Thursday, September 12, 2013

Wife Test: Red Pill Alerts

Fellas, when you're considering a relationship -- or hell, even a quickie behind the bar -- with a woman, it is wise to know at least something about her attitudes towards men and relationships and love in general. But dudes have an uncanny tendency to overlook important warning signs that a relationship with a particular woman might give you because you're too busy staring at her boobs.

I know.  Boobs.

If finding a good Mrs. is important to you, though, then sifting out the wheat from the chaff is essential, and identifying potential relationship disasters before they happen is vital, no matter how big the rack.  And if you aren't inclined to search for a foreign bride from a more traditionally-minded country, then pay careful attention to these key phrases and actions.  Consider them Red Pill Alerts.  When you hear them, they are indicators of red flags that should give you pause.

1.  "Rape Culture"


If a woman uses this term in casual conversation, end the conversation at the earliest possible moment and do your best to avoid her in the future.  This phrase is used as a blanket term by feminism for describing all male sexuality, far in excess of the actual crime of rape.  Use of this term indicates that a woman is suspicious and fearful of male sexuality, even if she finds herself attracted to it.  That's not to say that women who use the term aren't themselves drawn to strong male sexual displays, despite their political protests to the contrary, but it is also indicative of her level of respect for male sexuality in general.

Porn is "rape culture" to these women.  So is the music video and lyrics for this summer's pop R&B hit "Blurred Lines", because it expresses raw masculine sexuality unapologetically.  Women who use the term "rape culture" casually are giving you a shit test, whether they understand it as such or not.  By using it they are challenging your sexuality.  But the only proper response to a shit test is to ignore it.  And her.  A woman who uses this term does not respect men or their sexuality, and you can expect some rocky times ahead if you ignore this Red Pill Alert and plow ahead.

Good response: "You know, I think I'll go talk to some women who actually like men." LEAVE
Better response: "*Snort* What, are you eleven or something?  Time to find some grown-up girls." LEAVE
Best Response: "I've always preferred my victims to have bigger tits." LEAVE

2. "Delicate Male Ego"


Another shit test.  When a woman uses this term, she's deliberately challenging you and your response to her.  She's thinking she's displaying her strength and independence.  What she's actually doing is revealing her contempt for masculinity and her ignorance of its subtleties.  Yes, dudes, we have subtleties.

The male ego is oft bashed, particularly by ignorant feminists, because they really do lack any clear understanding or insight into it, insisting solipsistically that men should behave the way women do.   By implying anything about a man's ego without understanding it, they are betraying their inner frustrations with male-female relations, frustrations that are likely to blossom into brutal, heated arguments or even infidelity in a relationship.  A woman who throws around "delicate male ego" is calling herself out as being disrespectful of masculinity in general.

Sure, women don't like to see weakness or other BETA traits in a man . . . but men don't like to be reminded that we have those weaknesses, and a woman with the tactlessness to mention any man's ego to another is one to watch out for.  She might be a High Alpha female with exceptionally grand tastes . . . or she might be a scornful Gamma woman who thinks she can verbally abuse a man and expect him to find her attractive.

Either way, the wise Red Pill man will step around this indelicate flower and pursue worthier women.  Women who understand that verbally kicking all men in the balls is not the best way to find a worthy man.  Indeed, by calling out all men's egos, she's demonstrated herself as poor wife material.

Good response: "My delicate male ego is going to go talk to the pretty girls, now.  Thanks for the fluff, Cupcake." LEAVE
Better response: "My ego isn't delicate.  It's just highly discriminating." LEAVE
Best response: (LOUDLY) "Why no, I don't think you need a boob job!  A lot of guys like it when one is so much smaller than the other!  You shouldn't be so sensitive!"  LEAVE

3. "I deserve . . ."


Women who talk about what they deserve -- in work, in life, in romance, and especially in a man -- are best avoided as poor wife material.  Feminine entitlement is frequently a problem in a relationship, as women rationalize just what they "deserve", usually without much in the way of supporting data.

My ex sister-in-law is a case in point.  She left my brother and her son to go shack up with a richer dude because she "deserved to have nice things in her life and a man who can provide them".  This brutal assertion had no evidence to back up the claim that she deserved any such thing.  Indeed, if she actually got what she deserved, I don't think she'd be bragging about it.  In a way she did -- her new dude dumped her two months later, after he tired of her, and now she lives with her parents and her daughter from another relationship and her grandson . . . because the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

Women who use this term almost uniformly DON'T deserve whatever it is they think they do.  A lot of the dichotomy between male and female ideas on the subject of entitlement are due, I believe, to the fact that women get handed the bulk of their sexual capital early, while men must earn theirs slowly and painfully.  That gives women an incentive to indulge in this kind of entitlement.  If you encounter a woman who uses "I deserve . . ." you can bet that she's going to deserve a second husband someday.  Avoid.

A woman with good wife potential won't discuss what she deserves; she'll discuss what she aspires to and what she hopes for . . . and most importantly, what she's willing to earn.

Good response: "And I deserve a more interesting conversational companion.  Have a good evening."  LEAVE
Better response: "On what basis do you deserve that?  Oh, wait, I'm not that interested."  LEAVE
Best resposne: "And I deserve a blowjob in the parking lot.  We gonna help each other out?"  LEAVE . . . FAST (or get a blowjob in the parking lot, if things go that route).

4. "I don't believe in marriage . . ."


This is such utter hamstereese bullshit that it should be sold by the pound.  Despite all the rationalization in the feminist media about how their thrilling careers and corporate ambitions are personally as fulfilling as a solid loving relationship and a family, the Red Pill fact of the matter is that MOST women believe in marriage.  Declaring that they don't, especially on short acquaintance, is a clear sign of one of two things: either she is so commitment-phobic that she will leave you for the next pair of pecs to ponder her panties, or she is clearly bullshitting because getting married is on her mind so much that she's desperate.  They're playing to the well-touted idea that men are the ones who don't want marriage, and think that by declaring their lack of desire to commit they are making themselves more attractive.

To a certain extent they are correct . . . but they are also setting themselves up for disappointment or duplicity, and either way a wise man will avoid them.  A good future wife isn't going to sell the idea of matrimony short -- she's going to protect it like a cherished treasure.  Declaring that she doesn't believe in marriage is probably the best indicator that she's either working an angle to lure you into one while you're looking at her boobs or she's been so badly hurt that her long-term prospects are tainted.  Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Good response: "That's too bad.  I do.  I think she does, too.  I think I'll go talk to her." LEAVE
Better response: "I think some people are just destined to be alone for their entire lives, until they die alone and forgotten.  Thankfully, I'm not one of them."  LEAVE
Best response: "That's a relief!  I don't either.  That's what gives me the mental clarity I need to sleep with as many women as possible behind my wife's back."  LEAVE

5.  "I want to work on my career . . ."


