The Brand of Independence

independence

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.


311 responses to “The Brand of Independence

  • gregg

    Feminism and women are stealing the identity of a man? What is this ..ehm…”masculinity”? Maculine “identity” and sense of woth is so pathetically linked to beinh recognized by women, that there is nothing to steal at all. Women are not robbing men of their “identity”, no one can rob you of something you never had in the first place.

    Happiness of man is the happiness of a slave. If woman recognizes him and allows him to SLAVE and sacrifice for her, than…welll..he feeels masculine and he is happy. What is happening now is that those MASTERS of men are telling – we do not need you, you are FREE. And slaves are scared, scared shitless! Why? Feminism is not robbbing men form their….ehm…identity??? Exactky the opposite – feminism is giving men the the chance to discover real identity, chance for freedom, chance for living by our terms.

    Most men are nothing but walking dicks and slaves, lambs born for slaughter, living and existing only to be used and abused by women, without any real identity, personality. Passing nothing. So we have this anger and this screaming form them – “you neeed us women, please, please let us to be slaves again, we want to work for you, protect you, die for youu, pleaaae how can you be so cruel”. Those few, who have something in them are CELEBRATING this era. Finally there is enough information for REAL MAN men to be free. To find himself.

    Let the slaves moan…

  • TarzanWannaBe

    Gregg, how cool. I see how you start with a completely mistaken (false?) premise. Once that’s outta the way, you go on to say whatever f-ed ideas you can imagine. I’m impressed and will adoprt your device the next time I see something that doesn’t suit me. Well done & Noted! I thank you.

  • earl

    “The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.”

    And men should not beat themselves up…or do the worst thing they can do and take their lives because of it. If she wants to seperate herself from her biological imperitive…that is her choice. Normal men need to know they didn’t start this war and it isn’t their fault women are this way.

  • c2w

    Brother, I just don’t see it.

    You call them archetypes and that their branding is broadcast, but I never see it. I consume tons of media and interact with lots of women on a daily basis. I don’t see what you’re describing.

    What I see are women who gasp a bit when I enter the room. I deal with women who defer at the slightest hint of dominance. Even the lady blogs I read them shouting from the roof about feminism, but then post gossip about the latest fashion or how to cook and land a man.

    Have you taken a poll of this broadcasting? How much is “Independent Woman” and how much is “he’s cute.”?

  • earl

    I think it should also be asked…why are societies promoting the seperation of the genders?

    Divide, conquer, and enslave everyone that isn’t “in the club” is what I’m thinking.

  • Johnycomelately

    The independence meme is no different from the old soviet ‘solidarity’ meme, same play book. Control the superior ethnic group through special rights for ethnic minority oblasts, same game except its genders instead of national groups.

  • anonymous

    **GREEN PILL**

    Women want huge sex
    Women are gullible
    Women are crazy/emotional

    The culture myth of monogamy, ideal partner, romance are hogwash and only serve the society’s interest of corporate slavery.

    Women have these sexual triggers

    * Confidence
    * Body – Athletic, Body Language, Looks …
    * Brain – Arts, Words …

    You need at-least two to get fucked. Money/Power work as a compensation factor.

    My best friend is born handsome and brainy. He gets approached left and right.

    In college I hanged out with a depressed chain smoking freak. He was skinny but could talk his way through anything. Given enough time he would bed some girls.

    I know a DJ, who is a short midget. He scores in the Confidence department and the Brain. He doesn’t have sex. He has orgies.

    I don’t need to talk about athletic guys or the people with power. They harvest women.

    The whole Game / PUA , for all it is, is to make you score in the Confidence + Body Department. They clearly miss the Brain, which is a sexual ornament like the peacock’s tail. They clearly don’t know about Power either.

    What about keeping a women ?

    Keeping a woman, in this free free world, you need to be

    * Stoic – To handle emotional shit
    * Great in Bed – So that she doesn’t cheat, she still may though, to taste the forbidden fruit.
    * Powerful

    The world is therefore made of,

    * Harems
    * Happy couples
    * Lots of sad couples
    * Lots of single men
    * Some single women – Prostitutes and Ugly Women mostly
    * Faggots

    Most single men, are degenerates.

    Some single men, give up sex / fuck whores and fuck with the world. They are admirable, since they put their energies into mastering themselves and help the world in some way.

    Some single men, spend their whole life fucking. They may be admirable depending on what they do other than that. But they are the envy of all men.

    So what is the Green Pill ?

    It’s the middle way. It’s a long shot at evolution.

    Green Pillers agree with feminists on one thing. All women should be educated. Arts, Crafts, Sports, Engineering, Science, Philosophy …

    Green Pillers are not too keen on divorce laws

    It’s a terrible gamble. Feminine energy is potent. The idea is, if you raise the standards of women, you raise the standards of men.

    I am not too optimistic though. The most educated girl of my college, rides the cock of a total cunt. “I will be the owner of the world in 5 years. I am going to start this business …”

    *Sigh*

    If we can atleast teach women, not to trust a good looking, well spoken salesmen, men would be a bit happy.

    WHEN A ZEN MASTER SAYS “BLOW ME”, WALK AWAY. DON’T FILE A LAWSUIT, “WYAAAAAH I BLOWED HIM”

    The worst case scenario, is matriarchy. Where the population systematically controlled to fuck the same alpha male again and again and genes are shopped.

    Let’s talk about Red Pillers. If the society is made in your image,
    we have two results

    * Old School Patriarchy: Where you slit the throat of one of your harem girls because she was growing old.

    * Live like American Black Poeple in Idiocracy: You should watch that movie. The whole Game Theory is basically trying to make you into a Black Man.

  • Tilikum

    ^^^^omega/gamma alert^^^^

  • Paul Moore

    I think Earl and John are on the right track here. I have always been a bit of an agnostic, but have lately begun to recognize a presence of evil in the world so pure and single minded, that I am beginning to believe in Satan. This argues for the likely existence of God, whatever face we might put on him. Evil is anti life, nihilistic,and embraces anything that discourages creation, abundance,reproduction or longevity.
    God wants every species to go forth and multiply. Satan wants to burn it all down. Who wants men and women to love and make a family, and who wants abortion, same sex marriage, and euthanasia?

  • WG

    The separation of women from men has been going on for decades. It is part of the atomization of Western man, of European man.

    The goal is to separate us from God, from woman, from family, from tribe, to take from us any shred of identity and connection, the things that make us human.

    You can blame feminists, Satan, you can point your finger at liberals, Jews, the elite class, whatever. In time we’ll know exactly what and whom we’re dealing with, as our enemies are starting to make themselves known.

    Personally, until such time as it becomes acceptable and a duty to target them and take their wealth and property, I’ll be poolside.

  • earl

    Endure to the end and you’ll be saved.

    It would be a lot easier to give up your humanity given the circumstances…but it is very important to not do it.

  • sunshinemary

    What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

    Yes, just so. The problem is that women are actually miserable when they are independent. Yet they are so committed to the idea of it (which is really just rebellion against God and Natural Law) that they’ll double down in their pursuit of even more independence, apparently believing that if women can just squash men down a little more, then we’ll finally be free and happy. Such delusion. It’s like an exhausted child who is refusing to go to bed while running back and forth sobbing, “I’m not tired, I want to stay up, I don’t neeeeeed sleep!”

    Outstanding post, Rollo

    (Also, thanks for the linkage.)

  • M3

    I’ve already written a few posts on how absolutely non-independant women are from men in their daily lives. There are millions of men in the background doing the things required to keep their lives functional, like creating their electricity, pumping out the petroleum for both fuel and plastics, laying down asphalt and constructing highways, mining for metals to be turned into their chic kitchen utensils, and on and on.

    There was a show on TLC i belive that once ran with the premise of the women going away for a week and leaving the town for just the men to run.. the conclusion they tried to get to was men are idiots and incompotent.

    If tomorrow, every man went on vacation for a week, just one week.. you’d see the fireballs from miles away as entire cities were razed to the ground.. and the women would be weeping and begging for the men to come back and fix/shelter/protect them from their own INDEPENDENCE.

    You are definitely right about interdependence. We counted on each other to do the things we had evolved to do better as males and females, and those that cooperated the best, survived the most and flourished.

    Feminism started the racket of breaking that bond and leading to female FAUX independence. The ultimate irony is that it helped create MGTOW.. a group that can ACTUALLY DELIVER ON THE THREAT OF REAL INDEPENDENCE and leave the women to their own fates.

    There’s nothing MGTOW’s love saying more than ‘you wanted equality, you got it lady’ while leaving her to save herself off a sinking ship.

  • earl

    Whomever the enemies are…they delievered quite an apple to women through feminism.

    It’s hard for me to process how a woman tries so hard to go against her natural desires…other than through intense brainwashing and taking chemicals to do it. Like Forney mentioned…a woman without a man is dead.

    I don’t want to be seperate from women…even though I may be forced to. I’ve prepared myself to be content being single should it come to that…because I can provide, protect myself, and find the right people should I need help. I can handle it. What’s sad is that I’m the normal one and women look at me like I’m some kind of freak for wanting a relationship with them.

  • The Latin Buddha

    I fear you’ve already seen this but this idea of misandry was talked about in Psychology Today and brought some interesting points:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men/201010/why-some-people-have-issues-men-misandry

  • A Tale of Two Sheep. | Sunshine Mary

    […] them unfairly and not letting them have any fun.  They decided they would be much happier if they escaped from the farmer altogether and went to play with the […]

  • Anonymous

    I believe you are missing a point to touch at a later post. There is past social engineering, which is true.

    It doesn’t speak of the context that women are actually fantasizing and projecting their idealized image of a strong man who’s too busy, too important.

    Their self-esteem goes so high, they use career to seem above it all. Their aren’t enough men who live in such height of power for all the 30k/yr office ladies who have their BF’s change their major to help their “career”.

    I believe there is social indoctrination, but the “strong” women, from the poor family, who works really hard, is merely a theme. But also a feint, distant hope, an alpha God so incomprehensible will come down from heaven, a father, “I’m so proud of how strong you are, the son I never had.”

    Woman have en masse priced themselves out of reality, *with the help* of social engineering. All we’re seeing is a theme.

  • Bluedog

    You know there are so many posts lately that have been excellent but I didn’t feel I had anything to add to the discussion so have not commented.

    This one is just ballpark, as-in: ball-out-of-the-ballpark, ballpark. This is why Rollo is a whole head above the rest in the ‘sphere.

    The question is a BIOLOGICAL one.

    It is not a political one. It appears in many respects to be a political one and however much I respect her, SunshineMary is getting it wrong in her last post, “Why do feminists tend to be emotionally volatile, obsessive, violent, and hysterical?” … to make this a matter of political ideology.

