The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Grahnol]

Why does the Manosphere rally behind people with questionable morals and attitudes anyhow, especially when they're criticizing second and third wave feminists for doing the exact same thing? Most of these people don't deserve to be lionized and, in a healthy society, they wouldn't be.

It makes it so much harder to fight for men's rights when the movement gets hijacked by full on mysognists who think every woman owes them sex. No Roosh, they don't need to sleep with you. They have every right to say no, and a right to say fuck off when you don't take no for an answer.

It's especially hard to fight against both when the foolery and bullshit of both 'Manosphere' movements and 'misled feminists' makes one lose faith in one current of movements or the other. Just see this whole climate change thing. Fully real and legitimate science about the negative effects humans are having on the climate but commonly manipulated and used to stimulate by politicians and sensationalist media. Listen to what the experts have to say, unfortunately way too many people have been failed by the unexpert-backed alarmist predictions made by politicians to the point where they have gone numb to the whole global warming thing and started denying it entirely.

People are driven numb and closed by misled feminist movements, leading them to only believe what the Manospherers have to say and vice versa, trapping them in an echo chamber where they are closed to all ideas but those promoted by the echo chamber they are in and compatible ideologies. It's a toxic cycle of polarisation that keeps destabilising shit and makes it harder to form a crowd against repelling both and promoting a new stream of ideas, a process I call 'reactionism', which is not to be confused with reactionary ideologies. Personally, I've got so numb and beaten up by both movements that I've went back to the roots of my own ideologies to make my own crazy shit about things, like how governments enforce 'conformism' or some shit. Unfortunately it's hard to find people who might be attracted to my strain of thinking because they're probably also tired as fuck from one movement or the other they flock to the other side or just straight up don't care anymore.

[Huguenotia]

Dropping in to slightly deviate the topic, do you think that Amber Heard Abused Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard, or was it mutual abuse? I think Heard Abused Depp, as ive seen most evidence available to the general public pointing against Amber, but I wanna hear why people support their position on this.

[Purple Rats]

Dropping in to slightly deviate the topic, do you think that Amber Heard Abused Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard, or was it mutual abuse? I think Heard Abused Depp, as ive seen most evidence available to the general public pointing against Amber, but I wanna hear why people support their position on this.

I think it was mutual.

[Sundiata]

Dropping in to slightly deviate the topic, do you think that Amber Heard Abused Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard, or was it mutual abuse? I think Heard Abused Depp, as ive seen most evidence available to the general public pointing against Amber, but I wanna hear why people support their position on this.

Honestly, that's for the law to decide.

[Galloism]

Dropping in to slightly deviate the topic, do you think that Amber Heard Abused Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard, or was it mutual abuse? I think Heard Abused Depp, as ive seen most evidence available to the general public pointing against Amber, but I wanna hear why people support their position on this.

Statistically, most DV is mutual. I wouldn’t be surprised if it went both ways - statistically that is the “normal” thing.

But the recordings, depositions, and historical evidence significantly backs the notion that either Amber Heard is either the only abuser or at least the primary aggressor. The evidence is quite strong that her original claim of being a poor innocent abused woman abused by Johnny Depp is 100% horseshit.

And a fair amount of that evidence literally comes out of her own mouth.

[Nakena]

It's soon time for #HeToo

[Ostroeuropa]

It is a great disappointment to many if the legend of Roosh V has really come to an end and he's more of a normie now. He appears to no longer be someone the Manosphere can rally behind or follow. But if he no longer wants to be apart of that world, I suppose that is their decision to make.

Why does the Manosphere rally behind people with questionable morals and attitudes anyhow, especially when they're criticizing second and third wave feminists for doing the exact same thing? Most of these people don't deserve to be lionized and, in a healthy society, they wouldn't be.

The manosphere has never and will never rally behind anyone. You will not get the disparate movements to agree on anything or anyone, the closest you get is overlap between MRAs and MGTOWs sometimes.

It's a borderline meaningless term except in as much as they all stem from a rejection of feminist views on society. You may as well say "Everyone who isn't a communist should rally behind a leader who represents them all", it's like, that's a hell of a broad church.

Why does the Manosphere rally behind people with questionable morals and attitudes anyhow, especially when they're criticizing second and third wave feminists for doing the exact same thing? Most of these people don't deserve to be lionized and, in a healthy society, they wouldn't be.

It makes it so much harder to fight for men's rights when the movement gets hijacked by full on mysognists who think every woman owes them sex. No Roosh, they don't need to sleep with you. They have every right to say no, and a right to say fuck off when you don't take no for an answer.

That hasn't happened. It's like me telling you it's difficult to be openly gay when so many gay men are pedophiles. It's a lie told by people who hate gay people to demonize them.
MRAs are distinct from Red Pillers and they will tell you this at length. The only people who say the MRM is hijacked by men who think women owe them sex are either willfully lying feminists, or those who have uncritically accepted those lies.

Just because they slap "Gay" on a picture of a pedophile doesn't make it true, and just because feminists call someone an MRA doesn't make that true either.

Roosh hates and is opposed to the men’s rights movement, and they hate him as well, FYI.

Wow, he's even more of a cunt than I thought.

The world will be a better place when Return of Kings ends up in the same place 8chan ended up. The internet graveyard.

He hates MRAs because he considers us somewhere between controlled opposition and moronic simps depending on how conspiratorial he's feeling. The red pill is based on a rejection of equality being possible and views it as a trojan horse for female supremacy, so he thinks we're misleading and indoctrinating impressionable young men into self-destructive behaviors by convincing them they should care about equality rather than recognize it's impossible.

We hate him because he openly shills for traditional masculinity which we view as a destructive prison for men.


Brief rundown:

MRAs -> Equality, rejection of feminism.
PUA -> I want to fuck women. Here's tips on how ranging from good to skeevy to outright rapey depending on which PUA school I follow.
Red Pill-> Here is how you fuck women. Also, here is a bunch of ideology i'm smuggling in to that discussion about how traditional masculinity is best, equality is a lie, women are duplicitous and all misogyny is true, etc.
Incel -> Red Pill But unsuccessful and hardcore.
MGTOW(Type 1) -> Men should not be pressured into dating women.
MGTOW(Type 2) -> Also, society is rigged against men in the dating scene.
MGTOW(Type 3) -> I refuse to date women as a consequence.
MGTOW(Type 4) -> Society is thoroughly stacked against men at every level.
MGTOW (Type 5) -> Let's add some red pill misogyny.
MGTOW (Type 6) -> I will not associate with women at all in any capacity unless it is necessary.

The best way to determine what side of the manosphere someone lands on is to ask;

"Do you agree with the statement, 'feminism is merely the organized and collective expression of individual female nature'."

MRAs will reject that. Some MGTOWs will.
The rest will say that's true, which makes them distinct from traditionalists who view feminism as unnatural. The difference being they hate feminism and think it's female nature to impose it, and thus hate women.

"Female solipsism" is seen as a psychological trait inherent to women and that is instrumental in the feminist worldview and ideology, but also pervasive in womens day to day behavior.

Quotes to illustrate the red pill and radical MGTOW view:

Solipsism is simply the inability of the female mind to understand the world from the point of view of men. It's as simple as that. Women go through lives with damn near, almost, everyone being nice to them, simply because they are women. I could go on for hours.
For all of women's perceived life ailments, they actually have life pretty damn good in western society. And since women experience this ease their entire lives, they simply cannot fathom that men receive exactly none of these benefits in life. People aren't nice to us "just because" we are men. We have to do something to earn our way into the good graces of strangers.
Solipsism is simply women's inability to understand this. It's why anytime a man hears a woman say to a man, who's on a 5 month sex dry spell, "I don't understand what the big deal is, it's just sex", we want to strangle her with a telephone cord.
See, it's "just sex" for women because sex is very easy for women to get . Anything that is plentiful and common to someone, of course, is "no big deal". But women don't realize that, for 80% of men, sex isn't "no big deal". And when we hear women trivializing the frustrations of men, when they aren't men themselves, well...that's solipsism. And conversely, it's true that men have an easier time understanding the world from the perspective of women.
TRP has come up with a damn-near comprehensive taxonomy and praxeology of what life is like for a woman. And ways to help men understand it.
Men understand what life is like for women, far, far more than women understand what life is like for men. By orders of magnitude.
Women by and large don't care about men as men. They care about their men. They care about men they know, men they've met, men they've had sex with. Otherwise, they don't care.
Men on the other hand have it drilled into them from birth that they MUST care about women in general. They must work to understand, know, discern and care about women as women, as a gender, as a sex, as a class. It's ingrained in us, it's innate in us.

This is used to argue that women don't really need the vote and its destructive to give them one, as women vote purely in a self-interested fashion while men vote with both men and womens interests and perspectives in mind.

Here is a random article i haven't read but googled
https://therationalmale.com/2015/09/02/solipsism-i/

[Saiwania]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

[Albrenia]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

[Nakena]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

Nuclear families really arose in the late 19th and most specifically the early to mid 20th century as normative western standard model.

[New haven america]

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

Nuclear families really arose in the late 19th and most specifically the early to mid 20th century as normative western standard model.

Also, what we consider the normal/standard masculine gender role/behavior in the West only started up around the Roman era, and only applies to the Western world as gender roles evolved differently across the globe.

[New haven america]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

Actually, our natural state is living in almost fully egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes and communes.

Also, the standard masculine gender role in the West sucks.

[Nakena]

Also, the standard masculine gender role in the West sucks.

Why?

[Saiwania]

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

Most cultures in the world, have clearly defined roles for the two sexes in terms of social organization. Which people should conform to for the most part, if it works and has been in practice through many generations. If these weren't practical systems, it'd be phased out for something else. But the larger point is that we need one to be in charge of the larger world, and the other in charge of the smaller world. The modern day has more problems because we try to do both but are a master of neither.

[New haven america]

Also, the standard masculine gender role in the West sucks.

Why?

You're a physically violent and sexually controlling provider/protector with no parental or nurturing instinct whose life is totally expendable to whatever government currently controls you and your only worth is what you can provide financially. You have to do everything in life on your own because you're not worth shit alone (This can range from initiating relationships, to running businesses, to employment, to etc...), and if you can't then you're not a real man.

No room for emotional intelligence, no room for those who don't want to or can't be controlling or aggressive, no room for constructive growth or mediating problems, no room for those who are more nurturing, etc... Which makes sense because it was made by The Romans, a hierarchal-based warrior culture who fetishized the male form and masculine behavior. (Except being gay was gross and punishable by death in most areas of the Republic and Empire)

[Nakena]

Why?

You're a physically violent and sexually controlling provider/protector with no parental or nurturing instinct whose life is totally expendable to whatever government currently controls you and your only worth is what you can provide financially. You have to do everything in life on their own because you're not worth shit alone (This can range from initiating relationships, to running businesses, to employment, to etc...), and if you can't then you're not a real man.

No room for emotional intelligence, no room for those who don't want to or can't be controlling or aggressive, no room for constructive growth or mediating problems, no room for those who are more nurturing, etc... Which makes sense because it was made by The Romans, a hierarchal and warrior culture who fetishized the male form and masculine behavior. (Except being gay was gross and punishable by death in most areas of the Republic and Empire)

So its also the problem that it does demands too much and too harshly?

Do you feel those elements you mentioned are still making up the baseline of western masculinity?

And most importantly, do you feel that it is indirectly or implicitly to be demanded from you?

Also it was only gay for the passive part.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why?

You're a physically violent and sexually controlling provider/protector with no parental or nurturing instinct whose life is totally expendable to whatever government currently controls you and your only worth is what you can provide financially. You have to do everything in life on your own because you're not worth shit alone (This can range from initiating relationships, to running businesses, to employment, to etc...), and if you can't then you're not a real man.

No room for emotional intelligence, no room for those who don't want to or can't be controlling or aggressive, no room for constructive growth or mediating problems, no room for those who are more nurturing, etc... Which makes sense because it was made by The Romans, a hierarchal-based warrior culture who fetishized the male form and masculine behavior. (Except being gay was gross and punishable by death in most areas of the Republic and Empire)

A lot of those norms aren't anywhere near that old and are more rooted in much more modern notions of what masculinity entails. About the only consistent trait of masculinity is violence, provision, protection. And even the last two are occasionally abandoned in some societies. Men were heavily involved in fatherhood and nurturing children for most of history in most societies.

[New haven america]

You're a physically violent and sexually controlling provider/protector with no parental or nurturing instinct whose life is totally expendable to whatever government currently controls you and your only worth is what you can provide financially. You have to do everything in life on their own because you're not worth shit alone (This can range from initiating relationships, to running businesses, to employment, to etc...), and if you can't then you're not a real man.

No room for emotional intelligence, no room for those who don't want to or can't be controlling or aggressive, no room for constructive growth or mediating problems, no room for those who are more nurturing, etc... Which makes sense because it was made by The Romans, a hierarchal and warrior culture who fetishized the male form and masculine behavior. (Except being gay was gross and punishable by death in most areas of the Republic and Empire)

1. So its also the problem that it does demands too much and too harshly?

2. Do you feel those elements you mentioned are still making up the baseline of western masculinity?

3. And most importantly, do you feel that it is indirectly or implicitly to be demanded from you?

Also it was only gay for the passive part.

1. Partially, it demands too much too harshly in a seemingly abstract yet concrete mainframe that changes depending on the needs and values of the society, yet the actual role itself hardly changes.
2. Donald Trump and Mike Pence were able to become Pres. and VP of the world's sole superpower, and they embody most of the negative aspects of said gender role. So yes.
3. Implicitly.

[New haven america]

You're a physically violent and sexually controlling provider/protector with no parental or nurturing instinct whose life is totally expendable to whatever government currently controls you and your only worth is what you can provide financially. You have to do everything in life on your own because you're not worth shit alone (This can range from initiating relationships, to running businesses, to employment, to etc...), and if you can't then you're not a real man.

No room for emotional intelligence, no room for those who don't want to or can't be controlling or aggressive, no room for constructive growth or mediating problems, no room for those who are more nurturing, etc... Which makes sense because it was made by The Romans, a hierarchal-based warrior culture who fetishized the male form and masculine behavior. (Except being gay was gross and punishable by death in most areas of the Republic and Empire)

A lot of those norms aren't anywhere near that old and are more rooted in much more modern notions of what masculinity entails. About the only consistent trait of masculinity is violence, provision, protection. And even the last two are occasionally abandoned in some societies.

Oh no, a lot of them are definitely.

You can find a lot of those behaviors being exemplified and glorified in Roman myths, epics, and poems.

[Othelos]

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

Most cultures in the world, have clearly defined roles for the two sexes in terms of social organization. Which people should conform to for the most part, if it works and has been in practice through many generations. If these weren't practical systems, it'd be phased out for something else. But the larger point is that we need one to be in charge of the larger world, and the other in charge of the smaller world. The modern day has more problems because we try to do both but are a master of neither.

Are you trying to argue that equal relationships/marriages are the cause of problems in modern society?

[Ostroeuropa]

A lot of those norms aren't anywhere near that old and are more rooted in much more modern notions of what masculinity entails. About the only consistent trait of masculinity is violence, provision, protection. And even the last two are occasionally abandoned in some societies.

Oh no, a lot of them are definitely.

You can find a lot of those behaviors being exemplified and glorified in Roman myths, epics, and poems.

I suppose it could be a revival of those norms as classical romanticism, but i'd contest it's continuous.

[Rojava Free State]

Dropping in to slightly deviate the topic, do you think that Amber Heard Abused Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard, or was it mutual abuse? I think Heard Abused Depp, as ive seen most evidence available to the general public pointing against Amber, but I wanna hear why people support their position on this.

Heard abused Depp, and worse yet, she was able to do it because she threatened to accuse Depp of abusing her, and people would believe it because of the stereotype.

[Rojava Free State]

Uhm... you do know that our social gender norms aren't exactly 'our nature', right? Our natural state wouldn't even include things like the home or singular nuclear families, it would be a tribe, clan or similar group much like other Great Apes. To my knowledge, anyway.

Most cultures in the world, have clearly defined roles for the two sexes in terms of social organization. Which people should conform to for the most part, if it works and has been in practice through many generations. If these weren't practical systems, it'd be phased out for something else. But the larger point is that we need one to be in charge of the larger world, and the other in charge of the smaller world. The modern day has more problems because we try to do both but are a master of neither.

Raping kids has also been a thing for a long time. Are you saying child marriage should continue to exist?

[Saiwania]

Raping kids has also been a thing for a long time. Are you saying child marriage should continue to exist?

That has never been an official policy anywhere, and the cultures that did marry off children viewed such people as practically adults in accordance to their circumstances at the given time and place. By medieval standards, 12 to 13 years of age was the age of adulthood for the most part, given that people typically died much earlier and the economy didn't demand as much education as today's societies do.

It should be noted that in today's context, there is no one left to look after the children, and daycares charge exorbitant amounts of money for their services whether people drop their kid(s) off or not. Whoever stays home to do childrearing is effectively written off as less employable or irrelevant if any major employment gap is accrued, given how businesses generally only care about the pursuit of more profits or maintaining their bottom line.

Half of the US as one example, still believes that kids are better off if one parent stays at home to attend to their needs, preferrably the mother. 40% of Americans say it should be mom, while only 5% say it should be dad that stays home to raise the children. That is why paid maternity leave can't be gotten. Tons of people aren't fully sold on the idea that women should even be in the workplace if they're mothers or are married and might become pregnant.

[Purple Rats]

Raping kids has also been a thing for a long time. Are you saying child marriage should continue to exist?

That has never been an official policy anywhere, and the cultures that did marry off children viewed such people as practically adults in accordance to their circumstances at the given time and place. By medieval standards, 12 to 13 years of age was the age of adulthood for the most part, given that people typically died much earlier and the economy didn't demand as much education as today's societies do.

Child brides still exist, it's not medieval problem.