Best men gender studies according to redditors
We found 320 Reddit comments discussing the best men gender studies. We ranked the 75 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 320 Reddit comments discussing the best men gender studies. We ranked the 75 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Political Scientist here. I'm not an expert on the minutae of either movement, but I feel that I have a pretty solid grasp of the broad strokes. My own research examines the role of gender in white supremacist communities.
I don't know that each 'side' has an obligation to make their ideas more palatable, but I do feel that each needs to ensure that their claims are backed up by serious quantitative (and qualitative, to an extent) evidence.
In the case of feminism, the concept - and later movement - arose from the recognition that there are definite, demonstrable and observable inequalities in society (specifically European and North American) which placed women in the position of 'inferior' citizens - if they were even considered citizens at all. Women could not vote or hold elected office; it was exceedingly rare for a woman to run a company or to even be educated, since many colleges and universities were 'men only'. These weren't hypothetical problems, they were tangible and endemic. It is a simple fact that for much of the history of western society, women have been considered to be of less 'worth' than men. This attitude has changed to an extent, but it is still the case that women are often at a disadvantage in many sectors of society - from being encouraged to enter 'feminized' careers like secretaries, nurses, teachers, etc, to often being dissuaded from entering other sectors of the workforce - IT, Industry, the Military, etc. While on paper, women have been afforded the same legal rights as men, in reality there are still observable structural barriers for women that do not exist for men.
The "Men's Rights" movement, on the other hand, is an ideology based on the assumption that as women have gained rights in society, men have been 'losing' theirs. The most commonly cited examples of this 'discrimination' are, as you've pointed out, so-called 'false rape' accusations and parental rights. More often than not, allegations of 'false rape' are based on anecdotal evidence and are therefore untrustworthy as a way of determining actual statistics on the phenomenon - although I will provide a source below which seems to indicate that such 'false rape' accusations account for less than 8% of all accusations.
While in some respects the movement has attempted to 'piggyback' itself off of more established rights movements (such as the civil rights, gay rights and women's rights), it nevertheless suffers from a crisis of evidence. Put simply, there is currently zero evidence to suggest that men are in any way the victims of widespread, systemic discrimination based on their gender. While there are instances of men receiving short shrift at the hands of judges who perhaps feel that women are simply 'better' or more 'naturally' able to care for children, these do not prove the existence of systemic or structural discrimination. (Look at Myths 4, 5, 6, specifically)
As some scholars and authors have noted (see below), the crises of masculinity so often noted and lamented by Men's Rights activists can be better explained by examining the sexist social structures put in place by other men, rather than lamenting the 'feminization' of society. Why does it seem that men lose out in custody battles? Maybe because men have been taught from an early age that women are more 'nurturing' or possess a 'maternal instinct' that makes them natural parents - which is an essentialist position that demands that women behave in a certain way. This same belief can also affect how judges (who are mostly male) choose to assign custody in cases where they are forced to.
Put simply, while feminist critiques of society are based on observable instances of institutionalized sexism, the Men's Rights movement, and its attendant critiques are not.
Additional Sources:
Cancian, Maria, Meyer, Daniel R. “Who Gets Custody?”, Demography, Volume 35-Number 2, May 1998
Philip N.S. Rumney (2006). FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE. The Cambridge Law Journal, 65 , pp 128-158 doi:10.1017/S0008197306007069
Who Cares? The classed nature of childcare
Kris Paap "Working Construction: Why White Working-Class men put Themselves -- and the Labor Movement -- in Harm's Way"
R.W. Connell "The Men and the Boys"
R.W. Connell "Masculinities"
>Feminists and men’s rights activists shouldn’t be enemies. They’re both supposed to be for equal rights.
Ah, The Feminist Lie: It was never about equality.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support any "hate crime" or "hate speech" legislation, hence why I said it would almost be worth it. I just think it would be hilarious to see people like Jessica Valenti and Jess Philips and The Guardian charged with hate crimes. Trolls in the UK could have a field day (actually they already could, given current hate speech statutes; what are they waiting for?).
Ironically the epidemic of "misogyny" is mostly imaginary (at least in mainstream British culture), while the epidemic of misandry is mostly real. So who are the real trolls? You can read explicit anti-male "hate speech" on any given day in mainstream news publications, but feminists have to search far and wide (cat-calling, fat-shaming, attractive women in video games etc.) to find their misogyny boogeyman. Indeed according to some academics in Canada, misandry has now become institutionalized in the western world.
There is an argument to be made that making misandry illegal could force feminists to realize their own stupidity/solipsism/irrationality, and therefore put an end to hate think laws, but unfortunately I wouldn't bet on that. Due to aforementioned stupidity/solipsism/irrationality.
Great Book
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?
As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8
You are correct. We live in a gynocentric society that constantly shits on men. Even the fact that men are falling behind is presented as a problem for women because there are not enough marriageable men around.
More on this in the book Men on Strike.
> Japan watchers have made a perennial sport out of opining on the causes of Japan’s low marriage and birth rates, even though they’re common to most advanced economies. ...
>... Though feminist ideals are widespread and women’s career opportunities are expanding, Japanese women who marry are still expected to end their careers and take on a traditional role in the household, making the prospect less attractive.
I really love how the article you quote seems to make the amazingly counterfactual link that, somehow, an increase in feminists ideals will solve Japan's demographic crisis.
To be fair this notion seems to be widespread. There seems to be a cottage industry devoted to churning out books that claim if only men would just man-up and stop thinking of enjoying their own lives... thinks would somehow work out. Because, as we all know, what all women really want is a cuckold in the kitchen and Pablo in the bedroom.
On the Left and Right, there seems to be no evidence that can convince some people that feminism is the problem. One of the rare exceptions I know of is Helen Smith's Men on Strike.
NMMNG is a good starting place, a gentle introduction.
Now you should move on and read the Book of Pook and Jack Donovan's The Way of Men. You should also be learning more TRP theory and applying it IRL. Lift, approach women, find your mission and pursue it, etc.
If you don't wanna fall backward, then it is incumbent that you keep moving forward.
This ruling never made any sense to me until a few days ago.
I am reading this book right now and there are some juicy little details in it, especially about Canada.
Here's a sample:
> Chapter 12: 5 Women's Rights v. Human Rights: The Case of Entitlements
>
> Of interest here are two sections of the Charter, which became law in 1982. Sections 15 and 28 must be seen as operating together. According to the first part of section 15, “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” According to the second part, that “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Now consider section 28: “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”40
[...]
> In 1995 pay equity was given legal status under Canada’s Employment Equity Act. “The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”60
[...]
> Status of Women Canada is a government office, remember, but it acts also as a lobby group for women. Note the link between “equal outcomes” and “substantive equality.”) In addition, a new argument follows: “Gender-based analysis can prevent costly legal challenges under the Charter and at the same time promote sound and effective public policies.”64 In other words, forget litigation. Bureaucracy itself can take care of everything. Just leave it to us!
> The following statement of commitment leaves no doubt that gender-based analysis is really woman-based, or gynocentric, analysis: “The federal government is committed through the Federal Plan [Setting the Stage for the Next Century, which we have already mentioned] … to ensuring that all future legislation and policies include, where appropriate, an analysis of the potential for different impacts on women and men. Individual departments will be responsible for determining which legislation or policies have the potential to affect women differentially and are, therefore, appropriate for a consistent application of a gender lens.”65 The word “men” appears, to be sure, but – as the very next line indicates – only as a token gesture.
> Interpretations of the Charter have institutionalized equality of result as a goal. This clearly distinguishes Canadian law from American. (Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the struggle for which is far from dead, would open up very similar possibilities in the United States. This is why feminists still want it). But all legislation that results from feminist agitation for equality of result, whether in the United States or Canada, is based on the assumption that women constitute a victim class. (Some feminists believe that women constitute the original and even the ultimate victim class.) Ergo, women both need and deserve special protection. And by “special” we refer to protection that infringes on the rights of other citizens. Like every other segment of society, women are indeed victims in some ways.
Betsy Stevenson tweeted this with an accompanying figure:
> Women's participation climbs while men's stagnates. Our greatest challenge: men on strike from life: Not marrying, raising kids, or working.
Made me think back to Helen Smith's book titled Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters, but with Stevenson being from what I'd consider largely the opposite side of the political spectrum (and with Stevenson having a much higher public profile - i.e. on Obama's Council of Economic Advisors / previous Chief Economist at the US Department of Labor).
First off, I don't think it's helpful to take the hard position of "there is a war on boys/men" unless you can thoroughly argue that position. A "War" implies aggressors and defenders which puts people you're trying to convince on the defensive. Even if you believe it's true, taking such a hard position without having your arguments air tight just defeats your purpose. Even if you do have your arguments on point, it's easy for people to use a strawman to say you think women are oppressing men. Even worse they will take you as saying women seeking equality oppresses men, or that you're saying men are powerless, then dismiss your claims based on that misunderstanding.
I would recommend making a softer assertion along the lines of "the well being of men has been declining in the Western world." That softer claim is much easier to defend, just look at suicide rates, incarceration rates, education stats, life expectancy rates etc. Take an approach that is closer to "we are all int his together so we should all want both men and women to do well and right now men need help." That triggers the leftist desire for collectivism and cooperation.
Tucker Carlson is running a Men in America segment every Wednesday this month about how men are in trouble these days. He provides a ton of stats and statistics on the topic. I'll edit this if I can find links to the segments.
March 7 Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America
March 14 Tucker: Washington not worried about male wage crisis
With any of these books, I highly recommend looking up video interviews with the authors to get more information and to see how they condense their arguments.
The war against boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters Paperback –
by Helen Smith PhD
Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Paperback – January 29, 2013
by Charles Murray
The gender gap stuff has been going on since the 1970s. Economist Thomas Sowell, student of Milton Friedman, has been explaining how asinine the claim is for decades. Here he is dismantaling it back in the 1970s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo
[Here is another take down from more recently.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4
) This interview covers his book Economic
Facts and Fallacies, the chapter Male-Female Facts and Fallacies would be a good resource for you to read and take notes on concerning the pay gap myth. Here are some good quotes from that chapter.
>“History shows that the career paths of women over the course of the twentieth century bore little resemblance to a scenario in which variations in employer discrimination explain variations in women’s career progress.”
> “The proportion of women in professions and other high-level positions was greater during the first decades of the twentieth century than in the middle, all before anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement.” Further, “There is no pay gap for full-time workers 21-35 living alone,” and, “As far back as 1969, academic women who never married earned more than academic men who never married.”
>In another study, from 2005, “Among college-educated never married individuals with no children who worked full time and were from 40 to 64 years old, men averaged $40,000 a year and women $47,000.” What, then, explains cases when the numbers tilt the other way?
Here is a transcript of the above interview. Here is a good one...
>Interviewer: Well, you're right. I'm gonna quote you again. "Among the many factors which influence male-female economic differences, the most elusive is employer discrimination."
>Dr. Sowell: Yes, that when you correct for all the various factors such as the number of hours worked, the continuous employment versus taking a few years out to have children and so on, you take all that into account, the differences between men and women become quite trivial. If you look at the academic world or as far back in 1969, women who were
never married and earn higher incomes than men would never marry. They became
tenure professor at a higher rate than men who would never marry. And then later on if
you look at the general population, if you take the women who are past the childbearing
years and they work continuously, their incomes were higher than men who would work
continuously and so on. So the difference is that not that the employer is paying them
differently, but that they have different characteristics.
>Interviewer: So, the central variable and explaining economic differences between men and
women is not employer discrimination, not the rise of feminism, it's that women--it's
child rearing, marriage and child rearing, that's the variable.
>Sowell: Yes.
>Interviewer: As that varies, a woman's arrival or participation rate in higher level occupations
varies with that, that's—
>Sowell:Absolutely.
>Interviewer: Okay. Now in principle, you note, family responsibilities could be perfectly evenly divided between fathers and mothers. But that isn't the way it has worked in practice.
Quote, I'm quoting you again. "Since economic consequences follow from practices
rather than principles, the asymmetrical division of domestic responsibilities produces
male-female difference in income." Question, what are the policy implications of that?
If we become fixed on eliminating male-female income differences, is it the case that the
only choice, the only route for doing that is to involve the government in redesigning the
very nature of the family?
The Pay Gap Myth and Other Lies That Won’t Die
By THOMAS SOWELL
Thomas Sowell takes down the gender 'wage' gap
***
Milton Friedman - Case Against Equal Pay for Equal Work - Professor Friedman explains how support for "equal pay for equal work" helps promote sexism.
This is an interesting argument but to fully understand what he is referring to you need to understand that minimum wage laws have traditionally been used as a way to oppress weaker social groups.
If there is any work where being a man or being a woman makes an individual more qualified for a job or better suited to the job, then the only power the unsuited party has is to offer to work for less money. If you insist on equal pay though you remove that one economic incentive the less desired group has to convince someone to hire them, they cost less.
This is captured well in the generally true claim "No man hates another more than he loves himself." You can be the biggest racist or sexist in the world but it's very rare for that prejudice to be motivating enough that you would see your business where you derive your livelihood and the security of your children fail just to spite someone. There are so many examples of very racist people putting their prejudices aside in order to hire minorities simply because it's cheaper to do so. Establishing equal pay or minimum wage laws completely removes the economic incentive to put your own prejudices aside. They remove greed as a motivating factor for giving people opportunity.
Economist Walter E Williams has written a book on this called South Africa's War Against Capitalism based on his study of the country during apartheid. Milton is making a similar argument against equal pay as Williams did concerning minimum wage. Williams point was that if you have racism in a society where people are irrationality predisposed not to hire a certain group, then the only power that group has to get a job is to offer to work for less. That's why white, racist labor unions have always been the ones to push minimum wage laws when confronted by a minority population competing for jobs. You saw the same thing happen in the US when black men moved North and competed with white laborers for railroad jobs. The white unions pushed for our first minimum wage laws which removed the economic incentive from employers to hire minorities.
If you take the feminist argument seriously, that there is rampant sexism in certain industries, then it makes no sense to force those industries to pay women an equal amount. Rather than hiring them despite their sexism because they can pay them less, those employers will simply stop hiring women altogether because they hate women. To me this shows the irrationality of the claims that feminist make about sexism being the cause of a lack of representation in certain fields. It's not because of sexism but because of self-selection. In countries with higher levels of gender equality you see even higher rather of self-selection in jobs. There are far more women in tech in countries that rate low on women's rights. Russia for example.
Economist Walter E Williams - Minimum Wage as a Racist Tool 2:20
I down voted you because the content of your post is so poor. Erasing male experience of domestic violence and portraying men as sole perpetrators is the purpose of the Duluth model. This is not "try(ing) to make the world a better, safer place", this is part of a structured program of communication and actions to discriminate against men.
Think I'm exaggerating? Read this
>"...doesn't do it exactly right"
In the same way that Jackie at UVA was trying to win back her crush, but didn't exactly do it right?
A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.
[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.
Videos:
The Red Pill (NYA)
Everything by Karen Straughan
Everything by Janice Fiamengo
Books:
[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell
The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld
The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar
The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax
Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers
The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon
A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.
Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm
War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al
Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers
Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey
The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault
Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright
Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin
The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar
Unknown Misandry (website)
Real Sexism (website)
Misandry is not only normal it is institutionalized
From previous discussions:
By wave:
Mary Wollstonecraft; A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
J. S. and Harriet Taylor Mill; The Subjection of Women
(Second wave) Simone de Beauvoir; The Second Sex
(Second wave) Betty Friedan; The Feminine Mystique
(Third wave) bell hooks; Ain't I a Woman?
(Third wave) bell hooks; Feminist Theory
(Third wave) This Bridge Called My Back
By subject:
Law:
What is Feminism
Intro to 'Schools' of Feminist Thought
Post-structural / post-modern
The Laugh of the Medusa, Helene Cixous
Speculum of the Other Woman, Irigaray
Powers of Horror, Kristeva
General overview of feminist theory in the west:
The Feminist Mystique Betty Friedan
Sister/Outsider Audrey Lords
Feminist Theory, Bell Hooks
Borderlands, Gloria Anzaldua
No Logo, Naomi Klein
LGBT:
Gender Trouble, Judith Butler
Bodies That Matter, Judith Butler
Postcolonial
Under Western Eyes, Chandra Talpade Mohanty (PDF)
International/Transnational feminist topics:
Gloria Anzaldua- Borderlands
Chandra Mohanty- Feminism Without Borders and Under Western Eyes
Sociology works:
Resisting Vulnerability: The Social Reconstruction of Gender in Interaction JOCELYN A. HOLLANDER
Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women Rosabeth Moss Kanter
The Retoric and Reality of “Opting Out” Pamela Stone
Literature
The Handmaid's Tale, by Margret Atwood
Other works:
Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Feminism is for Everybody, Bell Hooks
Full Frontal Feminism
The Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye,
No Turning Back, by Estelle Freedman
Reclaiming the F Word by Catherine Redfern
The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyard
The Guy's Guide to Feminism, Michael Kaufman
The Purity Myth, Jessica Valenti
Backlash, Susan Faludi
*
Introductory articles**
Why Women Aren't Crazy
Ted Talk: A Call to Men, by Tony Porter
What No Woman Deserves to Be Called, Yashar Ali
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Feminism But Were Afraid to Ask
"Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine
"Gendered Society" by Michael Kimmel
"Click: The Moment We Knew We Were Feminists", Bitchfest
How to Be a Woman - Caitlin Moran
"Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis" by Joan Wallach Scott
The Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye
How Two Aspiring Pornographers Turned Me Into the Ultimate F Word, by Hank Shaw
"The Macho Paradox" by Jackson Katz
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Feminism But Were Afraid to Ask
Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, by Linda Nochlin
A lot of it is born out of feminisms covering up of abuse and using the false claim that abuse is mainly patriarchal to demonise and legislate against men.
The fathers rights movement is in response to feminist jurisprudence in family and divorce law discriminating against men.
The issue with education is feminism making false claims that girls were being held back in school back when boys and girls were doing equally well, and using the false claims as justification to slant the system in favour of girls.
The issue with patriarchy theory is that its a hatefully conspiracy theory.
The objections to the feminist abuse industry is that its discriminates against everyone bar heterosexual women.
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628
I have to first nitpick that you provide a bad example with Mark Ripptoe being stronger than Arnold, if you look at their powerlifting records here and here respectively. If you take a look at the strongest people in the world, judging either by strongmen meets or by powerlifting, they are generally rather large. Not as large as their bodybuilding counterparts, but still very large. Before the topic of steroids is brought up, consider the size of men before the invention of steroids, like Clarance Ross.
The other point to make is that for Arnold, or any other bodybuilder steroids or not, to make his body look nice they must be very strong. The effort of building that body also makes you look very large. Most elite powerlifters don't have as low bodyfat or the concentration on symmetry as bodybuilders, but they are still very large. Take for example Konstantin Konstantinovs (I use him as an example because he does seem to keep a lower body fat).
One last point, if you look at the history of weight training the Greeks actually pioneered it at least as early as the 5th century(PDF warning). Another great resource for the strength feats of the ancients is Manthropology which has really cool stuff.
And that sort of stuff is the reason this book was written:
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8
The Privileged Sex
Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance
Female Power in the Past
The Myth of Male Power
The Second Sexism
Legalizing Misandry
// , Men are no longer the keepers of commitment, either.
Rollo Tomassi has written about this, as well.
The situation has become far more intense than Helen Smith predicted: https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620
Here's a link to Rollo's article on the subject, which surprised me a great deal:
https://therationalmale.com/2016/08/21/the-key-masters/
Excerpt:
>For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.
>I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.
>At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.
>There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.
~
It's even available on Amazon. From their own description:
> A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.
> In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.
> In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.
I'm torn. I really want to maintain the integrity of book reviews left by people who have actually read the book. But on the other hand, should anyone read shit like this?
Conversely: The Manipulated Man and The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. The first seems like it's worth a read. The second looks almost as toxic as DAMN.
You have it made, little brother. You're beginning this journey at an optimal age. Your life, starting now, will be an amazing climb into all manhood has to offer the bold. Congratulations.
Now. Here are the instructions I would've given 17-year-old me.
Read:
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.
The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida.
Everything by Robert Greene.
The works of Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, and Mark Twain. Plus Jules Verne if you enjoy science fiction. Read as many other classical authors as you want, there's a very good reason their work has stuck with us.
Psychology texts. Philosophy texts. Study how to think, what it means to think, and how the way people think has changed throughout history.
Speaking of, history texts. Learn from the triumphs and failures of men before you.
Do:
Study nutrition & exercise science. I recommend looking into the Paleo nutrition philosophy, but make up your own mind based on your own research. In fact, making up your own mind based on your own research should probably be the number one thing you focus on. Never follow the lead of the herd.
Learn how to build habits. This will help to increase your productivity throughout your life. Find your ideal routine, and stick with it until it's natural; then feel free to deviate occasionally. Practice mindfulness at all times.
Learn to fight. Martial arts, boxing, wrestling - study some form of self-defense, preferably more than one. When you can handle yourself in a fight, you've taken one step further along the path of truly understanding yourself.
Study people. Talk to people. Befriend people. Piss people off when you have cause. Ultimately, lead people.
Pursue your passions. Explore what makes you tick. Know your strengths, and excel at them.
Above all else, remember:
Think with your mind. Act from your balls.
On it's face, the organization she is writing for is traditional and counter-feminism. She puts the blame on feminism and in a very RP manner notes that men are the relationship gatekeepers.
However, it comes across as a dig to mention "perpetual adolescence". The "normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood" is more of an objective observation.
However, she doesn't go into any analysis like in, say, Men On Strike. No-fault divorce is probably the biggest factor. Why would you invest time, money, and emotion into a life that can be taken away from you for any reason or no reason at all?
IMHO, all the other factors are either secondary or are effects rather than causes.
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.
It explores masculinity from a perspective of evolutionary psychology from Hunter/Gatherer societies and why certain masculine traits are valued.
After reading it its quite easy to look at how men interact and understand why they do the things they do, and how and why certain things are respected among them.
Not to what I would consider a good academic standard. I mean, yes, he references where he gets his stats from, and dictionary definitions and a few other things.
But there's stuff he doesn't reference that he should. For example, in the above bit about powerlessness and crime, Farrell references nothing. And yet, there is (and was in 1994) a huge amount of crime research - you can even reference notions of power.
Farrell could have easily turned to the Groth Typology - written in 1979 - for rapists - which actually has categories for those who use rape as a means for power. It wouldn't have been hard for him to read about that, expand it, and then discuss it in more depth. Of course, then he would have to allow for the fact that not all rapists seek power through rape, and that this is not because men are powerless as a whole, but rather that it's about asserting masculinity.
Farrell chose not to do this. So we can assume that he either didn't read the work of other people far more qualified than he is, and therefore that he just liked the idea because it fit with his bias; or that he deliberately disregarded this research because it didn't paint men as victims of nebulous people who give commands.
Either way, he devotes a whole two fucking sentences to something that has had hundreds upon hundreds of papers done on it, and doesn't bother to elaborate or prove that it is a fact.
Not only that, but Farrell doesn't devote much time to proving anything - his book is a series of statements about what is really going on, without much proof at all to back it up. Most feminist books for example, have a far sharper focus with about as many references.
A recent one I read - Pornland by Gail Dines (fear not, I disagreed with her and her stance, but I had to read it for the same reasons I read Farrell) focused solely on sex and porn and women's role in pornography. Where Farrell would give about a page's worth to a subject, Dines made sure she gave a chapter, with lots of references. She didn't try to cram her notion of feminism into the pages - and even though I disagreed with her bias and her conclusion, I couldn't really disrespect the way she wrote it. It was in a university library because of the difference in the way it was treated.
Farrell's central point is that male power is a myth - and yet he devotes 350 pages to that - which is fucking pitiful - because he threw in every single man, so many men's issues and the kitchen sink. Considering that just describing masculinity as a concept took 300 pages or so for R.W. Connell. Here's her book - go and look at the references she uses and how much she references. Which is of course, also in university libraries.
Yet, Farrell deals with concepts with at most a page - for some a sentence or two - and at worst, a foregone conclusion. So rather than reasoning out his thesis that rape, murder, domestic violence are features of powerlessness - by, you know, going and talking to men who have done such things, then using research that fits with that view, he just declares it so, and shows none of the workings to get to that conclusion. That sentence alone should have warranted a chapter of its own, with lots of interviews with men, lots of statistics, lots of research - pointing out that the profiles of men who do such things includes features of men's powerlessness like poverty and lack of education. But instead, he just doesn't bother, gives a two-line throwaway and onto bigger ideas.
I always think about it like maths. You have to show your workings - same with research. Farrell is fucking sloppy - he shows none of his workings. He just gives you the answer, and you can't really see if it's right or not. It just is, as far as he's concerned. So he doesn't have enough references to show his workings.
>It's important to note that this is a cultural phenomenon, not a political one.
I may be misunderstanding you but I'm not sure you're correct on this particular point. Cultural misandry is indeed being reflected in actual laws. See Legalizing Misandry by the Canadian academics Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (both left-wingers, incidentally).
Indeed analyses of political discrimination against men go back to at least the late 19th century when the socialist Earnest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjugation of Men (1896).
The very idea that males can suffer gender-based discrimination is extremely counter-intuitive for both men and women. This is in part because the male gender role is rooted in strength. The other problem is that most people in positions of overt power are male; however powerful men do not actually try to "privilege" other males; quite the opposite; males (unlike females) lack in-group preference and indeed tend to favor the opposite sex. Powerful men loving being chivalrous. Study after study has determined that there is a very large "empathy gap" between the sexes. Several have found eg if forced to choose between killing an innocent man or woman, both sexes will choose the man.
One academic, albeit an Israeli right-wing military strategist, has even claimed that females are and always have been the privileged sex. I wouldn't go that far, but it's pretty clear if you look at the statistical data alone that "patriarchy" hypothesis is fundamentally irrational. No, men don't want to oppress their own mothers and daughters, and no, males aren't privileged. Rich men, sure.
Since we're talking about feminism and political power, it's very interesting to note that there is probably a Machiavellian aspect to this as well. The first "gender studies" courses were financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and extreme anti-male feminism (what we would now call mainstream feminism) arose during the "COINTELPRO" era.
Left wing media analysis Mark Crispin Miller stated the following during Occupy Wall Street, after being accosted by feminist Laurie Pennie:
"It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanise the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis. Without denying the justice of what you’re saying, this is not an irrelevant theory. I don’t think, anyway."
His opinion is bolstered by an FBI document from 1969:
"The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor.... It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office.[4] Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women’s studies programs on campus.
If you actually look at the statistics you find that men and boys fare worse on practically every quality of life indicator. So at minimum, leftists need to abandon this "male privilege" nonsense.
>There can be no law that says "you're not allowed to hate other people", even though society considers it a big taboo.
lol hating men is the last thing from a "big taboo." It's literally institutionalized in every aspect of Western society.
There are a few core psychological drives that compel men to do what they do. In no particular order:
Sex, obviously. Sexual dimorphism results in males on average having stronger libidos than women of similar demographic. Year+ dry-spells often lead men to suicide ideation.
Female companionship Ties in closely with sex, but is moreso the emotional connection component. Sex alone isn't enough to satisfy men's psychological needs; a supportive and loving partner is necessary. But on the flipside, a supportive female companion but lack of sex is also insufficient for healthy psychological functioning. Case study: /r/deadbedrooms
Male companionship Men generally seek esteem and reputation among their peers. For reference, the feeling a man gets when his fellow men look to him for leadership or admire his skills is similarly emotionally pleasurable as sexual release or close romantic moments. It's a very different type of emotional gratification, but is on a similar level of pleasurable intensity. This is what fuels male competitiveness.
Competence Along with social gratification from other males, men need to convince themselves of their own competence. A man that does not believe in himself is not psychologically healthy, regardless of how others view him.
Independence For most men, there is no greater disgrace than being a burden to others. Case study: chronic unemployment or underemployment is strongly correlated to suicide.
Purpose Ties in a good bit with male companionship and independence. Men want a cause. I know that personally, I feel much more driven, dilligent, and psychologically healthy when I know people are counting on me. I'd postulate than a cultural "lack of feeling of purpose" has contributed to increasing suicide rates as well. I'd also postulate that desire for purpose leads many men to military service or radical social movements. (Case study: Disaffected European men joinging ISIS)
There's a comment I read a while back about the "male romantic fantasy" which is incredibly insightful into the male psyche. I'll see if I can dig it up.
EDIT: Found it! Incredibly insightful comment chain on "the male romantic fantasy" (The third comment down is the one I want to especially draw attention to. Quoted below)
> The Male Romantic Fantasy
I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.
> An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.
> All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.
> When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.
If you're up for more in depth reading, I recommend, "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan. (Disclaimer: towards the end of the book, the author espouses some rather radical personal philosophical views. His personal views in no way reflect my own, but I still see his book as a fantastic window into the baser male psyche)
This post is contradictory, or at least a bit inaccurate. Potentially harmful, too (to a total newbie).
What is the definition of a nice guy?
Nice guys don't get nice things. Nice guys get shit on. What you are demonstrating is a change of attitude (seriously, good for you, as attitude is everything).
I may not be expressing myself clearly here. That is because the subject is complex, and there are multiple layers of meaning to it. For example, on some level, you are a killer (unless you believe that meat grows on the shelves of supermarkets), and aggression is a means of self-preservation. The self-consuming rage of the frustrated nice guy may have something to do with rejecting these primal layers of his nature.
Women's sexual preference has evolutionary subtext to it. This is because in pre-civilization days, nice guys didn't finish last. They finished dead in a ditch. Mating in today's world has, however, turned into charade - gym bros passing as highly fit males, no tigers to thin the herd of weaklings, etc.
Then there's the civilization layer. Cooperation really is the best strategy there... but this goes against the evolutionary hard-wiring of humans. Many just "can't help it". Civilizations crumble as selfish behaviors infiltrate various institutions of the state. Modern man is thus essentially fucked.
Recently, a book caught my attention. I liked the illustration on the cover, and the title (Becoming a Barbarian). I'm yet to order and read this book; and yet, I bet this book delves into this kind of a topic.
I just finished reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel where he talks about why there's a market for people like Beck and I kinda want to make an effort post to draw parallel between that and GG but I'm so tired and lazy and oh God why is it 4 am already ;_;
misandry: (mis·an·dry): noun, hatred of males (Wikipedia link)
Books by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young:
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
> What I don't understand is this... obsessive hatred. It's nothing short of disturbing. There are apparently people who are willing to literally devote their livelihood solely on their hatred towards a single person on the internet. Why?
I think about this a lot and all I can come up with is entitlement and parents that never told them "No". Used to being the only ones heard, etc. They can't stand the fact that they can't scare certain people away. Especially those who hold them accountable or, worse, question everything they hold dear to validate themselves.
Basically, they're angry, entitled, violent children.
Personally, this book is an eye opener. Irony? It only has three stars because, get this, AWMs flooded the comments and reviews and proved every single point made in the book.
Yay for respectful curiosity!
"The Guy's Guide to Feminism" is a fast little book if you want to read up on some basics, it also has a bit of humor in it which I know helps with some of the more depressing issues. It's not perfect, but it's def a good introduction to some of the vocabulary and topics common in feminism.
My friend, you are correct but late:
Men ARE starting to stop agreeing to get married:
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620/
And it Western society is already rotting from within.
u/Pleasedontstrawmanme u/Umbly u/maluno22
In context, its about a minority of women who claim the large F (feminism) who scream and bray about 'objectification' which was an invented idea by large F, as a means of shaming and dominating sexual discussion and behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYiJV_1IwM
Consider the fact that women attack others through Reputation Destruction rather than punches to the face. Consider also that big F has always described and reduced sexual activity down to Power Games, Power Dynamic, etc.
Within the context of PD and PG, the term objectification makes sense. They have literally been pounding away at these memes since the 1960's, to shift the narrative from "people are selfish and sometimes want to just have sex with someone for pleasure" to "men, specifically, objectify women by desiring them sexually without knowing anything about their family life or their accomplishments, or lack thereof".
To put it another way, does a lion or chimp objectify potential partners because its horny and just wants to screw the other? if humans are an extension of basic animal behavior, then objectification has to be something all species do. But you can see the problem with this because objectification is defined by large F as willful and intentional degradation of others, and I don't think any animals, even humans, are doing that simply because they find something attractive.
If there's one thing you notice among large F people who discuss objectification, they typically fall WELL outside social norms of beauty. The suffragette panels of the early 1900's looked like a leper colony.
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
Consider the fact that today merely questioning the honesty and integrity of large F or people who cry about objectification gets you attacked and shamed nearly universally in the western world. Consider also the fact that narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy exist in women just as much as it does in men, and the fact that such people are NOT 100% raving lunatics, but often careful and meticulous in playing with others and looking for power and dominance over others. Consider that every group or movement can be co-opted by people with truly evil intentions and no actual connection to humanity.
Consider that all of this "women are wonderful" business has provided the PERFECT cover for female narcissists, sociopaths, etc, to abuse, shame, humiliate men in general or specific for any man transgressing against women by "objectification" while not being sexually valuable.
What's that joke? How to avoid sexual harassment. Step 1: Be attractive. Step 2: Don't be unattractive.
Women seem perfectly fine being "objectified" if the guy has some sort of value or attractiveness. I've met more than one woman who complained about their ex being "objectifying" or "sexist" AFTER breaking up from 3 years. And more than once this has involved really decent guys who actively tried to keep the relationship together.
In particular, there was one woman who claimed her ex tried to rape her, which is completely ridiculous because she was always a slut and was once fucking 3 different guys before she got with her boyfriend, he is not a rapist and he's now happily married to a non-psycho, and she consistently gets drunk and tries to have sex with the nearest pole. There's no need for him to try to rape her. And when she talked about it, there weren't any details, it was just vague suggestion. This same person also showed me texts of another guy talking about his dick to her, and she was pretending to be upset about it, but it was really a demonstration of sexual value because she had been fucking this guy previously and was using him as a form of narcissistic supply, for sex and attention, when she was lonely, and then shit talking him when she wasn't. She's been PUA spinning him as a plate for 2 years.
What this comes down to is Reputation Destruction as Revenge because of ill will and bad feelings, or laying the groundwork for sympathy, etc.
Maybe not all men have experienced the worst that there is in women, and they can count themselves lucky. Maybe they HAVE experienced the worst, but have been unable to understand it or reason it out because they've consistently been fed the narrative that men are predators and women are victims of men, and that "women are wonderful", so they can't conceive that women could be highly manipulative and that especially women who want to dominate would claim positions of authority, like large F, to manipulate men on a grand scale.
Just look at how women are benefiting from the double standard, able to behave that way while men basically cant. Look to who benefits and who is controlled, and you should see that its all a game of power.
>the manipulated man
It looks very interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
I like the top review.
Then you can read this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar-ebook/dp/B002U8271K
I suggest Men on Strike by Hellen Smith, I see her book as the most redpilled I've ever seen written by a woman and plus no shaming BS. She doesn't mention MGTOW, but she was able to spot everything we agree in general about marriage and law.
​
Then you can read The Manipulated man and the rational male. I think it's a great order to read.
​
Men on Strike: https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1537752537&sr=1-1&keywords=men+on+strike&dpID=51yxYrh%252B4xL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
​
The manipulated man: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1905177178/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
​
The rational male: https://www.amazon.com/Rollo-Tomassi/e/B00J2165RA/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1537752638&sr=1-2-ent
It's quite surprising. I just finished reading Spreading Misandry and though it was originally published in like 2000 (or shortly after) a lot of what it talks about either still rings true or has gotten worse. It takes a look at how pop-culture spreads misandrist ideas/values and how those came from certain circles of academia/marxism.
It's worth a read if for no other reason than to see how there were people talking about the same issues we worry about back in the 1990s. Pretty well referenced and has a decent chunk of the book just devoted to explaining why the two profs who wrote it included/talked about the issues they did.
I have many gay friends, so when I first shifted from an ideological libertinism to traditional value set, I was having trouble reconciling my views. Isn't the right supposed to hate gays? I am against cultural degeneracy, and homosexuality seems degenerate, so what does one make of it? Furthermore, the science clearly shows that homosexuality, whether an aesthetic preference or
"sexual orientation," is generally not a choice (though there is nuance).
Reading The Way of Men by Jack Donavan, who is gay, helped to clear this up for me. He argues that what we need to fight is not homosexuality, but the men who work to upend and destroy traditional masculine values (strength, honor, courage, mastery). The two heavily overlap, especially in urban circles, which leads to the association, but this still leaves a quite significant percentage of honorable gay men.
Interestingly, a counterculture is emerging among male homosexuals to distance themselves from their peers. They've been coopted by the Left, willingly, in exchange for sinecures like gay "marriage." This is what happens when you sell your soul; you no longer get to determine how it is used, and they are now open to blowback. The risk is that the public will take back all of their gains and then some, which the gays with foresight recognize in leaving L-BT behind.
I've heard good things about Vox Day. I haven't read much but there were a few good posts along our lines.
The book "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan is a strong read for anyone.
There is a lot of research going on with organizations and journals dedicated to the subject.
American Psychological Association: Division 51 Society for Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. This is probably your best resource. They have a page dedicated Research Briefs. Their Div 51 Journal - Psychology of Men & Masculinity will provide a thorough review of research published in the area.
There is also the Men and Masculinities Journal, the
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, and the
Journal of Men's Studies. I'm sure that I am missing some but these are the ones that I know of. You could probably also find a text book that covers a lot of these ideas. I think the standard is APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, and Masculinities 2nd Edition.
If you find anything you think interesting please post it over to /r/manfeelings. I'm collecting interesting articles and pieces over there.
Masculinity Studies is a huge field in Gender Studies, there are shelves and shelves full of books about masculinity. This book sounds like a good starting place: http://www.amazon.de/Masculinities-R-W-Connell/dp/0520246985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414234224&sr=8-1&keywords=masculinity
Porter is so convincing to many gamers/nerds, I believe, because nerds traditionally did not conform with at least some aspects of the "man box," which just makes this rabid anti-feminism and misogyny even harder to stomach for me.
Hi Mr. Mod,
Some simple reading material I would recommend (off the top of my head):
Feminism is for everybody by Bell Hooks pdf
The guy's guide to feminism by Kaufman & Kimmel
Full frontal feminism by Jessica Valenti (yes it says "a young woman's guide" but really it is accessible to everyone)
The shakesville feminism 101 blog
This is my first time posting here, so I hope I didn't violate your rules, though perhaps my post may have been too hostile.
>In terms of the bad legal climate, fight back dammit. Fight for yourself, your kids and everyone else’s kids.
Won't have any success. MRAs have been pushing that load for decades and gotten nowhere with it.
But men are becoming aware of their power.
The power to say no.
see: https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620
​
>we might support them in their well-being, while recognizing that men certainly hold privilege and power in sociopolitical fields and economically.
Not entirely true. There are more men at the top of the food chain than women. But there are also more men at the bottom of the food chain. Women tend to cluster towards the middle for whatever reason. https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DN7GTVDU7C4I&keywords=men+on+strike&qid=1556005635&s=books&sprefix=Men+On+Strike%2Caps%2C148&sr=1-1
​
>When we talk about traditional masculine ideology, those are the things in culture—and right now we're in a particular historical time and culture—that are prescriptive (what boys and men should do) and proscriptive (what boys and men should not do). There's a lot of diversity in the way masculinity is experienced and expressed. Some of these standards have held popular ideas in a certain segment of the population: Things like the avoidance of being seen as weak, extreme risk-taking, or extreme levels of aggression or violence.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it is idealist. It says that the problems are certain ideas floating around in our minds that are causing the problem. The ideas that occupy people's heads are logically dependent on their physical and social circumstances, not the other way around. https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61013
​
I have said it once before but it bears repeating now.
Lodge 49 S01E06 The Mysteries
We are somewhere between Albedo and Citrinitas, or the White Phase to the Yellow Phase. Larry's memory is heavily cast in yellow light, as is his room and upholstered chairs, even his shirt. Cinitras is when we change from the Moon to the Sun, from reflecting the light of others to becoming a source of light ourselves.
In the three Pillars of the Tree of Life, Severity, Mercy and Balance, Dud seems to be taking the path of Severity (which starts with passivity), Liz the Path of Mercy (which starts with taking action), and Ernie the Path of Balance (living in the here and now).
“He who thinks a fire, is a fire.” is a hex being cast by Wallis Smith onto child Larry. What a dickish thing to do to your girl-on-the-side’s son. In real lodges, a President only serves a one year term, to keep their heads from getting too swelled like this, and the officer’s line keeps moving people up so that will be many Past Presidents lying around to check the power of the current year’s one should he get out of line. Those Thanksgiving decorations, including the bark canoe, are pretty sweet tho.
“Except we’re the Lynx. Not the Masons. The Masons were wannabe Rosicrucians. And the Rosicrucians were a hoax that pretty much just got out of hand. You know, there's a really great essay by this British junkie--" There have been so many conjectures about the origins of Freemasonry by so many authors, all of whom contradict each other, that this essay of Duds could be hidden among any of the Prestonian Lectures, the hundreds of books published by Lewis Masonic, or since Scotland is part of Great Britain, it could be Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century. But we see Dud has taken seriously Blaise’s statement that he wouldn’t respect Dud if he didn’t put in the work and study necessary to earn becoming a Knight.
[Edit: Hat tip to /u/ficta, who saw the clue was in "British junkie", which I completely missed despite it being there in the closed captions. This makes the essay most likely Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons by Thomas De Quincey. Warning: It has a wandering, fatiguing intro, just skip to Chapter 2. ]
“Who’s not afraid of the dark, Liz? At least it makes sense. You know what doesn’t make sense? Being afraid of the light.” …says the guy starting a nightshift job where he will be chased by dark shadowy figures similar to the shadow man alchemical symbol for Earth.
Champ’s Marxist rants about corporations are self-fulfilling. He chooses to place himself in the pressure cooker, and refuses to step away. He chooses to work two jobs at the same time. I wonder if he also saves money by having no home or bed to sleep in. His anti-capitalism rants offer no solution, no way out, nothing to change to, just bitterness at his alienation and disempowerment. Maybe if he quit his speed habit he could afford to quit one of his bottom of the ladder jobs and be less stressed. While Dud idealizes pastoral naturalism, Champ demonizes industrial capitalism. Even a future when Champ retires and is replaced by robots is dystopian. Dystopian literature is a particularly bad fantasy genre that misleads angsty teen mid-wits into believing they’re in-on-the-secret visionaries.
Ernie is declared Sovereign Protector, which Jung would say now makes Ernie a Senex.
Larry “goes down swinging” in the same spot outside the lodge of his childhood fist fight.
Dud is quickly moving up in the world. From a Fool, through the three Medieval ranks of Those who Work, and now to Those Who Fight. (Er, those who drive away quickly.)
Notice what the thieves are stealing? They’re cutting out copper electrical lines from the Orbis warehouse.
Alice’s motivational exhortations ("You're so weak! You suck at this!") are all dude bro shit talking, which takes a shift in thinking for some to understand how it works: She challenges you, saying who you are is not good enough. You overcome her by proving her wrong and doing better. It’s her quick way of filtering for winners, which are people willing to push themselves to improve.
Alice has displaced the Father's "Relax" pillow, throwing it onto the floor, and taken the Father's position on the couch herself while she challenges Liz to "improve her core". She can casually do this because Alice's name means "nobility".
"You moved the couch". The couch for Liz is the structure that she has placed herself, her father, and her brother into since childhood, giving her comfort. Liz has finally developed enough core (spirit) to shift her couch, and shift the relationships that the three have all been locked in even past death, breaking at last the parent's hold over them all. This breakthrough was not without risk, and the power released by the child rebelling against the parent and breaking these relationship constraints has injured and hospitalized her.
Liz has destroyed the image of her old self, transforming into someone new. While Dud's changes come from study and learning, Liz's changes result from intoxication. She ends with a cable tow tied around her neck. She may have stumbled on the carpet in the same place a second time as when she went to answer the door earlier ...or she may have stumbled on her father's Relax pillow that was thrown there by Alice. And did she really stumble there earlier, or just injure herself in the same place Dud is injured when she said his name out loud?
The scrolls will now become the McGuffin of the show? They're going to feel really dumb when they find out the Corpus Hermeticum is available on Kindle. What about all the first editions already sitting in the rediscovered library? Are they chopped liver?
Avery again gets 15 seconds of screen time, now making the character a Chekhov's gun. His name means "counsel". Real lodges issue membership cards that travelling members use to identify themselves as "members in good standing" to other lodges that also shows their rank within the organization. There used to be certain phrases and handshakes, but are only used ceremonially anymore because frankly once learned those don't expire when members get cheap and stop paying their dues. We're all now trained to look for a current membership card to enforce against travelling cheapskates that aren't current in dues with their home lodge drifting around satellite lodges to continue milking unpaid for membership benefits. You quickly learn to flash your current membership card first thing to the bartender when visiting any of your order's out of town lodge's taverns to show you're in good standing with your home lodge, and the first thing every bartender looks for is the current year on your card. The Grand Lodge officers are particularly diligent on flashing their membership cards because they want to discourage lax security and encourage enforcing keeping everyone up in their dues. "Is there room at the Inn?", if a real Lynx phrase used to identify a travelling Lynx member to another lodge when they don't have a current membership card, has got to be the lamest phrase ever, and this kind of easy to fake impostor credentialism is precisely why all the fraternities have moved on from using secret handshakes and password phrases to rewarding paying your annual dues with a membership card with the new year's graphics, card color background, and the newly paid for year prominently displayed ...that expires when the next lodge dues are up.
There is a theory that Lodge 49 itself is a character, and that its spirits speaks to the main characters through birds and weather. If so, the happy bird chirps and bright light when Avery crosses over the threshold and under the lintel means at least the Lodge spirits like him.
Kenneth Welsh has his own theory why his character Larry punched Dud.
The closing a cappella version of “Nature Boy” was sang by Tom Patterson's wife Susy Kane in their living room.
Read Iron John by Robert Blye for a good description of making a break with the "Mother" that most men in our times never did - for which we are reaping the consequences. The idea of initiation into manhood is covered in detail in his book as well.
It's been interesting watching my boys. Oldest is 15 now. My wife went through a rough time a year ago and made some wacko choices with rough effects for our whole family. My oldest (14 at the time) very readily made a break from her mothering. It seemed easy for him. Another son who was 11 at the time was clearly not ready to make the same break from his mother. I read Iron John and was thinking on these things during this time, and it was interesting to see the difference between how the boys reacted. My 8 year old son didn't have any idea what was really going on. He just cried some days getting ready for school. No break with mom in his department yet.
I still have anger sometimes because I know I never made that break in good ways - anger at my father, anger at myself, just anger for anger's sake ... you know, living in the past-type shit that's good for nothing other than lifting or running.
>And then there is this thread of comments where one person asks why an article about bisexual males is included in /r/feminisms.
You'll notice that that person got pretty heavily downvoted and that a whole bunch of heavily upvoted people in that thread politely took apart the idea that feminism shouldn't involve itself in the issues of LGBT men, including one of the moderators. I would not take that as a sign of being unwelcome.
>The closest that anybody came was when somebody pointed out how feminism is concerned with the expecations placed on men and how they effect women's inequality.
I think that's an important issue to consider because it works both ways. The perpetuation of women's inequality also hurts men. There is a reciprocal effect in oppressive systems that necessarily create difficult situations for those who are supposed to be privileged within it; thus the genesis of many male gendered social issues and traps.
Sometimes one has to consider issues discretely, other times you can only consider them as part of an interconnected system of social relations. What happens to women impacts men and vice versa to varying degrees for different issues.
>Am I wrong about this? Is feminism concerned with men's experiences as well?
These days there as many feminisms as there are feminists. A welter of different responses could easily accompany your question. My answer is yes. It absolutely is. Partially for the reasons I outlined above- the interconnected nature of humanity- and partially because the business of undoing the various straitjackets of hegemonic gender require everyone's participation.
Men's Lives is one of the leading gender studies texts on masculinity; it's an anthology.
Masculinities is also a critical text. What I meant by 'hegemonic gender' is elucidated on in its pages, and as the title implies, Professor Connell's thesis is that there are multiple ways of 'doing' masculinity in our world that vary by culture, race, class, age, and so on. Her contention is that each plays a critical role in maintaining the established norms of gender, while some are more subversive.
Manhood in America analyses the relatively recent history of how modern ideas of what it means to be a man (the ideas of your father that you rebelled against, likely) came into being.
On Amazon's "Related Books" pane you can find several others on this subject by men and women alike and it'll give you some insight into the multiplicity of progressive and feminist perspectives on manhood in Western culture.
I think part of the issue that so many of us, men and women, still suffer from is that we do tend to see everything oppositionally. Even I'm still getting out of that Manichean mindset. However, as you read and research you'll eventually come to see the at times delicate but synchronous waltz of men and women's relations within feminism. You should understand that women discussing their issues vis a vis men they've dealt with or been hurt by is not an attack against you as a man, but attempting to guilt them for speaking up will be problematic.
Rather, try to understand where they're coming from and why. The vast majority of feminist women do not hate, automatically mistrust, automatically dismiss, or automatically marginalise men. But discussing feminist issues requires frank discussion of people's (men and women's) experiences with gender, which often includes conflicts with masculinity and/or men, as that's just how power is often distributed and flowing.
The trick is to learn not to be threatened by it and go "but not all men are like that!" and you'll be fine. Because we all know that. :P
Conflict is omnipresent in feminisms. Conflict is what gave rise to feminisms rather than just a continued unitary feminism. Disagreements are common, writers and bloggers go back and forth with each other, academic conferences can be acrimonious, battles of inclusion are still being waged in various sectors... It wouldn't be feminism without the arguing, I'll tell you that!
You learn to embrace it, after a while.
What feminism en toto consists of is thousands of groups, great and small, millions upon millions of men, women, and those otherwise identified, disassociated women's and gender studies departments in universities worldwide, tonnes of academics, writers, intellectuals, slam poets, street activists, clinic escorts, journalists, editors, web mavens, bloggers, artists, musicians, and more who inform feminism with their work, research, reporting, passion, art, and every day experiences.
They're never all going to agree with one another. :)
Feminism isn't one thing controlled from a central location wherein we all have nice matching hot pink uniforms- awesome as those would be. It's very widespread and diffuse. There's room for quite a lot within it.
If you look, you'll find your place. ::smiles::
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-John-Book-About-Men/dp/0712610707
https://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064
If he's not much of a reader there's a great YouTube series on King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by 'Like Stories of Old'. About 10 minutes each and examines how films portray these male archetypes.
A book has been written on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991/
I would actually argue that it has more to do with men choosing not to marry...or date even. There's no economic or family incentive. A friend let me borrow this book a few weeks ago and it was eye-opening. It's one opinion, but an interesting read with some valid points.
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419206286&sr=8-1&keywords=men+on+strike
There are several. Here’s just a few I’ve enjoyed.
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062506064/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_04ugDbXGHB18G
Iron John: A Book about Men https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306824264/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_h5ugDb5X2WAJ8
The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1577315936/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_y5ugDbNTGC2GM
There is no Deus ex Machina in that story. It is all metaphor. There's an entire book that breaks down that one story.
https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536061283&sr=8-1&keywords=iron+john
If books like that interest you I'd also recommend Lion's Honey. It breaks down the story of Samson and Delilah.
https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Honey-Samson-David-Grossman/dp/1841959138/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536061367&sr=1-1&keywords=lion%27s+honey
INTP/ENTP "spiritual person" here. Your routine and motivation is not the root issue. The self-hate is the root issue. The way you view yourself and how you relate to yourself (and by extension, the world) is very very dysfunctional, and I guarantee it's fucking up your life in more ways than one.
The negative self-talk is not reality, not objective, and not who you really are. The voice in your head is not only wrong and destructive, it's not even you.
You have a disconnect between different parts of yourself. You hate being "grounded" because when you're in that state, your ego isn't in charge, and you're forced to look at everything inside you you've been fighting. Learn to sit with that pain and not fight it... just let it happen, and watch it swell and then recede. This is, in essence, mindfulness meditation.
Try reading some of these, based on what stands out to you. They are all helpful.
Tl;dr: Learn to be kind to yourself, love yourself, and accept yourself just as you are right now, flaws and all.
Sure. I would argue that those stereotypes of sexual prowess and masculinity are very clear examples of how these standards can hurt men. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'perfect privilege' either. There is only more or less in relation to others.
Just like female beauty standards can keep all women, regardless of appearance, from experiencing their true potential in different ways, standards of masculinity inhibit men the same way.
Men are often robbed of emotional support by these unreasonable standards of masculinity. Just like women, men often feel deep, deep shame for not measuring up to these standards. Conversely, the men who do live up to these standards often live in fear of losing that status. This manifests as the stereotypical jock beating up the weak kid. It's the male analog to the thin girl who is constantly afraid of becoming fat.
Personally I think that's why so many male Redditors feel so angered by being called out for dog-piling inappropriate jokes and catcalling women in Reddit threads. They are essentially screaming "Don't you see? This is the only emotional outlet I have!" And they feel that to be true in a profound way.
I don't say that to make excuses for the behavior, but I can see it as an explantation for why so many otherwise decent guys do this.
Have you ever heard of RW Connell's theory of Multiple Masculinities? Like I said above, I'm not an expert, and I've only begun my reading on the subject, but her concept of varying types of masculine ideals makes a lot of sense to me.
here is her book
a jstor article
this looks like a good basic introduction
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that misandry is much more common than misogyny -- it appears literally every day in mainstream newspapers, is taught every day in schools etc.; indeed it is institutionalized. Police have to investigate hate crimes when a complaint is made. Therefore feminists would come under direct threat, legal precedents would have to be set etc. It would certainly make for some interesting debates, because most "misogyny" is just a figment of the feminist imagination. It would also force feminists to deal with fundamentalist religion, which is arguably misogynistic in some respects (and misandric in others).
Don't get me wrong, I don't support hate crime/speech laws.
So I'm reading the Amazon reviews of the second book mentioned. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?
> Perhaps the single most important thing Nathonson and Young do is refuse to draw back from saying that academic feminists--most of the feminists they discuss are professional scholar-teachers, most with PhDs--are unabashed hatemongers. In going so far they only stop short of annoncing that the "gender war" is in no way a metaphor, that feminists are just as determined to wreak damage on males as they contend males are determined to wreak on them.
> In a way, it will be interesting to see just how far this gauntlet thrown down to academic feminists will be picked up by them and responded to. To admit that feminists are explicitly anti-male, for instance, is to open up the whole academic industry of "Women' Studies"--which includes the female professors who teach in them--to the charge that they violate federal, state, and institutional regulations against hostile environment sexual harassment.
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628
Check out the books:
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
They are described as "massive and massively-researched volumes", and "thoroughly documented scholarly work". These two books are must read material.
I think you are ignorant about what feminism actually does
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628
And as Othompson said, fuck off.
Title: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
Link: http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628/ref=pd_sim_b_4
Title: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Link: http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
Title: The Manipulated Man
Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/0953096424
> Large proportion of men are CEOs (like extremely large proportion)
You have that backwards. Most CEOs are men, most men are not CEOs. Around here, this is called the apex fallacy. More men are homeless or in prison than are CEOs, but only one side of this coin is seen as a gender issue.
> Through fiction/mythology: Men are always the heros, women are the helpless creatures who can't do anything themselves.
What does that have to do with the value of their lives? Children are considered helpless, but also valuable.
> Through media: only 16% of oscar nominees are women, so men are better actors? Women are always nagging while men are always trying to avoid nagging spouses.
Again, nothing to do with value. Men achieve more because for men achievements are the path to value. They work longer hours, take bigger risks, but if they fail they are much more likely to kill themselves.
> Through policy: Ties back in with CEOs, most policy makers are men themselves (21/100 congress members are women)
But most voters are women. The behavior of politicians reflects society's wider values, not the other way around.
> It's easy to come up with anecdotal points that prove your ideals.
None of what I said qualifies as an anecdote. They are all well-documented trends.
> Do you have any actual scientific sources that back up what you're saying?
There have been books written on the subject, from both cultural and evo-psych perspectives. More research is needed, unfortunately the problem is self-reinforcing with many people being actively hostile to spending money researching men's issues.
Academic stuff here
http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms
Academic source on the institutionalization of misandry here
http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
A book for everyman that is wondering about this
> MGTOW Doesn't Get The Respect It Deserves
Now why is that? We know that its not respectable for a man to quit, to run away from that which he finds appealing (all healthy young men find women appealing). Let alone walking away from a challenge, which women today are.
Lets set a definition. From our side bar glossary:
MGTOW are committing an act of self-betrayal. Especially the younger ones. They don't seem to realize an important fact: Eventually we all go MGTOW. Its called "Getting old".
MGTOW just gives a feeling of validation to a generation of young men wasting their days on videogames and porn, completely hoodwinked into thinking that they are wasting nothing by doing so. There is no book, no art, no website that will teach a young man more than he would learn by going out and socializing. Particularly with women he is interested in.
Yes, dating sucks. Yes, it has never been this hard. No, young men should not give up. They should change strategies and improve their socializing skill while they have the energy and availability to do so. Throwing their opportunity in the trash is self-betrayal even if they don't realize the mistake they are making.
Even worse, by accepting the validation that MGTOW provides, they are taking on an identity that other people have made for them.
> backlash from women because it is a direct threat to their sexual strategy
Absolutely not. Read the sidebar. They will happily move on to the available men, particularly the top 20%.
> Even those that are in happy relationships seem to understand why MGTOW makes sense and can come to a rational agreement and support the freedom that MGTOW gives men.
Running away is not freedom. Freedom when one is able to do something one wants to do. This is granted via the right perspective, which is for a man to put himself first. MGTOW cannot lay claim to this perspective or any other self-improvement despite its attempts to redefine itself.
> However it is not meant to be a lifetime commitment as it directly challenges our biological need to procreate and reproduce.
This is somewhat correct but for the wrong reasons. The challenge from MGTOW is not to our biology but to our freedom, which is (indirectly) what MGTOW will do to a young man as he ages.
From the MGTOW subreddit sidebar definition:
"We are men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is."
> forging our own identities
Admirable try. Identity is created by harsh experiences and reactions from others, as undesirable as that may be.
Also, interpersonal identity is not as self defined as one would hope
> paths to self-defined success
Here is the problem: If one does not know what a successful life is or its potential, how would one know what success is or can be? I ask rhetorically because its clear that younger men do not personally know their potential . They have no business writing off the things they aspire to, this is essentially why MGTOW gets a bad rap, as it should.
The men who experience high levels of success do everything they can to continue it and increase it. They do not check out because of the complaints that MGTOW espouse.
> cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.
Thanks to feminists and gender identity politics "A man" is a murky concept that everyone believes they have a valid opinion on. Young men are understandably unclear about it.
Here is a part of one of my definitions:
A man changes his environment to his will, as best he can.
Here is a good book on the matter
In conclusion, game (Socializing) is a skill and if every MGTOW built up that skill instead of rationalizing away his retreat there would be no such thing as MGTOW. I have empathy for these boys but they are making the wrong choice. We only live once.
here's a link to it..
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Lie-Never-About-Equality/dp/1546926097/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1495960018&sr=8-1
> Now why is it somehow a sin to be white and unexceptional?
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. I love that this isn't what I said at all. It just so happens that unexceptional white men are the driving force behind these "Dudes pretending to be oppressed in order to better hate WIMMINZ/THE BLAX" movements.
>What has race got to do with it anyway?
Insecurity in a supremacist society where you aren't living up to a contrived, bullshit image of supposedly perfect and dominant Aryan hyper "masculinity" leads to shit like this. That is what "Race has to do with it."
>How do you know I am white?
Because this question is the mating call of White people on the internet who think that just because you can't see them, the other signs must not be obvious.
It's not your skin color, so stop whining. Unlike the actual racism me and mine suffer, nobody's calling you subhuman and inferior, so wipe your eyes and quiet the fuck down.
But. It's painfully clear that when a certain type of white man gets angry? He lashes out at those perceived as lesser. Jewish people, women, lgbtqia people. Minorities. And then he struggles, while still trying to validate himself through supremacist nonsense, to paint himself as a victim. Unfortunately, men of color do something similar when it comes to gender, but that's a story for another day.
That's you, the MRM and TRP in a nutshell. Angry White Man syndrome...people have noticed.
And now Men [Are Going] On Strike, the ungrateful wretches.
Take a look at the book "Legalizing Misandry"--written by two Canadian academics and part of their multi-volume series on misandry:
https://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Paul-Nathanson-ebook/dp/B00CS5BJ78/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512019773&sr=1-2&keywords=misandry
Men on strike, Dr. Helen Smith. Her articles are regularly linked in this reddit, so just do a search for a fast preview.
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan is a great place to start.
Here is a video introduction.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201301/red-alert-science-discovers-the-color-sexual-attraction
"Overall, it appears that men perceive a woman in red as signaling readiness for sex. Female sex-readiness is attractive to men, partly because it is a relatively scarce resource."
I cannot find any articles on it now, to prove my point ,but I've seen research that says the similar things about brightly non natural colored hair and why women might be motivated to do it. Basically, when a woman dyes her hair purple it's because she's seeking new sexual partners. I.E cuckhold thier man. Similar in concept to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_copulatory_vocalizations. If your gal is a screamer, she has some other guy on her mind. ( This is why porn actresses exaggerate thier moans to comical levels, while making eye contact with the camera/viewer. It sells more videos, your lizard brain is hard wired to think she really wishes she was fucking you and not Ron Jeremy.)
Generally, K selected woman aren't going to engage in that sort of peacocking behavior, while R selected women will. R selected women are more likely to be SJWs. It's why cuckoldery is associated with SJWs.
This book explains the relationship between R/K selection and politics pretty well: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/mobile/w/the-evolutionary-psychology-behind-politics-anonymous-conservative/1109689556?ean=9780982947937
Stefan Molynuex on YouTube, a has a playlist called gene wars that explains this pretty well too.
Some other links:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002U8271K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://illimitablemen.com/tag/branch-swinging/
> Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man"
That book is almost 180 bucks on Amazon. I have it on my list, but I just can't see spending that kind of money for a book at the moment.
That's how important and controlled that book is in today's world. When I saw that price and how restricted/hard to get it was, that immediately setoff some massive Red Alerts.
It's easier for me to get Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf than it is a copy of that book.
Let that sink in.
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482345217&sr=8-1&keywords=Esther+Vilar+in+%22The+Manipulated+Man%22
The Manipulated Man
well, to be fair, people were stronger in the distant past
Before I even found TRP/RPW I was deep into MRA discussion. I will keep on recommending Karen Straughan's videos, more specifically Feminism and the Disposable Male (probably the most powerful of her pieces). After that, sorting by popular, even if you are already familiar with Karen's content. There's honestly a lot of material on youtube that I would go to before a book because of how non establishment the criticism is.
While Karen's style is more of a take down of specific articles/videos/ideas, TyphonBlue (now Based Bager) approached the subject by analyzing Threat Narrative tropes (not sure if she coined it but I firstheard it from her), here's a playlist. I can't rewatch right now to make sure it's beginner's content, it is less approachable than Karen's but equally insightful.
The thing with a lot of YouTubers though is that it all expires so quickly. Either it's a take-down that was relevant then and it hardly makes any sense now (it peaked around 2011), or the user deleted the channel or became super extreme or changed the focus of the channel...
Why I'm No Longer a Feminist has some good points about how feminist circles are (I generally enjoy such videos, Lauren Southern has one.. I tried to find more in my liked videos and they are either deleted or private), here's a mirror of Christy0Misty's videos before she deleted.
For books, the most obvious would be Christina Hoff Sommers' (Who Stole Feminism?, The War Against Boys) which haven't read aside from articles and videos. A book I have read is Men on Strike by Helen Smith, it's sorta repetitive but books on definite topics are easier to find (she writes a column here). I think articles is where it's mostly at, but I would love to read recommended books.
A lot of antifeminist thought goes hand in hand with criticism of the left. It's so vast though I wouldn't know where to start. I generally look into individual people and their timelines. And A LOT of it has to be your own conclusions of feminist thought you read first-hand. So it's really important to know its main ideas and waves. A very popular criticism is about it being rehashed Marxism, for example. So looking into western philosophy as a primer is always advised. Here's a free introductory course to the History of Western Philosophy.
There's actually an entire book on this topic:
Manthropology: The Science of Why the Modern Male Is Not the Man He Used to Be
TL;DR -- Modern males basically pale in comparison to our more primitive ancestors by most measures.
Ah, I study this literature. First, go read Matthew Gutmann's everything. Then, read all his articles, but especially 'Trafficking in Men' in Annual Review (1997).
Secondly, read a good part of RW Connell's Masculinities, which is theory heavy but very, very good.
More ethnographically focused work is [The Cassowary's Revenge] (http://www.amazon.com/Cassowarys-Revenge-Masculinity-Society-Sexuality/dp/0226819515/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344394669&sr=1-14&keywords=masculinities) and Dwight MacDonald's work in Palestine. That should be enough for now
This book looks promising.
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Actually, it's about ethics in archiving. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
The misandry series.
edit: added links
Erin Pizzey, author of prone to violence
also, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, authors of Legalizing Misandry and Spreading Misandry
There's a book on this topic published by two Canadian academics called Spreading Misandry http://np.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
Also some articles in the New Male Studies journal concern this topic http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/index
If you want to talk to someone expert on the subject, I'd suggest you contact Paul Nathanson or Katherine Young. Or even talk to the guy who runs this channel on youtube
I will certainly do so, just give me a bit to get it all together.
A great place to start is how feminists diverted funds for shovel ready jobs (The recession in America hit those most, majorly affecting men) into jobs in health care. This negatively impacted men and the industries they work in.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp
I'll go grab some more later, but it's 1AM.
Edit:
Thought of another one:
Amanda Childress has this to say about Men in higher education:
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Childress asked at the panel, before noting that while 2 to 8 percent of accusations are unfounded (but not necessarily intentionally false), 90 to 95 percent are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional. "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/disagreement-campus-judicial-systems
Edit2:
I'd like to add Ezra Klein (Mr. Feminist says "False Accusations are Good") and Jessica Valenti (Ms. "I bath in male tears") to the list as well.
Ezra Klein: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-terrible-bill-and-i-completely-support-it
Jessica Valenti: https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/494591618519805953/photo/1
Edit3:
Or those in the IMF who think women should pay less in taxes than men:
"IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP. "
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1019.pdf
Edit4:
A good book to read: http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296042616&sr=8-1
Edit5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudrun_Schyman
"Schyman left the Left Party in 2004 and in 2005 co-founded Feminist Initiative"
"In October 2004, Schyman together with other MEPs of the Left Party proposed before the Riksdag, a national assessment of the cost of men's violence towards women; furthermore they demanded that the state fund women's shelters.[5] The proposal attracted wide attention, with the media calling it a "man tax.""
Edit5: (I think I edit this too much)
I'd also like to bring up the fact that feminists have repeatedly attached men's rights speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yg-f7fC0Uw&list=PLOn14Uiedi_5VxHKA89DUT77CFehp_WEF
Can you show me one instance where an MRA has stood outside a feminist conference shouting? Or pulled a fire alarm to prevent them from speaking?
The Way of Men, by Jack Donovan is a must read. Just finished it recently myself.
Speaking of redpill reading, I feel the need to shout out Jack Donovan here. Two of his books, "The Way of Men" and "Becoming a Barbarian" have been absolutely revolutionary for me. These are dangerous books, full of dangerous ideas. The former one, in particular, is an excellent primer in masculine virtue. I bet I've given half a dozen copies away. Read them, learn them, commit them to memory. Also recommended: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Letters from a Stoic" by the one and only Seneca.
Give him the book "The Rational Male" and "Men on Strike" lol
 
Just tell him you don't want to be a third wheel and that you respect his girlfriend, but feel weird about being part of a trike..
There is nothing wrong with saying that you want to have some "Bro time", because you are kinda burned out from dealing with all the
womenstresses at work all the time. Makes you sound like an awesome dude, while kinda getting the point across. Plus he's your brother, he should understand, right?I really loved Iron John by Robert Bly. It's a book that tries get at old wisdom of what it means to be man through myths and mythology.
My therapist from a few years ago, who was a woman, gave it to me.
It's hard to put it into words what it's about as the book is mostly allegory and metaphor. But I still recommend it.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is one of the go-to works that really got this conversation going a few years back. And it's not "unlikely" at all, in a linguistic sense, for labels--especially those that refer to really broad things imbued with social and political import--to be multivalent, to have different definitions for different individuals, or to just be really vaguely defined. For example, go ask a hundred people to talk for a few minutes about what "freedom" means to them, or "America," or "education," etc. Cultures (and certain groups in the culture) sometimes have a vested interest in restricting the definitions of various terms, and this masks their true variety. For instance, many people believe that there is only one definition of "American," and might become angry if you explain that there are various ways to define that term.
"Masculinity" is very much like the examples above. I think some examples will demonstrate:
All those examples are "masculine," and they don't all work together. You might say that some are more masculine than others. I'd say "prove it." I've met people who have very different core beliefs about what it is to be a man, or a "good man," or a "natural man," etc. (we can't even agree on that--what "masculine" actually refers to).
There is a concept sometimes called "hegemonic masculinity," and I think it refers to what many people sometimes call "traditional masculinity." It looks a lot like the Hispanic concept of machismo. It is not a nice way of being a man; it usually includes dominating others, constantly being prepared for violence, being sexually promiscuous to a pretty riduculous degree, etc. It's not called "traditional masculinity" as much in scholarly circles, I think, for a good reason: it's no more "traditional" than any other conceptualization of masculinity; in the (admittedly Western) cultures I have experience with, there have always been multiple masculinities. They vary by geographic region, social stratum, personality type, family background, religious expression, ethnic heritage, education level, and probably more stuff. In fact, I think masculinities even vary within individuals--we are a different kind of masculine (at least many of us) depending on the situation we are in, or the life tasks we're dealing with (e.g., finding a mate in our 20s versus raising children or building a career later).
So OP's question can't be answered as asked, because there is not one thing that is "masculinity."
> Seriously you expect me to watch all that?
Watch however much you want whenever you want to.
> Please summarize.
They hate divorce court. They hate the institutionalized and legally codified misandry (here, here, here, here, here, etc.). They hate contempt for men in society.
The reasons have been accounted for, documented and published all over the place.
I have done extensive research, which is why I hate feminists. I am an antifeminist - someone who is against the feminist movement, which for the past four decades have been systematically Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, waging an all out War Against Men and sadly even a War Against Boys.
>I'm not really associated with the feminist movement.
Really? Then why defend it?
I read the wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a great resource, I love it.
Third wave feminism?! These waves need to stop. The article did mention Christina Hoff Sommers, though.
I have her book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men. Fantastic book, it really should just how harmful feminism really is.
Two more I would highly recommend:
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
I am all for equal rights. People who feel likewise should call temselves equalists.
I would embrace that in a heartbeat.
They should not continue to describe themselves as feminists, which is such a loaded term so full of negative connotations.
I posted this in Eqality - what do you think?
Legalizing Misandry by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young.
>For one, communism was a complete wash
Ok, thats one - but it lead to lots of polices that your parents benefited from, social mobility, decent wages, good access to education.
>or another thing, most right-wingers today are liberal rather than reactionary or monarchical.
Yes, but at the time the right were fighting the left on these matters and the liberals (the left) were the enemy. The liberalism that the right wants today, is a right wing intrepretation of it that adam smith disapproved of.
> Would you considered Peterson to be right wing?
Going by his activity and affiliations in twitter he is extreme right.
>"Freedom of speech" is this a left/right thing?
Freedom of speech was a hard fought battle against the right which had to be won over and over, the right to speak against the church, the right to protest war etc.
>"Evolution" again, not a left/right thing.
Yes, the right fought for biblical fundamentalism.
>Also, even if all of what you said was true, it wouldn't mean today's right wing thought had nothing to argue.
the majority of the rights arguments against feminism and sjw's today came from the left. Warren Farrell was the one who debunked all the feminist talking points in the 1970s and talked about men falling behind in education due to neolibral left policies.
These two as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
Male 23 last year of university graduating in a Computer Engineering degree
http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Man-Corey-Wayne/dp/1411673360
Its basically a cross between a basic book like "Bang" and "The way of men". PUA crossed with some more serious/relevant messages about masculinity and purusing goals
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Men-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452307
I have been in only one serious LTR. Girl broke my heart. I spent 1 year without touching a woman and wallowing in my own pity because the LTR cheated. I had a serious health issue that kept my bedridden for a long time. Other than that, I am just getting started with TRP and realizing my value in the sexual marketplace. So in short; fairly inexperienced. Just getting started. Thats why I am posting this topic
Well I guess that means I should just keep spinning plates till I get someone valuable. And if not, fuck marraige
This book changed my life. Im sure anyone on this sub will recognize themselves and the situations Donovan writes about.
How to become powerful, seductive and master yourself.
This book helped me overcome my fear of death, which made me give less fucks. Because in the end, nothing matters.
I dont have anymore than that at the moment, but i would suggest reading biographies of great men. Right now im reading Seven Pillars Of Wisdom, T. E. Lawrence(of Arabia)s first hand account of the Arab uprising during the First World War
I highly recommend The Way of Men by Jack Donovan. One of the best books of this sort.
Sex
The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley
****
Government
Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show
****
​
Sounds like you'd enjoy reading some Jack Donovan.
https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Barbarian-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452358/
I say this as a fan of Evola and someone who embraces the idea that we are in the Kali Yuga: people have been complaining about the decline of their civilization forever, stop being so melodramatic about it. I get it, there is clown world shit happening that makes all of us see red, but that is no excuse to just give up. Stop waiting for some mythic event like the return of Christ, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or whatever deus ex machina story people have been talking about since the beginning of time. Start your own damn thing.
​
Many modern oligarchs did not expect to be as successful as they ended up.
​
I also see a lot of complaining in here about the overwhelming amount of simps in the world. Simps aren't a problem, simps are an opportunity. Modern capitalism basically turned most of those bluepillers into serfs. Why shouldn't they be your serfs? Why should Jeff Bezos get serfs and not you?
​
There are an incredible amount of people (99%?) who have completely given up thinking, which translates into an incredible amount of opportunity. Men have survived and even thrived despite incredible suffering throughout history. While we have dire problems to face, our ancestors went through shit like seeing 30-60% of their continent die.
​
Fuck clown world. Build your own fiefdom. Most people are serfs and you don't need that many people to make a significant change in your own small corner of the world. Find a few people who are completely intolerant of clown world and start digging.
​
From The Lessons of History:
​
"So we cannot be sure that the moral laxity of our times is a herald of decay rather than a painful or delightful transition between a moral code that has lost its agricultural basis and another that our industrial civilization has yet to forge into social order and normality. Meanwhile history assures us that civilizations decay quite leisurely. For 250 years after moral weakening began in Greece with the Sophists, Hellenic civilization continued to produce masterpieces of literature and art. Roman morals began to “decay” soon after the conquered Greeks passed into Italy (146 B.C.), but Rome continued to have great statesmen, philosophers, poets, and artists until the death of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 180). Politically Rome was at nadir when Caesar came (60 B.C.); yet it did not quite succumb to the barbarians till A.D. 465. May we take as long to fall as did Imperial Rome!"
​
Nassim Taleb: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
​
"It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences."
​
Jack Donovan - Becoming a Barbarian
​
"There’s an old Greek proverb that says, “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” If you don’t like what’s happening around you, what’s happening to culture, what’s happening to men and women, what people are becoming — get out there and start digging. Plant the seed of something new. Of something better. Plant the seed of something you really want — not just whatever you think you can have. Show others that there’s a different way to live. Spend the rest of your life tending a root that may one day grow into a tree of liberty."
>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.
Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.
>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.
It was in those days.
>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man
When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.
>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved
And much more than that, of course.
>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.
This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.
>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.
What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.
There is no way, shape, or form in which race has any bearing on the quality of a human being. I'm not going to try to change your view about that because it is entirely and admirably correct.
But I want to try and explain why some people are racists. Being half-Jewish and being descended from slaves makes this an existential question for me. I am lucky to live in a society in which people do not judge me for the colour of my skin or the religion of my ancestors, but I recognize that this is quite possibly temporary. Possibly the safest and most cosmopolitan place for a Jew to live in the 1920s was Germany.
My impression is that people become racists as a response to social problems. In the particular case of Stormfront, I think we see a generation of disenfranchised Americans that are looking for easy answers to the complex questions of why they cannot simply live as their forefathers did. The Stormfront people see a world in which the culture they know and love is fading in the face of social, cultural, and economic change.
I highly recommend this article for an in-depth look into the important question of who these people really are and where their rage comes from. It's an excerpt from this book, which I have not read. It seems to be an examination of a larger trend in American politics that underpins the radical elements of the Republican party.
So I don't think white supremacy is baseless. Oh sure, it's not rational. But there is a legitimate problem that often sparks racist beliefs in a certain segment of the American populace. Recognizing this helps me to maintain the one emotion that a racist really can't handle from a person like me: pity.
Other people have given you some great suggestion. But this might be worth a glance as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Guys-Guide-Feminism-Michael-Kaufman/dp/1580053629
This book i stumbled across described exactly your mindset and mine as well. I'm 30 and i've felt that way about being mentally checked out in a sense...since about...15 or so....checkout the book link here.
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=men+on+strike&qid=1563427724&s=gateway&sprefix=men+on+stir&sr=8-1
As for Women who support or at least understand MGTOW I'd assume the two would be
Esther Vilar of The Manipulated man : https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
and Dr. Helen Smith Of Men on Strike : https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620
It's going to be harder to find sources that rationally argue against MGTOW because the typical arguments against MGTOW tend to attack mens sexuality , sexual abilities( incel / virgin ) , or tend to call men who do not subscribe to traditional male gender roles cowards and similar emasculating claims to evoke an emotional response .
The most common arguments against MGTOW are probably going to be listed as arguments in support of men marrying .
oh and read this book if you have the chance.
https://www.amazon.ca/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620
>Your one example of a house husband doesn't outweigh all the guys >that are successfully and happily doing it.
I'm sure all 7 of them are living the dream.
> Now you're saying that women don't like to work?
I'm saying women have options and statistically go for "fun" jobs, whereas men have no options and statistically chase money to provide for their families.
>There are plenty of men who work in corporate America in air >conditioned offices.
Most of which are swamped with HR harpies and #metoo bullshit, men are being driven out of the professional jobs, as well as most of academia and being alienated from wider society.
All of this is backed up by hard data, there are entire books written about this subject, you should go do your research.
>it's possible to teach men to do manual labor too
IIRC men are ~%95 of the construction profession and have been since the dawn of humanity.
>I already have a career in construction.
Yesterday you worked in an office, you should probably get your story straight but at this point I already see that you're an ideologue living in her own private idaho.
> Women have to perform just like men do.
Provably false
> On that topic, what about all the guys who post about being "proud" >of living off their parents and playing video games all day?
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=men+on+strike&qid=1562070754&s=gateway&sr=8-1
>My question was what I would possibly miss if I turned male, and after >several replies, you still have no answer.
You have your answers, you simply lack the ability to think outside of your own vagina.
>saying that I should man up and start acting like a man
I've always had the problem with someone saying "man up". It wasn't until I read Men on Strike by Helen Smith - Amazon that I finally learned that it means "do as I say and don't give me trouble". It's simply a shaming tactic, which all women, and many men, use on men.
 
The best response to anyone that says it is to tell them they have an opinion of what a man is but it's their opinion. You don't share their opinion so they should go away and leave you be.
If we as a society want more people to breed; then we should enact more favorable laws towards men around marriage and reproduction. The book Men On Strike does a pretty good job of explaining this.
I haven't read this book yet, but it's possibly what you're interested in? The summary mentions things about men not really wanting to be husbands and fathers anymore, and how there's apparently a lack of incentive for men to do that now. I really have no idea what the argument it makes is, but I do plan to take a look later.
"Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters" by Helen Smith
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
For one, there's a group that calls themselves The Honey Badgers. They are avid supporters of men's rights. A Voice For Men has several women that are regular contributors on their website. In fact, DV shelter icon Erin Pizzey is one of the co-founders of AVFM.
Dr. Helen Smith wrote a best-selling book about male issues.
I can do this all day....
Try this; https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/745489624?utm_medium=api&utm_source=custom_widget
Then this; https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
Message me if you want more!
That's not what this scholar says in her book.
Your opinion is interesting, but only anecdotal, given the extensive study on the subject.
They've had a similar situation in Japan, except that they're decades ahead. Men do not want to marry, they do not even want to be in relationship.
Do not think that this could not happen in the US.
As to evidence of bachelors getting laid, it may only be anecdotal, but judging by my co-workers, who are not at all alpha males, it's pretty clear that these guys do get laid much more frequently. Especially those without girlfriends.
And the issue with divorce is massive - this is the reason number 1 why men are very right to stay away from marriage, and yet, nobody seems to want to do something about it.
You would like "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar. She basically blasts women for being infantile jerks who trade access to their vagina for material support.
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
one question: you leave the kids in the car with engine running?
and. awesome. those are great books and good for you overall. don't let her twist you in "The manipulated Man" ( https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178)
don't punish the kids though, they may like your routine.
get them ready and skip the rest of the "nice guy" stuff.
>Oh so you’re sexist against your own gender? Do you just say this stuff to make yourself look better than most women?
@ u/roccoseinfeld - May I recommend a book to you?
It's called: "THE MANIPULATED MAN"
It's author is: ESTHER Vilar
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
Thanks for the recommendation!
Link to Amazon for others:
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=%22the+manipulated+man%22+from+esther+vilar&qid=1557272009&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull
https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178
I was under the impression the manipulated man was the sidebar article. Is this the book you recommend?
Fyi I updated the previous post so you may wish to check it for updates.
In smaller societies, men are treated pretty fairly, at least as fairly as nature allows. More fairly than today, certainly. Men are more disposable than women, of course, but that's necessary. Strong, smart men lead, and other men may choose to follow. Liberty exists. It ain't perfect, but at least a man can determine his own path, at least he can choose to have a family and raise his children as he sees fits. At least he doesn't have to worry that his wife will leave him and take the kids, or that his kids will believe him a fool because they are indoctrinated by the educational system and the media, he won't have to worry nearly as much about a false rape accusation, or that his kids will be taken away by the government because CPS is corrupt, or that his money will be stolen by the government to be granted to the leeches of the world. When an injustice is committed against him, at least he has the opportunity to fight back with violence and perhaps see justice. At least the things he does have meaning. At least things are simpler, and he can see his enemies when they approach; they aren't hidden in government bureaucracy he is powerless to pierce.
For men, real men, that world is far more appealing than the modern world, where feminine sensibilities that cater to women and manginas rule, where apparent safety and comfort are what matters and life has little meaning, where the population is drugged to make them compliant and anti-depressants and Ritalin are used to keep the populace numb.
Which would you rather have, typhon?
I choose The Way of Men.
Yup, got some good ones for you:
Three Years of Hate: The Very Best of In Mala Fide: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Years-Hate-Very-ebook/dp/B00AWJVZXK
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan: http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-of-Men-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE/
Here a good review of the Donovan: http://uncouthreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/jack-donovans-the-way-of-men/
They did a recent episode where they talked about this book and it was so ridiculous I just had to skip the episode. Threw up a couple red flags as well.
> IIRC There's no hard evidence in regards to the softening of our culture.
>
>
>
> That doesn't mean it's not true, I personally do believe it plays some of a role.
Relevant book here--> Manthropology
Nope. We are pretty much a pale imitation of ancient men.
http://www.amazon.com/Manthropology-Science-Modern-Male-Used/dp/B00B2SEC6C
> Can't stand his self righteous attitude.
As I said, it's a standard attitude among the wannabe alpha demographic. I don't generally read the manosphere on a regular basis, but occasionally one of them will say something vaguely interesting or intelligent. When they do, I just try to filter out the grunting and other bullshit, and get the actual information that they are offering.
As I also said in another topic, this sort of thing is pretty much a pure reaction to feminism. It's guys feeling threatened by women mobilising and becoming politically powerful, and thinking that they need a "me-too," movement in order to counter it. As a result, they have come up with a distorted Flanderisation of real masculinity to the same extent that feminism has done, where femininity is concerned. We've seen near-incoherent, ridiculous travesties like the one written by this idiot, for example.
Yes and no.
If this advertising stuff was an isolated incident, then yeah you might call this article an overreaction.
But anti-male advertising is not an isolated incident.
Nathanson and Young have dedicated 1020 pages in two books (Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry) listing and discussing misandry in our culture. Misandry is so pervasive in North America, most people don't even notice it.
But the anti-male advertising is so bad, people are noticing it. We only hear about it occasionally when someone bothers to ask around what people's sentiments are. Because getting upset when men are maligned... that's not PC.
How do you fight something like misandry? Part of the battle is calling people out when they cross the line. And you keep doing it until some semblance of balance is restored.
If you want to learn more about misandry, you can read the above mentioned books or Warren Farrell's "Women Can't Hear what Men Don't Say" or "The Myth of Male Power" are quite good. Farrell was a feminist and served on the board of the American National Organization for Women.
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover : Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine http://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Warrior-Magician-Lover-Rediscovering/dp/0062506064
Iron John http://www.amazon.co.uk/Iron-John-Book-About-Men/dp/0712610707
What you're talking about sounds a little like you want to establish a network/hierarchy/power-base as a reaction to other hierarchies. Personally I found all of my mentors outside of any recognised structures, and that's how I like to pass on my knowledge/experience to other younger men. It's kind of risky, but then so is institutionalised stupidity.
So far my only experience of joining established groups as a mentor has been really disappointing.
Sorry I don't mean to be negative, but I am wary of the human desire to create new groups all the time...
Nah, guys with my mindset have been around for decades before that cringeworthy subreddit was created.
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.
Side note that didn't get addressed by Dr. Nerdlove- The LW's family was not a feminist family even though her mother was the breadwinner. An abusive relationship cannot be feminist in nature because abuse (from any party in a relationship) goes against the very heart of feminism.
There's some great research being done by academics in gender studies on toxic masculinity and if anyone is interested in some reading material, there are some great folks like R. W. Connell, Michael Kimmel, or Tony Porter that might be helpful.