    When she does that, she’s basically getting in line behind Sean Hanity, Glen Beck, and in the ‘sphere … Chapin, Forney, etc. It adds NOTHING to the conversation while actually betraying a very limited exposure to anything left of “reactionary” right, … which is most of the entire political spectrum.

    It is coming the grassy field as a field biologist, already knowing what all the little critters are and what they do, so that when you see a new critter or observe a new behavior, you categorize it – wrongly – and mistake your professional attribution for knowledge when it’s worse than a lack of knowledge … it’s hubris.

    But this is getting to the core of the matter. It’s seeing past the exterior, past the headache and high temperature and upset stomach, to understand what the underlying ailment is that is causing all of these ill humors.

    We have evolved as an interdependent species. Our interdependence is hardwired – male and female – hardwired.

    To prehistory, if you were a man and you wanted children … you NEEDED a woman.
    To prehistory, if you were a woman and you wanted children … you NEEDED a man.

    MGTOW is in some ways unwittingly hysterical: it is the mirror image of the feminism that it loathes.

    Feminism – as an ideology to equalize rights of men and women and as an ideology to eliminate cultural obstacles to individual agency (i.e.: “you can’t do that because that’s ‘man’s work'” … there is NOTHING wrong with that feminism (yes, I am sure there is shock heard in the stands) … but there is nothing wrong with this. Men and women should be equal under the law, no man should be told he cannot be a primary caregiver for his children because he is a man, no woman should be told she cannot be a c-level officer or doctor or whatever, because she is a woman.

    But feminism that seeks to make women autonomous of men, is feminism that is doing something entirely novel with the species. The only difference between feminism and MGTOW in this respect is this one single thing:

    MGTOW is out front with it.

    Feminism – the feminism that renders women independent of men – is MGTOW for women.

    The question is:

    Men and women: do you want this?

    Men – do you want to be independent of women?
    Women – do you want to be independent of men?

    Or would you prefer we go on – a social species – interdependent?

    And if the latter … then what is the way forward?

  • Peregrine John

    I think c2w (and a couple others) have come very close to something that gives the lie to the whole charade every time: Whenever you have a (fictional, let us remember) Strong, Independent character, apart from all those other traits, remember that she is always, always, always attractive. Sexy, cute, fit, or whatever, she has that first hurdle overcome before she even begins. Even the ones that women will point out aren’t supposed to be pretty are compensated by suspiciously amazing hair. (They can do this dodge because having a lush mane doesn’t matter, doncha know, I can go pixie any time or boy cut and all my girls will totally tell me it’s hawt.) But every single example I can think of is at least notably fit, and usually they’re simply beautiful as well.

    Now, anonygamma, don’t start screwing with things you don’t understand. This “red pill” thing, it’s a metaphor drawn from the movie, The Matrix. You should know this already, but here it is: The red pill is truth; the blue pill is illusion; you will choose one or the other. There is no both. There is no purple. There is no goddamned green. No fuschia, chartreuse, taupe, or any other nonsense. Why? Because things are either true or false. There is no balance between truth and lies, between good and evil, between reality and illusion. Yes, the best lies are tempered by looking true, having a few facts cherry-picked to make the untruth plausible. But don’t think for an instant that that’s balance.

    That green thing is an M&M. When you’re done with that, you can decide whether you want the truth or not.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Bluedog, I think I’m probably a lot more liberal leaning than most people in the manosphere would suspect I am. I’ve never done politics on RM, I will never do screeds on race or multi-culturalism or religion on RM for a very good reason – it pollutes the message.

    It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment you associate the red pill with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

    This is what scares the shit out of critics who attempt to define, contain and compartmentalize the manosphere / red pill wareness; it’s bigger than social, racial, political or religious strictures can contain. It crosses all of those constructs just as the feminine imperative has co-opted all of those constructs, and the feminized infrastructure of the MSM that’s just beginning to take the manosphere seriously enough to be critical are discovering this and trying to put the genie back into a bottle defined by their feminine-primary conditioning.

    The idea that one of their own, whether in a liberal or conservative context, is genuinely red pill aware and educating others of that awareness is unnerving for the feminine imperative that’s already established in either ideology.

  • livingtree2013

    Hello again Rollo,

    I want to start my comment/essay (sorry, I did intend for this to be much shorter…) by saying that I always find your articles interesting and thought-provoking, and you are intelligent as all get-out. But this one in particular has really brought to mind what bothers me about the men’s rights movement.

    In this article in particular, you seem to be plagued with a deep-seated need to justify men’s existence in the modern world, as do most men in the “manosphere”, because you are suffering from a sense of diminished importance. I will tell you, I definitely can understand why you might feel like your importance in the world has been diminished since the advent of feminism. You SHOULD feel that way, if you’ve been paying attention, because it has been diminished. I even understand why you might be a little insecure or angry about that.

    But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority. It is because your contribution is, and has always been, since the founding of America at least, socially and economically valued disproportionate to women’s. The deeply misunderstood intention of feminism, and this “Strong Independent Woman meme” you are complaining about here, was to adjust the measure of importance by giving women the confidence to believe they COULD be valuable.

    Now, I know it probably seems to you like you have fallen below women in the social rankings, but I think I can state with absolute confidence there are very few women in the North America who would agree with that assessment, and for good reasons. Many of them.

    The work considered “womanly” in our society still has considerably less economic value. We see the evidence of that in every statistical study, in every television show or magazine, in every comment from men in online articles, in every single aspect of our culture really. The wage gap? Yes its been debunked, but it still exists. The debunking just proved exactly what we always knew – the work women do is deemed by American society as worth less, by every measure.

    Women and men are “contributing” to the “workforce” only slightly less than men are, according to the Federal Reserve’s economic data, but the manufacturers of our culture have made it so that women’s contribution is less important than men’s. And until it isn’t anymore, men will always hold the stronger position. I don’t see it changing in my lifetime, to be honest, there is too much resistance against that. Conservatives, MRA’s and masculinists seem hell-bent on preventing that from happening. And that really, REALLY pisses us off.

    You still expect us to compete with you on a male-based playing field in order to prove our worth, and then when we do, you retaliate us for not doing it well enough, or for taking away your rights. Do you honestly not understand how much men still control women in this society? You just control us now by meting out your approval, instead of your money and protection and heavy lifting like you used to do.

    Women aren’t entirely dependent on men for their existence anymore. They don’t NEED you, but they do still WANT you, they still struggle to gain your acceptance and approval. And as they get better and stronger, they want you to be better and stronger too, which you most definitely have not done. Can you explain to me why that bothers you so much? Can’t you appreciate that it is better for everyone to be wanted rather than needed? That “need” ultimately leads to disappointment? Is it that you genuinely don’t understand what it means to be “better and stronger” in the eyes of a woman? Or is it that you don’t see why you’d care? This whole thing confounds me.

    Honestly I cannot fathom how you’ve come to the belief that fostering a woman to be independent by necessity means “doing away with” men. That is straight up insecurity talking. Independence and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Loving someone does not strip you of your independence, or at least, it shouldn’t if you’re doing it right.

  • earl

    “Women aren’t entirely dependent on men for their existence anymore. They don’t NEED you, but they do still WANT you, they still struggle to gain your acceptance and approval. And as they get better and stronger, they want you to be better and stronger too, which you most definitely have not done. Can you explain to me why that bothers you so much? Can’t you appreciate that it is better for everyone to be wanted rather than needed? That “need” ultimately leads to disappointment? Is it that you genuinely don’t understand what it means to be “better and stronger” in the eyes of a woman? Or is it that you don’t see why you’d care? This whole thing confounds me.”

    It should…because you know nothing about men. We have to be needed…otherwise we become alone and obsolete.

    It is most certainly not better for everyone…both genders get the shaft in the deal because we are not suppose to compete but compliment each other.

  • sunshinemary

    I’m probably a lot more liberal leaning than most people in the manosphere would suspect I am.

    Well, I’ve never thought you were a conservative. Nor was I particularly surprised that you were a praise-and-worship band guitarist; those guys are well-known as Jesus-brand playahs.

    @ Bluedog
    I don’t want to get into a long convo here about me personally because Rollo’s article is excellent and that is what should be discussed. However, since you called me out by name, I will respond.

    THIS is why I have stridently refused to be called a red pill or manosphere blogger despite sometimes being labelled as such. You see, I emphatically AM a right-reactionary Christian. The religious and the political is the point of my writing. Matters of gender and sexuality hold endless fascination for me, but mostly only within the context of the spiritual and political realms. I AM rejecting “most of the political spectrum”. My blog is quite decidedly limited in its scope and naturally appeals only to a small percentage of the people. This is by design and will not ever be changing.

    But you are still welcome to continue being the honorary leftist there. If nothing else, debating with you sharpens my own argument, though I usually learn a little something from you as well.

    Now then, as delightful as a long discussion about me would be, let us instead turn our eyes back to Rollo’s fine essay.

  • livingtree2013

    I agree, Earl, but keep in mind the momentum from feminism in its origins was not to compete with men, it was to obtain equal rights and equal value for our contributions. It just worked out that way because no matter how we tried, we did not succeed in obtaining the appreciation or value we sought for our contribution to society. If you are interested, do some independent research about feminism, without the goggles of pre-judgement, and you will see what I mean.

    So, in order to get what WE needed, which was respect, validation, freedom, and worth for those wonderful “complimentary” assets that you claim to honor so much, we found ourselves HAVING to compete in the men’s role, because it seemed to be the only way to get you to respect us.

    That backfired completely, unfortunately, because we got exactly the opposite from you – insult, contempt, patronizing, and condescension – but now its too late. Perhaps it was a genuine misunderstanding on our part, but now we all suffer for the fact that women simply gave up trying to gain your respect and approval, because it seemed it would never come, so we just collectively decided it didn’t matter.

    What bothers me most about this movement is that you are angry with us because we didn’t support you or think of YOUR NEEDS, but you have to recognize that is ALL WE EVER DID prior to feminism, and men did not reciprocate at all to meet, or even bother to understand, our needs. Quite the opposite in fact. So you made your own bed. Your resistance to our evolution was what fueled our resistance against you.

    Its unfortunate that it got to be this adversarial, it really is, but you left us little choice other than to give up on what we wanted and go back to being 1950’s doormats. And if you expected that to happen, you know nothing of the resolve of women.

    And incidentally, we do still value your contributions to society. Don’t let anyone tell you we don’t. We just got sick of being told, over and over, in so many different ways, that our needs don’t matter, and that we’re worthless except for our looks. Do you deny that is a reasonable thing to be angry about?

  • livingtree2013

    Earl, perhaps you can elaborate on this for me.

    The thing I find particularly difficult to understand about men is not their need to be needed, everyone likes that. It is the need for your value to be based on something exclusionary. Why does your worth have to come from something that ONLY men do? It is the thing about men that I find most perplexing.

  • The Burninator

    You didn’t enter the workforce to compete mano-a-mano with men. You entered the workforce and immediately demanded that the workforce divest itself of the masculinity that has been in the male workforce realm for thousands of years. You demanded immediate neutering so that you wouldn’t feeeeeel bad. Mechanics with pin up posters, take them down or be fired (nevermind that women generally are not in the garage). Men joking and cutting up each other with off color language, gone – too offensive and might hurt somebody’s feeeeeelings.

    Had you come in and done your job and not demanded with belligerent rage that all signs of masculinity be erased, you would have a point. Instead we now have speech codes, everything has to go through the PC filter, there is no real joking, everything is conformity (thank you, ladies) and God help the man who has a desktop graphic showing a fully clothed, yet attractive, female.

    Spare me the “but we had to compete” nonsense. It was only when you tried to alter the very fabric of our work that we held you in contempt.

    Equal rights was a good thing, nobody deserves to have less rights to speech, self defense, etc. But that’s not what was the actual target once those equal rights were achieved, as women, never being satisfied, had to fill their need for victimization elsewhere.

    Don’t talk to me about workplace. I was in workplaces before they went full female. We used to inaugurate new line machines with a keg, at work. Office Christmas parties used to be great fun and no small amount of drunken debauchery. Men and women used to laugh and flirt with each other (when women were around). Speech codes meant that you didn’t tell you supervisor to kiss your ass in front of visiting customers. Not today. Nope. Thanks women, thanks a fucking pantload, we all just *adore* your conformity demanding, “safe” workplaces.

  • earl

    Men aren’t supposed to respect women…men are suppose to love women. Part of love is providing and protecting.

    Women are supposed to respect men because we have these abilities. But thanks to feminism telling them they can do the same things (plus unfair advantages women get based off their gender)…they don’t respect men anymore.

    Women’s main function is to birth more humans…you need to be attractive to do that. That is why looks count the most for women. The second function when the looks fade is to have skills to keep the man happy and around. They would be…raising children, cooking, sex, and respect. Certainly less than what is required of a woman when she is on her own.

  • earl

    And if you think as a woman birthing a human is considered less worthy than making it out on your own with a career…you have your priorities backwards.

    You get to build the most fascinating thing in life…a human. A man can’t even come close to building something like that.

  • The Burninator

    @earl

    “plus unfair advantages women get based off their gender”

    Aye, that’s the elephant in the room of “independent feminist!” isn’t it? Yeah, you’re “independent and empowered!” as long as you have reams of laws and rules to give you special privilege, special advantages in promotion and special treatment in the workplace, which silence and neuter men right out the gate. Put you “independent and empowered!” broads on equal legal footing with men (hey, wait, isn’t that the entire point of the original equal rights movement?!?) and you wouldn’t last a day and a half in our workplace, or more accurately, what used to be our workplaces.

  • Martel

    @ livingtree: “…men did not reciprocate at all to meet, or even bother to understand, our needs. Quite the opposite in fact. So you made your own bed. Your resistance to our evolution was what fueled our resistance against you.”

    So the guy who slaved his life away in a coal mine all day to provide FOOD for his wife & kids failed to meet their “needs”? Since when are food, protection, and shelter not “needs”?

    Actually, the problem is that we met such “needs” all too well. For the modern woman, all these buildings, grocery stores, and appliances just kind of seem like they were always there, but they were BUILT from nothing, damn near always by men.

    But as soon as we reach the point where we could forget about the “needs” that really matter like survival, women FORGOT entirely about the work and toil that went into making their lives today so easy. Thus, the definition of “need” is no longer an actual need but instead becomes something ethereal like “fulfillment” or “equality”.

    You don’t NEED a fulfilling career. About 98% of the world’s population doesn’t have the LUXURY to consider how “fulfilling their job is, they’re just damn grateful to either have a job or be able to live off somebody else’s. In short, we’re talking FOOD, you’re talking “finding yourself”.

    Didn’t meet women’s “needs’ my ass.

  • earl

    The realm of competition is among men…when you have fair rules. The men with the best skills and determination naturally make it to the top based off merit. Other men follow and that is how hierarchy is established. Alphas and betas when it comes to men relating to each other works well…because alphas need betas and betas need alphas.

    Women are to compliment men…they were never meant to compete. Every man needs to be an alpha to a woman.

    Women have been given a head start over men since birth and can still barely keep above water without taking drugs, government assistance, and suggesting men still pay for everything. It is their uterus that is of value…not some sheepskin on the wall or paper pushing job.

  • Martel

    @ Burninator: It always cracks me up when I hear the long list of things that women DEPEND on from men to be “independent”.

    If you’re so damn “independent” you can buy your own damn birth control.

  • earl

    “Since when are food, protection, and shelter not “needs”?”

    Yeah…those are in my top 5 along with water and transportation.

    I have no idea what constitutes a need to a woman anymore.

  • Chris

    Many women – mainly those new overachiever types do not have any sense or objective understanding of environment they are in – buildings build themselves, electricity comes by itself and man who lacks some qualities ( can’t do some of those things which really makes world going ) is a man to abandon. Just watch those TV series nowadays which are about NOTHING – just about feminine mindgames. On a same time there are still those traditional women grown up in families with values – they continue so and are women to be with.

    Keep away from the overachiever types. They have fascist qualities in they nature, they are destructive to anything around them. They have their own games going on which they are conditioned to and which they can’t resist as their ego (which is actually mix of arousal and fear) wants feeding.

  • M3

    “since the founding of America at least, socially and economically valued disproportionate to women’s.” … “The work considered “womanly” in our society still has considerably less economic value.”

    Because men’s roles usually placed them in harms way. Economically, putting yourself at risk pays more. Just that simple.

    “Strong Independent Woman meme” you are complaining about here, was to adjust the measure of importance by giving women the confidence to believe they COULD be valuable. ”

    Women were always told they were valuable. In fact, we are coming to see just how valuable women’s work was now in an era of leaving the children in the hands of the state daycare, outsourced parenting while mommy goes off to become a slave wage, and kids grow fat on take out rather than well prepared home cooked food.

    The kids of today are immeasurably worse off than before, all in the name of trying to find value by behaving like men.

    “The debunking just proved exactly what we always knew – the work women do is deemed by American society as worth less, by every measure. ”

    Taking care of home and children is equivalent of creating products, goods or services that grow an economy. Ergo, you cannot place a dollar amount on housework and then say woman are paid less.

    If you really want to know how much ‘female’ work (even when done by males) is considered, just ask yourself how much maid services and daycare charge you. Then you’ll get a better idea of what it’s real value is.

    “but the manufacturers of our culture have made it so that women’s contribution is less important than men’s. ”

    How? I honestly cannot see this claim anywhere in our society. Where women compete on merit alone and succeed, their contributions as they apply to society are acknowledged and rewarded.

    “You still expect us to compete with you on a male-based playing field in order to prove our worth, and then when we do, you retaliate us for not doing it well enough”

    If you fail the standards set forth as the baseline for entry then yes.. that is a fair action to take. And not limited to just men. Women criticize women who fail in that regard too!

    http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/female-fdny-recruit-fails-running-test-five-times-but-graduates-anyway/

    “Do you honestly not understand how much men still control women in this society?”

    Please provide examples.

    “Women aren’t entirely dependent on men for their existence anymore.”

    If all men went on strike, or an EMP blast knocked out all electricity on this planet, you would sing a different tune. Everything you do in daily life revolves around SOME MAN doing something for your ability to exist in this society. The difference between you and I is that I do not have the audacity to claim that I, a man, am not dependant on other men for my ability to enjoy the life i currently have. Apparently you can.

    “They don’t NEED you, but they do still WANT you”

    Your ability to tell men long enoughught that they aren’t needed was enough to create a movement of men who will now be telling you “They don’t NEED you, and they DON’T WANT you either.”

    The freer the society becomes, the more it finds having to interact with the opposite sex to negotiate, bargain and compromise for things as simply too annoying, too troublesome, too much drama. The women of Japan, free from having to deal with men because they became independent to work and earn money and support themselves have shown that they would prefer to live solitary lives than have to work and compromise with men. Men took the message and devoted themselves to their own lives and left the women alone.

    And Japan is a culture that is about to die.

    Feminism started from a point of getting rid of men from the equation. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Feminism and society et large will reap what it sowed.

  • M3

    *Taking care of home and children ISN’T…

  • earl

    I find it amazing how men respect women’s work…when they actually do women’s work like caring for kids and keeping up the house. However women don’t respect women’s work…they have to do what a man does.

    In the male-female relationship an alpha takes care of a good beta…and a beta depends on the alpha. It’s a good functioning relationship. A relationship that consists of competing to be the alpha falls apart. That is man only territory.

  • Martel

    @ Earl: To the modern female, since most all primary needs have been met, they can be conveniently forgotten, leaving them free to define “needs” as “wants”.

    I won’t argue with livingtree that “respect, validation, freedom, and worth” are wonderful things, but they’re not NEEDS, they’re wants, or at most secondary needs.

    I found it interesting to note that in the same comment, livingtree claims that they “still value []our contributions to society” AND that prior to feminism “men did not reciprocate at all to meet, or even bother to understand, our needs.” Does this means she values our post-feminism heart-to-heart talks with them about their abrasive bosses but NOT the countless hours of toil that went into creating the very protection from the elements from which she types on her computer? It certainly seems that way.

    M3, Burminator, and you have all brought up some pretty awesome points. I’m curious to see whether she’ll respond or just “get bored”, think we “just don’t get it” or something, and wander off to some fashion blog.

  • M3

    Next time little miss independent is eating dinner with her fine cutlery, she can think on this:

    http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/another-man-bites-the-dust-but-dont-forget-to-mention-about-women-too/

  • Martel

    M3: I read your post, but the only reason women aren’t as likely to die on the job is that men have frozen them out of industries like construction. The only reason more women aren’t dying on the job is the sexual discrimination of patriarchy.

    Well, maybe not.

  • M3

    I’ve been having to say this refrain quite often lately..

    Feminists are the biggest misogynists on the planet!

    THEY
    -are the one’s who devalue womens work and denigrate SAHM’s to go work for ‘money’
    -are the one’s one think that dressing like a woman/feminine is degrading (madonna’s opening monologue to ‘what it feels like for a girl’ / the Iggy in a dress meme
    -behaving as traditional women is a sign of weakness (zoey dashanel)(sp?)

    Feminists absolutely hate femininity and will come back at you with “Oh, and what DOES a ‘real’ woman act/behave/dress like?’ They treat femininity and female ‘gender roles’ like cancer to be cut out, as if they won’t be respected by men.

    Probably a case of projection, because they don’t respect women and feel the need to be like men.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    For all her women’s studies trolling, LivingTree still doesn’t refute the premise that the brand of feminine Independence is fundamentally about removing men from the social equation.

    Independence is separation from men.

  • M3

    Martel, ya, although i don’t think it’s them frozen out. It’s 2 fold.

    1. They aren’t lining up for it in droves and
    2. They cannot defeat the laws of reality.

    Let’s assume for arguments sake every woman were instilled with the pride to go sign up and fight for the US armed forces as is their right now. Front line baby, YES WE CAN.

    For starters, the US armed forces would never approve, because it’s tasked with WINNING, and even if you got 500,000 willing female candidates, most would not make the requirements. Only under the affirmative action/equality standards would a percentage of those women make it in.

    Would the US ever use those battalions where winning was an absolute? Never. Well same goes for every other industry that wants to thrive. Even if you could convince women to work road construction, sanitation, etc.. you’d have massive attrition and burn out, cost overruns paying triple to keep the same amount of women to do the job a single man could do, etc.

    As i stated. If the power went out tomorrow, not that i’d look forward to it, but i’d know i could look to men (and help out myself) in whatever future were coming. But ill guarantee you, any talk of proud independent women – without the veneer of 21st century creature comfort living paid for on the backs of past and present men – would evaporate under the howling and whailing by women for a return to ‘patriarchy’ asap!

  • Martel

    @ M3: You seem to be implying that women aren’t just dying for the chance to crawl around in sewers and coal mines. You must be sexist.

    Anyhow, I worked with quite a few women in the Army. Most (not all, I concede) had no interest in doing any of the dirty work and were experts at manipulating themselves into being tasked with organizing training manuals while the men froze our asses off outside working on maintaining all of our trucks.

    @ Rollo: I agree that the meme they’re promoting is a form of separatism, but I’m curious if you think that any of them recognize that such separatism is in fact impossible? (or at least impossible if they want to maintain their current standard of living) Does their assumption that male accomplishments happen as if by magic equate into their thinking at all?

  • livingtree2013

    Wow, M3…. where do I begin?

    I usually find it a chore communicating on this forum because the points of view are usually very one-sided, so I genuinely appreciate that you have at least acknowledged the value of “women’s work” in the education system at least. And I think you’re right, kids today are at a significant disadvantage because they have had less nurturing at home. Your point actually serves to underscore my point quite well. I’m sure you’d defiantly disagree with me on that, but indulge me please, if you will.

    Women have historically been viewed as nurturers, and so long as they played that role to its fullest, and did not dabble in anything outside the home and did what they were told, then everyone was happy. Or should I say, the kids were happy and the men were happy. Women being happy didn’t matter, that wasn’t their designated function here on this planet. Making men and children happy was supposed to be their function. I gather from your comments here that you guys want that dynamic back again, and who could blame you! If I were a man, I could see how that would be desirable!

    Anyway, when women started valuing their higher-level needs, needs beyond sustenance that is, they left the home to work, and assumed that their “loving” husbands would have no objection to them becoming happier. Except that didn’t happen. Most husbands in the early days of feminism had a great resentment against their wives for wanting more than they, their husbands, could provide. Again, understandable, doing so would unfortunately diminish their own status and their own amount of happiness, and that is simply intolerable. You’re entitled to that happiness, right? You worked hard for your status, right?

    Oh, how it fills me with gall when I hear you guys go on bitterly about how difficult it is to take rights away once they’ve been given, and that applies so well here. What rational man would willingly give up his right of superiority, his entitlement to happiness, regardless of who else suffered?

    So, in the long run, what has happened is women went in search of more meaning in their lives than simply being a servant to their husband and children could ever provide, and assumed that their husbands would lovingly fill in the void in the home. But they didn’t. They still wanted their lives to be as it was in the good ol’ days, and resisted any fostering of their own children. And yes, as a consequence, we have passed some of our “responsibility” for the development and care on to the state education system.

    This also was an unfortunate necessity, which arose because you were too arrogant to accept any of that responsibility, because again, you didn’t value it enough. I assure you, NO mature woman alive would disrespect a man who wanted to provide care for his children. Of that I am certain. But, sadly, only 16% of single parent homes are headed by men.

    http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

    Consequently, hundreds of millions of children have grown up in this country not having any respect for their absentee fathers, and simultaneously having a distant relationship with their working mothers.

    Here are some stats which I’m sure you wont read.

    http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm

    Now don’t get me wrong here. I know that most women still want to have husbands that they look up to. It is true, absolutely. But what is also true is that there is few left to be found. Without “taking care of a woman” as mens’ driving reason for being, men have fallen into extreme irresponsibility, and that is very unattractive to a high quality woman.

    I’m not saying women haven’t had their hand in that problem, we all have some fault, as I’m sure you’re about to remind me, but I’m just saying, if you valued women’s work so highly, you could very easily have replaced your supposedly diminished worth by nurturing your family, the same way women did for you when life was simpler and we had no choice. But you didn’t, and you wouldn’t, because you simply don’t value it enough to care. But I assure you, few quality women would disrespect a man who wanted to perform the role of primary caregiver, of that I am certain.

    And now you see the evidence of how important parenting actually is, but only because of the state of affairs of the modern public education system. However, you’re neglecting a very important component in your criticism: the education crisis stems in part from the lack of male role models in the junior level school system. Men remind me constantly that this gender disparity exists in the school system because teachers’ pay is so bad (yet again, devaluing the work that women do), and the fact that men work for status and money, not for personal reward or social contribution (which is womanly).

    So maybe, if men aren’t so much interested in being a full-time dad, maybe higher pay/social value for teaching would give men that much-needed incentive that the world really needs more men into the extremely important (yet undervalued) job of junior educator? I think that might just help solve some of the problems related to shortage of male role models that aren’t Just sayin’.

    To make matters worse, stay at home dads are the subject of ridicule among alpha males, which I know bothers your egos immensely.

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/macklemore/stayathomedad.html

    Now, I’m sure you’re about to remind me of the unfairness in the family court system, and in that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Its a toxic situation that needs immediate correction, and from what I understand from friends in the system, it is being corrected now. However, looking back through history, you will see that it evolved that way because the courts knew that men would not do the job of raising the children well because they simply didn’t value it. They didn’t value the effort and character and humility that it takes to be a good parent. Now, I think the tides are shifting, thank god. But you still need to prove to the court that you actually know what the job entails before you get it, which I’m afraid most men don’t. The single and stay-at-home dads I know though, are doing an amazing job, some really great parenting.

    I have heard over and over again that men deserved to be paid more for their jobs because they had families to feed (meaning: women didn’t have to worry about that). Funny isn’t it how that excuse has never worked for single moms. We get paid less because our contribution is considered less valuable. I think that is intended to act as some sort of subversive punishment or deterrent against working, to make us believe that its just not worth it, so we’ll go back to our place.

    And if you read my posts again, carefully, you will see that I repeatedly acknowledge our interdependence. As most women do. Even feminists. I swear! You guys are taking extremist ideological statements intended merely to give women the confidence to succeed by her own measure at something other than what her husband gives her license to do, and making them into a rallying point to suppress feminism in its entirety. And that bothers me, a lot.

    I actually find it quite tragic.

    Can’t wait for your next assault!

  • livingtree2013

    Honestly Earl? Do you really think genuine love can exist without mutual respect? It is basely and fundamentally impossible, in my opinion. Well, I should say, it is only possible if your sense of love is derived solely from how well fed you are and/or how physically attractive your mate is.

    Well, I get that I may be in the minority for thinking so, but I could never love someone who didn’t respect me. So yes, consequently, I’ve stayed single quite deliberately for a long time, even though I am physically attractive and could have married several times over. Yes, I’ve come to the edge of giving up; it was a very hard struggle, but worth it in the end.

    I’ll spare you the details, but I do tend to agree with you guys who say respect is earned; yes, I worked hard for that respect; yes, I have earned it several times over; and yes, it is extremely rewarding. I can see why its important to you guys.

    I’m sure that you don’t see a lot of women going to that sort of effort for respect, because they don’t even know that it can exist, they’ve never received it so they don’t know how amazing it feels to be respected by a man. They have no idea of how powerful it is to have your man look at you with admiration in his eyes, in tandem with desire and appreciation. It is so unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my life. The “love” I’ve enjoyed up till then was very superficial, and not something I want.

  • Not Carrie Bradshaw

    Oh, the irony !!! By buying into this Strong, indepdendent meme, women are buying into a collective mindset which is totally opposite to strong and independent. Do you see what I mean ? If I’m so strong and independent, why do I have to keep being told that I’m so strong and independent ? It is as if women believe if they are told this enough, then they will actually be like this.

  • M3

    I’m honored you singled me out..

    I’ll tackle your diatribe when i get home. Someone else might do it in the meantime.

    But take heart and know that while i won’t speak for every man in the sphere, i am not hearkening for women to be thrown into the kitchen barefoot and preggo without rights, or taking away any of their rights. Only that they accept the outcomes of their choices and respect mens own choices to respond to women’s choices equally. If you’re trying to characterize me as some stone age patriarch who wants women without education or rights, you’d be wrong. I’m a devout believer of Christopher Hitchens and his idea that giving women access to education is a good thing, keeps them from being Taliban property. Nor do i think women are ‘property of husbands’.

    But some of what you type is just laughable on it’s face. I’ll deal with it when i’m not at work. Certainly willing to debate this with you, you don’t show the typical feminist proclivity for hysterics. Tho i have to ask.. do you consider yourself a feminist? And if so, how do you square all your personal appeals for acknowledging interdependence with the mainstay of feminist dogma, that women don’t need men.. full stop! No man in human history has crafted a movement with such rhetoric against needing women. MGTOW is a REACTION, not a call to action like Feminism was. If you’re truly a feminist, then you gotta own your shit dear!

    http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca/2013/02/is-feminism-hate.html

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    *meow* to the tree-hugger

    Girl at work today wearing a t-shit from a cement company: “Rock hard in no time”. I’m busting her chops, “it’s all about the sex” – “no, it’s a cement mixing company!” – “a likely story, we’re not reading that – you can’t hide it, it’s all about the sex!” And she’s laughing her head off all the time.

    “What’re you doing tonight, man about the town?”

    “I’m gonna get into the pimpmobile, gonna cruise around looking for some hoes. Play DMX ‘What these bitches want from a nigga’ at 120-decibels.” She’s laughing her ass off and I tell her again “see it’s all about the sex!”

    Girl has a partner and gets it.

    Tree-hugger here doesn’t get it. So to spell it out straight and crass:

    Long hair
    Big tits
    Tight ass
    Long legs

    You got those, you can slut it up a helluva lot. You can be a ball-busting bitch. You can swear like a sailor. You can have a tree-trunk-sized chip on your shoulder. You can treat (beta) men like shit. You can be used as a cum-bucket by nearly every (alpha) guy in town.

    You want marriage and kids tho:

    Are you a pleasure to be around?
    Do you clean and cook well?
    Can you bring up kids well?
    Do you do your absolute and unswerving best to make me feel welcome in the home that I built and slaved for? (Often to the point of doing late nights, on call all hours, weekends, and even two-three days straight.)

    The first four go with time, sometimes pretty damn fast. When they’re gone, the second four stay – and are what earns your keep when you’re 35 and I’m 47 and come home after a hard day of work followed by an hour of sweaty pumping iron in the gym.

    Or I can like, y’know, go pick me up a slutty 20-30yo cum-bucket for some occasional and spend $100 a week on someone to clean my home and wash/iron my clothes, while I cook my own meals or eat out.

    If you ain’t got the first four and can’t be arsed developing the second four –

    Enjoy your cats.

  • livingtree2013

    M3, I went to your link, it was interesting and all, but let me tell you something else to help flush out the one-sidedness.

    I work in heavy civil as a construction manager. At least 95% of the field workers here are male, and they do work very hard and we appreciate their efforts very much, the place wouldn’t get built without them all.

    But I can honestly, based on our stats, say that of the men and women I work with, the men are at least 95% more likely than the women in the field to engage in risky, overconfident behavior that gets them injured on the job. I mean to say that if all other things were equal (as if), and there were 50% women and 50% men on the job, and both did their fair share of the hard work, men would still have significantly higher death and injury than the women because women are inherently (but not always) more cautious than men.

    Every safety statistic in history will tell you the same. Every owner of every subcontractor I deal with says the same. They would rather have their equipment run by women (despite the massive shortage of them in the field) because they are more careful.

    In the field I also hear quite often how much the men are so pleased to be doing “manly work”, pounding and building and breaking things out in the mud, rather than soft stuff like communicating, and educating, and managing, and other (ugh) dreadfully boring “womanly” touchy-feely things.

    Yes, its true, as a consequence to that, women do tend to be drawn to less messy, more safe jobs, probably in part due to their inherent caution, and also in part due to our cultural habituation to let men do the heavy lifting for us.

  • Martel

    @ livingtree: I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, and you’re reply was directed to M3, but I’ll still take a shot.

    And I do commend you for rationally replying and not merely calling us names.

    Part of the reason men haven’t picked up the slack in child-rearing (resulting in the lack of nurturing for kids that both you and M3 agree is important) is that although women have decided to be high-powered themselves, their desire for high-powered career men hasn’t diminished in the slightest. There are stay-at-home dads, but their disrespect isn’t limited to other males, and although damn near every woman alive verbally praises guys who are perfectly happy to stay at home with the kids, they tend not to be the guys women want to marry.

    So we’re seeing women take on more traditional male roles while maintaining their desire for masculine husbands. Both mom and dad are working, and nobody takes care of the kids. Again, in theory, women love the idea of stay-at-home dads, but like we say here in the Manosphere: Watch what they say, not what they do.

    Furthermore, women taking on male roles is a change that women wanted, not men (as you say yourself). It’s not like it was an even trade wherein both genders felt restricted and decided to loosen up. Instead, women get to take on the male roles because they WANTED to, meaning men need to take up more of the housework because they HAD to.

    Or if they don’t, the kids are neglected and it’s hubby’s fault for not being more feminine and nurturing.
    Also, your concept of “needs” is heavily skewed towards concepts. By saying prior to feminism, men cared nothing for the “needs” of the women they were busting their asses (and sometimes dying) for shows utter disregard for lots of genuine toil

  • livingtree2013l

    Well Martel, I do work in construction, and I do know that there is a dearth of women in the field, and I also do know that the few women who do choose it really work hard and have to seriously modify their behavior in order to not attract a whole lot of gender-based harassment. There’s not a whole lot of women want to endure that every day.

    I suspect its much the same as men who try to enter female-dominated terrain. I am quite sure that women in these fields can be just as derogatory to men. It takes a significant amount of commitment to your trade to tolerate that every day, for years, just to gain some measure of respect, respect which is automatically granted to your opposite-sex peers.

  • Martel

    @ livingtree: I won’t deny any discrimination, but that’s most decidedly NOT the primary reason there are so few women in construction. Generally, women simply aren’t drawn to that type of thing. Are there some? Yes, but it’s pretty rare to find women spending Saturday afternoons working on their trucks, building a patio for fun, or getting wet over a new set of power tools.

  • earl

    Love is an action…respect is the reaction.

    Mutual respect is just sitting around basking in the abilities of one another…with no real active agent. Sounds pretty boring to me.

    I love women because of who they are…not what they can do. I find it admirable they have learned skills…but if they aren’t attractive or feminine to me, I’ll forget about them quickly.

    Women should respect men for what we can do for them…because it has been proven time and again (http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/), they don’t love men for who they are.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    ,…and yet self-identifying feminists report higher unhappiness,..

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2013/11/they-arent-meant-to-pee-standing-up.html

    ..and predominantly prefer to work for male bosses in the workplace,..

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/why-do-women-prefer-male-bosses/

  • strauMan (@strauMan)

    “It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment you associate the red pill with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”

    Mad props, Rollo. This is refreshing to hear.

  • Peregrine John

    Nicely put, Earl. I might have to keep that handy. Dang useful, especially in churchian contexts.

    livingtree, I’m intrigued to hear honest debate between you and the locals here. Thanks for keeping your cool and actually discussing like an adult. Far too rare in this world, and that’s a fact.

    I have but one small quibble, a pet peeve, really, regarding an early assertion: I did not make the bed I lie in. It was inherited. I did not exist before feminism, as the 2nd wave was well underway when I was born. I bear no more responsibility for treatment of women who existed before you were born than I do to slaves’ descendants just because I’m white-looking. This is the friendly version: do not make that sort of error.

  • livingtree2013

    @ Earl, my question still remains though – why are we supposed to think working is masculine and nurturing is feminine? Is a woman who wants a career automatically unattractive to you?

    I have seen so many fathers be so nurturing that it makes me cry a little inside to hear men say that they aren’t good at it. And I have seen some terrible mothers in my time, while their kids fathers sit at the sidelines feeling left out.

    Women are less physically capable of jobs requiring strength. I know there are other minor differences, but that’s the primary difference between the sexes. Yes, women have the maternal drive, and men maybe don’t have something comparable, but maternal drive does not a good parent make.

    And I get what you’re saying about respect vs. love, and put like that love sounds way funner! But I don’t know if i can agree with your definition.

    I definitely do not respect men for “what they can do”. You need to put a little more in to earn my respect. For me anyway, respect is not given to anyone simply for existing. It is not given out for an ability or accomplishment. It is given for the effort of trying to be a better person, not related to material achievement, whatever that entails.

    That is really what’s important, I think. That is respect-worthy. I think we’re giving out respect way to cheaply. Just my opinion. Feel free to refute me.

  • livingtree2013

    Rollo, I really don’t understand what those links you posted have to do with anything on this thread, including your own article. The male boss one is so easy to debunk with logic that I’m kind of embarrassed that you posted it.

    Anyway, as I said before, there are many women who claim the label of feminist but aren’t, who have not made any contribution to the world besides their claim to its bounty, so I am not at all surprised that there are so many who aren’t satisfied with the emptiness of the outcome. Feminism is meaningless for them.

  • Fred Flange, PsyChoD.

    I will take a different tack, and address living tree’s arguments from a societal angle she’s not yet confronted. Some readers of a more right-wing bent may not like the politics of what follows, but I am not writing a political essay. In this I am totally with StrongMan and his cite to Rollo above about keeping it apolitical in discussing red-pill issues. I am going to talk about how things are run. And how “independence” ® can blow back on you. Right now I am just playing ball on her progressive-ist ball-field. Note that the following does not quarrel with the points M3 or Martel made about who builds what, and who does the dirty work.

    So women are disappointed in men not appreciating women enough, and that is why women are striking out to enjoy their independence from men. Here’s a stark example of why Rollo is right when he concludes that means exclusion – and not to your benefit either:

    How has your vaunted women’s independence of men helped the women of Mississippi facing the strictest anti-birth control laws ever written, far stricter than anything a century ago? Or the women of Alabama? Of Kansas? Of North Carolina? Of Texas? Of Virginia? Of Michigan?
    You cite your “independence” as thinking smarter and better than those silly menz. But those male-dominated state legislatures are working hard to take it all away and succeeding. Because they are winning the elections. And they don’t seem to be done yet.

    In order to win elections to go your way you must build coalitions of your own. Those coalitions will need to include other constituencies. Like us silly worthless butthurt menz. (The demographics about there being more women voters than men are often true – but we know not all women voters vote the same way; they are of all stripes). Your problem is going to be that in the act of trying to assemble some friends, many of us silly menz – and others – will not obey commands to think as you do. Some (most!) will be more cis-gendered privileged than you would like. Or politically incorrect on some other issues. But nevertheless you must band together to get the job done. Or else.

    Which means in this area – as in others – you NEED men. Yes, NEED. The only other option is to be fresh out of friends. Men friends, anyway. Because you say you don’t NEED them after all. Whereby you lose EVERYTHING, in politics, in society, in relationships, in families, as you sit at home, look in the mirror, and praise yourself for thinking those GOOD THOUGHTS.
    And I know whereof I speak. I have worked on a lot of campaigns. Have you?

  • Jeremy

    An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

    That’s the core perversion, convincing millions of women of their own victimhood for being born on one side of a sexually dimorphic species. You might as well argue that queen bees are victimized and oppressed by the worker bees, it would be just as ridiculous. When you read it back it reads like something a 7 year old boy might say about girls, inferring they have cooties or something.

    Nature dictates capability based on your genetics, ignoring these limitations is like attempting to ignore gravity when walking off a cliff. While reaching terminal velocity you might be able to absurdly claim how you exceeded your genetic capability, but when you hit splat on the bottom of the canyon you would do well to humble yourself before the realities of your own existence.

  • livingtree2013

    I don;t disagree with anything you’ve said so far, Fred. That’s the whole point actually – many of the so-called “rights” granted to women can, and will, be easily stripped away by those that “gave” them to us, meaning they aren’t really rights at all, they are privileges granted by our rulers. Rights are permanent, immutable. Privileges are arbitrary, and revocable, based on someone’s good will.

    I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had this very same discussion with men who make this very same argument, only not in the context of feminism or women’s rights – it was in the context of their own rights being stripped by some tyrannical government which they think is trying to oppress them. The irony of it, having this very same conversation in context of reproductive rights is not lost on me!

    Yes, its true, independence does isolate us. I can’t deny that. It wasn’t the intention of feminism though, it was just a consequence of escalation, resulting from our needs not being respected.

    If the situation were reversed, and it were you guys fighting for your rights, would you just throw your hands up and say “Ugh, its not worth the fight. I was wrong, I just don’t think I need to have rights or social worth all that much after all.” No. I’m quite sure that you would fight that much harder for something that was terribly important for the entire world. Something which, incidentally, has NOT been accomplished yet (see my previous dozen or so comments on this thread).

    So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future. SO, to your question – what good did feminism do for us in this case? Exactly nothing. But we will die fighting.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Women earning more than their husbands increases divorce odds:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/business/breadwinner-wives-and-nervous-husbands.html

    The point is this LT, I can find studies that back my premises, or contradict your own as well as you or anyone else. The main problem you have is that you’re beginning from a presumption of egalitarian equalism and complete gender parity, while ignoring the concept of complementarity. Equalism is a blank slate presumption.

    Men can be just as good mothers to children as women, women can be just as aggressive as men in the workplace etc., but only if they override the natural proclivity of their gender. The generalized reality doesn’t bear this out. Biologically men and women are different, neurologically, hormonally, physiologically, but the blank slate mentality says that we’re all the same except for our genitals.

    You might read this:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/21/positive-masculinity-vs-equalism/

    The question isn’t can we override the impulses nature has hardwired into us but why do we want to? What purpose and to what end does overriding them serve?

    Feminism has never been about true equality, it’s historically and provably been about restitution and retribution. There will never be a state of feminism when women in society at large say, “Ok, thats good enough, we have what we came for.” There is no achievable goal, because when that goal is met the impetus of feminism’s power ends.

    Feminism can only be perpetuated indefinitely so long as a default state of victimhood is perpetuated. Since feminism is founded on the pursuit of an unattainable equalism that is in conflict with what our biologies evolved in us, feminism is assured of a constant victim status.

  • Tam the Bam

    Ok I tried. I really did.
    But I think I’m going to need a diagram for this ..
    “.. rides the cock of a total cunt ..”

  • M3

    Livingtree2013,

    I can see you got your hands full fielding others so i won’t address the really long post you sent towards me and just tackle the last one. I think it would be more constructive dealing with 1 issue at a time given the circumstances.

    You said:
    “the men are at least 95% more likely than the women in the field to engage in risky, overconfident behavior that gets them injured on the job”

    Male dominance hierarchy’s and risky behavior were evolved because risk =reward in regards to mating. He who dares wins. It is also reflective of general male risk overall, risk in approaching, being rejected, etc. The most dominant males thrive, yes the risk of harm/injury and death come with the territory. I would actually postulate that there would be a corollary increase in accidents in the workplace if there were an increase in female workers hired. Men showboating among themselves to create a pecking order is nothing compared to guys trying to out alpha one another for a chance to woo fair maiden in their midst.

    Women are not required to compete for status between each other for mating opportunities. A beautiful cashier at Walmart has a better chance of sire-ing Alpha seed children than this woman and all her “accomplishments”:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417942/Im-single-50-Why-Men-hate-brainier-says-KATE-MULVEY.html

    Men need to compete against other men to stand out of the crowd for female sexual access. Until women stop seeking this trait out (or getting wet over out) then good luck changing that.

    “because women are inherently (but not always) more cautious than men.”

    Because we as a species have evolved to value women’s reproductive value over men’s. (Titanic anyone?) Whether society conditions it, or women know it innately.. the end result is the same. We treasure and attempt to keep safe females over males. I’d say woman are always more cautious and it can only be overridden by a constant stream of conditioning to get them to abdicate it. Tell a woman she can be GI Jane, most women would cringe. Get the herd to yell it in unison, and every woman will think they’re the Terminator.. usually ending with disastrous results.

    “In the field I also hear quite often how much the men are so pleased to be doing “manly work”, pounding and building and breaking things out in the mud, rather than soft stuff like communicating, and educating, and managing, and other (ugh) dreadfully boring “womanly” touchy-feely things.”

    Rollo covered this in Choreplay. The fact of the matter is if women got wet, tingled and had mad wild sex with men for the touchy feely shit, men would have evolved to become masters of child rearing and tackling tough grease and grime with Palmolive. Women overwhelmingly chose to mate with those who display rugged masculinity and their descendants evolved into who we are now. (Can’t recall the stat, something like 90% of women passed their genes on and only 20% of men did, someone correct me if im wrong) You don’t just turn that brain switch off in just 50 years of wymins studies nonsense.

    “Yes, its true, as a consequence to that, women do tend to be drawn to less messy, more safe jobs, probably in part due to their inherent caution, and also in part due to our cultural habituation to let men do the heavy lifting for us.”

    It’s human evolution in protecting female reproductivity EVEN in an era where it’s safety is all but secured. And while one size does not fit all, MOST women do not want or desire to do the heavy lifting despite feminism’s lame attempt to cajole all women to claim their GrrlPower. Just because a few masculine women can lift the required gear and bodies to become firemen does not equate to feminism’s stated belief that YES YOU CAN you’re just like a man in every way, except for the vagina. Women have had the last 50 years to freely enter the messy jobs of their own accord and they failed.. seeking only to break the glass ceiling of the cushy, comfy, air conditioned jobs of big glass buildings.. and none of the jobs that are required to produce the materials of that building or the erection of that building. Women didn’t let men do the heavy lifting.. theyrequired them to because… patriarc.. no wait, Sexual Dimorphism.

    ..

    If you have any disagreements here, please voice them. If you want to move onto another point you raised previously, feel free to add it.

  • Tam the Bam

    “It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival ..

    Still are. For everything. That’s the actual problem.
    Denial.

  • Morpheus

    Feminism has never been about true equality, it’s historically and provably been about restitution and retribution. There will never be a state of feminism when women in society at large say, “Ok, thats good enough, we have what we came for.” There is no achievable goal, because when that goal is met the impetus of feminism’s power ends.
    Feminism can only be perpetuated indefinitely so long as a default state of victimhood is perpetuated. Since feminism is founded on the pursuit of an unattainable equalism that is in conflict with what our biologies evolved in us, feminism is assured of a constant victim status.

    There is a powerful financial incentive as well

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    Eisenhower’s quote on the military-industrial complex could just as easily apply to the feminist-government-agency-academic complex just by substituting a few words here and there. There are now a large number of people who earn their livelihoods based on the meme of women as victim of patriarchy and thus feminism is still needed.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it. Upton Sinclair

  • livingtree2013

    For gods sake, this is getting exhausting. Jeremy, WE DON’T THINK WE DON’T NEED MEN!!! I’m getting tired of saying that. Will someone please tell me where and how it is that you all got the idea that women are actively trying to exclude men from society (I mean, not the shitty ones)? Because I just don’t see it, anywhere, except maybe as a defense mechanism in an argument.

    Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

    Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it. So, disappointed and angry at your lack of interest in having us be recognized as full humans, we separated ourselves from you emotionally, physically, and financially. That’s where we’re at now. A happy life? Not really.

    Well, I’m pretty happy, but it took a long time to get it, and I had to do it the VERY independent way.

    But anyway, all you had to do to prevent all that was SUPPORT US. Emotionally, not financially. The men who do, we love deeply and profoundly. The men who don’t, well, you get nothing but contempt. You wonder why “independent” women leave their men, why they are so brutal to you when they leave? This is why. Its rarely because we have contempt for you as a man. I wonder why this is so hard for you guys to grasp.

    Now, the independent women all know that men prefer the woman they can rescue over the one who has her shit under control, because it makes YOU feel more important, which is what matters. But if we have to play that role just to get care and affection from men, it makes for a terrible situation. No-one wins when you have a woman having to act needy to get the affection of a man. I’m sure you guys all know that, right?

    But you always go for that type of woman, the one who pretends to need you to take care of her but doesn’t really, and then you complain when she takes you to the cleaner or breaks your heart. And the women in control of their shit just shake their heads, wondering why it just keeps happening. Can you really be that dense? Its a truly stunning lack of self-awareness on your part. Own your shit, as someone here said earlier. If you want to have quality relationships with women, STOP DOING THAT.

    We still want to be with a man who will genuinely care for us, but you only seem to want to do that by bringing home a paycheque, fighting off marauders, or going to war. I really think maybe you have a very shallow idea of what it means to care for someone.

    Sorry again, I didn’t mean to come off so harsh.

  • livingtree2013

    Rollo, again I respectfully disagree. That is not at all what I think. There is no such thing as a blank slate where everyone is equal, and there are absolutely no feminists who think that. Well, there might be a few, but its certainly not part of a feminist “dogma” (of which there is none) that all feminists adhere to. That is not at all what equality and independence meant.

    But neither is there an all-inclusive gender proclivity. That is as ridiculous as saying there is a blank slate and everyone is the same. There is no impulse being over-ridden. It is about doing what you love. Its about fulfilling a need beyond food and shelter. Its about the betterment of the species. If you felt like you needed to over-ride your masculinity to be accepted by women, then I think you misinterpreted something along the way.

    I don’t know what is making you think this isn’t the case, or what “provable” history you’re basing that belief on, but there is definitely an achievable goal for feminism – it is when everyone’s contributions are equally valued, not when everyone is parametrically equal. However, as I think I’ve more than effectively demonstrated so far, we have not achieved it, because women’s contributions are still valued much less than men’s.

    If you have the power to change that, I’d suggest it would be in everyone’s best interest to do so.

  • LiveFearless

    “…and that we’re worthless except for our looks. Do you deny that it is a reasonable thing to be angry about?”

    Be angry at the women that brand this “looks” driven culture. The culture creators at the most popular women’s magazine in the U S (listed below) … Let the list tell you which gender is responsible for the pressure to “look” certain ways. The magazine title implies current style for women, women control its content, not men. In my work I have to “look” a certain way. Women require it. I’m not angry about having to look fit and thin in my work … Looking fit and thin = the best health… No down side to that.

    Executive Editor: Angela Matusik
    Features Editor: Maureen Dempsey
    Senior Fashion Editor Violet Gaynor
    Fashion News Editor: Sharon Clott
    Partnership Editor: Cheryl Brody
    Associate Editor: Andrea Cheng, Caitlin Donovan
    Assistant Editor: Marianne Mychaskiw

    Senior Project Manager: Kim Do
    Associate Producer: Leah Abrahams
    Photo Editor: Ashley Dumain-Reyes
    Assistant Photo Editor: Alex Reside

  • livingtree2013

    Sorry, Livefearless, I lumped you in to the statement, assuming you are male. You maybe aren’t. Not that it matters, my point is the same.

  • BC

    Wow, if there was ever a cluelessly green LT that needed to be fragged…

  • Will S.

    “It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate.”

    That wasn’t the case before, for most: there were fathers, brothers, uncles, other male relatives to which women could turn; there was the church, there were charities.

    But feminists didn’t want to be dependent on others, so sought emancipation for women.

    Simple as that.

  • infowarrior1

    “It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate.”

    Hasn’t happened. So how can it be demonstrated. After all it may just be your personal opinion. And not hard facts.

  • infowarrior1

    @livingtree2013

    Check out the rest of the manosphere. Dig through our archives. And then get back to us. You have much to learn.

  • Andrews

    “For gods sake, this is getting exhausting. Jeremy, WE DON’T THINK WE DON’T NEED MEN!!! I’m getting tired of saying that. Will someone please tell me where and how it is that you all got the idea that women are actively trying to exclude men from society (I mean, not the shitty ones)? Because I just don’t see it, anywhere, except maybe as a defense mechanism in an argument. ”

    In your views there is no difference between men and women. And so you don’t ‘see it’. You have disconnected man from masculinity and woman from femininity. Everything is interchangable – everything is deconstructed. It appeals to you because to deconstruct the established, the past, deconstructs any sense of self within individuals. The ‘atomization’ of society. When people are free from their past, when they are disencouraged to acknowledge what they are (the sum of all past nurturing – their nature) then they are free to construct a new identity. An identity which is disconnected from the nature of the individual.

    Those individuals can then better be informed to become whatever is most needed by the hive, the society. The feminine psychology is better suited for that imprinting, she is by nature more easily influenced and adaptable.

    Woman is now free from the personal influence of her husband or her family and open for the influence of the abstracted alpha-male, the society at large.

    Men become feminized because masculinity would be a disruptive element to the established order and so those attitudes are repressed.

    Men and women start to feel increasingly miserable because the society at large becomes increasingly restrictive for large parts of an individual’s nature.

    We have narcissism on the rise because this is in essence what is produced – people with a false sense of self. A constructed self, which is removed from a person’s innate nature (past nurturing). A hollow shell.

    [Well put, A+]

  • earl

    “why are we supposed to think working is masculine and nurturing is feminine? Is a woman who wants a career automatically unattractive to you? ”

    That is how our genders were built. Certainly a man can be nuturing and a female can work because we can adapt…but that is not our wheelhouse. And I have dated career women so that isn’t a dealbreaker…but there does seem to be something missing from them.

    “For me anyway, respect is not given to anyone simply for existing. It is not given out for an ability or accomplishment. It is given for the effort of trying to be a better person, not related to material achievement, whatever that entails.”

    If that is true…then you are better than most of your sisters. But respect was never meant to be given for just existing…that’s love’s territory.

  • gregg

    M: Women you are baaad to us, why do you not admire us anymore? You neeed us!!!! Can´t you see?
    W. But…ehm..we are strong and independent now. Haven´t you noticed it already? We can do quite good without you if necessary!
    M: What the fuck!!!! You DO need us, you know, we made everything in this civilization for you, without us you would be lost..you should be thankful to us.
    W. Noo, you opressed us and now we are freee. Therefore we are living on our terms now. But if you would do this aor that, or be …such and such, then we might want you again, you know.
    M: We were evolved to be complementary, do you not see? You are fucking this very civilization when you are not admiring us..we are doing our best to be worthy of you…

    knowledge is power. of course, only for wise man.

  • earl

    Birth control is the only reason why women have any sense of “freedom”. They have been blinded as much by the world as men have been lately.

  • Martel

    The only reason we’re able to delude ourselves into thinking that gender differences are “minor” today is that prior generations took such differences for granted.

    In prior eras, it was considered downright foolhardy to send women into combat. We just somehow knew that not only is physical strength a factor, if hundreds of women get maimed in battle that it would hinder our species from reproducing more than if it happened to men. Having dad stay at home with the kids would have meant one less spear by the other men’s side on the hunt.

    Gender roles are what created this relatively safe world we have today, but just because we’re safe now, that doesn’t mean it’s always going to stay that way. Just like if you stop eating right as soon as you get in shape you’ll get fat again, if we ignore the biological realities that enabled us to transcend mere biology, we’ll end up having to live like animals again.

    The more we think of gender differences as “minor” like livingtree does, the sooner we’re going to be reminded of how major they really are.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    Rollo,

    As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.

    As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013’s various comments:

    “But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”

    “So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”

    “Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”

    She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…

    That, in a nutshell, is the big picture. Yes, it lowers men’s feelings of worth and self-esteem. Yes, it ruins the complementary relationship between men and women. Yes, it confuses and misleads men with propaganda and destructive memes. BUT, at the deepest level, the social engineering does all that to take away some of men’s political, economic, and physical power – giving it to women. Meanwhile, that social change is also protecting and supporting womens’ sexual, reproductive, and social sources of power – without any reciprocal redistribution of some of that power to men (your “feminine imperative”).

    Given that, these changes are creating and perpetuating an unequal balance of power between the sexes. For various reasons, feminism continues to socially engineer to redistribute half of men’s power to women as “fair”. However, such redistribution only seems fair by ignoring the strong sexual/reproductive sources of power, influence, and control women already have. Thus, while some women advocate for “equal” access to men’s areas of power – they are forgetting (or ignoring) the female power they already hold alone. So, by taking half of male power…and keeping all of their own…women end up with 75% of the total power, not half.

    Thus, the “strong independent woman” is not just “independent” of a man’s power and influence – she also has her own “independent” source of women’s power and influence to use over him. This unequal and uncomfortable state of affairs is ultimately what the men on here find so distressing.

    That brings us to why the manosphere is so important. I believe, perhaps without fully realizing, it is beginning to redistribute some of women’s power to men. For instance, “game” is not just a way to get laid or avoid divorce. It is understanding social dynamics, seduction, and persuasion – which provides some equal power, control, and influence to men over sexual, reproductive, and relationship experiences that are historically highly controlled by women. Similarly, MRAs focus on changing reproductive rights, family courts, and child custody procedures. Ultimately, that boils down to legally redistributing some of women’s power over the family – and giving men a more equal say in reproductive choices and children’s lives.

    Overall, I think much of the “red pill” message is a good one. It is truly em-power-ing to men in the literal sense. When we have discussions like this, however, I would just like to see a growing awareness of the larger power dynamics at work. With that awareness, particularly how “game” and MRA fit in, I believe the manosphere could be more successful in balancing power between the sexes. In the end, that power balance will help both men and women lead more successful and satisfying lives.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Dr.J, oh I’m no stranger to the laws of power:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/16/truth-to-power/

    I just haven’t gone back to the topic in a while; I may have to now. I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

  • Martel

    Rollo, I just read the post you linked and agree with what you said in it.

    However, I would expand your definition of “power” somewhat to be more along the lines of power=the ability to have your will be done. This includes internal power over yourself (which you call Real Power) and external power over the world around you. Obviously, mastering the former is an essential component of attaining or being able to use the latter and is therefore the focus of your post.

    But t seems like Dr. Jeremy’s “power” refers instead to the latter “external power”, the ability to control external forces.

    “I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.”

    I agree, but I’m somewhat surprised you said that. You almost always focus on what is instead of what should be. I would therefore expect you to focus instead on something like how one gains power, keeps power, or how power dynamics typically flush themselves. This quote instead implies a sort of focus on what should be, or *gasp* moral basis for how we should use power once we attain it.

    So I sincerely hope you follow through with your threat to return to this topic.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I have a new post in the works actually.

  • The Burninator

    “Feminism can only be perpetuated indefinitely so long as a default state of victimhood is perpetuated. Since feminism is founded on the pursuit of an unattainable equalism that is in conflict with what our biologies evolved in us, feminism is assured of a constant victim status.”

    Profoundly correct, it is heartening to see others who have grasped this and are not afraid to speak it. Victimhood, perpetual thin skinned demands for conformity and compliance, never being good enough even if followed, there is absolutely no end to the demands of women cum feminism. If they have to define their rage and victim status through despite full compliance in the future, they’ll start face scanning for slight twitches of the eye a la 1984, then declare their oppression when Winston Smith doesn’t cheer loudly enough for Big Sister.

  • Martel

    @ Burninator: “Victimhood” is defined primarily by feelings and only remotely by one’s actual circumstance. Thus, just like you say, somebody who wants to be a victim will always be one so long as they FEEL like one. It’s the requirement that all aspects of government, culture, and personal relations depend on feminine whims.

    Our feminist discussion partner in one of her comments said that feminism can end when women’s achievements are valued as much as men’s. What the hell does that mean? If they’re paid “the same” but not as “respected”, we’ll still needs oodles of laws and sensitivity training to rectify the “injustice”. If they’re valued (like how a husband might value his wife’s contributions around the house), then they’ll be able to complain about pay. If they get both, damn near guaranteed, like you say, somebody won’t be quite supportive enough which will hurt somebody’s feelings. When they say “valued”, they mean not only money, but also status, recognition, and all sorts of other stuff for which there’s no quantifiable metrics whatsoever. In other words, ban your freedom to feel how you want so that MY feelings can be temporarily satiated.

    I know our esteemed host doesn’t like to get political, but the victim mindset on which he has such penetrating insights regarding feminists are NOT relegated to feminists alone; they’re endemic to ALL leftist interest groups.

    Recognizing this doesn’t necessarily make one a conservative, libertarian, or reactionary, but it does stand in opposition to the left. And not just the feminist left, either.

  • Cylux

    BUT, at the deepest level, the social engineering does all that to take away some of men’s political, economic, and physical power – giving it to women. Meanwhile, that social change is also protecting and supporting womens’ sexual, reproductive, and social sources of power – without any reciprocal redistribution of some of that power to men (your “feminine imperative”).

    I’ve heard something similar to this before, a sort of long-view look which starts with the furious religious revival of the late eighteenth century, adopted as a system by the new ruling class (many of whom were methodists, quakers, etc) developed the idea of two spheres; the ‘separate spheres’ ideology that dictates that men inhabit the public sphere – the world of politics, economy, commerce, and law, while the women’s sphere is the private realm of domestic life, child-rearing, housekeeping, and religious education. There was also a subtext to this portioning – the ‘male’ public sphere was the ‘dirty work’, frequently underhanded that inevitably ‘tainted’ those engaged with it, while the ‘female’ private sphere, mainly among the upper classes, became synonymous with moral guardians doing good works which led them to a highly elevated social status and moral and social dominance which arguably continues to this day.

    It was this handing over the power of moral arbiters to upper class women that eventually led to the social purity movement which was dominated by women, the first wave feminists. It was this grouping that orchestrated the gay panic, along with the rest of the Victorian sex panic (e.g. imaginary white slavery, now back with us as “sex trafficking”). The actual MP in the UK who criminalised (specifically male) homosexuality through Parliament was Henry Labouchere, a radical, feminist-aligned liberal, not some crusty conservative. Perhaps hypergamy decided it might be useful to have providers who weren’t very likely to go chasing after younger women, and had it’s white knight carry out it’s orders, but I digress. As feminism progressed it acted primarily to maintain the separation of the spheres, so that while women have entered into formerly male sphere activities, the female moral and social dominance has remained. That is, the destruction of the male sphere while maintaining the female sphere. It’s no accident that authoritarian ‘moral crusade’ groups are far more likely to be fronted by women than men.

    It’s from this perceived inherent moral superiority that we observed the sudden upsurge of second wave feminism in the later 1960’s, as this was a reaction against female sexual liberation (the pill and sexual revolution) which was seen as a challenge to the status of women as morally pure and (thus) deserving of social superiority. Which in modern times manifests as a gut level dislike of Hooters and similar.

    So in this context the Feminist movement acts as an enforcement system for the class interest of dominant upper class females, as a mechanism to control (a) their menfolk and (b) other females who are potential (sexual) competition. Thus, the long history of “saving fallen women” (e.g. from prostitution, then porn, then being busty waitresses). The settlement houses were the classic mechanism for this, in which fallen women were “saved” and retrained to be servants… to the type of upper class women who ran the houses. Rosa Luxembourg described Feminists as parasites of parasites, seeing the class element intrinsic to a woman living off capitalism (her husband or philanthropy) and dressed, cooked for, etc, by girls from the proletariat, filling her days with her “good works”. Since conscripting domestic servant’s isn’t the done thing anymore the modern tactic is to either get women into work ahead of men, remove any ‘economic opportunities’ (ie by campaigning against ‘lads mags’, the opening of strip clubs, and porn) that women might engage in that would challenge the moral superiority, or offer generous state benefits so doing little looks attractive. Pre-emptive ‘saving fallen women’, basically. With that said I support the “breaking of the male sphere”; but now we must turn to the female sphere and break that too, because failure to do that leads to a very unequal situation, in my view.

    As an aside, it is interesting to watch how the further we move from the liberalism of the 1960s, the more Feminism is drifting back to overt Victorianism. There’s even a new moral panic about sodomy, though now it’s girls who are the victims of the terrible male poo-chute lust, rather than boys.

  • Chris

    Cylux has very good point which I have not thought of. For example take office party events in corporate world – for many cases they are dominated by women and feminine chatter even if the office atmosphere is rather masculine in usual working time.

  • Morpheus

    I know our esteemed host doesn’t like to get political, but the victim mindset on which he has such penetrating insights regarding feminists are NOT relegated to feminists alone; they’re endemic to ALL leftist interest groups.

    Recognizing this doesn’t necessarily make one a conservative, libertarian, or reactionary, but it does stand in opposition to the left. And not just the feminist left, either.

    Regarding “politics” I’d point out that feminism, the feminine imperative, and arguably some aspects inherent to the female condition tend to lean heavily towards totalitarianism. The blogosphere is a microcosm of that. Both this blog and JFG basically have ZERO censorship except for trolls and spammers and welcome dissenting opinion and contrary arguments. In contrast, feminist blogs like Jezebel engage in heavy censorship. Now that Aunt Giggles has altered her blog to be exclusively female oriented, it engages in heavy censorship. It is actually quite amusing to skim the comment sections and observe the thought police warn male commenters when they are crossing into stuff that cannot be mentioned without disturbing the “tone”. Feminism is inherently anti-freedom particularly freedom of thought and expression.

  • Will S.

    As usually happens, the most argumentative female has exited and not returned. Figures. We should never bother trying to change their minds.

  • Tam the Bam

    Tree “Anyway, when women started valuing their higher-level needs, needs beyond sustenance that is, they left the home to work, and assumed that their “loving” husbands would have no objection to them becoming happier. Except that didn’t happen.”

    Because what actually happened is that the women who had never had a choice, paired with men who had equally few choices, went from bundling up sheaves after the reapers and singling turnips 10 hours a day, to putting on warps and following weaving frames up and down the mill 12 hours a day (along with their kids).
    And by ‘eck, they were grateful for the chance of such work. Having been banned (along with the kids) from below-ground work alongside their idling menfolk, down t’pit.

    My grandmas and greatgrandmas, and all their female sibs lived like that, and from the horse’s mouth this is, reminisced about how much they desperately yearned to get wed, even to a pitman or a knifegrinder (mind you you ended up having to “marry” a fair few of them over the course of a lifetime).
    Domesticity was their heart’s desire, perversely satisfying their “higher needs” of not dying of a cotton-based lung complaint or being caught up in the machinery and skinned alive.

    Unfortunately they didn’t get it, as soon as industrial conditions and workers’ organizations made such blissful idleness achievable, the men all disappeared, and it was back to t’mill, spinning and warping, which they were still doing when Pink Floyd were onstage at the Roundhouse and Jimi was at the IoW Festival.

    Some irresistible foreign attraction was responsible for the mens’ callous dereliction, I believe, “Wipers”, was it? or “Chunuk Bair”? Don’t recall.

    Anyways a whole herd of them never married (besides my actual grandmas etc. obviously). Lucky escape huh? Got to keep every penny they earned. No onerous fiddling with cookpots on the range and baking for them. Still had to do their own laundry tho’. But no cooking, huzzah!, they could get the odd bite while they were at the pub honking down the milkstout, Woodbines and port’n’lemons.
    Before the factory hooter went for the backshift.

  • Aristippus

    Remember that silly little “Independent Woman” song a few years ago? It would be 100 times sillier if it were a burly construction worker singing in a gruff voice, “I’m an INdependent MAN! Look at ME! I buy my own CLOTHES. I buy my own stuff. I’m an independent man! I don’t need no woman to buy me things. I’m a big kid look what I can do! I can wear big kid pants too! I’m an INdependent MAN!”

    The very fact that a song about an independent woman is taken seriously while the same song about an independent man would be seen as a parody is proof enough of women’s dependence on men.

  • furiousferrett

    So basically LivingTree wants to minimize as much as possible her own gender’s unique struggles and problems through legislation and societal change. That’s it in a nutshell.

    She wants women to not have to compete in the traditional way of resources by getting commitment from high value men because women like her can’t. So she rigs the game for middle class + women at the expense of everybody else.

    It’s just complete bullshit. It would be like a guy screaming it’s unfair that I don’t get approached by hot women. This is an injustice. I demand a remedy for this and propose that attractive women must hit on at least a certain number of men at social events.

    Do a small minority of men walk into a club and because of their value get women to approach them. Yes, and that’s the point. Guys have to up their game to compete. That’s the end goal, to have massive passive value just as a small minority of women get commitment from alphas. That’s the way the system is supposed to work and it’s ‘not fair’ for the majority of people.

    What happens when the rules are lopsided and uneven to begin. A hard game becomes cruel and twisted. Now instead of LivingTree having to eat right, work on her feminine charm, and make an effort to go out and meet guys. Chicks like her can coast and get good enough while still getting resources assisted by betas by way of the government while guys have to bust their ass learning psychology, obtain wealth and maintain physical form to even be in the game at all.

    In a saner time LivingTree would be a housewife to some roofer instead of fucking over the entire world to suit her needs.

  • DeNihilist

    let the duck explain it,

  • DeNihilist

    The Duck predicted this eons ago.

  • Tin Man

    Actually, this is how I feel, when we get into these debates/discussion and various knitting circle chat sessions…

    Willy Wonka: Once again you really shouldn’t mumble, ’cause it’s kinda starting to bum me out.

    Or…

    Ricky Bobby: Okay, Glenn. Everything cool that Susan said, you wrecked it.

    I know we can’t legally keep the woman out of the clubhouse, but do we really need to encourage them??

  • Tin Man

    Now, there is one more comment I want to make – because even even if there is a perception of something “bad” – nothing is 100% that way…

    We, within the US, have enjoyed being at the top of the economic food-chain, that may disappear over the next few decades, but we are still at the very top today. We would not have achieved this position without the raise of the FI – because being at the top means being a nation of consumers – and without woman, and their buying power (or utilizing the buying power of their Husband/SO/BF).

    I don’t have time to jump into the various real life scenarios, but almost all men will recognize this – if they have ever compared whats in their closets as opposed to wife’s or GF’s. Just the count the number of shoes each has as an example.

    So, remember, with every negative, there is an equal and opposite positive – sometimes you just have to dig for it.

  • The Burninator

    If you only look in closets, then sure.

    The garage, the gun safe, the basement workshop, the tool shed, the computer room, these are the places where men purchase and have primary economic influence. And while I won’t deny that you’ll find the occasional $200.00 pair of shoes in a woman’s closet on occasion, I’ll counter with you’ll rarely find a firearm in a man’s gun safe less than $300.00.

    Marketing is clearly directed towards women now as primary purchasers, which is silly. It’s as if, somehow, if women were not around, men would not buy groceries or clothes. I may need to consult my bachelor male friends to see if they’ve starved to death or are unshod.

  • Derb Labour | The Pillars of Hercules

    […] potentially limitless supply of willing Derb Labourers. Usually, and even though she is obviously a Strong Independent Woman, the Girl only makes use of this when she needs a Fire alarm fitted, she needs the Power Steering […]

  • The Burninator

    As an aside, props to Rollo for keeping this place censorship free. It’s good to see feminists shot down argument by argument as opposed to seeing her disappeared by the site owner. Truth doesn’t need to hide behind censorship and pre-selecting the audience through nerd rage-bans, and Rollo recognizes this.

    The young lady, it appears, has retreated in all due haste. Well done sir, well done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,329 other followers

%d bloggers like this: