Possible shitpost. I've just finished jerking off to Sapna Vyas Patel (certified phD in Dat Ass Studies) and as typically happens when pining over an illustrious woman way out of my league, I opt for the low hanging fruit: writing bitter, rambling, damning generalisations about women. Tonight Cracked has offered me insight into why I might feel compelled to do this; alas it turns out that David Wong, author of the amaze-balls 6 Harsh Truths, has sold himself out to Le Feministe.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html

to summarise:

  1. We were told by society that we were owed a hot girl

Standard Nice Guy entitlement blaming, although given tonight's misdemeanours I'm inclined to agree...

  1. We were trained from birth to see you as decoration

Standard objectification rant, yawn

  1. We think you're conspiring with our boners to ruin us

Relevant given that males have something like 15 times the level of testosterone as the average woman.

  1. We feel like manhood was stolen from us at some point

'Feel'? There has been an orchestrated attack on traditional masculinity under the veneer of 'chauvinism' for nearly half a decade

  1. We feel powerless

Now I like this quote:

Go look outside. See those cars driving by? Every car being driven by a man was designed and built and bought and sold with you in mind. The only reason why small, fuel-efficient or electric cars don't dominate the roads is because we want to look cool in our cars, to impress you.

This is really the heart of it, right here. This is why no amount of male domination will ever be enough, why no level of control or privilege or female submission will ever satisfy us. We can put you under a burqa, we can force you out of the workplace -- it won't matter. You're still all we think about, and that gives you power over us. And we resent you for it.

So where you see a world in which males dominate the boards of the Fortune 500, and own Congress, and sit at the head of all but a handful of the world's nations, men see themselves as utterly helpless. Because all of those powerful people only became powerful because they heard that women like power.

If we take this quote for granted, it reverses every trope that Feminism relies upon. Several times now I have attempted to explain to feminists the problems inherent in male disposability, and each time, amidst the snickering that "those aren't real problems" (oh the audacity, to claim that men's high incidence of suicide is not a real problem just because suicide hotlines cater to young men) they have always hamstered "nah women don't put any pressure onto men, it's all from other men lol. Patriarchy hurts men too [but it's sort of their own fault!]" I feel like face palming; "well, why do high status men turn against low status men?" They just can't put 2+2 together. This is not to say that women are 100% the problem, corrupt Alphas are also a problem. But Patriarchy theory denies women any responsibility in the formation of civilisation, while ostensibly victim blaming.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3oyhxe/young_women_receive_more_pay_degrees_and/cw28v5e?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3oxev7/can_the_blue_pill_consider_itself_the_dominant/cw37x0c?context=3

Rebuttals:

  1. A great comment from r/FeMRADebates, props to /u/jolly_mcfats

https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1ypucj/5_ways_modern_men_are_trained_to_hate_women/

5: No, just no. I mean- actually, wong is addressing a real thing- but in the most hostile language imaginable. Men are taught that they have to earn a hot girl (any girl, actually)- and that is why all those media tell hero stories in which men undergo adversity to prove themselves worthy of love. The hot girl is obviously worthy of love, no hero's journey required. The corollary to this is that if the hot girl isn't interested- that's an indication that the man has failed to prove himself- he's a loser. An outcast. There is no narrative that says that women will just sometimes like you without you undergoing some kind of proving process, or that sometimes women just don't like totally awesome men, and that's their loss.

Make no mistake- this whole dynamic is totally fucked up- but the way david wong investigates this is totally misandric (and misogynist as well, in that david wong describes female characters who are interested in hero characters as being "awarded"- denying their agency, and the fact that these hero characters are usually hot dudes in their own right). Wong seems blind to how systemic this is- how much of our ritual around romantic love is built on this premise. Frequently this meme is surrounded with language describing it as a power fantasy- but I would suggest that it is a worthiness fantasy. Feminine affirmation is central to our gender narrative about what it is to be "a man". If Wong's point is that a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle- we're totally on the same page. But I don't think that's where he was going with that.

And of course, any take-down of feminist shaming tactics would not be complete without links to both Exposing Feminism and in the particular case of Accusation of Nice Guy ™ Syndrome, good ol' Scott Alexander's 'Radicalizing the Romanceless'

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

  1. Well, I would hope that we're all familiar by now with the concept of Male Disposability. For those who are not, let Karen Straughan familiarise you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Again jolly:

4: Wong is unaware of any kind of "princess" power. I wrote about this in last week's TAEP. However, I still think that there is a real lack of discussion about how a male hero cannot ever be as powerful as katniss everdeen who gets to be simultaneously the hero and the princess. And of course, that also means that Katniss Everdeen can also represent two practically unattainable ideals to women, so that theoretically young women today could be learning disposability and developing body issues at the same time- if they internalize the story in an unhealthy manner.

  1. There were multiple sources I could have used for this, however a portion of The Misandry Bubble seems the most relevant

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

Misandry As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

FeMRAs also note the inherent misandry of this caricature of male emasculation:

And, when we get nostalgic for the past, we always dress it up in some ridiculous fantasy like 300, where everybody is shirtless and screaming and hacking things with swords. We are fed this idea that at one time, this is how the world was -- all of these impulses that have been getting us grounded and sent to detention from kindergarten on used to be not only allowed, but celebrated.

An RP perspective may even say that this is an attempt of the feminine imperative to asexualise men. In my opinion, 'feminism' views the male ex drive as the root of patriarchy, thus the root of injustice. Under all the hamstering dogma, is not their goal to give men a political vasectomy? I don't often link GLO, but this article by him is pretty accurate and concise

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3kfaqt/all_men_are_like_that/?

How did all men become betas? In 1970 feminist Robin Morgan wrote, "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Forty five years later it's clear that feminists have accomplished their mission of removing men from their child's lives and replacing him with the state. Feminists obliterated the nuclear family by making divorce easy, profitable, and shameless for women. That coupled with a systematic campaign of demonizing all men as rapists and abusers has fostered an irrational fear of men in women. Consequently, the presence of men in children's lives has been greatly diminished. Boy's are raised in the near absence of strong men. All competitive aggressive and masculine behaviors are discouraged or medicated by the women who teach and parent boys, partially due to a culture that demonizes masculinity. Boy's raised without masculinity can not be masculine which is exactly why they grow up to be betas.

The other reason why all men are beta is biological. There has been a generational age independent decline in testosterone, in American men. Endicrinology Today cites lifestyle factors, such as increasing use of tight-fitting underwear, increasing room temperatures in American homes and offices, decreased physical activity and an increased in body mass as possible contributing factors. Another possible explanation for the phenomenon are artificial compounds with estrogen-like properties or xenoestrogens . These compounds are present in all sorts of things from lotions to pesticides and when they enter your body through dermal absorption or inhalation they can cause endocrine disruption and make you beta as fuck.

  1. 'We feel powerless.' Is this a worthy quote to explore? Can we really reduce all male endeavours down to the pursuit of female validation and copulation?

Anon points out where the misandry pops into this; the notion that all male 'sexual strategy'revolves around getting laid. The RMP does not exist and no man pursues the ideal of love. Obvious bullshit.

It's like that for most men, most of the time. We're starving, and all women are various types of food. Only instead of food, it's sex. And we're trying to conduct our everyday business around the fact that we're trying to renew our driver's license with a talking pair of boobs. So, from about age 13 on, around 90 percent of our energy and discipline is devoted to overcoming this, to behave like civilized human beings and not like stray dogs in a meat market. One where instead of eating the meat, they want to hump it.

Again, we see the assumption that men pursue women purely for physical reasons and not because they find romantic relationships emotionally meaningful in a way none of their other relationships are.

Because all of those powerful people only became powerful because they heard that women like power.

Okay, time to get a little personal. He's right, at least about me. Finding someone to love is my primary motivation for pretty much everything productive I do. I eat healthy and work out to make myself more attractive. I'm looking for a job because being unemployed makes me look like a loser. I'm trying to make friends and build up a social life mostly in the hopes of finding someone who wants to be more than friends. However, I always assumed that this meant there was something wrong with me. When I first realized this, I actually went and talked to a therapist about it. Is this actually normal?

Is Wong just projecting? This MRA thinks it's very possible, that [sic] 'David Wong represents the bigotry of the illiberal progressives projected onto the MHRM'

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xg2bq/understanding_the_misogyny_and_bigotry_of_the/?

I also liked this quote, as it accurately reflected my 16 year old self's desperate grasp for human connection:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/1ypp9n/tw_cracked_crackeds_latest_resurrected_clickbait/cfmxr7h

New theory that extreme male feminists actually start out as women-haters and go ridiculously far in the opposite direction as a form of overcompensation? It could be something to explore.

Thoughts of the Pillspheres.