Sunday, 18 August 2013

All the Cards: The Pleasing Limits of Feminism, Misandry and Hypoagency




The concept of hypoagency is gathering pace as an explanation for the preferential treatment afforded women in many areas of life. It is also used to explain the widely-observed female obsession with infiltrating all-male institutions, sub-cultures and societies.  Karen Straughan’s analysis of hypoagency suggests that inactivity has long been an advantageous evolutionary strategy for women – it confers personal and genetic survival for minimal personal risk. Men, by contrast, have had no such option:  for men, inactivity leads only to genetic and personal extinction.  Of course, we see most of these claims proven every day. Men who fail to act functionally are treated very harshly, compared to women: 98% of the homeless in Britain are men, for instance. Indeed, the basic concept of hypoagency coheres well with my own ‘nothing’ theory of women: women never evolved anything beyond physical charms because, in the simplest terms, it was not necessary. Male dominion and prowess obviated the need for any such 'development'.

Hypoagency has also been used to explain the widely observed-female tendency to ‘invade’ all-male spaces. The video games subculture is a good example – increasingly infiltrated by women and their ceaseless demands for non-sexist story-lines, PC speech, and so on. By bending male agency to their collective will, so the story goes, women can secure resources both for themselves and their offspring. Hence, they have evolved a strong tendency to infiltration and manipulation, as well as a reflexive suspicion of all-male groups and subcultures. However, this is improbable. Why? Because, as I have already stated, women never evolved complex, active patterns of behavior in relation to men, sex or gender interaction.

Why would they? Aside from looking as comely as possible, female behavior mattered little for most of evolutionary history.  Omnipotent male agency obviated any need for such complex adaptation – men of power coerced women to their will, whatever they said or thought. And male prowess on the hunting ground or the battlefield ensured the survival of their children, not feminine ‘wiles’


So why, then, are women so attracted to all-male spaces? Why are they so fearful of male autonomy – and indeed, the Men’s Rights Movement? In my view, simple fear: fear of abandonment, fear of starvation, fear of death. There is no need for long, complex explanations based on female evolutionary adaptation. And a cursory glance at contemporary feminism demonstrates this. In the final analysis, women need men a lot more than men need women.

Consider Anglo-American feminists. Despite their misandry, it will be noted that Feminists – and women in general – never seek authentic detachment from men. Ultimately, ‘separatist’ feminists are nothing of the kind. They may live in communes from which men are excluded, so that the inhabitants never see a male for years, if not decades. However, it will be noted that they still  use the technologies developed by male science very freely. Further, their communes can only exist within a protective male context – one that affords safety from wild animals, natural calamities and the criminal underclass.  Hence, it will be noted that female separatism is always selective: even the most ardent feminist retains many aspects of the despised ‘patriarchy’ in her otherwise ‘man-free’ life.


Why is this? The simple answer is that women cannot survive without men to protect and provide for them. Every supposedly 'all-female' institution - from nunneries to sorority houses - retains male janitors, ICT workers and security guards, literally without exception. In sum, the all-female institution is a feminist myth. And this ubiquitous, underlying dependence best explains the female obsession with infiltrating all-male social, cultural and intellectual spaces. The matter is one of sheer survival. Even the most rabidly misandrist female knows deep-down that, if men withdraw their consent from any enterprise, it will fail. And that applies to lesbian communes, not just the real-world institutions that (ultimately) sustain them.

One is strongly reminded of Marxism. This outworn philosophy claims that the proletariat – uneducated manual workers – are ‘exploited’ by the capitalist class. If they could only realize their collective bargaining power, Marx argues, the ‘working’ class could overthrow their oppressors and build a communist utopia. Hold on, though: quite aside from the fact that uneducated manual workers are typically parochial, ignorant and reactionary, they typically lack the cognitive and organizational skills to maintain complex societies. If the ‘oppressing’ classes withdrew their cognitive capital from post-industrial civilization, the ‘working’ classes would be living like medieval peasants within a generation.  The wonders they use but do not understand – the Internet, satellites and smart-phones – would be withdrawn overnight. That would also happen to jobs, healthcare and the elaborate welfare state. In the space of a decade, they would resemble the peasants depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry, sowing seed in the fields and dying at forty (if that). 


Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when the cognitive elite leave proletarians to their own devices: a once-thriving city becomes a primitive, crime-infested slum. Yet Marxists  still argue that the working class is ‘oppressed’ and ‘exploited’ by its cognitive superiors, who deny them the ‘fruits’ of their labour. However – as with feminism – Marxists never agitate for a separatist solution to this ‘injustice’. If the cognitive elites are so ‘oppressive’, why don’t Marxist academics or the working class go find a Pacific island and built a Communist utopia there, free of their ‘oppressors’? Instead, they want ‘revolution’ – a conflagration which will, conveniently, coerce the cognitive elites into creating (and running) everything ‘for free’.


Despite their rhetoric, never once do Marxists or feminists make real efforts to disengage from their ‘oppressors’  - either men or ‘capitalists’. And yet, it would not be difficult. The Pacific is full of uninhabited islands, while Asia and South America contain many unpopulated enclaves. Look at the hippies of Goa, with their own communes and way of life. If hippies can do it, why not feminists and Marxists?

Of course they could; they just don’t want to. They don’t want to because, at heart, they prefer the many benefits of a capitalist 'patriarchy' to their various utopias. However, there is this crucial difference: while a Marxist commune might subsist indefinitely on some Pacific island (albeit in Palaeolithic squalor), a feminist commune in the same situation would perish in a few weeks.  Without men to hunt and grow food, build shelters, dig drainage channels and guard the community from dangerous arthropods, reptiles and mammals, its inhabitants would perish like flies.


Such a thought-experiment describes a potent evolutionary truth: women without men perished quickly. For me, hypoagency is a variant of the ‘female choice’ theory – it credits women with far too much evolutionary autonomy.  Women never developed a strong, complex sex-drive because there was no need for them to do so: reproductive matters were largely ‘taken care of’ by intra-male competition for women, land and resources. Similarly, women never developed any real capacity for psycho-social autonomy: it simply wasn’t possible in a world full of dangers. Note how prominent feminists preach their misandry from universities founded by men, using concepts and culture created by men, using systems and technologies maintained by men, in societies guarded by men. If all those gifts were repealed, academic feminism would simply not be possible.

So, rather than being a by-product of complex evolutionary processes, hypoagency – or rather, ‘feminist hypocrisy’ – is just female dependence, by any other name.  As ever on our journey through Anglo-American feminism, revolution is really reaction. And in truth, men hold all the cards – if they could just but realize it. Withdraw male consent from anything – even feminism – and it will crumble to dust. Of course, feminists have harboured the ‘structural’ resources inherent in complex post-industrial societies to defend and advance their interests: law, politics and the media. While this shields them somewhat from the direct withdrawal of male consent, their existence still depends on a techno-physical structure devised and maintained by men. The liberal arts and social ‘sciences’ – the academic redoubts of women in general, and feminists in particular – all share this inherent vulnerability. The female assault on all-male spaces is not a mark of female strength and coherence; rather, consider it a mark of desperation, a frantic attempt to recapture male goodwill.

   

66 comments:

  1. Rookh wrote, "So why, then, are women so attracted to all-male spaces? Why are they so fearful of male autonomy – and indeed, the Men’s Right Movement? In my view, simple fear: fear of abandonment, fear of starvation, fear of death. In the final analysis, women need men a lot more than men need women."

    How true this is! Feminists will never admit that women need men more than men need women. I wish more men would realize this fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Splendid post Rookh.

    "Withdraw male consent from anything – even feminism – and it will crumble to dust."

    Indeed, and it is our culture that men are being barred from. Remember how they destroyed the British pubs in the 80s, they turned them into wine bars!?

    The football stands were turned to football 'seats', then over priced to remove the lads.

    Schools removed 'rough' games, so boys became soft, their manliness frowned upon, to be stunted, or outcast.

    Look at any public sector office, the top administration will be eunuchs, the middle management will be fema-fascisti, the rest of the 'workforce' will be typically 80% women, preferably fema-fuddlewits.

    And in the family, the Father has become disposable, when passive, and 'predator' if he doesn't leave quietly.

    Our culture, what's left of it [thank you Dalrymple], was what maintained our Democracy. Hence feminism, with its many 'waves' [indicating that it is designed, rather than spontaneous], could be argued to be part of a concerted effort to destroy Democracy, by disenfranchising men's active part in it. The beneficiary would then be the State Organism itself, which would be free to rule without the encumbering veto of democracy. Men, women, and feminists, will then be the States work chattel, to work or starve in the New Feudal system, which would regard 'consent' as sedition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Men, women, and feminists, will *then* be the States work chattel, to work or starve in the New Feudal system, which would regard 'consent' as sedition.*

      Great points Jimmy - but I thought that the Anglosphere ALREADY resembled a misandrist dystopia.

      Delete
    2. I think we are teetering on the cusp of oblivion; hanging on, by virtue that some men still have private wealth, which gives all other men hope, by proxy. But if a global economic calamity, or hyper-inflation, were to wipe out private wealth in NATO countries, then the State will have absolute control, via the military. For the State will *then* control the food supply, and life itself.

      Delete
    3. Jimmy:
      The feminist US government seems already to have anticipated that. The Obama Administration has practically feminized the military and police here: even beyond what Clinton and Bush did. The mangina Army Chief of Staff recently said that the military would now wage 'war' on sexual harassment and made sex in the military a top priority.

      Obama has also authorized all-female units, including a nuclear submarine.

      This seems to be the reductio ad absurdum of Rookh's point: they need not only to infiltrate and control male spaces, they need male enforcement powers as well.---
      Eric

      Delete
    4. Eric,

      The good Brother Nathanael:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Zu9T3yVcg

      Delete
  3. "...female behavior mattered little..."

    That part made an awful lot of sense.

    I think that is why so many women act like complete bitches and expect to be treated otherwise.

    I remember when I was in college, listening to women complain endlessly about "men who didn't listen".

    I also remember mumbling to myself, "they shouldn't be worried about men who do not listen - they should be worrying that maybe some ARE listening."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rookh:
    To expand on your point a little further; I'm coming to see more and more evidence that this female dependence on male social structures has correspondingly elevated the power of male feminists. Futrelle, for example, is the most powerful voice for feminism on the Internet, owing to his media skills.

    I mention this because I've noticed that the male feminists seem to be the ones fighting with the most desperation to hold on to the feminist paradigms. I suspect that they realize that without feminism, their own status as males would sink beneath that of the real men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would ask - is Futrelle a voice for feminism - or just a voice for feminist men?

      I would guess - he is more a voice for feminist men - the majority of his readers are men - as are his commentators. The few women that do follow or comment strike me as being severely messed up - but then, so do the men.

      AVFI - A Voice For Insanity.

      Delete
  5. Eric, that is very profound. Male feminists certainly provide the structural foundation for feminism to flourish. In a sense, this raises all kinds of questions about female agency and competence. Are feminists too useless to even run their own movement? Indeed, is feminism artificially sustained (and its social status inflated) by male support and intervention? If so, this would seem to contradict the whole feminist assumption that 'women are equal'. As with everything else, would feminism even exist without male support?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rookh:
      I don't think feminism would exist very long without male support. Historically, feminists were a fringe group (in the US) until about the 1970s, when 'progressive' male cultural leaders began putting them in positions of power under the guise of 'inclusiveness' (i.e. to buy female votes).

      As for modern male feminists, it seems that all of them benefit---like the feminists do---from deconstructing masculinity. Men like Futrelle and Schwyzer couldn't compete against real men for female attention in a society where masculinity was valued.

      Delete
  6. The harem is pleasure for the master, but for the eunuch, it is life itself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The ability of women to derive the lamest, shallowest, most ass backwards, most pretentious concepts (hypoagency) from the deepest, most straightforward, lucid, profound sources (EP) knows no bounds.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for fems invading gaming, that Absconder guy said it best.

    paraphrase "their desire to control people who have managed to live outside their system"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIkQAAd2Hyw

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very good post; this needs to be said more; men should cross post this to other blogs!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rookh wrote:
    Such a thought-experiment describes a potent evolutionary truth: women without men perished quickly.

    Yes. Women cannot exist at all without the labors and efforts of men. Every time we get out of bed and look out the window at human artifacts we should be reminded of it. Along with every time we use a flush toilet, turn on a computer, or drive a car.

    For me, hypoagency is a variant of the ‘female choice’ theory

    Well, female choice is significant in tournament species such as elephant seals. It simply doesn't work so well with humans because women require so much protection. So when they're left to their own devices, they're prone to make poor mating decisions.


    – it credits women with far too much evolutionary autonomy.

    Disagree somewhat. Hypoagency simply describes what women do (they try and invade male domains), not why it occurs. But you're right; there probably was never any direct selection pressure for hypoagency itself. It simply emerges as a byproduct of tendencies that were strongly selected for. Female solipsism is one of them, fear of death is another.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *Hypoagency simply describes what women do (they try and invade male domains)*

    Karen Straughan speculates at length on the possible evolutionary origins of hypoagency. Not that she's Edward O Wilson, Robert Wright, or anyone of scientific consequence.

    *It simply emerges as a byproduct of tendencies that were strongly selected for. Female solipsism is one of them, fear of death is another.*

    And fear in general. Women have evolved a fear of pretty much everything, certainly compared to men. For example, they are much more prone to non-specific, irrational phobias such as agoraphobia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rookh Kshatriya wrote:
      Karen Straughan speculates at length on the possible evolutionary origins of hypoagency.

      It was Stardusk who made the original video on female hypoagency. Karen expanded on the video and speculated that it was a behavior rooted in human evolutionary history.

      Women have evolved a fear of pretty much everything, certainly compared to men.

      It makes sense, since there would be very little selection pressure against a heightened sense of fear for them, and a lot of pressure for it.

      OTOH, men who were too cowardly simply failed to reproduce, and would probably be dispatched by their fellows as a liability.

      Delete
    2. There has been very little selection pressure on women in the way of anything beyond being sexually attractive to men when young, and bearing children. Hence, males prevail in every other sphere of human activity.

      Delete
  12. There has been very little selection pressure on women in the way of anything beyond being sexually attractive to men when young, and bearing children.

    Of course, men have been subject to far more severe selective pressure than women in most respects. An examination of our genetic code has shown that far fewer men have reproduced successfully than women.

    But I believe that selection pressure has also greatly influenced female psychology. Humans are unusual among primates in that the females disperse when mating and the males stay with their families. To cope with this, women developed various psychological defense mechanisms to cope with being uprooted from their native-born environment. These include, but aren't limited to solipsism.

    Rollo Tomassi has an insightful article War Brides on the reasons for women's psychological peculiarities.

    Another important (and related) factor is the phenomenon of the female herd. Women are highly sensitive socially and it's extremely important for them to be validated by their peers, far more than it is for men. This made sense since failure to defer to the female herd would lead to ostracism. In the ancestral environment, ostracism would be a death sentence to a woman.

    Hence, males prevail in every other sphere of human activity.

    Real innovation and creativity that has improved the human condition is for all practical purposes a male-only enterprise. Selection for solipsism works against the reality testing needed for innovation. This, along with the reduced risk taking tendencies of women, ensures that women will never be able to compete with men on a level playing field. The adaptations women have undergone have come at a steep price.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent article. However, I take exception to the term solipsism, which is really a philosophical term. I think the author is trying to say that women have evolved the capacity to 'switch off' existing emotional ties at 'the drop of a hat', which is most definitely true. At a practical level, this means that emotional/social/financial services rendered (typically by men) mean nothing to women if the male involved cannot continue to provide them. Men assume that women have the same 'sense of honour' they themselves possess - but in fact, women lack this sense completely. Like animals, they think only of 'now'.

      Delete
  13. In terms of evolution men have reached the absolute end of the road, whereas women have only just started walking. We actually have no idea of the extent of women's capabilities since they spent thousands of years as chattels providing rock solid, unwavering foundations to men's lives as silent, invisible, unpaid partners. Slavery, in other words.

    The patriarchy succeeded because men leeched women's resources through the dowry system and through various methods of control (rape, domestic violence). We have entered an age where marital rape and beating one's wife is outlawed.

    Of course men like Rookh are flailing from the shock, becoming paranoid about 'infiltration' and 'invasion', posting photographs depicting normal female friendship to illustrate the 'threat'.

    Men are only starting to feel the sting of living without an unpaid, all-in-one prostitute, cleaner, cook, childminder, cheerleader, accountant, consultant, psychologist etc etc etc - roles traditional wife once provided. Now women can vote, diivorce, have abortions, enter higher education(privileges they earned and fought for themselves). Understandably, this new world is devastating for men and fastastic for women. But be truthful, men did not build the world, they just made it look that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote:
      In terms of evolution men have reached the absolute end of the road, whereas women have only just started walking.

      The free ride for women (at men's expense) is soon to come to an end:

      http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/

      http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06/30/the-end-of-male-gridlock/

      So we're close to a tipping point where the economic and emotional costs of misandry (man-hating) will be transferred directly back to women.

      We actually have no idea of the extent of women's capabilities

      Using Occam's Razor, the simplest conclusion is that they have very few capabilities without male intervention.

      We have entered an age where marital rape and beating one's wife is outlawed.

      Here's a simple solution to that one - don't get married.

      Now women can vote, diivorce, have abortions, enter higher education

      These are nearly all 'negative capabilities' which are counterproductive to the human condition. Women's votes transfer resources away from men and towards themselves. And women's education mainly serves to award useless credentials and fosters a bad attitude towards men. Women's frivolous divorce for cash and prizes squeezes men dry for no net benefit.

      (privileges they earned and fought for themselves).

      These all exist on men's sufferance.

      But be truthful, men did not build the world, they just made it look that way.

      So were the ancient pyramids really built by women? Was calculus and quantum mechanics developed by them? How about the current technological infrastructure?

      Delete
    2. Men did, in fact, build the world. Men are gods, whereas women, being mindless, soulless animals, are simply cattle.

      Women are leeches and parasites, and what meagre capabilities they possess are far outshined by those of men.

      It is an ill society when the slaves no longer remember their place. Fortunately, a day of reckoning will come, and the new shackles we places on womens neck will everlasting and final.

      Bow, slave.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous on 5th September reminds me of - she is almost quoting - John Stuart Mill. He said that we knew what women could do but not what they couldn't. Mill of course was a Nineteenth Century Futrelle.

    Perhaps in another eon of time men and women will be identical, indeed females may surpass male achievement, but one has to ask, if that is the case then why did they not do so, ere men provided the technology and wealth for women (in the west) and then only some to sit on their fat arses and explain how they have been oppressed. We enter an infinite regression. One reasons from past performance to future ability and thus one must conclude that women are simply no match for men now in the past nor therefore likely to be so in the future, other of course than in the looks department.

    Feminism has merely removed the veil from men (like Mill) from observing what has become so clear to see, that women are largely incapable of creating or sustaining civilisation and what passes for female achievement is usually hand-me-down copying or you go grrl privilege on the back of men.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Suggest you read your history. Women were never regarded as just comely til the 19th century. The purely decorative woman was a creation of the middle class which sprung up so fast in the 19th century. Previously women had first to bring forth children in agony and danger. Next, her husband brought home the money and it was the female who invested it in land and in business. She often ran home businesses too and also presided over the running of her household, especially the still-room, essentially guarding the mysteries of pharmacology. She was expected to be on the go all the time. Together, she and her husband plotted the family's rise, placing the kids in good marriages and professions. These kids had to be raised with excellent examples. There was absolutely no room for a useless woman whose only attribute was a prettiness that would fade with first pregnancy.Coyness, vulnerability, provocativeness, all these worthless attributes you think are so eternal and Darwinian…they are purely 19th century. The new middle class lived in villas requiring only a small staff, a governess raised the kids and the man made enough money to support it all. there was nothing for women to do, and they became, overwhelmingly, very sick. Forced to deny their libido, their intelligence, even basic utility, they went mad. They developed agonizing stomach pains, diagnosed as 'hysteria'. Some were actually shut away, many many more were dosed with morphine, as the housewives of the 50s took Valium. This is the situation Ibsen criticises in a Doll's House. read that, read Proverbs 37 to see what the Good Wife is supposed to be like "she strengtheneth her arms, she considers land and buys it, she planteth a vineyard…." Beauty is vain and short-lived and useless, say all the old writers, Shakespeare too. You are wrong. dead wrong, in all your interpretations of history.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And even very decorative women, the courtesans, were never bossed about by men, being women of enormous culture and intelligence: this is what made them so admired by the 18th century male, and it is really interesting to think what that male would make of today's whining 'alphas'. Word of advice, guys, that word has become a term of abuse. The men of the past chose their partner for her intelligence and utility and her companionship: the marriage service did not feature the word 'obey' til, yes, the 19th century, again. Previously, the woman promised to be "bonny and blithe in bed and at board' implying a healthy sexual relationship satisfying to both sides. You'll see in the Taming Of The Shrew that Petruchio sets out to marry Kate for money but on meeting her realises her tempestuous personality makes her a challenge worth going for and winning her respect will make for a true marriage, whereas the sweet pretty Bianca, adored by fools, turns into a complete hard-case who dominates her miserable husband the moment she is wed. Kate and Petruchio satisfy each other in every way: the intelligent man works to get the respect of the intelligent woman, to understand her frustrations, her dread of being married to a fool, and he gains her submission because it isnt submission, it is the submission of the hawk on the wrist, the dangerous and beautiful partner that you always respect even as you dominate it.

    It's only the 19th century that introduced the concept of 'obedience' by which is meant 'sexual submission'. Love honour and obey meant "accept his disgusting male demands". I just wish some of you guys would read your history, but as long as you despise any learning 'without maths' you are always going to be flailing away in the dark, looking for that paradise that never existed. Please, read the Feminine Mystique, please realise that the whole set-up was pushed to get women to spend more money out of boredom as career women rarely shop being occupied with more interesting pursuits: do you understand just how many women hate shopping, especially for clothes? See how popular the online sites are?
    Never mind. You dont want to know. Shine a light in your darkness, you wouldnt thank me for it. You might have to actually start to read and think. If any of you can find me an example, pre-19th century, of a purely decorative, coy and provocative, young and beautiful woman, any historical mention at all, anything to show women were meant to be useless…any document at all…go on, accept the challenge. You'll lose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck off bitch. This is a blog about men men's issues, not about women.

      Delete
    2. fiona1933,
      All good points. There is so much history and so many issues on both sides. The tone of your post is informative and not man hating, very nice. Yes, many of the magazine articles and such were created by men, but with the intent to market and sell, which has lead to massive problems in general. To change society as a whole either way is an unproductive undertaking as I see it. Too many people don't care or want to care and if they do its either misandry or misogyny. The key in my humble opinion is on a micro-interpersonal level at first, to create something anew between 2 conscious humans that both know that there are massive issues on both sides. 4 million years of ruthless survival and procreative instincts coming down the pipeline every second and we think we know what the hell is going on. Genes are single pointed, survive & replicate, at all cost. This would obviously lead to some serious complications as awareness and intelligence evolves.

      I respect the men and women who stand up against reasonable unconscious behaviors past down genetically or culturally. It is time for men to be empowered men and women to be empowered women against all depredation. To come together and find solutions of how to truly respect and love one-another. True respect, appreciation, and loyalty goes along way with men.

      Good to see both sides...

      Delete
  17. What about Geisha girls? Everything they do is designed to please men.

    It is interesting that you talk about the 19th century ushering in an era of bourgeois repression in Anglosphere countries. While there is some truth in this, it must be said that the Puritan strain first arose in the 16th and 17th centuries, so it is really far older and more embedded in the pan-Anglosphere social nexus than you suppose.

    However, the biggest problem with your position is this: the principal themes of 19th bourgeois life - sexual repression, subliminal misandry, the pedestalization of women and hatred of sensual pleasure - ALL CHARACTERIZE MODERN ANGLO-AMERICAN FEMINISM. Your views are contradictory, in that YOU EMBODY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO OPPOSE. All modern Anglo feminists inveigh against pornography, prostitution and other manifestations of true sexual liberation, usually behind the shield of fairy-tale statistics and deluded rhetoric about 'trafficking'. The healthy relationships you allude to date from a time before Puritanism ruled the Anglosphere - which is why Shakespeare is appreciated at an international level, unlike the crabbed, post-Puritan authors who arose in his wake (Dickens being a good example). I assume you self-identify as an Anglo feminist, which is curious: since Anglo feminism is a white, bourgeois movement dedicated to re-imposing the bourgeois repression you claim to oppose.

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't understand this us/them dichotomy. How can women go start up communities on pacific islands (undoubtedly owned by other nations, probably not in fact readily available anyway, certainly not without a lot of red tape with visas/permissions... all in all a ridiculous fantasy) when in fact they have fathers, brothers, sons, and husbands that tie them to the here and now in their lives? Since when do women living together automatically become identifiable as lesbians? Is there any man who was not once a baby dependent on his mother's care and breast milk? There may be a few men who are afraid of women, but it does not change the fact that it was a woman who brought them into this world. There are quite a lot of women who managed to break out of the roles for which they were designated and make contributions to the body of knowledge that has brought us to the 21st century. It was also women who raised the men who later made contributions, and some of those men acknowledge the support of their mothers even in centuries when it was highly unfashionable to give women any credit for anything. What ails thee? Hast no love at all for the sex that nourishes thee?

    The reference to Geisha is uninformed. They are professional entertainers. They are paid to provide an ultimate experience of joy and appreciation in the arts, moments that pass and fade like blossoms. A truly excellent Geisha can cast her charms at age 60 and produce the same atmosphere (because it is not about sex). It is very dangerous to take these arguments across cultures, certainly cultures as disparate as Anglican and Japanese. There are no proper intersections. The Japanese culture does not see a conflict between men and women the way this Mr. Rookh Kshatriya does. Let's hope this blog provides sufficient outlet for his male angst, and that he is not inclined towards more unsavory actions. I'm sorry for whatever caused his misogyny, for it is clearly debilitating, but even worse, likely to bring harm to others. All disrespectful and hateful thoughts and opinions have a way of seeping into the happiness of those in the vicinity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... In the same way you seeped into this thread?

      Mothers and Fathers raise children. Parents do not raise men or women.

      It's a tacit confession of fema-fuddlewits, that they lack responsibility for themselves, by insisting that their actions and thoughts are the product of others. Feminism is the perpetual infantilization of women; especially attractive to those princesses raised as spoilt brats, who are doomed to hold humanity in contempt, in order to sustain their narcissism.

      For without self-developing any virtue, due to lack of need, the brat fails to mature into an independent grown-up; and needs to be fed by others. Feminist, therefore, aspire to the rank of parasite. Further, they have to cling to self-identity by default, for 'others' are contemptible, thus they form identity-politics, like all fascist groups.

      Self-assembled communities of spoilt brats, are doomed to implode, as they have no narcissistic supply from 'others'; hence they exploit differences amongst themselves, in search of pariahs, to hold them in 'self-righteous' contempt.

      Delete
  20. Why can't people just do what they want to do, without it being a conspiracy?

    Girls, you want to play video games
    ? go for it.

    Boys, you want to work in a salon? go for it.

    What does having tits have to do with anything? The problem with Feminism is making girls who don't want to play video games feel bad. How if you don't pursue "manly" things, your keeping women down. Everyone needs to realize personal choices are personal.

    Do what makes you happy (without being a dick about it)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is this the mock outrage of an obese, past-prime female masquerading as 'everyone', by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
  22. That will be enough of that misandrist, Anglocentric drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This has been the funniest read of my day! You and your woman-bashing brethren are laughable in your transparency. Your opinions (and that is all that they are, unsupported, hate-mongering, OPINIONS) cannot be challenged or commented upon by the mere female, I see. Even if that female does not self-identify as a feminist? So, this is a "boy's club", then. Actually it is a "little boy's club" because LITTLE BOYS fear and despise women who confuse, confound and control them. While a MAN appreciates the more than just the "physical charms" of a WOMAN. He recognizes a need for her balance, compassion, and nurturing aspects. He appreciates the challenge that is presented in interaction with a different world view from a perspective that he can never obtain. He values her for so many attributes which you claim that she "never evolved"... It seems, then that we are dealing with boys here, not men. Well, then, dearie, have your little boys club and keep deleting the comments of women, keep retreating to the ultimately childish cry that you are being "persecuted". While you are at it, take a look in the mirror and see what a pathetic wretch you are that you cannot stand to see a woman rise above a man, that you cannot stand to admit that without women men would be little more than brutes and savages, that you disparage and insult all women as "intellectually un-evolved" while taking medicines and other benefits in every field across the board which came FROM A WOMAN'S MIND AND EFFORTS. Interestingly enough, your Hindi inspired "name" (most certainly a false one, which is so sad, since you feel that you can only speak the "truth" by hiding behind a mask) is a combination of the terms for "posturing" or "bluffing" and the term for an elitist, controlling caste... So, essentially, you are a fake and a control freak. Enough said. I feel that this is a TRUE descriptive of your mind-set. And before you point out that I have posted this as anonymous, I do so because I care so little about vile creatures such as yourself that I have no desire to EVER hear mention of your name again, let alone be stalked and tormented with more of your insane rantings. Surely there must be a God because you were given the free will to be the grotesque, malformed, and hate-filled creature that we see so clearly in your words (and the fact that you use the language of the "educated" - while lacking the empathy and understanding of the "enlightened" - to preach your gospel of hatred to the weak-minded.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you're so upset. But really, you're barking up the wrong tree. Neither I nor anyone else in the Men's Movement 'hates' women, as you seem to think. We just want fair and equal treatment for men in those areas where they presently don't get it (before the law, in healthcare, education and many other spheres).

      I sense that you have some serious problems in your life that need addressing and I'm truly sorry about that.

      Delete
    2. Why do I feeling that Anon wrote that comment in under 2 minutes, without stopping to take a breath? Imagine being married to someone like that and hearing stuff like that all day long? Men may 'need' women---but not THAT badly!

      Delete
    3. Thank you, anonumous 0926, that was one of the most hilarious drivel for quite some time.

      You, as a lowly female, cannot accept the fact that men your superiors in every possible way, but that is to be expected.

      Go fuck yourself, by the way.

      Delete
    4. Anon 09:26

      If there was God women wouldn't exist. Women ARE useless, worthless, wretched creatures.

      Deal with it, cunt.

      Delete
  24. I'm a woman. I have read some of your writing. I'm asking genuinely: What do you think are the three most important things I should teach my daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't set myself up as an mentor to anybody. Since you ask, however, I think you should tell her: find the right man. If she does this, no other advice is necessary. However, women are not well equipped to make that decision alone, for a plethora of biological and psychological reasons (as you doubtless know). So, while the advice is easy to give, applying it successfully will be much harder.

      Delete
    2. What makes a good man?

      Delete
    3. A man who is not necessarily attractive to female sexual 'instinct'. Of course, a man may be both attractive to female instinct and 'good', also. That is, his qualities of intelligence, idealism, industry and compassion can co-exist with height, physical presence and fine features. If a woman can attain such a man, however, she is fortunate indeed.

      Delete
  25. Thanks for your answers, I'm afraid I'm no wiser from your vague advice but as you said yourself you are no mentor. Do such men exist? What kind of a woman would be a match for such a man? What is 'compassion' exactly? Is it synonymous with respect? So many questions... Do you know how it feels to be a parent? to create life? to experience birth? You have a mother of your own? children of your own? A wife? A woman worthy of your love? Have you ever met a woman you respected as your equal? Is your love worthy of a woman's heart? A man's heart? what is love? Do you know? All your writing creates more questions. I am trying not to be rude.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Futrelle-bots are out in full force.

    I suppose it takes a lot of 'charisma' to be like this guy:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/tennessee-baby-machine-is-state-inmate-758094

    Prince Charming, according to his probabtion violation report, has "an extensive criminal history" which includes multiple assaults, drug charges, robberies...

    So young men, if you're reading this, don't be deluded by delusional white knights like Mr. Joey Hill here, whom I'm sure looks back on his 'run of relationships with women' with fondness (LOL) and is 'happily married' (until Ms Princess gets bored and files the papers) LOL

    ReplyDelete
  27. The very fact that you waste your time posting your liberal-arts, party-school nonsense here demonstrates your deep-seated personal insecurity. After all, why bother? No one here likes you and no one wants to listen to your ludicrous, low-brow opinions. You are just a loser on a routine white-collar treadmill to nowhere, who thinks that 'love' will save you. Heads up, idiot - it won't. The divorce courts and trailer parks are full of losers who believed that. In reality, a male who gets married in the Anglosphere has a 50% chance of losing most of his assets. More, divorced males live shorter, less healthy lives than any other male demographic. Given your ignorance of these facts, you are clearly the last man on earth to be offering advice to anyone - especially young men in the Anglosphere.

    Let me rephrase things:

    Mangina = Loser male who pedestalizes all women due to deep-rooted psychological and emotional insecurities.

    White Knight = Sexually disenfranchised version of the above

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, the very fact that you need to justify your idiotic lifestyle choices to this extent clearly demonstrates your insecurity and inadequacy. Why else would you be coming here and typing reams of self-magnifying drivel for people who have no interest in anything you say, think or do?

      Delete
    2. Rookh:
      I've noticed this about male feminists too. It seems like their arguments are all designed to convince themselves rather their opponents. I think that---at least on a subconscious level---many of them must feel deeply insecure, knowing instinctively that the stories they hear in the Manosphere could very likely be their own futures.

      They remind me in a lot of ways of some mid-level corporate managers, who've seen all their competitors and associates outsourced and downsized and are trying desperately to convince themselves it won't happen to THEM next.

      Delete
    3. Eric

      Right enough. I think this Harry Hill is a kind of 'super' White Knight - the White Knight equivalent of a Kamikaze pilot, except he wants to die for Anglo women. He strikes me as being the kind of dude who might go postal and kill a shed-load of people, someday.

      Delete
  28. Where's he gone? Probably just received his no-fault Divorce papers, LOL....

    ReplyDelete
  29. So i came across this blog because i was reading this article: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/11/pretty-ugly . The author posted various pictures of herself on youtube identifying herself as a 15 year old asking if she is pretty or ugly and Rookh here commented, " "You're a 4 and without glasses you are a 5"". I posted this info on this site last week and it was removed so i'm sure many other posts have been removed as well, just want everyone to know what kind of 'man' they're following.. the kind of man that comments on very young female's 'pretty/ugly' videos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So - when somebody asks you if they are pretty or ugly, I guess we need to start asking them their age first?

      I guess this means that all children must be told they are ugly by adults, otherwise, the adult is making a no no.

      Odd too - I just watched a Disney movie, where a supposed "princess" told a 6 year old girl that she was pretty - I guess Disney was trying to portray a lesbian pedophile princess.

      Damn - that Disney...

      Delete
  30. Anon2001:
    So, like there's something strange to you about men looking at young women? It seems that Anglo-feminism has really distorted your perspective on reality.

    Were you by chance one of the people in this group?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10422771/how-wild-rumour-led-a-mob-to-murder-an-innocent-man.html

    "Rumours already began circulating that he was a child abuser, and two days later, he was beaten unconscious, dragged into the street and set on fire."

    Just wanting to let everyone know what kind people are criticizing this site!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Comments abusing the movement and its ideals have been deleted, yes. Since when was this was a democracy?

    There is nothing wrong with making an aesthetic assessment about a child's facial appearance. Youtube is an open resource that can be seen by anyone. Incidentally, when men on manosphere/pua blogs have asked for an objective assessment of their appearance, I have generally offered one. Does that make me a homosexual? Clearly, aesthetic analysis is quite distinct from sexual intent.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon2000,

    Perhaps you need to start checking out some real sex criminals, like this one:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-24833664

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rookh:
      If the teacher in that article is any example of 'hot and sexy' British women, it's no wonder the UK has never won a Miss Universe Pageant. How much do you think she weighs?

      Actually, I suppose I shouldn't talk: the US would never win pageants either if we didn't own Hawaii and Puerto Rico! LOL

      Delete
  33. Women will be dependant on men for resources for as long as they put their energy into carrying and raising children. Raising a child properly takes time and commitment. Women without children are just as capable of funding their own resources as men are. Naturally we would all live in tribal communities where everyone did their fair share of work and where men would not be able or think to stray far from whoever he got pregnant. Society is a joint effort, but we are all just far too isolated from each other to be as productive as we could be. There is also a greedy upper class leeching from us all and ruining job opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  34. About the Anon (chicken shit) that made those ugly accusations towards you Dr. Kshatriya.

    Ignore them.

    I have two nieces - I tell have told both of them that they are beautiful.

    Do I think of them in a sexual way - no.

    When a woman or girl asks somebody if they are beautiful - there is no harm in them speaking their mind - except to a warped mind that will "add" the sexual content and intention (most likely a less than honorable sexual intent - perhaps rape or excessively rough sex that causes severe injury).

    I believe the psychological term for this is projection.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Women are increasingly scared that men will abandon them. This is why the concept of MGTOW ( Men Going Their Own Way ) has such power. All men have to do is abandon women... first of all to their cats, then to the Muslims or the Russians and finally in a an act of unspeakable cruelty to the one group of people who really hate their guts .....OTHER WOMEN!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is neither healthy nor natural for men to deal with women anymore than they have to -that is, abandon them immediately after sex.

      Delete
  36. This reminds me of an episode on that somewhat campy post-zombie apocalypse TV show called Z Nation. S01E11, titled Sisters of Mercy, our heroes (and antiheroes) stumble across an all-female commune in Utah (where else?). Since men aren't allowed in, the females go in and learn that the place was built by the leader's (late) husband, who she claimed was an abusive asshole, justifying her killing him. They also discover that while they do raise children fathered by flings with strangers, the boys are sent on a quest to go find their fathers when they reach puberty (basically exiled, which is a death sentence).

    See? Men made the place possible until it was taken over by feminists, which they maintained until one boys gets wise to their scheme and burns the place down in revenge (which we learn of after the fact in S02E05).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Great article but one weak spot: the criminal underclass is almost entirely male. So when you say women need non-criminal men to protect them from criminal men, at best you are canceling your own argument out. A malefree society would not need men to protect women from men.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank for your very good article.! i always enjoy & read the post you are sharing!

    หีฟิต

    ReplyDelete