Slang. I can appreciate their frustration but some of them skirt very close to quasi Islamist rhetoric re. women.

The solution is to gauge your expectations. If you are a socially stunted narcissist like our deluded friend, then you shouldn't be altogether surprised if the stunning blondes want nothing to do with you. There is nothing whatsoever mysterious about most women. They are, after all, apes like us with similar interests and desires.

Women don't care remotely about looks as much as men. If you're any of funny, wealthy, distinguished, charming, or witty, then you have a shot at the least.

I sincerely doubt, for example, that most of these 'incels' have ever openly expressed an interest in a woman. More likely they shied away from contact, and then wondered why they weren't noticed.


Edited by humbert: 29/5/2014 12:36:10 PM

Doesn't take much to connect the dots.

These are conversations happening all over the internet right now.

http://i.imgur.com/tInQCse.png

I think, on balance, the extra attention is good for the movement. Most people in the world are able tosee the world in deeper shades than black & white. Just yesterday there was an article on a judge questioning why young men were being persecuted for consensual underage sex acts when women were not. This is the true "essence" of the MRM, not entitlement and rape.

Edited by notorganic: 29/5/2014 01:20:57 PM

I have no qualm with the issues discussed but rather the rhetoric employed and conclusions reached by some within this movement.

Which rhetoric employed by who?

If you're making the argument that an entire movement be discounted because of the bitterness of a few virgins that aren't even part of the movement itself (look up True Forced Loneliness and how the TRP/MGTOW communities feel about them) then your argument is no better than someone advocating for the outlawing of homosexuality because pedophilia exists.

Did you know a university in the US conducted a study and eventually concluded (after long research) that the elephant is a descendant of the mammoth? True story.

Get a grip lest your delusions take over. Where did I say anything to the effect that I supported outlawing? Your clowning about is becoming less and less endearing.

Basically embracing the biological imperative of man and accepting the inherent differences between men and women. I have always been an egalitarian, but have come to understand that equal opportunity does not mandate equal outcome.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/elliot-rodger-and-the-creepy-world-of-the-pickup-artist-20140528-zrqg1.html

Redpill:oops:

Delusion coupled with entitlement; the essence of PUA hate, and redpill.
Will never understand why such men obsess about sex.

The language is quote telling. Feminism is evil, alpha/beta, incel, seduction methods, misandry etc etc.

Reading between the lines; women are conditioned by society to hate men. This, and only this, explains why no one wants to have sex with me.

- I resent feminism or laughably, our feminist culture.
- Pseudo-babble about sexual alienation - I can't get laid.
- pop psychology re. evolutionary theory and what it means for sex
- the 'game' and how to improve on it

You said something to the effect that I should not make summary judgments based on the actions of a few. I do not and did not. I quoted directly from the recommended reading on RedPill which you have repeatedly praised as having a good influence on your own life.

There are obvious and unfortunate inequities in gender relations which need to be addressed. But one needs to be serious about such things. Conspiratorial delusions about imagined feminist plots aren't the way to go about things for the very simple reason that the merest attempt at rational thinking tends to disprove such notions.

The claim that ours is a feminized culture is self-evidently ridiculous. As is the conspiratorial nonsense about feminists being responsible for the decline of the family. As is the claim that there has never been organised opposition to women's participation in the workforce. As is the cheap and very offensive blabber about Jim Crow discrimination. As is the elevation of contemporary 'misandry' to "right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century."

Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.'

It's a familiar pattern. These delusions do not emanate from a rational mind, but rather from a self evidently delusional one. Just as the man (Afroman) who obsesses about the dangers of the 'jews', RedPill obsesses about the seemingly genocidal intentions of feminists in such a hysterical manner that I can't help but piss on them.


I'm actually disappointed they haven't mentioned Hitler, and the illuminati.

Not to forget the qualifier at the end; 'feminists are responsible for domestic violence because their actions have provoked men.'

I'm assuming that you're referring to this quote.
"By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation."

I think you're misreading the quote, as I don't see this as making an excuse for domestic violence.

I misconstrued nothing. It is what it is.

I misconstrued nothing. It is what it is.

Simply reading between the lines, 'by trying to excuse domestic violence then invite other men to commit domestic violence'.

[YouTube]mzXkbJwrN38[/YouTube]

[YouTube]mzXkbJwrN38[/YouTube]

I’m An Anti-Sexist, Liberal Doctoral Student, Wife, And Mother Who Supports The Men’s Rights Movement Over Feminism, Here’s Why

I’m a pro-abortion, pro-marriage equality, anti-racism, anti-sexism, small “L” liberal, doctoral student, wife, mother and woman and I support the Men’s Rights Movement. Here’s why…

Like many, if not most, of my liberal arts educated contemporaries, I spent most of my college years immersed in feminist theories and thoughts, all of which appeared to give me new tools to understand the world I was living in, and suggested concrete ways I might go about changing the parts of the world I didn’t much like. The first inkling that there might be something amiss with my new tools arose when I gave birth to my first child and became a stay-at-home-mother, dependent on my husband for economic security. It wasn’t so much the sneering contempt for my choice that clued me in. I met the ubiquitous “goodness! What do you do all the day?” comments with aplomb, I thought, answering, “the same thing the people you pay to care for your children do all day”. No, it was the frightened, anxious, concerned whispers that gave me my first insight into a culture that doesn’t like or respect men very much.

“But what if he abandons you and the children to starve in the streets? What if he decides to trade you in for a younger model? What will you do if he just disappears?”

The questions were serious. Everyone seemed to know someone who had suffered that fate. Everyone but me. The idea that my husband would just up and leave his children, his wife, his home, his friends, his family – everything we’ve built together over the years, struck me as preposterous. He would have to be a monster to do that! Is that what men are, at heart? Monsters? Just waiting for a chance to destroy the people they love? But what if he just left us in poverty? Took his income and delivered, begrudgingly, whatever the courts ordered and then partied happily with bikini-clad twenty-year olds and left us to struggle to buy food or heat our house or find the money to take our beloved pets to the vet? What if he did that? Again, he would have to be, maybe not a monster, but a seriously cruel, callous person. And he’s not. He’s the most loving, kind, thoughtful, intelligent and caring man I have ever met, which is obviously why I married him. “It happens!” insisted the voices! “All the time!”

But does it?

My own lived experience told me a very different story. Given that nearly 50% of marriages do fail, it was no surprise that marriages around us started to fall apart. But with one single exception, all of those marriages were terminated by the women. The only man I know who initiated his divorce did so only after the violence in his home escalated past shameful and slightly painful to life-threatening, and yes, it was his wife who was the violent domestic partner. It was only after she threw a stoneware dinner plate and cut open his head, nearly severing his carotid artery, that he left. Despite the encouragement of many friends, he refused to file charges against her. It was too humiliating. Besides, who would believe him?

I remember taking my young son to visit the kindergarten class he was supposed to join when the new school year started. He saw a friend from swimming lessons and was overjoyed and they ran towards each other and ended up in a rolling, laughing pile of little kid arms and legs on the floor. The teacher intervened immediately, patiently and kindly explaining that the classroom was strictly no-contact and that wrestling, even play-wrestling was not allowed while two little girls went skipping by, holding hands. I asked her, “if the classroom is strictly no contact, then why are the girls allowed to show affection for one another?” “Oh”, she said, “that’s different. They’re not violent and destructive.”

Violent and destructive.

Two little boys tussling on the floor, having a ball, delighting in each other’s physical company was violent and destructive. But two little girls holding hands and skipping was perfectly fine. Needless to say, he didn’t go to that kindergarten class. He didn’t go to any kindergarten class at all. I kept him home until the second grade, until his unbearable loneliness made me relent. I talk to him about the expectations at school and make sure he understands that they are unfair. School is designed for children who like to sit quietly, learn abstractly and listen carefully. See what I did there? Children. Not girls. Children. It just so happens that most of the children who fit the school’s criteria for “good students” happen to be girls. Not all, by any means. One of my son’s dearest friends is a lovely, bookish boy who much prefers reading and cuddling his kitten to shrieking through the alleyways with water guns, and that’s perfectly okay. There are plenty of girls who prefer to pull things apart to see how they work and put object in motion to understand their physics and jump and bounce and scream. And a whole lot of boys, too.

But they can’t do that. Those bouncy, energetic, tactile, physical children are given a medical diagnosis. Drugged. Stupefied. Pacified. And they are mostly, but not all, boys.

