By Seven kids seriously kicked my ass, but in a good way! It was busy, busy, busy, but a lot of fun, honestly. They didn’t piss me off, or frustrate me, or make me feel like killing myself – they just kept me busy. It left me wondering if part of women’s frustration and boredom doesn’t come from lack of children? Obviously, there are all kinds of planetary resource issues that would arise if every woman had seven children, but keeping seven children fed, watered, reasonably clean, calm, happy and focused on A) not making too much of a mess and B) practicing good conflict management skills left me without time to worry about anything else. Don’t completely trash the house and be nice to each other pretty much sums up parenting, IMO.
So here is a tweet I was tagged in this morning, and in light of the Roosh post and feminist anger towards men whose preferred relationship to women is physical and not emotional, I thought I’d discuss this subject in a bit more depth.
Is refusing to accept, or even pretend to like, modern women, who all have a loaded gun, whether they like it or not, misogyny? Does it mean we hate women? Does anyone really hate women? You’ll love the answer to that one….
Let’s start with the PUA/game/MGTOW community. PUA/game practitioners, as far as I understand them, know that modern women have a particular psychology, aided and abetted by modern feminism, that makes them difficult to deal with: they say they want one thing, but secretly want another.
On paper, young women want grovelling supplicants who will scrub out their panties by hand and empty the kitty litter box without being asked, but when they date these men, they hate them. What they really want is what I call ‘a commanding presence’. They want a man who is confident, assertive and who will exert authority. Some women want that to the extreme: basically, they want an asshole. Other women want a Captain, with whom they can serve as a valued and respected First Officer. Bad Boy and Captain are two sides of the same coin – the Captain appeals to mature women who know their own desires but are not interested in abuse, and Bad Boys appeal to immature women who crave drama and theatrics, and playing the victim. The PUA/game community teaches young men how to deal with the immature ladies without getting burned.
Fair enough.
They get accused of misogyny for stating things like “women respond to authority”, even though that’s absolutely true. In general, most people respond positively to confident authority, because it leads to a feeling of safety and security. Men like Roosh understand this tendency in women, and teach other men how to exploit that positive response while still protecting themselves.
MGTOWs understand that dynamic, too, they just reject it. Even on this blog, I come in for a lot of hate because I’m a parasite (same word Gloria Steinem used to describe housewives) who contributes nothing to my husband and family and community because I don’t sell my skillset to the highest market bidder and instead offer them in exchange for support to the man I love. I generally take most of the MGTOW hate as misdirected anger at a legal system that permits women to brutally exploit men through child custody, divorce and family law, and not genuinely at me, personally. The fact is that I could destroy my husband on a whim, and simply choose not to. This is every bit as egregious as having a law stating that it’s okay for me to own slaves, I just choose not to. Laws permitting slavery are de facto wrong, whether I choose to take advantage or not – I get that, so I forgive most of the MGTOW anger that comes my way. Not all of it, mind you. People who come into my house and get grumpy and spill their drinks get a pass. People who come into my house and shit abuse all over do not. I have a ban hammer, and I do use it.
Neither group, the PUA/game group nor the MGTOW group hate women. On the whole, they hate laws that permit women to take unfair advantage of men and children. AVfM has recently changed its banner line to: changing the cultural narrative, because changing the cultural narrative is what leads to a change in the law. Case in point: gay marriage. The Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision about gay marriage, and declared prohibitions against same sex marriage to be a violation of gay citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. Whether you agree with that decision or not, the point stands that the constitution did not change, the cultural narrative did, and that led to a change in the laws. The way we fix family and custody laws is to change the cultural narrative, and that is the central activism this blog, and many others, are engaged in. Win the hearts and minds, and the law follows.
Certainly you can cherry pick PUA/game MGTOW writers and find horrible things written, likely in piques of anger born of great pain and loss, and isn’t it neat that when feminists write horrible things in fits of anger it’s not all feminists are like that, but when an MRA says something even a little off putting it’s this is the face of men’s rights activists everywhere for all time. Hypocrisy, thy name is feminism. It’s all getting a little boring, quite frankly. And none of it will stop us from continuing our work to change the cultural narrative. PUAs do not hate women. Men who practice game do not hate women. Men who reject a life centered on women and women’s needs do not hate women. Women who reject feminism do not hate women. All the screaming and beer-throwing and censoring in the world isn’t going to magically change facts into a narrative that suits the feminist SJW crowd. I actually had a fact-checker from Marie Claire contact me to confirm a statement, presumably taken from the draft article, which was in fact incorrect, so my optimism that the Marie Claire article won’t be a pack of hateful lies has gone from 0.0001% to 0.006%; coincidentally, the same number as a woman’s chance of being raped in any given year.
Critics will immediately (okay, it will probably take them some time to figure out a rebuttal more sophisticated than “die you stupid cunt”) counter that if hating laws that unfairly bestow women with privileges doesn’t mean PUAs/MGTOW/MRAs hate women, then hating laws that unfairly bestow men with privileges doesn’t mean feminists hate men, and I will agree heartily with that assertion. I will also wait right here for critics to show me the law that unfairly privileges men. Show me the legal rights that men have and women don’t. Feel free to use this handy guide to legal rights women have and men don’t. Let’s assume average intelligence among critics (come on, be generous!), and anticipate the next assertion that patriarchal society affords privileges to men that women can’t access, even though those privileges are not enshrined in law. Once again, I’ll wait for the evidence that we live in a patriarchy that discriminates against women, and not men. Feel free to use this handy guide to the powerful, institutional patriarchal forces that discriminate against men and protect women. Some patriarchy! Women are privileged over men and held less accountable by potent, government backed forces elected by predominantly female voters, but somehow women are a victimized minority, and men are abusive oppressors.
To use my favorite Aussie aphorism, ‘yeah, no’.
So if PUAs and MGTOWs and #WomenAgainstFeminism and MRAs do not hate women, and we still see evidence of misogyny, where is that misogyny coming from? Oh hello, King Milo!
It’s not just online, either. Women are completely horrible to one another in real life, too.
It’s perfectly fine for women to band together and go on slut walks where everyone is a self-proclaimed slut, but show up at the office wearing something the less pretty ladies perceive as “sexy” and you’ll be a slut all by yourself. Pretty much 100% of women will aggress against a ‘sexy’ peer. In most cases, all it takes to be sexy is to be of normal body weight and have a resting pleasant face. You can trust me on that one. Women being catty, petty, vicious little bitches isn’t something we can lay at the feet of feminism – it’s likely a hardwired aspect of women’s psychology, having to do with intrasexual mate competition. What we most certainly can lay at the feet of feminism is the disturbingly successful campaign to shift women’s hatred of other women onto men, and feminism’s denial of its inherent misogyny, and hence denial of women’s full, adult agency. Refusing to admit that women can be really shitty human beings, prone to deeply unbecoming behavior is a way of denying that women are fully human. When feminists assert that only men and a few outliers like #WomenAgainstFeminism can be misogynists, they are denying women their full humanity. Why wouldn’t women be capable of misogyny? We’re all supposed to play uncritically for the same team because vagina? The only misogyny feminism will allow for in women is internalized misogyny, which means that someone like me has taken the wider cultural message that men hate women, and decided that I hate women, too, to protect myself from the mean men who are coming to exploit and oppress me.
Hey, great news! It’s working! No men have exploited or oppressed me today!
Milo’s column led to an important observation: I will often state that we do not live in a culture that hates women. There is no misogyny and no patriarchy, but those two things really need to be divided. It is incorrect to state that we do not live in a culture that hates women: we do not live in a culture where men hate women. There most certainly is misogyny, but it comes, by and large, from other women. Reconsider Jessica Valenti and her skinny jeans, high heels and makeup: yes, she is competing desperately (some might say pathetically) for attention from men, but the real misogyny arises from other women, and she either knowingly or unwittingly courts it. It’s not men who give a shit about the illusions of fertility, health and youth created by Jess and her grooming and sartorial choices.
It’s women.
Women can see that in using makeup, thigh and tummy compressing pants and pelvis tilting foot wear that causes her to sway her hips suggestively, Jess is artificially enhancing her sexual appeal, and that pisses other women off, even though they likely do the same things. Men may appreciate the aesthetic appeal of artificial enhancements, but ultimately the illusion of fertility and health does no good: they want actual fertility and health (assuming they are looking for reproductive partners). It’s an all out bitchfest, and women are the heavyweight competitors, when it comes to misogyny. I wonder if Jess realizes that she steps into the Misogyny Games when she dolls herself up and goes strutting off to capture men’s eyeballs and occupy some primordial space in their brains, if only for a moment?
I’m guessing she does. She also knows that it’s crazy to take on the Witchpack and much easier to transfer the blame onto men, who are not likely to attack her. It’s much easier to shriek about PUAs and Roosh and MRAs and just all men everywhere at all times than to face the reality: women can be super scary bitches to other women.
I should know.
Lots of love,
JB
Source
So here is a tweet I was tagged in this morning, and in light of the Roosh post and feminist anger towards men whose preferred relationship to women is physical and not emotional, I thought I’d discuss this subject in a bit more depth.
Let’s start with the PUA/game/MGTOW community. PUA/game practitioners, as far as I understand them, know that modern women have a particular psychology, aided and abetted by modern feminism, that makes them difficult to deal with: they say they want one thing, but secretly want another.
On paper, young women want grovelling supplicants who will scrub out their panties by hand and empty the kitty litter box without being asked, but when they date these men, they hate them. What they really want is what I call ‘a commanding presence’. They want a man who is confident, assertive and who will exert authority. Some women want that to the extreme: basically, they want an asshole. Other women want a Captain, with whom they can serve as a valued and respected First Officer. Bad Boy and Captain are two sides of the same coin – the Captain appeals to mature women who know their own desires but are not interested in abuse, and Bad Boys appeal to immature women who crave drama and theatrics, and playing the victim. The PUA/game community teaches young men how to deal with the immature ladies without getting burned.
Fair enough.
They get accused of misogyny for stating things like “women respond to authority”, even though that’s absolutely true. In general, most people respond positively to confident authority, because it leads to a feeling of safety and security. Men like Roosh understand this tendency in women, and teach other men how to exploit that positive response while still protecting themselves.
MGTOWs understand that dynamic, too, they just reject it. Even on this blog, I come in for a lot of hate because I’m a parasite (same word Gloria Steinem used to describe housewives) who contributes nothing to my husband and family and community because I don’t sell my skillset to the highest market bidder and instead offer them in exchange for support to the man I love. I generally take most of the MGTOW hate as misdirected anger at a legal system that permits women to brutally exploit men through child custody, divorce and family law, and not genuinely at me, personally. The fact is that I could destroy my husband on a whim, and simply choose not to. This is every bit as egregious as having a law stating that it’s okay for me to own slaves, I just choose not to. Laws permitting slavery are de facto wrong, whether I choose to take advantage or not – I get that, so I forgive most of the MGTOW anger that comes my way. Not all of it, mind you. People who come into my house and get grumpy and spill their drinks get a pass. People who come into my house and shit abuse all over do not. I have a ban hammer, and I do use it.
Neither group, the PUA/game group nor the MGTOW group hate women. On the whole, they hate laws that permit women to take unfair advantage of men and children. AVfM has recently changed its banner line to: changing the cultural narrative, because changing the cultural narrative is what leads to a change in the law. Case in point: gay marriage. The Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision about gay marriage, and declared prohibitions against same sex marriage to be a violation of gay citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. Whether you agree with that decision or not, the point stands that the constitution did not change, the cultural narrative did, and that led to a change in the laws. The way we fix family and custody laws is to change the cultural narrative, and that is the central activism this blog, and many others, are engaged in. Win the hearts and minds, and the law follows.
Certainly you can cherry pick PUA/game MGTOW writers and find horrible things written, likely in piques of anger born of great pain and loss, and isn’t it neat that when feminists write horrible things in fits of anger it’s not all feminists are like that, but when an MRA says something even a little off putting it’s this is the face of men’s rights activists everywhere for all time. Hypocrisy, thy name is feminism. It’s all getting a little boring, quite frankly. And none of it will stop us from continuing our work to change the cultural narrative. PUAs do not hate women. Men who practice game do not hate women. Men who reject a life centered on women and women’s needs do not hate women. Women who reject feminism do not hate women. All the screaming and beer-throwing and censoring in the world isn’t going to magically change facts into a narrative that suits the feminist SJW crowd. I actually had a fact-checker from Marie Claire contact me to confirm a statement, presumably taken from the draft article, which was in fact incorrect, so my optimism that the Marie Claire article won’t be a pack of hateful lies has gone from 0.0001% to 0.006%; coincidentally, the same number as a woman’s chance of being raped in any given year.
Critics will immediately (okay, it will probably take them some time to figure out a rebuttal more sophisticated than “die you stupid cunt”) counter that if hating laws that unfairly bestow women with privileges doesn’t mean PUAs/MGTOW/MRAs hate women, then hating laws that unfairly bestow men with privileges doesn’t mean feminists hate men, and I will agree heartily with that assertion. I will also wait right here for critics to show me the law that unfairly privileges men. Show me the legal rights that men have and women don’t. Feel free to use this handy guide to legal rights women have and men don’t. Let’s assume average intelligence among critics (come on, be generous!), and anticipate the next assertion that patriarchal society affords privileges to men that women can’t access, even though those privileges are not enshrined in law. Once again, I’ll wait for the evidence that we live in a patriarchy that discriminates against women, and not men. Feel free to use this handy guide to the powerful, institutional patriarchal forces that discriminate against men and protect women. Some patriarchy! Women are privileged over men and held less accountable by potent, government backed forces elected by predominantly female voters, but somehow women are a victimized minority, and men are abusive oppressors.
To use my favorite Aussie aphorism, ‘yeah, no’.
So if PUAs and MGTOWs and #WomenAgainstFeminism and MRAs do not hate women, and we still see evidence of misogyny, where is that misogyny coming from? Oh hello, King Milo!
It’s not just online, either. Women are completely horrible to one another in real life, too.
It’s perfectly fine for women to band together and go on slut walks where everyone is a self-proclaimed slut, but show up at the office wearing something the less pretty ladies perceive as “sexy” and you’ll be a slut all by yourself. Pretty much 100% of women will aggress against a ‘sexy’ peer. In most cases, all it takes to be sexy is to be of normal body weight and have a resting pleasant face. You can trust me on that one. Women being catty, petty, vicious little bitches isn’t something we can lay at the feet of feminism – it’s likely a hardwired aspect of women’s psychology, having to do with intrasexual mate competition. What we most certainly can lay at the feet of feminism is the disturbingly successful campaign to shift women’s hatred of other women onto men, and feminism’s denial of its inherent misogyny, and hence denial of women’s full, adult agency. Refusing to admit that women can be really shitty human beings, prone to deeply unbecoming behavior is a way of denying that women are fully human. When feminists assert that only men and a few outliers like #WomenAgainstFeminism can be misogynists, they are denying women their full humanity. Why wouldn’t women be capable of misogyny? We’re all supposed to play uncritically for the same team because vagina? The only misogyny feminism will allow for in women is internalized misogyny, which means that someone like me has taken the wider cultural message that men hate women, and decided that I hate women, too, to protect myself from the mean men who are coming to exploit and oppress me.
Hey, great news! It’s working! No men have exploited or oppressed me today!
Milo’s column led to an important observation: I will often state that we do not live in a culture that hates women. There is no misogyny and no patriarchy, but those two things really need to be divided. It is incorrect to state that we do not live in a culture that hates women: we do not live in a culture where men hate women. There most certainly is misogyny, but it comes, by and large, from other women. Reconsider Jessica Valenti and her skinny jeans, high heels and makeup: yes, she is competing desperately (some might say pathetically) for attention from men, but the real misogyny arises from other women, and she either knowingly or unwittingly courts it. It’s not men who give a shit about the illusions of fertility, health and youth created by Jess and her grooming and sartorial choices.
It’s women.
Women can see that in using makeup, thigh and tummy compressing pants and pelvis tilting foot wear that causes her to sway her hips suggestively, Jess is artificially enhancing her sexual appeal, and that pisses other women off, even though they likely do the same things. Men may appreciate the aesthetic appeal of artificial enhancements, but ultimately the illusion of fertility and health does no good: they want actual fertility and health (assuming they are looking for reproductive partners). It’s an all out bitchfest, and women are the heavyweight competitors, when it comes to misogyny. I wonder if Jess realizes that she steps into the Misogyny Games when she dolls herself up and goes strutting off to capture men’s eyeballs and occupy some primordial space in their brains, if only for a moment?
I’m guessing she does. She also knows that it’s crazy to take on the Witchpack and much easier to transfer the blame onto men, who are not likely to attack her. It’s much easier to shriek about PUAs and Roosh and MRAs and just all men everywhere at all times than to face the reality: women can be super scary bitches to other women.
I should know.
Lots of love,
JB
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment