themselves for the needs of women.

PUA – Pick Up Artist

MRA – Men’s Rights Activist

MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way (Confirmed bachelors, amongst other things)

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

83 thoughts on “Why Feminists Hate Us

  1. “what do you bring to the table?” seems to be coming up more and more. i LIKE that.

    • Looking Glass on said:

      Well, it’s just a nicer way of asking, “why should I bother?”. 🙂

    • Blissex on said:

      I knew a guy who was a very attractive alpha, and girls threw themselves at him, and he was a very bizarre “traditionalist” and would court them (if they seemed “quality” girls) regardless.

      Eventually they would tell him to make a move, and a conversation like this followed:

      HIM “so why do you want me to make a move?”
      HER “well, you have been taking me out and to nice places and keeping me entertained and happy, and doing interesting things, and been so sexy with me, and I want a relationship with you because of that, so just get on with it…”.
      HIM “I think in the same way you do”
      HER “so get on with it!”
      HIM “I did not say I think the same you think, but in the same way. That is, you want to have a relationship with me and like me because you have enjoyed all that I have done for and with you, which I did because I really like you. I was wondering whether you liked me, and perhaps whether you thought like I did. Now I know that you do. So what have you done for me? Why would I want a relationship with you? Despite all that you said I have done for you, you have done nothing for me”
      HER “Fuck off you asshole. I’ll find someone else less arrogant who expects nothing more than letting him fuck me.”

      This happened several times (it got boring hearing the nearly same story each time). I always told him that he expected to find not just a unicorn but a winged unicorn, and he eventually started to realize that.

      • Kind of dumb on the part of those women, to expect that the only thing they needed to bring was themselves
        “My presence is my gift to you”, and then keep enjoying the high life without any thought towards the other person in the relationship, or how to sustain it.
        I’d have thought they would be able to understand that a good woman … does good things for her man.
        Maybe logic really is patriarchal, when women can’t grasp that.

      • Because a woman who does things for her man is a rare mythical creature? That’s pretty sexist for a guy claiming to want to restore gender equality. Let’s conduct ourselves better than the feminist crowd.

      • That’s because I AM sexist. The genders are so differently biologically and psychologically that gender equity is simply impossible. As for the social contract between the genders and how badly is been torn asunder, I urge ALL men to work on re-writing that contract on strictly masculine terms.

      • “Because a woman who does things for her man is a rare mythical creature?”
        No, terroja,
        it’s because the “woman who does things for her man”
        is usually doing it out of fear of losing him …
        not out of respect of loving him.
        Most ones treating the man in a relationship in that way … would be out the door if a better offer came along.

        In other words,
        for a man to be treated well by a woman,
        he has to have options.
        Because women only consider men with the ability to have (sexual) relationships with other women as worthy of respect.
        You can see how that way of thinking works out, in the divorce statistics and single motherhood.

      • I’m starting to think that is my problem with women. When I really like someone I give what I can and put my terms on the table, but if the other person doesn’t do the same, I assume she is not interested and I just walk away. Maybe I’ve been reading the situation wrongly.

      • Blissex on said:

        «“Because a woman who does things for her man is a rare mythical creature?”
        No, terroja, it’s because the “woman who does things for her man” is usually doing it out of fear of losing him … not out of respect of loving him.»

        Something like that. Indeed there may be a critical difference between before and during the relationship. Women who do something for the man who is going after them before the relationship has begun are exceptionally rare. My impression is because they reckon that they don’t have to butter him up, because he is pursuing them, so it would be wasted effort. They have the upper hand, he is investing in them, and they are not yet invested in him.

        In his cynical attitude my natural alpha friend would court the girls that threw themselves at him also to screen the “opportunists” (he was indeed a traditionalist); and unsurprisingly the vast majority of those who were trying hard to chase him showing off what they could bring into the relationship would stop doing so as soon as he turned around and courted them, perhaps because they thought they had then hooked him and they had the upper hand. Let’s say he was very sad to listen to (and eventually he completely changed style).

        «Most ones treating the man in a relationship in that way … would be out the door if a better offer came along.»

        Conversely the impression is that after the relationship is started a woman usually feels a bit invested in the relationship (I wrote “in the man” originally and realized it was probably wildly optimistic) and will occasionally do something to butter him up to protect her investment.

        «In other words, for a man to be treated well by a woman, he has to have options.»

        “treated well” is a bit excessive here; it may be more precise to say “buttered up to protect her investment”.

        «Because women only consider men with the ability to have (sexual) relationships with other women as worthy of respect.»

        Uhm, another impression is that “respect” is not the right word here, not even gansta “respect” (which is based on fear).

        Perhaps it is simply that women will do the minimum they can get away with to protect their investment (if any) in the relationship from the competition (if any).

      • @FChang
        A man who refuses to be played, can’t be played.
        You’re a man who’s refusing to be played. Bravo.
        Men need to date more like women – if she shows no interest, you move on.
        Otherwise you are being taken for a fool.

      • will010574 on said:

        This manosphere, Red Pill et al is very new to me (in the sense of reading blogs) and I have spent all day reading blogs vice being a productive member of society. While I am not convinced on all points thus far, I am quite aware of the broken social contract and am both overjoyed and saddened that so many others are also aware. Overjoyed that we have identified the issue and can start fixing it and saddened that as men we stood idly by (not my nature) while the whole thing shifted out from under us.
        Regardless, I am not a PUA or Red Pill (still learning about this one) man, at this point I identify more with the MGTOW (I am a 38 yr old divorced father of two and while opportunity is everywhere am and have been living the bachelor life rather than settle).
        To my point: The comment above is absolutely fantastic. I have often experienced the same thing, not quite as eloquently as the poster above but yes dear god yes! What do you bring to the relationship? I can find a pretty face and a warm body just about anywhere…so ladies, what are you bringing to the table?

      • Welcome, Will.

        The Red Pill takes time to digest. It’s a lot more than PUA, and while we give a nod of acknowledgment to PUAs as one of the first waves of Red Pill, most of us here, being older, don’t generally go for a lot of that stuff. Still, there are insights there. There are many different definitions and aspects to the Red Pill and “Game” (or Charisma, as PM calls it) and I’ve found it beneficial to take away what works for me and leave the rest.

        I have greatly appreciated re-learning stuff that I once knew (though I didn’t know that I knew it at the time) but lost as well as insights into female psychology and the damage that feminism has wrought. My personal take on the Red Pill is to better myself as a man and live my life for myself. If a woman comes along that has something to offer to me and my life, I’m open to the idea of a relationship (though I doubt I’ll ever re-marry), but it will be largely on my terms.

        Good luck with it!

    • good point, danny. You better believe my wife asks herself subconsciously, “what does my husband deti bring to the table? His talents, his ability to earn income, his physical strength and his help in raising and providing for the kids.” She asks herself that all the time, even as a 15 year married woman.

      So I feel perfectly justified in asking myself and saying to her:

      “What do you bring to the table? What are you doing to keep me interested in you and invested in you? Why should I continue to provide commitment to you? Why should I continue to provide for you and the kids? What do you provide to me in return for my provision to you?

      “Here is what I want, need and expect: regular, satisfying sex when I want it and at reasonable intervals. Housekeeping, cooking, cleaning, and child care. A warm, inviting home at the end of a long day. Telling me what you want and need, or about problems, WITHOUT nagging or complaining. A kind, pleasant, agreeable personality from you. A reasonable effort to maintain a pleasing physical appearance.

      “And if you aren’t offering that most of the time, then why should I continue to provide for you when you won’t provide for me?”

  2. Jack Dublin on said:

    This subject came up in a talk with my dad when I was explaining why I wouldn’t intercede on behalf of someone I don’t personally care about. Most men can take care of themselves (self defense, tact, shutting up, etc.).
    Therefore it works in most cases as me not helping women I don’t know. At first he was slightly skeptical, but I pointed out that I wouldn’t want him dying because a random women didn’t have the sense to stop mouthing off to what turned out to be a sociopath.

    He ended by saying, “We never should have let them vote.”
    (My Father was was the first person I knew who explained how women voting helped get us to where we are. Fast forward several years and Game is telling us why women act/vote that way.)

    • Blissex on said:

      First stage feminism is allright. The females have a stake in the state, they pay taxes, they should vote. Perhaps there should have been male-only and female-only houses (e.g. only males elect the House, only females elect the Senate). But the idea is that women are not oppressors (however much they try), they are not serfs, they are our sisters and mothers and girlfriends and coworkers. Also, democracy/voting for the masses is not designed to achieve the best results, but to make the masses accountable for their choices. If women (or men) vote stupid, they harm themselves too. Of course you may hate your fellow voters (male or female) voting stupid and screwing you too as collateral damage, but that’s the logic of sharing a state (or a flat) with others.

      Also, vote for women has been a great boon for the Republicans and other conservative parties, because for both cultural and practical reasons many women vote conservative (Republican in the USA). But conservative in an authoritarian or statist way, not in a radical or libertarian way, which makes them particularly valuable to the business interests who sponsor conservative parties. For example in Europe most countries would have had permanent socialist majorities if women did not vote, and it is only because of the vote of women that there has been a balance between left and right parties (and some countries had permanent socialist majorities because socialist parties appeased women voters in other ways).

      As to the practical reason, women are far less “workers” than men and far more “rentier” than men, because they work for a smaller part of their lives, and they live longer, and most property (housing, stock, pensions) in the USA is owned by women because of divorce settlements and widow inheritance. On average women crave property price increases, and wish for lower wages, because they tend to own property more than men, and they tend to work less than men. For the same reasons women tend to pay a lot less tax than men and to receive a lot more welfare than men (IIRC it is something like 50% less and 50% more).

      The past 30 years of Reaganism have seen at the same time a series of credit and thus property priced bubbles, a constant attack on mostly male unionized jobs, increases in female government jobs, and an ever increasing prison population, as middle aged/class women swing voters have demanded tax-free capital gains on their properties (often obtained in divorce), lower wages for the men who are costs to them, and to lock up anybody looking dangerous or nasty. And lower taxes and higher welfare for women.

      Politicians have eagerly pandered to all these demands, because while men tend to vote class or ideology, not gender, women tend to vote gender, and their class or ideology aligns with that of business interests.

      As an example consider GWB’s enormous unfunded Medicare part D welfare increase: it goes overwhelmingly to the benefit of older women, and of pharma business interests. A wider example is the enormous housing bubble, which also has gone largely to the benefit of older women, and of finance business interests.

      Therefore votes for women are massively benefiting some powerful conservative interests, and therefore they will be defended regardless of merit (which I think is there).

      • I agree with the parts of this Blissex post that say women depend more on government but I don’t think this benefits conservatives. All the statistics show that in the U.S. women vote Democrat more often than Republican. If women are conservative, why is that?. A lot of the things you listed like increases in female government jobs, GWB’s Medicare increase and more welfare are things supported by Democrats. As for more men being put in prison, it’s mostly black thugs and that just makes my life better not having to worry about being robbed by them.

      • Are you reading history right?

        Statistics show that women vote overwhelmingly for liberals/leftists, the same people that enlarge the welfare state, which in turn help women and single mothers everywhere. And Republicans are not the only people who are swayed by business interest, the Democrats are just as bad.

  3. Blissex on said:

    «Men have the social obligation to put the needs of women before the needs of themselves. This is the ultimate privilege that women possess.»

    NO NO NO. It is MOTHERS who had (and mostly have) that privilege and for very good reasons (at least when successful pregnancies were rare and difficult).

    There are many people including females who think that sex is where women have power, as in who has the pussy makes the rules. Some others think that the eggs/ovaries are the precious and scarce resources that gives women power.

    Instead the uniquely important bit is the womb, and the 40 weeks of gestation. Indeed as to

    «a typical Red Pill question: “What do you bring to the table in terms of dating and a relationship?”»

    the answer used to be “a womb”, and that was most of what mattered. But currently they don’t bring that into the story.

    Even in the old days, the assumption is that you would run into a building to save a pregnant woman or a woman who had a functioning womb. Barren women in some cultures were instead left in the snow to die in winter.

    It is always the babies that matter. Men have a conditioned reflex to save the children and mothers (not women in general).

    A related aspect of late feminism is the constant use of children to score points for women (because of the instinctive association between children and women-as-mothers). A lot of the demands of late feminism are phrased in “for the sake of the babies” terms, when they really mostly go to the benefit of women, as “for the sake of the babies” triggers a powerful instinct.

    What the marcottistes are afraid of is that they are barren (by explicit choice, by waiting too long) and therefore feel worthless to men, or not more valuable than a twink (if the womb is sterile, the vagina is the new ass…). Then they cannot use personally the “for the sake of the babies” ruse, and they become in effect men, as disposable as men. Which is what they wanted, because late feminism is based on brother envy, in women wanting to be validated by their fathers like their brothers, which both is (genetically) impossible and has the unfortunate consequence that women who behave as men end up having no more rights and power than men, and then feel pretty bad about it, and blame/hate men.

  4. “Feminists tore up their side of the social gender contract and are desperate to keep men upholding their unbroken side of that contract.”

    This is an amazingly true statement. I never thought of it that way before.

    • Not even that, now they want men to pay for their own decisions (aside from welfare, look out for laws banning paternity testing, and classifying anything she doesn’t like as abuse).
      All part of the plan, that many women want, to keep riding the carousel even while married, and the children brought up/financed by a man not their father, or who isn’t even allowed to see them.
      Heh heh… but as women start to move on higher in the job market – their taxes go towards their irresponsible sisters.
      “Sisterhood is powerful” 🙂

  5. Blue pill people, feminists and women in general have not really woken up to the growing awareness amongst men that the compact between the sexes is broken. There are so many exquisite voices in the manosphere – one of which is our very own TPM – who are reaching an ever-increasing audience of malcontents, who, in turn are finding their voice. Make no mistake, their efforts will inevitably do for feminism of every hue… they’re f*cked, whether or not they know it. The future isn’t certain, but it most certainly ain’t feminist.

    • Be aware that some people have taken the red pill … but enjoy the benefits of being thought of as still in the state of blue pill.
      e.g. The White Knight who is generous … with other peoples’ money,
      The Trophy Wife who has no problem with welfare … as long as she isn’t the earner in the relationship,
      The Army man who realises that calling other men “pussies” and saying “You think too much about irrelevant things”(as relates to men’s rights/MGTOW/PUA) because he knows that giving voice to those things cuts off his sex supply…

      • «The White Knight who is generous … with other peoples’ money,»

        You completely misunderstand the story with alimony/child support. The idea is that if there is a public interest that a lone parent and his or her children avoid poverty, then the public should pay them welfare. But this would require raising taxes to pay motherhood stipends and child assistance. So to avoid distributing the burden to everybody via taxes, the whole burden is put on the putative father.

        That’s why governments pursue fathers so hard and the rules against them are so harsh: to extract from one guy as much as possible to make sure that politicians look good for both ensuring that women and children do well, and for keeping taxes low.

        This is very popular because the middle classes believe that most single parents and children have dark skins, and most deadbeat father have dark skins too, and they don’t want to pay a penny to welfare queens and strapping young bucks.

        The Trophy Wife who has no problem with welfare … as long as she isn’t the earner in the relationship.

        As to welfare, men tend to pay in taxes a lot more than women during their lifetime (about 50% more IIRC), and get a lot less back (about 50% less) in part because they live many years less, and work more continuously in riskier or unhealthier jobs.

      • I’m not sure that you fully get the Red Pill/Blue Pill dichotomy. White knighting is ALWAYS a blue pill activity. Likewise the other examples you refer to. End of.

  6. I remember stumbling upon an article about Tom Leykis on Pandagon called “Radio For Men With a Daddy Complex”, in 2007. It has long since been erased from the site, but when it was up, it got well over 600 comments (about 6-7 times the current average number or comments for an article on that site).

    This blog (link below) did a fisking of both the article and its comments.

    http://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

    For me, the most telling comment left on the site (Pandagon) was this one:

    “He’s creating an army. Like the right-wing noise machine, he’s presenting easy talking points for the MRAs to utilize when, say, trolling a feminist web site – or elsewhere: There’s a promo running on our local Leykis affiliate which quotes Leykis saying something like “If it was a Men’s Night, with half-priced drinks for men, Gloria Allred would go ballistic.” Sound familiar?”

    Creating an army, eh? You’re damn right he is, cupcake.

    As TPM has so elegantly illustrated, we are the fembots (particularly the 3rd wavers) worst nightmare, because we are adversely changing the situation on the ground for them – slowly but surely eating away at the expansive, fluffy, cushion of privilege they currently enjoy.

    • The army is only scary and violent when it’s made up of men.
      Oh yeah?
      I heard that way back in the Korean War, UN soldiers were terrified of being caught by North Korean women soldiers.