I look at newspapers and see headlines like “Is It The End of Men?” and “Are Men Obsolete?” and then I look out my windows at the men collecting my garbage, the men repairing the broken water main, the men fixing the fallen electrical wires, the men installing windows at the neighbours, the men pouring a driveway, putting on a new roof, framing a house, fitting solar panels, repairing a broken concrete sidewalk and I think “have you lost your minds?” And yes, all those jobs are almost always performed by men. Why? Well that’s an interesting conversation to have, but beginning it by asking “are men obsolete?” is not only insulting, it’s infuriating. I go through my life simply taking for granted that the lights will turn on when I flip a switch, the furnace will kick in when I adjust a thermostat, clean water will flow from my taps when I twist them and my smartphone will keep me up to date with any information I care to know. Do you? Those things are overwhelming provided by men. The food in the grocery stores is driven there mostly by men in refrigerated trucks designed, manufactured, maintained and repaired by mostly men. Why those occupations are dominated by men may be an interesting conversation, but to suggest that the men currently doing them are “obsolete” is deeply offensive.

I hear the word “patriarchy” and I want to laugh. What patriarchy? Are you sure you don’t mean oligarchy? There is absolutely a small class of individuals who exercise disproportionate power and control over the rest of us, but those individuals are more appropriately recognized by class, not gender. Rich women seem no more likely to concern themselves with the plight of poor women, or women of color, or women struggling for access to adequate food or medical care or shelter than rich men. Do you think Sheryl Sandberg pays her nanny a living wage with full benefits? Does Marissa Meyers? Does any rich woman?

But all I hear from feminists is “patriarchy”. Male power. Male privilege. Male influence. Male authority. Which males? Which men have this power and authority and privilege and influence? Is it black men, hispanic men, white men from poor backgrounds, all of whom are disproportionately incarcerated and denied educations that reflect their talents, understandings, and needs? Is it homeless men? Gay men? Transgender men? Illegal immigrant men? Middle-class men struggling to hang on to houses with mortgages that will never be paid? Is it the vast majority of men?

I don’t see feminism attempting to answer any of these questions, other than to say, “patriarchy”, as if that means something important. I find it highly ironic that the feminist dislike of victim-blaming does not extend to men. Patriarchy = the rule of men = problems for men, too = it’s your fault, since you’re a man. This is a laughably inadequate explanation. The real problem for both men and women alike is that there is an increasingly powerful upper class in our society that is brutally exploiting and profiting from the labor of the poor(er) majority. It’s far more comfortable to blame “patriarchy” when the reality is that the rich, both men and women alike, are the real problem.

The only place I have encountered any willingness to set aside a conspiracy of wide-spread, omnipresent male power that ruthlessly exploits female powerlessness is the Men’s Rights Movement. Once “patriarchy” is discarded as a viable explanation, a far more nuanced and complex analysis proceeds. I may not agree with every single thing ever written or uttered by self-identified MRA but since when is that a requirement of feeling part of a general movement? Does every self-identified feminist agree 100% with every word ever uttered by any feminist in history? Of course not.

Men are lacking some very, very basic rights. The right to an education that doesn’t require them to be stupefied with drugs to participate. The right to choose parenthood. The right to have their healthcare equally funded. The right to equal sentencing under the law. The right to parent their children when relationships fall apart. The right to be considered something other than “obsolete”. Do rich men have these rights? Of course they do. The rich always have all the rights they need. But most men aren’t rich. Neither are most women.

And as long as feminism is going to hold on to the “patriarchy” as an explanation for why so many men are suffering, rather than looking at the real economic, social, political and cultural reasons for that suffering I will continue to turn my back on it. What is the point engaging with a movement that thinks 50% of our human population just might be “obsolete”? I’m much more interested in engaging with a movement that begins with the assumption that men and boys are human beings, and human beings cannot be disposed of, like machinery that is no longer useful or worn down. I’m with the Men’s Rights Movement, and I’m quite comfortable here.

Anecdote masquerading as analysis. I've said it before, there are things that I dislike in modern society;

- the immediate presumption that men working with children are potential paedophiles for example
- hypocrisy regarding violence
- unequal custodial arrangements

This is all good stuff, but then she pisses it all away by deriding 'feminism' as responsible for it all. As if there were one feminism dominated by cock hating dikes.

Clearly has a straw man understanding of feminism.

A real man respects women, and a real woman will respect him back.

Women still have to deal with more issues in my opinion.