Hell, any mention of her career or job, outside of the basics, is a Red Pill alert.

That's not to say you should be looking for a woman with no career prospects, it just means that a woman who sees herself as a professional first will only see herself as a wife and mother second.  That's great, for some women.  After all, with fewer men working these days, it's going to require a lot of women filling the taxation gap, so that their brilliant careers can subsidize other women's children in the future.

But you should not reward such dedication to a job with your allegiance or commitment.  Because talking about her job is probably the best way she can let you know that you, regardless of what a worthy dude you might be, are going to stand in the shadow of her aspirations.  Feminists and ignorant dating advice columnists call this "being threatened by her success", and treat it with scorn.  They see things in terms of competition between men and women, with the women aspiring to elevate themselves to "respectability" in society's eyes through their dedication to their job.

But do you really want to marry a woman who will leave your ass if she gets transferred to California for "a golden opportunity"?  Either you are her "golden opportunity" or you need to find someone who sees that.  A good wife cannot be a _____________ first and a wife second.  If her career is more important than making a life with you, or even going to be challenging to your relationship, then move along to more fulfilling prospects.  The "strong, independent career woman" tends to be abysmally poor wife material.

Again, that isn't to say you want a woman who can't earn a living for herself.  Unless she's a gorgeous nymphomaniac, an expectation of you to financially support her is likewise a Red Pill Alert.  You can expect demands for alimony in your future.  But find a woman who is willing to be devoted to her man and her family, not her job.  Jobs come and go.  Careers rise and fall.  Marriage should be more durable than an employment contract . . . and if she doesn't agree, then she's self-selected out of the pool of potential good wives.

Good response: "Wow.  Your parents must be very proud.  I'm sure they've got your resume in a frame where they expected to put pictures of grandchildren."  LEAVE
Better response: "I like strong and independent career women.  I expect I'll have plenty of them working for me and my wife some day."  LEAVE
Best response: "Unless you work in a strip club, I'm gonna go focus my energies on the girls whose ambitions are longer and harder than yours, if you know what I mean."  LEAVE

6. "Why can't guys just . . . ?"


This is an expression that clearly predicates ignorant male-bashing.  In most cases women do know why guys can't just ______________.  They just don't like the answer, and want someone to change it for them.

A woman who has so little knowledge and experience with men as to not understand their basic motivations (Sex, food, shelter, entertainment, companionship, in that order) is an unwise choice.  A woman who is so willing to express her ignorance so quickly is announcing herself as a future ex-girlfriend, if not a future ex-wife.  Women who use this phrase are taking issue with the entire masculine experience.  They are insisting on measuring the men they meet against a yardstick used for women.  They are virtually screaming that they are going to question your motives and motivations and express dismay, contempt, and resentment when there's a future issue in your relationship.

Avoid this woman.  If she can't figure out why guys like pretty girls, sports cars, beer and baseball -- or she actually feels a burning desire to know why -- then this woman is not going to be a good relationship risk.

Good response: "Because we're not chicks."  LEAVE
Better response: "You know, I'm kind of insulted by that question.  Ask yourself this: why can't guys just listen to my stupid bullshit instead of leaving me to talk to prettier and more interesting girls?  Discuss."  LEAVE
Best response: "Because we have penises.  Want me to show you mine?" LEAVE

7. "...feminism..."


Yep.  Pretty much any mention of feminism in a positive light, beyond the basics of equity feminism, is a Red Pill Alert for stormy seas ahead.  Women who invoke feminism are shit testing you.  Women who self-declare as feminists are challenging your masculinity right up front, and no clearer sign of a life of torment and abuse in a relationship with them is available.  No more should be needed . . . but some dudes think they can either "tame" a feminist (and it can be done) or that they can use her feminism against her to drop her panties (which is done with such frightening regularity it's humorous).

Feminism is a danger sign.  I haven't been able to find any official facts-n-figures on the subject, by my apocryphal, unscientific study into the manner is telling.  Of the 37 self-declared feminists in the Womens' Studies Club of my university who graduated the same year I did, after 20 years their numbers are telling, as my alumni association has it.  Fifteen never married.  Of the 22 who did, 18 were divorced. Eleven had two or more divorces under their belt.

As I said, that's apocryphal, observational data without scientific merit.  But it's also enlightening.  That means that only 4 out of 37 feminists in my class managed to get married and stay married.  That's just around 10%.

Which means, anecdotally, that marrying a feminist gives you roughly an 80% chance of getting divorced.  Not the comfortably awful 50-50 coin flip of most marriages, but eight times out of ten saying "I do" to a feminist is going to lead to divorce, by my calculations.  If folks have real data on this, I'd love to hear it, but feminism is decidedly NOT a precursor to a happy, fulfilled marriage.  And a self-declared feminist has embraced the idea that a feminist can be anything she wants to be . . . except a good wife. 

So listen to them.  Don't marry them.  Don't even fuck them.  It's just too dangerous, and you do your fellow men a discourtesy by encouraging them.

Good response: " . . . " LEAVE
Better response:  "I'm sorry, did you say something, Cupcake?  I was staring at your boobs."  LEAVE
Best response.  "I like feminists.  I can usually talk them into a little bi-sexual exploration, if you know what I mean.  They love bullshit like that."  LEAVE

8. "Men feel threatened and intimidated by me."


A woman who honestly believes this is confused or has a couple of hamsters in her bra.  No matter how loudly she protests the contrary, most men don't feel "intimidated" by her.  Most men are merely annoyed by her, and she chooses to see that as "intimidation", because that little rationalization means it's THEIR fault, not hers.  Behold the power of hamsterization.

The fact is, men are intimidated by beautiful women . . . period.  A powerfully attractive woman who understands she's attractive and knows how to turn that into incredible social capital very rightly intimidates the lesser men among us.  She is Alpha, and she is searching for a stronger Alpha, and most dudes just aren't going to measure up.

But be "intimidated" merely by a woman's intelligence and ambition?  Not so much.

Many otherwise intelligent women make this mistake, dismissing a snub or a lack of attention as the result of the men around her being "intimidated".  In fact, it's likely that she's just annoyingly direct, argumentative, and bossy . . . not the sort of thing you want to cuddle up to after a three-hour cunnilingus marathon.  These women mistake their clumsy social stumbling as being "strong and independent", and then fault the men around them for not being attracted to them.

These are the same women who feel that they are in a perpetual competition with men -- it's always 'us' vs. 'them' in their minds, an eternal struggle that they are determined to 'win'.  They feel intimidation, usually in the workplace, and they respond how they feel the workplace demands: with hardcore competitive drive.

That's great if you're on the same sales team.  It's lousy if you want a happy marriage.

That stumps a lot of women who just don't get this subtle fact of male sexual psychology: the vast majority of men don't want to fight with their wives for the rest of their lives, and a woman who is willing to argue about stupid stuff to demonstrate her intellectual superiority to the man in her life is ultimately going to shit test her way out of a relationship.  Not because her dude feels "threatened".  Because her dude feels marginalized and diminished for being forced to compete with the woman who is supposed to be a loving support.

A woman who claims men are intimidated by her is almost always a poor matrimonial risk, and she's going to be trouble in even a casual relationship.  Her unwillingness to acknowledge the idea that in the romantic realm competition should be with other women FOR men, not AGAINST the men, is the keystone in her temple of solipsism.  She walks around with a chip on her shoulder, demanding masculine prerogatives without accepting masculine responsibilities . . . and then wants to be valued for whatever shreds of femininity she has left.

The "intimidation" that these women feel they exude is mere bossiness.  Men don't like bossy wives, in general, and therefore a woman who feels "intimidating" is self-selecting out of your marriage pool.  That's not to say that intelligence and ambition aren't factors in the equation -- I found Mrs. Ironwood's ability to demonstrate her great intelligence one of the things most attractive about her.  Thing was . . .

. . . she didn't feel like she had to beat me over the head with it.  As Vox has recently stated, "The fact that a man is capable of having a substantive intellectual discussion with a woman doesn't mean he wants to do so every time he makes a simple observation."  Intelligence is a valued factor in a wife . . . but so is the social understanding to know when displaying that intelligence will be seen in a negative light.  Thinking that the dude who you just crushed in the monthly sales contest is going to like and respect you for your victory is foolishly ignorant of a woman: she simply cannot earn the same kind of masculine respect a man's male peers would, in the same situation.  

And even if he does show that he respects your intelligence and your acumen, your drive and ambition . . . that doesn't mean he wants to have to face that challenge every day for the rest of his life.  A man wants to come home to comfort and security after a hard day's struggle, not face an even fiercer competition that he cannot hope to win at home.  So when a woman mentions that men seem intimidated by her, and she's not drop-dead gorgeous, pay the bar tab and move on.  This one is trouble.  She's not threatening, she's just really obnoxious and annoying . . . and doesn't have the sense to recognize it.

Good response: "I can see why."  LEAVE.
Better response: "You poor girl.  How awful for you.  Count me among them."  LEAVE
Best response: "Intimidated?  By you?  Miss Bossypants?  That's HILARIOUS!" LEAVE . . . laughing.

9. "Women can do everything just as well as a man can."


Well, no.  

Don't get me wrong -- in about 80% of the cases, that's a correct assumption.  Men and women are fairly on par in aggregate when it comes to everything from long division to programming Javascript.  But if a woman thinks that the gender differences stop at the physical, then she's not wife material.  In the slightest.

Men and women have traditionally sub-specialized in various tasks as our society has progressed through various economic fields.  The roles have changed as the economy has -- I rarely make Mrs. Ironwood go out and glean the wheat fields or field dress and skin a deer -- but the fact of gender specialization has remained constant.  Men and women do different tasks, in general, because men and women are different.  We have different goals, aspirations, measures of success, drives and ambitions.  We have different strengths and weaknesses. We have different areas of interest.  

The problem with the idea that "women can do everything just as well as a man can" is that it encourages the idea that the same abilities necessarily stem from the same font of motivations.  For instance, a woman who enrolls in an all-male workout group just to prove that she can work at the same level as the men can isn't demonstrating her competence . . . she's demonstrating her willingness to mess with your masculinity.

I'm happy to admit that there are some tasks that women, in general, are just better at.   Networking, likewise.  Most social situations, actually.  But the belief that women are equally equipped and educated for any given task as well as a man is can be poison to a relationship.  I've also noted how short-lived this is once a couple is wed, too.  It seems within months of the wedding, the number of things a new bride can do - even if she's the same gender as she was before the ceremony - drops dramatically as she basks in the accomplishment of her marriage.  She no longer needs to prove that women can do everything just as well as a man can.  She has a husband to take care of that now.

But gods help you if that poor schmuck is you.  You just bit into a massive shit test.  The proper response was a bold retreat.  This woman is NOT wife material.

Good response: "Really?  Then you don't mind giving me a few pointers on lactation, for instance -- I suck at it." LEAVE (while her eyes glaze over)
Better response: "Yeah, Cupcake, show me your draft card, THEN I'll take you seriously." LEAVE
Best response: "Are you ready to prove it? Otherwise, shut the hell up about it.  That's what I'd say to a man."  LEAVE 


10. "I don't need a man."


This is a feminist classic . . . and the best evidence yet for the rationalization hamster becoming the dominant life form in America.  Women who proudly declare that "they don't need a man" are trumpeting a competence and independence they mistakenly feel men, in general, admire.  And while most of us can't stand a truly helpless woman, a woman who doesn't need a man shouldn't get one.

Marriage is a partnership -- that much hasn't changed.  While the specifics and the conditions have changed around, that much hasn't changed across history, economies, or cultures.  We get married because we have a need to -- economic, sexual, social, or personal -- and we need to fulfill that need.  Just because I can masturbate doesn't mean I don't need a woman as a sex partner.  Just because Mrs. Ironwood can now cook doesn't mean she doesn't need a man as a husband.  People in general are interdependent, particularly in the institution of marriage. 

When a woman proudly proclaims her independence in these terms, she is revealing her attitude toward men and marriage in general, right on the box.  Few couples who have been married longer than 10 years will say that kind of bullshit, because they have established that yes, indeed, part of them DOES need to be married.  That's not to say you can't survive without a man, obviously, but making your lack of need known so early and so proudly demonstrates that a woman does not understand what marriage truly entails.  

Often a woman proclaiming her independence in this manner is actually thinking she's making herself more attractive, not the target of the pump-and-dump humpsters.  The thing is, the kind of man she most hopes to attract is likely to be appalled by such a declaration and the wise ones will quietly move on.  Declaring your independence from needing a relationship isn't a statement of strength to a man, as are most of these Red Pill Alerts it's a defiant and insulting attempt to emasculate.  

Stay the hell away from her.  She's trouble.

A wife who doesn't need her husband won't have him long.  Without a compelling reason -- besides love -- for them to stay together, the odds say (and Married Game backs up) that a marriage will implode or explode, depending upon the principals.  Wiser couples tend to realize that men in relationships need to be needed, and wise women allow themselves to express that need in a way he can accomodate.  A man who doesn't feel useful in a relationship will find someplace where he can feel useful, if he is any kind of quality at all.  

It's not an admission of incompetence to admit you need a man in your life,  ladies.  It's an expression of general desire that men find hopeful.  "I don't need a man" is essentially your declaration that your heart is closed to the prospect of a real union, in favor of the roommates-with-slowly-decreasing-benefits model that feminists are trying to pass off as happy marriages these days.  Feminists see any other admission than "I don't need a man" as a capitulation to the stereotype of feminine weakness, and have spent the last 40 years attempting to ensure that their daughters, indeed, won't need a man when they grow up.

Of course, now that many of them have grown up . . . they discover that while they may not need a man, they want one more than the breath of life. Yet they can't understand why their declarations of independence and strength aren't getting the dudes lining up any faster than when she kept mentioning her resume. 

Good response: "Oh, thank goodness - we were starting to think you weren't going to leave without one tonight.  I'll spread the word that we're safe." LEAVE
Better response: "I just wanted to thank you on behalf of all the men in the room."  LEAVE
Best response: "Don't worry, Cupcake -- with an attitude like that, you're in no danger of getting one."

So there you go, fellas: ten Red Pill Alert danger signs that the woman you are talking to is NOT wife material.  There are others, and more subtle signs indicating more insidious dangers, but if you pay attention and raise a red flag on the play when you hear one of these statements, you will save yourself a tremendous amount of grief with your future wife.




65 comments:

  1. You left one out. If a girl you're interested in says "I'm not maternal," then run like hell. Sure, you may not plan on having kids, (and the thought of a childless union where you could spend your resources on having non-stop fun might seem appealing,) but a woman declaring that she has no mothering instincts is basically saying "I'm the most important person in my life and I always will be. I'm so important that I'm willing to commit genetic suicide to prevent someone else from muscling into my life and ruining my fun." A woman who cringes at the thought of taking care of her own child probably isn't going to take care of YOU all that well. Have fun with her if you like, but avoid marriage at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. babies spoil a gal's figure and she is too washed out/broke to go out goodtiming with her Husband. any wonder he loses his desire for her. and yeah! i'd rather put on some glads and feed the jukebox than slouch around in sweats (no money) wiping spaghetti faces.

      Delete
  2. Do women actually SAY things like that to men they are just getting acquainted with?

    Do any women besides rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth feminists actually use terminology like that at all in conversation?

    If they do, things are far worse than I thought. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such things are generally NOT brought up on the first date or in casual conversation early on, but if you have the misfortune to be surrounded by "progressives," you will indeed encounter this vocabulary in use and around eligible men.

      The same women also wonder why they are not married.

      Delete
    2. Sign on to any online dating site and browse the women's profiles. Plenty say these exact words right in their profile.

      Delete
  3. This is one of the single most disgusting and childish things I have ever read in my life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. over-exaggerating like hell - must be a woman. get over it.

      Delete
    2. Instead of lambasting it with insults try to at least show some intelligence and give reasons .... sometimes the truth is harsh. @article TLDR = Don't Marry or get into relationships with assholes, seem sensible enough.

      Delete
    3. You *are* exaggerating. He's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. I would give this a 3 on 10, even for shock value. Just the same blathering, whiny, emotional, red pill drivel.

      Nothing new to see here, move on...

      Delete
    4. But it's not wrong. If it's wrong, present your argument.

      Delete
    5. Surely you jest. They can't even present a name.

      Delete
    6. Translation: this post gave me a mind hurt and a feel bad.

      Delete
    7. Another possible possible translation: This post was so true that it blew my boxer-panties out the window. I recognized myself in almost every part and my feminist-ego couldn't handle it without reacting by writing a complaint containing nothing but whining.

      Delete
  4. If your brother is anything like you, it's pretty easy to see why your ex-sister in law left him. Because any level of vermin would be a huge step up...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Cupcake. You can only shame me if I respect your opinion. Fail.

      Delete
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

      "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

      If you don't respect another's opinion, clearly we don't have to respect yours. Bigger Fail.

      Delete
    3. Feminism, you see, is an ideology primarily focused on exploring and developing new rhetorical devices for articulating respect for men. Without respect for men as a central theme, feminism would cease to exist. Any man who fails to recognize this, fails fails to grasp the ouvre of feminist thought.

      A philosopher, to be deserving of respect, must first preach by example, but eminism is not capable of articulating respect for men.

      Feminism would cease to be meaningful if it abandoned the demonization, denigration, and defamation of all things (even imaginary things) it sees as "male".

      Nice try, but respect is not something given. It is something earned. What has feminism done to earn respect from men?

      List the top three things. Choose the most impressive. I want to know what feminism has done for me lately, or ever.

      Delete
    4. I would dearly love to see such a list. A cogent, non-self-serving list.

      Delete
  5. I use the term Rape Culture. I think it exists. I don't consider porn to be a part of it.

    Of course if you paint your opponent as stupid, you won't have to do much to counter his argument. At least you let us all see that you are absolutely dishonest.

    Overall, I'm disgusted by what's written here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Overall, your disgust interests me not at all. If you have a cogent argument to counter -- say, some proof that marrying a feminist or someone who doesn't actually like men is a good move for a man -- then present it. Otherwise, my argument stands.

      Delete
    2. " I'm disgusted by what's written here."
      Translation: my feeling are what's important.

      Delete
    3. ^1,000 likes!!

      Delete
  6. I'm going to be blatantly honest here. I didn't read 99% of this post. None of it really caught my attention until "I don't need a man" and I have to say that you're wrong. You're over generalizing and forcing all women into this tiny box to fit what you want to say. It's insulting and demeaning to all women, because we're not all alike - same as men not being all alike. Though you're demonstrating for the world to see how a Dog thinks. Bravo.

    Not all women proclaiming they don't need a man say it to disregard male sexuality. I am one of them. I Don't need a man, because I'm much happier without one than I am with one. I'm an insecure mess inside of a relationship and I rather not push those insecurities onto some unsuspecting guy. Neither do I need a relationship for sexual needs because I'm not a sexual person. I'm Happier being a solitary creature.

    Would you still consider me a red pill kind of gal because I actually want friend zoned? Does that make me any less worth it to have around because I don't need a man for anything more than friendship? Because it's awfully sad for you, and all other men that think the way you do, to not be able to have a decent person in your life just because you can't fuck them. It's pretty pitiful, honestly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) is a common counter-argument to the Red Pill approach. It assumes that just because there are exceptions to the rule, then the rule no longer applies. This is faulty reasoning at the core.

      Women who proclaim they don't need a man may or may not intend to disregard or denigrate male sexuality, but that's what they are doing. What they are NOT doing is demonstrating that they have what it takes to be a good wife.

      That's the thing. This is a WIFE test. If you don't pass, it doesn't mean you're a bad WOMAN, just a poor risk for marriage for a man. Judgment on one count does not imply judgment on the other. I know lots of wonderful women. Very few of them are equipped to be good wives.

      No, you aren't a Red Pill gal if you want to be friendzoned. That kind of goes against the purpose and point of the Red Pill. If you want to be terminally single, do so with my blessing . . . but don't pretend you're equipped to be a good wife just because you're female.

      And I don't care whether or not you think it's sad. Personally, I think it's sad that you've decided to eliminate sex from your life. But that's your choice. I don't condemn you for it (as you condemn me for my POV) but I do think it's sad.

      Delete
    2. I am sorry I have to be Anon, but as a female I get so much flak for my obvious 'sexism' and double standards to the genders. I looked to see if this was touched on and it wasn't.
      "Women who proclaim they don't need a man may or may not intend to disregard or denigrate male sexuality" what if such would be said with the emphasis on just 'a' man. Or better yet, 'have' to be. I tend to think that being with someone you WANT to be with shows a stronger sign of loyalty. It's like, as a female, hearing them saying " Oh I'm lonely I need a boyfriend." Seriously? A gap filler? I think that's a horrid way to make that guy feel like he is there cause he's what's available. I don't NEED, I would like...because then I am at his side because of my will and desire to be so, which I would think is much stronger form of loyalty to rely on. Any thoughts on such a mindset? I am grateful and extraordinarily fortunate my Beloved understands what I mean by this, but I am concerned that it could be broadcasting to others a lack of loyalty.

      Delete
    3. It's a loyalty that extends only as far as your whim, then, right? Why should a man extend any kind of commitment to a woman in that situation? This is a recipe for "roommates with benefits", not a marriage. With that attitude you'd make a swell girlfriend . . . but likely a poor wife.

      A man needs to be needed in order to be a good husband. If you don't need him, if he can be replaced or eliminated so easily, why should he make the investment in the relationship? Especially when he's got a 50-50 shot at you dumping him if a better deal comes along? Since men control commitment in the SMP, I would think that would be a valuable factor to reflect on in your mating strategy. If you don't need a man . . . you probably won't get one. Not permanently.

      And as far as double standards go, I didn't address that topic in the article because I am proceeding with the axiom that double standards exist. Blame biology.

      Delete
    4. I see.. what you are saying.. but I think we are saying the same thing. You are saying 'a man' needs to be needed. Whereas I am saying THAT man, in particular, does. Because then (from a female perspective) you can dwell on every part that makes him who is he and giving that happiness. I don't consider something as strong as loyalty to be a whim. If it's a whim then it's not really loyalty, it's waiting until something better comes. But, if THAT man is what is needed.. not a man, then (at least in my case) you aren't even looking for better options as much as spending that energy to better yourself (or in this case MYSELF) for that man.
      Maybe I am a approaching this as an 'after the commitment self improvement' and this was geared towards 'before the commit"? Whatever it is I appreciate you taking the time to talk.
      I would like to suggest one addition of any statements that start with "I demand..." It's kind of in the same vein as "I deserve" but I was told that once by a female in a relationship and I cringed pretty hard.

      As far as the double standards thing, that was in reflections to the fact that I have personally been attacked, stalked and harassed for being a female that holds 'double standards' and such. It was just explaining why I had to post the way I did is all.

      Delete
    5. See, I DON'T think we're talking about the same things.

      When you say "I don't need a man", you are, essentially, saying "I can live my life without a deep interpersonal and/or committed relationship with men".

      That's great. Knock yourself out. But you just self-selected out of the "good wife material" category . . . because saying you don't need men in general but you do "need" (want, is what you mean - you might want him badly, but you don't "need" him) a particular man is both insulting to masculinity in general and indicative of trouble ahead in a marriage.

      Needing THAT man doesn't fly. You either need a man, or you don't. If you chose the latter, then turning around and busting out with an exception because it suits your fancy is intellectually dishonest.

      Delete
  7. I DON'T need a man. Or a woman. Or a relationship. Saying that you don't NEED a man (and how many people say that REALLY?) doesn't mean that you're in some sort of denial or trying to say you'll throw away anyone who tries because you don't need them. No, I don't need a man and I don't need to be married, but that doesn't mean I'm completely opposed to it. If I end up falling for a man (or woman because oh, look, homosexuals exist too), then why not? But I'm perfectly fine without it. THAT is what it means.

    Other than that, what strikes me most with this whole post is that your best tip for what to say to someone you decide you don't want to get into a relationship with is basically the most disgusting and shitty thing you could possibly say. If we're talking about how women supposedly try to make you less worthy by saying these things or whatever, then you're certainly doing the same thing by responding the way you think is "best". In which case, we certainly don't want you anyway and it'd be a sad thing if ANYONE reacted positively to someone saying something like that to another human being. Especially when what those things are supposedly responding to really... isn't... an outright attack like those responses basically are, even if you insist on seeing them as such.

    This post is patriarchy in its prime, and you can now go ahead and call me an aggressive feminist you don't want anything to do with because, frankly, I wouldn't want anything to do with you either. Ta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether or not you are for or against marriage isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not you'd be a good wife. Saying you don't need a man is a very strong indicator that you will not be a good wife.

      As far as the response to the alert, I leave that in the hands of the gentlemen, and merely caution being judicious in your response. Some of these ladies feel that they have everything they need to be a good wife just because of their gender.

      Note, gentlemen, that even though we are not talking about a specific woman, these women seem to take our willingness to reject a woman based on these alerts personally. Solipsism in action.

      Delete
    2. "This post is patriarchy in its prime, and you can now go ahead and call me an aggressive feminist you don't want anything to do with because, frankly, I wouldn't want anything to do with you either. Ta."

      And yet she bothers to reply in the first place.

      Please, little child, come back when you are mature enough to be a woman.

      Delete
  8. I'd have to agree on at least three points particularly the 'I deserve' one.
    I was in a relationship with one of those women and the thing that killed it was that she was from another country and wanted us to live and work together in a different city or country to the one we were living and working when we met. Her reason? Because if she had to live and work away from her family, then so should I.
    Forget the fact that it was her choice to move here in the first place!
    As for all those negative comments, don't pay any attention to them. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous how feminists can go from supporting VAWA, which assumes all family violence is caused by men, to arguing that Not All Women Are Like That about mere character presumptions.
    VAWA puts innocent men in jail or on the streets whereas your presumptions mean they can't get a date. I know which outcome I'd rather have!
    I'll wager every negative comment is from single women.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The "show me your draft card" comment cracked me up. I don't know of anyone who has a draft card these days...but I do know several women veterans and they are great gals and devoted to family. To each their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is not the gallantry of our women warriors -- I applaud their service every bit as much as I do our male veterans -- it's that the draft, which is still on the books and administered, is one of the most basic gender-discriminatory laws left . . . yet we hear almost no feminists protesting this gross and blatant manifestation of sexism. Hmmmmm...

      Delete
  10. As near as I have been able to determine, "rape culture" is a collection of behaviors that, for whatever reason, the speaker doesn't like. It's an effort to lump all that is masculine and conflate it with abominable behavior by referring to it by the term "rape."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think I would rather have a man who can find his future wife without a litmus test. Besides, why would you ever treat a person so condescendingly? I thought we were against feminism because it has such a condescending attitude towards men- how is this better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then the stupid schmuck gets the ball-break divorce that he deserves. My point is that using terms like "rape culture", "I don't need a man", and "I deserve . . ." are the condescending terms . . . I just give an adequate response.

      Delete
  12. So I went to the bar last night and there was this really cute girl in the corner playing a 3DS. Intrigued, I tightened the fedora atop my head and confidently strolled over. It didn't take long for her to notice my presence and her eyes glance up, eyebrows furrowing the tiniest bit. "What are you playing?" I asked with an interested smile. "Oh, Animal Crossing." At that moment she closed her 3DS and put it in her purse. "You know, it's not all uncommon for a woman to like video games," I slyly cooed as I sat down next to her. "I... didn't really think it was uncommon?" She nervously chuckled and picked up her drink. "I've been playing video games all my life, really. I don't understand why a lot of guys think it's so unusual?" She lifts her glass to her lips as I start, "Well, I guess it's because I have a penis." She chokes slightly, a small trail of her drink escapes the corner of her mouth. "Perhaps I should show you... MINE?!" I END IN A MIGHTY HOWL AND IN ONE SMOOTH MOTION WHIP OUT MY DICK, SAILING IT ACROSS HER FACE SENDING HER DRINK TO THE FLOOR AND HER TO MEET IT NOT A SECOND LATER. SHE COWERS ON THE FLOOR IN THE PRESENCE OF MY ALPHA FORM AND SCREAMS FOR HELP. "DON'T CRY FOR YOUR FEMINIST FRIENDS YOU SLUTTY WENCH, YOU HAVE FAILED MY TEST FOR ACQUIRING THE PERFECT WOMAN FOR A POWERFUL MAN SUCH AS MYSELF. I BID YOU FAREWELL, BUT YOU ARE FAR FROM A LADY." I swiftly about-face, my penis sending drinks and bottles alike from their places on the bar, make my way towards the door, and mysteriously mutter before my exit: The Matrix was a good movie...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just love it when feminists try to be funny.

      Delete
  13. Just about every one of these saying I've heard women say more than once.... Of the ones I knew held to these opinions and did get married - they were miserable (along with their husbands). Even without scientific evidence/mass data - if you hold such a low view of men, why would you want anything more than a casual relationship with one.

    I agree with everything said in here from my experience esp. '"I deserve . . .", 'Feminism... (talked about as if it were the white knight missing from life)' and '"Men feel threatened and intimidated by me."

    There's plenty of quality women who are happy being women, love men and value (never mind just acknowledge) the differences between men and women who wouldn't put out the attitudes described here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Helpful hint: If I drop #10 on you, my goal is to make you go away. No need to scramble for a snappy comeback; just jump straight to the "LEAVE" part and we'll both enjoy our respective evenings that much more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Works for us.

      But don't think we won't spread the word.

      Delete
  15. Popped here by accident, searching Google, so I decided to drop some opinion.
    Ian, I really think this list is halfway fine. 1 is obvious, 2, 3, 5, 8 are glaring red flags. But my observations show the rest is more of a bunch of things women say to sound self sufficient. Some of them, like 6, are used commonly in lady company even here. I, for once, was guilty of number 10, and I dropped it in front of my future husband; and 6 (Why can't guys be more family oriented?) - my husband replied with "Well, after a certain age most men get some screw loose in their head and actually seek a wife". He married me regardless (He's fine!!! He's fine! Living, breathing, and sustaining rather impressive erections). I wouldn't advise my daughter to say it, of course, but I think these items of the list are frightening when combined with each other or with nasty attitude, rather than stand-alone statements.
    What really would bug in a woman are one of these followings:
    11. All my life I've been dating jerks - it's either true and it's a nasty pattern of bad decisions, or not and she's exaggerating. Not good.
    12. I hate my father.
    13. I've been sexually abused (in a casual tone).
    14. I HATE CHILDREN - how come was that left out?!
    15. Supports biological/chemical warfare (believe me, I've heard a chick say that. She was a monster in the true meaning of the word).
    16. Actually, every statement with the words "hate", "despise", constructions of "Fuck this.....(insert anything)". Believe me, WOMEN can't stand being around these creatures.
    If you come up with more, I think the list would be more complete.

    Truly yours:
    A 24 years old EE woman, married for 3 years.
    And I repeat: He's fine! Believe me, he's fine! Although a bit rounded out since we moved in together.... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "A man needs to be needed in order to be a good husband." This is a key point so many women don't seem to understand. Many also fail to separate what is true in their professional lives and what is true in their marriage. You may not "need" your male co-worker, but if you don't need your husband/fiance/serious boyfriend, that relationship is not going to last, at least not happily.

    There are a few exceptions to your assertion that men are intimidated only by great beauty, not by intelligence and accomplishments. One of the most obvious is in conservative Christian circles, where a small but vocal group of "leaders" seems truly frightened by the thought that women might have good ideas and express them or, even worse, exert some sort of power or influence. These men seem committed to maintaining their own power and position at any cost, which leads them to marginalize all women, including their wives. Which is ironic, considering the example Jesus set in his very counter-cultural interactions with women.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think what women are saying is that they would prefer not to be "wife-material" to thin-skinned men who can't take criticism.

    I wish I could figure out what wimpy dude wrote this so I can cross him off my list of men I'd like to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cupcake, consider me crossed off that list with eager enthusiasm. And how, pray tell, would you put a metric on "wimpy"? Does getting your teeth knocked out by the butt of a shotgun count? Rescuing children from dog attacks? Being a strong advocate for child safety in my community?

      Ad hominem attacks mean you don't really have an argument.

      Delete
  19. Just wanted to take a quick moment to congratulate you on your misogyny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. War is peace and love is hate.

      That's really good satire Anonymous.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Cupcake. You can't tell me how I love women.

      Delete
  20. "Men feel threatened and intimidated by me."
    A woman who honestly believes this is confused or has a couple of hamsters in her bra. No matter how loudly she protests the contrary, most men don't feel "intimidated" by her. - Which is funny, because this entire post reeks of insecurity, and the person who wrote it displays signs of being intimidated by most women, clinging this outdated idea of static gender roles (which never really existed,) because it makes him feel better about being socially left behind. I find it very sad. I wish these people would try and learn some critical thinking skills, and apply it to their social situations, rather than just joining redpill or MRA sites and becoming bitter, twisted, misogynists. Feminism isn't actually your enemy. You are. I wish you could see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allow me to rebut:

      1) "this entire post reeks of insecurity, and the person who wrote it displays signs of being intimidated by most women"

      I might be insecure. I'll cop to that. But I am hardly intimidated by most women. As any regular reader of this blog knows, I have worked for women, with women, and had women work for me in female-dominated industries, and worked around women in a variety of capacities all of my life. I defy you to find one of them who will claim that they intimidated me in any way . . . or one who will attest that my behavior toward them has been anything but professional. The fact is, socially I'm not intimidated by women because I value myself differently than they do, and no matter how many degrees and job titles and important positions they might hold, our social metrics are largely gender-derived and dependent on very different factors. I don't compete with women socially, therefore I have no reason to feel intimidated by them. I don't feel sexually intimidated by women because I am in a wonderful, sexually-fulfilling relationship and I objectify people for a living. I've been hit on by world-class porn stars and politely declined - not because I was intimidated, but because I was uninterested. I got better shit at home. So women can't sexually intimidate me because I'm not actually competing for them. I've already won. So if I am demonstrably not intimidated by women professionally, socially, or sexually, what does that leave? I'll be happy to debate or discuss, charm or flirt with any woman you care to put in my presence and feel confident I can hold my own. So . . . no.

      2) "clinging this outdated idea of static gender roles (which never really existed,) "

      Wrong again. I'm not clinging to anything. Gender roles did exist, and still do, and I've spent a goodly amount of prose demonstrating how non-static they are . . . and what a smart man should do to take advantage of it. I have never advocated a return to Agricultural Age style marriage. But I also reject the divorce-o-rama that feminist celebrate so vigorously as fundamentally anti-male, for some pretty easy-to-understand reasons.

      3) "...because it makes him feel better about being socially left behind."

      Ah, no. Sorry, another fail. I'm a strong and active member of my local community, a Scout leader, popular personally and professionally, and beloved by friends and family. I'm professionally at the top of my game and only getting better, and damn it, I get better looking every year, thanks to the Ironwood Curse. So this part just makes me giggle.
      (Con't)

      Delete

    2. 3)"I find it very sad. I wish these people would try and learn some critical thinking skills, and apply it to their social situations, rather than just joining redpill or MRA sites and becoming bitter, twisted, misogynists."

      That's what Game is, Cupcake: critical thinking applied to social situations - actual social situations, not the feminist technicolor version where women like Nice Guys and dudes don't mind muffin tops or rampant flakiness. That you find it "very sad" is demonstrative of your own lack of understanding, not theirs. Or an over-sensitivity. While I admit there is plenty of misogyny in the Manosphere, the men here are not bitter or twisted . . . they're determined. Don't feel sad for these dudes, they're getting BETTER, becoming BETTER MEN. If that makes you sad then . . .

      4) "Feminism isn't actually your enemy. You are. I wish you could see it."

      Oh. THAT explains why you're sad. Because feminism is, indeed, our enemy, and has been since feminism began to entertain the idea that the human race would be better off without men - or without men actually being the men they want to be.

      The problem is, in the Manosphere being better, more liberated men means being liberated from the cultural expectations of those nasty ol' static gender roles you hate so much. Like the ones where we give a damn about whether or not you're sad. Or the ones that dictate that we have to getting married, divorced, and paying child support for the privilege of someone else raising your kids as a matter of course. Or the ones who say a man's value is ONLY measured by the service he can give to a particular woman. So while I can understand why we make you sad . . . I find myself strangely untroubled by either your judgment or your feelings. See how I liberated myself from that ugly old static gender role? Aren't you proud of me? And now I'm strangely untroubled by whether or not you are. You can only shame me if I respect your opinion, and gosh, just don't.

      Welcome to the Manosphere, Cupcake.

      Delete
  21. "That's what Game is, Cupcake: critical thinking applied to social situations - actual social situations," In that case, you need to do a little more of it. Think, where did these situations come from? How are they maintained in contemporary society? I'm not saying you have to be a feminist. What I am saying is that when you're blaming feminism for the problems that you're facing, you're pointing the finger in completely the wrong direction. And you're doing that because you haven't thought about the issue deeply enough. Or maybe you need to read some more books. The fact that you think I must be a girl highlights this flaw in your logic: you're mistaking changeable, existent social constructs (that don't even apply to everyone,) for objective fact, when thinkers much smarter than you (or I,) have been amassing logical arguments for decades proving that the world is not so simple. They fit in better with reality. That's why I feel sorry for you. It's nothing to do with feminism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I'm not blaming feminism, precisely. Feminism is a symptom, a social by-product of industrialization. It's post-industrial society that's causing all of this turmoil in mating, and you can't un-ring that bell. All you can do is adapt. That's what the Manosphere teaches men: how to adapt their masculinity to the realities of 21st century post-industrial life in the western world.

      Don't tell me I "haven't thought about the issue deeply enough", because that's patently untrue. I might not agree with you, but I'd bet my left testicle that I've spent far, far more time on it than you have. I've read plenty of books, tons of books, books by feminists, books about feminism, gender studies, marriage, dating, mating, evolution, sex, sex, and more sex. So . . . no. You can't claim to feel sorry for me for my "ignorance" when I am demonstrably well-educated on the subject. Unless you have a Ph.D. from an accredited women's studies program, are a credentialed sex educator, or have other cred, it's safe to assume I know more about this than you. Failing that . . . the ignorance accusation fails.

      What feminism (3rd Wave and beyond) does is promote women's issues and interests - often at the expense of men's - while at the same time claiming to be working for "equality", an imaginary goal that will never be reached. This cognitive dis-connect allows women in post-industrial societies a convenient rationalization for their deteriorating happiness and assumption of male prerogatives (without male responsibilities or expectations). It has become an ideological club with which to beat men in aggregate and demean masculinity. It places a value on men only for what they can do to serve a woman, not for their own masculine values. Feminism's unwillingness to even address this issue demonstrates its ideological deficits. The "logical" arguments about how "everyone" benefits from feminism are hopelessly tainted by political posturing and are skewed to favor a feminist interpretation.

      And I assumed you were female because you write like a girl, using emotion (sadness and thinly veiled contempt) to guide your argument, not logic or reason. Women in aggregate frequently use passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks under the guise of concern in order to score points in the Matrix. My apologies if I was incorrect in that assumption. In which case I beg you to continue studying the Manosphere, because it appears you desperately need it.

      Delete
  22. I understand taking advantage of the constructs, but you don't have to relegate women to second-class citizens or promote gender essentialism to do it. It is faulty, actually-damaging thinking. If you're not the victim, the weaker men who listen to you are. Either way, you really need to stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are offended by attempting to relegate a gender to second-class status and promoting gender essentialism, then why aren't you screaming at the top of your lungs at the thousands of "how to spot a loser dude from his on-line dating profile" blogs and sites out there? I'm telling guys how to spot a loser wife. Why is that a bad thing?

      Oh. because it hurts your feelings.

      No where to I advocate turning women into second-class citizens. I merely give the gentlemen some benchmarks by which to judge the quality of a potential wife, taking masculine, not feminine, interests and values into account. The "weaker men" who read my blog dislike divorce and want to avoid it. The easiest way to avoid it is to pass up those women who are most likely to divorce. Would you be offended if a women's blog posted something about how to avoid dating a guy who is going to cheat on you?

      I thought not.

      This merely demonstrates the unwillingness of the ladies out there to face the Red Pill observable truths about the mating/dating game, post-industrial version. If a man wants a divorce resistant marriage, he's trying to make his wife a second-class citizen. If he wants a wife who is worthy of the title, he's a "gender essentialist". No one bitches when a woman writes how to spot a great husband.

      Equality my big white hairy ass.

      Delete
  23. It's condescending and unprofessional to call women "Cupcake;" it also undermines your façade of logical argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Explain.

      If the label fits, what's wrong with it?

      Delete
    2. Clearly, you are new to the Manosphere.

      The term "Cupcake" is specifically used for a woman (or effeminate man) who has just attempted to shame a man for, essentially, being a man. It happens with frightening regularity and with such casual regard that using a more appropriately apt term of invective - one using four letters - would be crass and repetitive.

      THEREFORE, in an effort to remind women that their efforts to shame men are utterly dependent upon our willingness to respect their opinions, using the fairly gentle and inoffensive term "Cupcake" when a woman has attempted to shame has become a Red Pill standard. You don't use it except in very specific situations . . . say, when a woman is condescendingly and unprofessionally attempting to shame you into agreeing with her.

      Delete
  24. Per Merriam-Webster feminism is defined as the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. What you view as feminism is actually misandry, a completely different concept. If anything, I find you guilty of mysogyny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that the only way a guy is going to have a happy marriage is to have a 1950s relationship where the woman is treated like a second-class citizen. What's next? OTK spanking if she speaks out of turn? If this is what you want then you aren't looking for a wife, you're looking for a submissive or a kajira.

    ReplyDelete
  25. One should always be wary when someone tries to conduct an intellectual argument by quoting a dictionary. It usually demonstrates a poor grasp of the issue. Case in point.

    The "feminism" that MW defined is actually known by scholars as "First Wave Feminism", and that went out with dial telephones. The NEW, IMPROVED Feminism, "Third Wave Feminism", goes far beyond the "equality" meme by declaring THERE CAN NEVER BE EQUALITY, and that MEN WILL ALWAYS OPPRESS WOMEN, therefore ETERNAL REVOLUTION IS THE ANSWER. Third Wave feminism doesn't believe in equality - it believes that men, because of our long-entrenched positions of power and responsibility, should be forced by society not to just grant equality, but to take severe handicaps to themselves in order to further the advances of women. Some Third Wavers have even - seriously - advocated eliminating ALL males from the species. Male Genocide.

    Does feminism condemn these women who would put your brothers, husbands, fathers and sons to death? No, they invite them on lecture circuits and hold book clubs. Do "traditional" feminists stand up against such blatant, hate-filled misandry? Not that I've heard. And I've been listening. So your conception of Feminism, as such, just doesn't fit reality. Also, can you tell me how feminism (first wave) differs substantially from classic humanism?

    Lastly, you make several profound mis-statements about my own position because, presumably, you are too emotionally distraught to read properly. So I'm going to correct you, because you're wrong.

    Your assumption that "1950s style" Red Pill marriage is the only way to happiness assumes, wrongly, that wives are treated like second-class citizens - a common bit of propaganda from the feminists. The further inflamatory rhetoric is designed to engage an emotional response, not a rational argument. So let me break this down for you, using small words and bullet points, so you don't get lost:

    1. Most marriages today fail, one way or another. Either in divorce or in bitter unhappiness for both parties.
    2. One of the contributing factors to the break-up of marriage, and subsequent divorce, is often the lack of attraction the couple can hold for each other.
    3. Women, despite all the feminist rhetoric, are STILL sexually reactive, biologically speaking. No matter how rational her approach to her mate selection, no matter how "equal", if a woman is not given something to react to, sexually, she loses attraction (see noted feminist sex researcher Dr. Emily Nagoski for corroboration).
    4. Feminism has consistently denigrated and punished male sexuality as "sexist", leading to a generation of men unwilling or unable to provide the kind of sex-positive actions a woman needs to react to in order to be happy in a relationship.
    5. As a result, women today are using marriage as anything but a point of social stability and a reflection of her personal commitment. Men are terrified of divorce. Women are encouraged to divorce. Men are not marrying as much or as soon anymore. Women complain there "aren't any good men left". Etc. Etc. Women who actually did marry complain that their husbands are too passive, too boring, too uninspired, and regularly use that context to EatPrayLove their way out of their "deep personal commitment".
    6. The upshot is that feminism proves that a feminist can be anything she wants . . . except a good wife.

    Got it? Feminism tries to emasculate every man, and then complains bitterly when there aren't any "real" men left.

    If you really understood how a Red Pill marriage worked, the rest of that bullshit wouldn't have fallen out of your keyboard, either.

    Go read a book.

    ReplyDelete