      3rd wavers will try to criminalise paternity testing, broaden the definition of “abuse” and allow more false accusations. It’s coming…

      • In some country paternity testing without the consent of the mother is already illegal. In many countries it is also illegal for a doctor to tell the father of an accidental discovery of non-paternity. In some countries one or the other act is a criminal offense.

        The “official” motivation for this is the usual excuse: to protect the interests of the child, to avoid the risk of termination of the support of the male parent. But it is in the interest of the child’s health to know their genetic inheritance, for example. The other reason that is given to keep lack of paternity a secret is to avoid the risk of violence against the mother by the cuckolded male parent.

  7. just visiting on said:

    I agree with most of the points made. Though I would have to disagree that fembots do any thing for the sake of babies. For that matter, any woman choosing to stay home and raise those children are considered lower than dirt.

    The social contract is broken, but none of you has asked the question – WHY? What was the vulnerability that feminists tapped into to convince women en masse to change so radically?

    Divorce and spinsterhood

    The sixties didn’t start the unravelling of the social contract. It just marked when average frustrated chumps (House wives and house wife wanna bes) realized that being nice and domesticated didn’t get you the guy or keep your husband from divorcing you for his secretary. The unravelling started forty years before that. Hypergamy started rolling when it became fashionable for men to divorce and marry their mistresses. When rich men, who previously were restricted by social mores , started marrying yong attractive mistresses, women took note. The word gold digger first starts showing up in the language. So does the word sexy.

    By the time the sixties rolled around, the culture was contemptuous of feminine women. Even their own children . Even their husbands. And for a husband hunting woman, niceness and domestic skills and femininity were not as exciting as some tough talking sexually available young woman. In the past, such women were not marriage material. That changed. And such women were desired and sought over and above the fuddy duddt femine woman. Words like “fridgid” become part of the shaming language.

    You see the war on masculinity, but where were your eyes on the war on feminity? I assure you that growing up in the school systems and culture it was very apparent. Even wearing a dress could get you picked on.

    There’s a lot of broken trust on both sides. I think that needs to be healed in the culture before we see men and women living their best selves with one another.

    • Your apex fallacy is showing.
      As before, the only men you notice are the ones who can both afford to be divorced, and trade up.

      So the rest of the guys bear the burden of what the Masters of the Universe did,
      while the women are for “sale” to the highest bidder?

      Problem with that thinking is that it completely torpedoes your “sisterhood” as anything other than a sham.
      Hate to break it to you, but your “sisterhood” is also going to make it hard for you to notice a good man,

      since your idea of a good man may be someone good with the ladies.

      And that opens up the guy to other opportunities too.
      And the only way for most women to be noticed (absent their appalling callousness towards most men) … is to spread the flesh.

      Good luck out there, just visiting!

    • This is why I’m getting a shack in the woods and becoming a hermit. I can hunt, cook, protect myself. Fuck all this crippled culture horseshit.

      I’m just gonna strike out in my own. Lol. No wife or kid, no worries……2 less mouths to feed.

    • Oscar Calme on said:

      70+% of divorces initiated by women throughout developed world. Please explain why men are leaving for their mistresses when this thinking was debunked 20 years ago

  8. just visiting on said:

    I assure you P Ray, I’m not part of the sisterhood by any stretch.
    I think that you also have to remember that back in the day, a middle class living went a lot further than it does now. Middle class back then would be considered very well off by todays standards. And men were divorcing.

    Women being on sale for the highest bidder – Wired into our survival skills and dna. It’s why the hamster exists.

    You said
    Hate to break it to you, but your “sisterhood” is also going to make it hard for you to notice a good man,

    And I agree. Funny thing along the way, the brotherhood is waking up to the fact that their choices made it hard for them to notice the good women. And now, they’re rare.

    • The good women were always rare.
      The difference is what they were allowed to get away with by social sanction.
      Since most women answer to no-one but their hamsters now,
      What they can look forward to are a succession of hamster-tamers.
      Who are of course, both becoming more numerous in number … and also less eager to commit to someone with the characteristics of following their hamsters.

  9. just visiting on said:

    Oh P Ray….good women were always rare? No, but nice rationalization. I agree about the social sanction part, but that’s only part of the equation.

    As for hamster tamers, men seem to have this fantasy that the better nature’s of women will come out. That they need only be alpha and uncommitted. You’ll have to take my word on this , but I’ve seen first hand what a harem of women with a dark over lord breeds. Deviance. And suprisingly, cuckcoldry.

    • I’m finding it hard to square the dogma that “good women were always rare” with the condemnation of the modern woman’s question, “Where are all the good men?”

      If good men are easier to spot once a woman takes off her prejudice-tinted shades, why shouldn’t there be a similar solution for a man who is (presumably) looking for good women?

      • Probably because men are told what to want … by women.
        Too many nice guys buy the script that women have men’s best interest at heart, without questioning why nice guys have to settle for the beauty AFTER she lost her looks, fertility and youth … to the jerk that while she was with, who was the greatest man on earth, eventhough he had no time for her problems and she was always running off to the nice guy to hear out her problems, since “you are such a nice guy!”.

        Feminism has had mostly 2 goals:
        1. Unlimited sexual license for women so that they can ride the cock carousel as long as possible (and also validate a mans’ desirability … or undesirability, through relational aggression) … and by making women the arbiters of what makes a good man, they
        2. Make it difficult or impossible for older men to be with younger women (since the older women need a sex-starved cohort of men to provide for them or ease the burden of her mistakes).

        Remember: if you are saying that a good woman is an unattractive woman … you’d be wrong there too,
        since ugly or attractive-alike women mistake sex with an alpha for a relationship.
        In this way, Tiger Woods was able to keep 13 women off the market – they took sex with him as the idea they were already taken (and I’m pretty sure, made out to other guys that they were already in a committed relationship so no overtures would be entertained). And every other guy now with those women, is going to have to compensate her for her bad relationship with Mr. Woods previously. And take care of any kids from that relationship too.

      • just visiting on said:

        And yet, if confronted with a romantic non carousel rider, you’d yell at her for not putting out after after three dates.(And how dare she be romantic) As you did to me on this very blog several posts ago. Belita’s question stands. Would you even recognize such a woman. Or are your prejudiced tinted shades getting in the way.

      • @Just visiting
        Whether you put out is not a factor (However you can expect that if you don’t reciprocate in a manner that indicates you value the man’s company, the nights out won’t continue)
        Your age is, though.

        Because it’s certainly not a compliment to be considered a good match for a girl,
        only when her looks, fertility and youth,
        were given to someone else previously.

        It feels to me that I’m being “settled for”.
        I’m guessing those relationships don’t last.

      • Just visiting,
        I would also like to point out to you, that many men notice that “They didn’t mean a thing to women, unless the women put out for them”.
        I am guessing that women reinforced that behaviour,
        by turning up for a date,
        then later brushing the guy off for a lame excuse.
        So the guy slowly starts to understand the hidden message …
        that unless a woman takes the interaction one step further,
        he is probably being taken advantage of.

        Would you care to offer an alternative hypothesis,
        that doesn’t involve “you need time(interminable dates, that work to her benefit, and in no way shows that she cares for the guy she is in a relationship with) to get to know someone” (since if that was the case, again … why do women reward men who treat them badly?)

        The flip side of this is where you say
        “Men who hate women can never be in a relationship”.
        To quote Scarecrow,
        “If men who hate women can never be in a relationship, then all domestic violence, is the fault of women”.
        You’re welcome!

      • @PRay
        I’ve read your long replies to me and to Just Visiting and think you misunderstood the question. I wasn’t saying that terrible women don’t exist (or that unattractive women are good–where did you get that?), but that there are some men who are so convinced that good women are rare that they wouldn’t know one if she lived next door to them for ten years.

      • just visiting on said:

        Sorry to take so long to respond. My dog had a bit of a health crisis.

        I can understand that a man wouldn’t want to be taken advantage of through dating a woman and then getting brushed off. In this day and age, the only way he could protect his interests is to continue seeing other women. I think that some aspect of sexuality would have to be expressed by the woman. (Think high school, I’m sure there were girl friends you were sexual with without having sex) Though my feminine bias is going to come through. If I were seeing a man and being sexual with him, I don’t want to know that he is seeing others. I might be an outlier where pre selection is concerned but it would make me sick. I’m intensely passionate, and I require stability for that.

        If the person and I were going to take it further, I’d want an exclusive relationship. In a perfect world, that would mean we were engaged. It’s not a perfect world.

        Perhaps I get an ltr. Long shot on marriage. Or, it just ends up being a version of carousel lite. And that’s what I face. Your value doesn’t go down over a few dates where you get brushed off. But with each man I’m sexual with, mine does. Perhaps you have some advice on how to protect me from that.

        Will the man I’m with think I’m settling because I’m not at the hight of my youth and attractiveness? I don’t know. I’m still pretty attractive (And not in some plutogirl delusion way) but I ain’t 22. I was married during those years, and not much I can do about it now. Turn it around. Perhaps he’s settling for me.

        As for the women who continue to reward assholes with sex, I think there’s a few reasons for that. Some of them have issues with self worth. I’m not buying all of this talk about over confident women. I think a lot of it is fake. I think that the ones with low self worth also become fixated on the validation that they get from assholes. I suspect that many of them were even bullied in school by such guys, so this intensifies the validation.

        I’m also of the belief that masculineizing women warps them. Promiscuous sex warps them. The rejection of feminine sensibilities both by the woman herself and any man she would enter into relationship warps them. And P Ray there’s no getting around it. The very act of seeking a boyfriend or mate requires things that will warp her feminine self. Very few women will make it to their wedding night as virgins. And even if they do, no telling what the future holds. They could very well be 42 and having to contemplate carousel lite. And endure all the slut shaming that goes with it. Even the manosphere is all over the place on this. One blog claims that anything less than virginity or one partner makes you a slut. Others say 3 dates and she better put out , others say 5. Yet others say she’d better put out by the first to even be considered for a relationship. And the relationship may or may not happen. Depends on what she brings besides sex. But for the life of me, I think that would be hard to display in one date.

        So where are all the good women? Trying to figure out how to date.

      • just visiting on said:

        Well, reading that back, that could have been summed up in fewer words. Long night, sick dog……

      • As long as the system(society) enables all women to be like that, any guy of intelligence would quickly conclude that since all women can be like that, all women might as well be like that.
        If the guy in question wishes to avoid slavery, abuse, cuckoldry, mutilation and death(murder).

  10. Pingback: Vulnerability | flirtyintrovert

  11. Excellent post. This is getting pinged.

    While the subject matter is fantastic, what I like most is it is short and makes it’s point without being too long-winded. Great read brother.

    Stay up.

  12. Very well put, sir.

  13. Lavazza on said:

    Blissex: “What the marcottistes are afraid of is that they are barren (by explicit choice, by waiting too long) and therefore feel worthless to men, or not more valuable than a twink (if the womb is sterile, the vagina is the new ass…). Then they cannot use personally the “for the sake of the babies” ruse, and they become in effect men, as disposable as men.”

    I think that’s the reason you find few feminists past a certain age. Past a certain age women come under the same demands as men and can get no more fertility/child rearing related preferential treatment. The demand for preferential treatment gets too obviously unfair to gain any traction. And women who are not physically attractive have little chance on short circuiting men’s rationality. Old women are really invisible, if they have not cultivated caring qualities of value to family members and society (which is something feminists don’t want to do).

    • Blissex on said:

      Interesting point about late-stage feminism and age. To add to that, my impression is that older women who are equality-feminists instead of raunch-feminists stay committed. It is the raunch-feminists that seem to me to become quieter.

      I suspect that it has a lot to do with menopause. I have read about menopause and the effect it has on women, and it is described as devastating. It is like heat and light switching off. I can easily imagine that a lot of the motivation for affirming the slut-positive point of view goes away.

      just as men cannot really experience how much more intense are female libido and orgasms, and the enormous rollercoaster of the cycle, I think that it is difficult for them to really relate to the effect of menopause of women. Viceversa of course.

  14. Pingback: Traits of the feminist « My journal on dating(seduction),night life,travel & day to day stuff

  15. It strikes me that many women use “feminism” as an excuse, or as a shield, for acting like jerks. This is obviously unacceptable. On the flip side, I’ve had the experience of having my opinion on a subject (phrased reasonably and politely) immediately discounted due to my gender (hooray, Latin America). That’s not acceptable, either.

    I must be really behind the times (or just not very well read in gender politics, I guess) because I always defined feminism as the belief that women should/could have a vote, an education, a job, and equal protection under the law. That doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it? I think the ideas are abused, but in principle they seem solid — to me, at least.

    I dunno. I think men are pretty great, all in all. I never expect men I don’t know to go out of their way to do things for me — that’d be weird. I get doors held for me occasionally, which is a nice gesture that I appreciate (especially when my hands are full!). Then again, I hold doors, too.

    As for PUA, I can see how the community can help build confidence and act as a place that fosters male companionship/support/brotherhood — and I think both of those are good things. After all, if the script that PUA teaches works and builds attraction, what’s the problem? I’d think both sides would win there.

    “A PUA sees an attractive woman? He doesn’t think twice about her relationship status, his needs come first.”

    And so a guy approaches me in the bar without regard for my relationship status — what’s wrong with that? I’d take his interest as a compliment, but politely and firmly inform him that I’m taken. What, is he supposed to ask around beforehand? How pointless.

    For the record, I think the “typical Red Pill question: “What do you bring to the table in terms of dating and a relationship?”” is an excellent question for people to be asking of themselves — both male and female. I don’t see why it should make anyone uncomfortable . . . unless they’re an entitled brat who thinks the world is a one-way street.

    Even though they self-identify as such, women like this aren’t feminists. They’re not interested in its core tenets. And just like any radical movement, radical feminism convolutes and discredits what I think are a few simple, dignified requests. Keep on making these kinds uncomfortable: it’d be a shame to validate they way they treat others.

  16. Claire W on said:

    Being female, I find it so hard to fit in with my views on gender rights, I would say, yeah I guess i’m a feminist, but just blog titles like this make me ashamed of what that has become associated with. I’m grateful I can vote, choose to work, have my voice heard, I know in plenty of ways I am privileged in ways many men are not.

    At the same time I fully support men rights, but when I try and keep up to date with it I kinda feel there is no place for me in this club, like I am the enemy or something. I would never do the things some women try to get away with these days, and most girls I know would agree.

    For the question “‘what do I bring to the relationship?’ same things the man brings, companionship, a friend, any money I earn, any property I own. Anything.”

    Gender movements of any kind will not work by alienating the other side, You have to make them see you’re point of view and stop putting up barriers.

    • For the question “‘what do I bring to the relationship?’ same things the man brings, companionship, a friend, any money I earn, any property I own. Anything.”

      Wrong.

      Very, very wrong.

      But I have myself to blame for your wrong answer.

      Let me ask the question in another way:

      What do you bring to the relationship that a man wants?

      The phrase in boldface is crucial.

      • Blissex on said:

        «same things the man brings, companionship, a friend, any money I earn, any property I own. Anything.»

        «Wrong. Very, very wrong. [ … ] What do you bring to the relationship that a man wants?»

        Well, I know many men who have hot liquid fantasies about women who would condescend to bring into the relationship the «same things the man brings». It would be fabulous.

        I think that with some rare exceptions, very many women can push themselves to bring only one thing into a relationship: sexual access, on her terms. (which is BTW the same as for coveted twinks in the homosexual “bathhouse” sex market).

        The whole PUA culture is based on recognizing or perhaps merely assuming that in general the only contribution of a woman to a relationship is sexual access, and «on her terms» means giving her tingle (plus rapport/comfort) to get her to deliver the only thing that she is willing to contribute.

        Which is not too different from the attitude of “betas”, who also assume that the only contribution is going to be sexual access but assume that «on her terms» involves ingratiating and supplicating.

    • Blissex on said:

      «Gender movements of any kind will not work by alienating the other side,»

      That’s a very welcome attitude.

      As to this please understand that many men are affected by their not so positive encounters with Dworkin/McKinnon style feminism (which is quite popular), or with the feminists who carry the Dworkin/McKinnon logic a bit further proposing to improve society by culling most men as after all only a few are needed to be “milked” for insemination. Which is a logic that is not as popular as Dworkin/McKinnon positions, but has not been denounced enough.

      “Raunch” feminism (which was created or at least seeded by the tobacco industry, organizing the first “slutwalk” in the 1920s) instead has been welcomed by many men as it means potentially getting laid a lot more, but that to me seems another way to alienate *both* sides, reducing sexual relationships to transactions.

  17. Blissex on said:

    oops closing bold.

  18. “Dworkin/McKinnon”

    Really not familiar with all of this, and I feel sort of ashamed that I’m not. After all, it’s absolutely disgusting.

    I’m of a mind that those who don’t stand up to wrong are a part of the problem. I appreciate and respect the men who stand up with me when I’m being treated poorly thanks to my gender (my work has brought me to Central America, and this happens far more often than you might think). The men in my life deserve exactly the same from me in return.

    The first step is always awareness. Women need to be made aware of this radical branch (I wasn’t! I must be oblivious). Those who laugh at it need to realize that it isn’t funny: there are people publishing journal articles about this crap.

    And I think men need to know that, just as all environmentalists don’t advocate blowing up whaling ships or chaining themselves to trees, not all women who self-label as “feminists” are describing this new-wave bull. Seriously, I just want to keep the right to vote and have an education/career/informed opinion, guys. I’m not crazy.

    Treating men as worthy of ‘milking’ and nothing more is like treating a woman as a baby factory: both are degrading, both are wrong, and both should be spoken up against. There are women who will say that this is a reaction against the way that women have been treated in the past, and perhaps that’s true in part: but it’s neither a good nor a productive reaction.

    • If you’re really an “equity feminist” …
      you should take the time to point out the offensive nonsense your “friends” spout out against men.
      Otherwise it cuts back to you too, you know.
      And men notice when you say one thing and do another.

      • I agree with you 100%. I guess I don’t encounter this behavior very much among my friends (it’s not absent, just not all that common), although I’ve recently been noticing it far more among acquaintances and strangers. In general, I’ve never been part of a group of friends that does much man-hating. I find it obnoxious. I get more “why would he DO that?” grumbling . . . but sometimes it’s justified, and sometimes it isn’t.

        I do say “you deserved that” or “how did you think that would play out? seriously?” to female friends a lot. Mostly because they retroactively tell me about something stupid that they said or did. You’re right, of course: there’s more correction I can and should be doing. I’m starting to pay better attention to my actions and the actions of those around me, but yeah — it’s a growing process.

        In general, I think that if you treat others poorly, it’s going to come back to you: no matter what your gender, what “-ism” you use to justify your behavior, etc. And bad behavior should never be rewarded.

        I guess I just wanted to point out that I know that these women aren’t on my side. That said, try to be patient with women like me. I’ve been fed a lot of BS by people, too, and us all being on the same side together is a learning process for everyone. I’m still pretty young, and seeing how hateful people can be is still a tough pill for me to swallow.

    • Don’t care. Feminism is a female supremacist hate movement. It always was and will always be. Just because your suddenly becoming uncomfortable with the realization that the movement, the family you joined, is really an ignorant/bigoted hate movement that has caused much pain and suffering is too damn bad.

      Sure, the radical feminist’s may of been the ones to slit our throats, but you and many like you didn’t stop for a second in guzzling down our blood. The only reason you are taking the position you are is because you have been forced to. Because we will no longer but up with the bigotry or abuse any longer. But your ego will never let you admit that you messed up, so you will try to morally rationalize the situation into a kind of neutral, no fault type solution when it is painfully clear that all women, in particular feminist women are at fault.

      The blood of millions of young men are on your hands and you still go out of your way to protect the movement responsible for all these horrors?

      Your either explicitly with us or against us. The fact that your still trying to save face(something which just can’t be done) means that you will stab us in the back at your earliest convenience.

  19. Thomas V. Munson on said:

    I LOVE YOU ALL
    Ok that’s bullshit but I wanted at least one or two of you to stop so could tell you how much I enjoy reading the stuff here. And I feel guilty, because I “have no dog in the fight” so reading all of the editorials, statements, reactions, qualifications, recriminations etc. puts me in somewhat the same position as the elite of Washington D.C. who came to picnic and watch The First Battle of Bull Run in the Civil War.

    I’ve been married for 30 years, monogamously engaged for 3 more, and entirely oblivious to the changes occurring in the social/sexual context for the past 20 years until, approximately 3 years ago, I learned to use a computer and thus “surf the ‘net” in the common parlance.

    This site, and Hookingup Smart, have opened a new world for me, and I must confess at times it seems like the one visited by the the crew of the SS Venture in “King Kong”. I do not want to appear condescending or maudlin and I mentioned my status only so you can get a picture of me, a 59 year old man, who would love to join in the discussion but has not one single blessed thing to add but at least has the perspicacity to know it.I like to discourse, ok prattle, but can’t, at least not here, at least not about anything that would excite even the remotest interest in any of you.

    But that won’t stop me from reading and,just think, if I ever do have anything to say how wonderful it will be-I filled a page just telling you I don’t! So fellow correspondents-Write On!

    • Hey, it’s Munson!

      You’re getting quite an interesting reputation over at HookingUpSmart.com… keep at it!

      Oh, and about paragraphs. Look in to them… I added a few in your comment so you can see how much easier it is to read.

      • BTW tpm:
        I think a lot of gals read/blog there. They did not respond at all to my idea for Baby Boomer concentration camps, and even when I softened it to just relocation centers complete with gambling, cheap/shitty casino food and golf the response was tepid at best. This despite my cable shows tailored to Boomer chicks; “Does This Make My Butt Look Big?” was brilliant if I do say so myself.

        I think I better keep the edgier, more assertive stuff over here.I’ll use my feminine side over there, again with a watchful eye on that Susan. God knows what she’ll divine from that.

      • “Baby Boomer concentration camps, and even when I softened it to just relocation centers complete with gambling, cheap/shitty casino food and golf the response was tepid at best. This despite my cable shows tailored to Boomer chicks; “Does This Make My Butt Look Big?” was brilliant if I do say so myself….”

        Hysterical!

      • tmunson

        Do you have an alter-ego by any chance? Another nom-de-plume?

        If not, check out Unkie E (don’t wish to give the game away by making that name searchable, so I broked it a bit)

  20. This thing erased my entire comment.

  21. I was writing about how the male/female dichotomy can be a lens to examine the entire zeitgeist of an era.I had written about the WWII generation, how they knew they were going to fight, did so, and came back to raise kids in the post WWII prosperity created by our bombing the hell out of every decent economy, having pent up demand going back to 1929,not just for consumer goods but also for kids (my parents each had one sibling) , plenty of oil, and a generation that felt their lives had been put on hold while they endured it.

    And then I hit the wrong button, apparently, and poof it was gone, I had 4 or 5 paragraphs, full of pithy observations and my own inimitable warmth, charm and insight. Fuck.

    Then I went on to say how I could contribute stuff like that here, overarching insights with a few curmudgeonly asides (not like Andy Rooney-I’m still pissed about what he said about Kurt Cobain’s death in ’94, and just ‘cuz he finally croaked does not make me feel one goddamned bit more kindly towards that senile horse’s ass (common WWII epithet, and the worst that could be said by one man about another).

    But it’s gone all of it.I can’t recreate it.

    But I will recreate my warning to watch it with that Susan gal over at Hookupwhatsits. She figured out I had an anal fetish based on one or two very cryptic remarks I let slip.She’s smart-you’ve been warned.

  22. “Interesting”-the least possible superlative and one generally given when one intends its opposite i e neither interesting, nor insightful, but rather dreary and tedious. Ok I’ll take it.

  23. Pingback: Feminism | GROIN : Men's Rights and Men's Activism

  24. Thomas V. Munson on said:

    Just1X
    Not sure I get your meaning. I’m supposed to chek out Unkie E?

    • Hi Mr Munson,

      you and he could be twins; you should get together and kick each other off to the next level…it should already be clear that I am a fan fo his (and you’re looking promising…)

      check out an Unkle Elmer special (from the Spearhead, ‘sin of addiction thread’:

      Can I Still Be A Feminist If I…?

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahwoit/2011/11/22/can-i-still-be-a-feminist-if-i/

      Elmer helps her out :

      You are hopelessly confused thanks to your feminist brainwarshing. You need to drop this vague mental notion that what you somehow believe other people (“society”) expects of you is something you should answer to.

      Not only should you make your boyfriend a sandwich, and a damned good one, you should serve it to him while wearing something that accentuates your feminine beauty as well as some nice perfume. After that, give him a massage, at least 2 hours.

      Perhaps think about some cooking classes. When you go to a restaurant together, observe what he likes and make it for him. He’ll like that a lot. And what he thinks and feels is far more important than those phantom feminist goon squads you got running around in your head.

      • Thomas V. Munson on said:

        Hey Just-Knuckle punch dude.
        Check my stuff over at theblueturf.com; it’s about Boise State but I throw in a lot more. Plus I’m over at hookingupsmart.com; I’m trying to talk Susan into giving me a column in her Forum entitled “jerkingoffsmart” wherein I explain that if God had made jerking off just a teeny bit better we wouldn’t need any of these dizzy bitches; we’d kill them all save the few that could cook really well. She hasn’t gotten back to me.

      • You’re going to quickly become a Manosphere legend. Post in other blogs, too!

      • Happy to help, will be looking at your stuff…

  25. My Name Is Jim on said:

    OT – Privateman, I did buy that motorcycle I emailed you about.  I had it checked at the dealership before I paid for it, and the mechanic told me they teach the MSF starter course in this area on that same model (Yamaha XV250), so it looks like I chose well.

    So I read up on the basic controls and committed them to memory, then screwed up enough courage to get on the thing and ride.  Happy to say it went fine, surprisingly easy really.  I’m taking the course the first weekend of December, and if I pass that, I can go into the DMV and get my license, no additional road test required.  Plan is to practice a little every day  before then.

    For those asking about the savings, I spent 3000 total to get up and running (2000 for the used bike, 150 for a year’s insurance, 250 for the course, the rest for protective gear).  My calculations say I should make that back in gas money in about three years, though really it’s less than that because it’s saving me from having to get another car.  Of course, I didn’t get it to save money, but it’s a nice side benefit.  Mostly I wanted to give myself and my dearly beloved something fun to do, and it seems to be succeeding (she wants me to hurry up and get licensed so she can ride with me).  I should’ve done this a long time ago.

  26. tvmunson on said:

    I’ll tell you why a certain segment of feminists (dykes) hate us-we’re competition. A gay women told once: “Every straight woman is 3 drinks away from being a lesbian.” I don’t know if that’s true, but I gurantee the rug-munchers think so. Notice I didn’t say all feminists; I excluded straight ones. But the gay ones want to do all they can to disrupt the heterosexual scene ‘cuz they’ll reap the bounty of disaffected straight chicks who they can turn out as “lipsticks”. I’ve seen them importune them; they rely on the natural affinity, empathy women share and use it to take a shot at licking the man in the boat.

  27. Tarquin The Bedwetter on said:

    “A PUA sees an attractive woman? He doesn’t think twice about her relationship status, his needs come first.”

    So… Fuck the guy who’s dating her then, yeah?

  28. White Rabbit on said:

    Just visiting, stop ragging on Plutogirl! You guys are all a bunch of jealous haters. Plutogirl is smart, beautiful, classy, and funny. She has a life of her own without needing a guy, and you guys can’t stand that. What you can’t stand even more is that she’s a liberal because deep down you don’t just hate feminists, you hate anyone who isn’t conservative. Just visiting, you’re the delusional one. Take your time machine, and go back to the Dark Ages.

  29. Dang. These comments are educational. I’m surprised the women have any interest at all in what men are saying.

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: