The Misandry Bubble

Post Reply New Topic

I tried reading it (and will probably still try, just for some laughs and to see this guy's whole spiel), but I'm not impressed. In fact, this document says more about the author than the subject he targets in terms of his own worldview and issues.

Things like:

-Sweeping generalizations without proof, and many in apparent ignorance of actual sociological and historical reality

-Statements that are just wrong or ill-founded

-A POV that seems to have never had experience with what he is actually talking about (marriage, child-rearing, divorce, women in the workplace, etc.)

It just seems like he had a big axe to grind about a lot of things he was insecure about, and decided to wrap them all into one big manifesto.

Each occasional point he makes where you go "Hmm, maybe he has something here" is undermined by at least 2 false points he makes, so he destroys his own credibility. This would certainly be a good document to bring to his therapist though -- tons of stuff for him to work on here.

You're welcome.
It's on my semi-regular reading list at present.

The PUA "venusian arts" bit was a little much for me to stomach as well... but I think many of you have missed the forest of his article for the trees.

Misandry is very real and is an epidemic in Western society.

It is the big pink elephant in the room that most men are at least subliminally aware of, even if they can't put their finger on it.... yet most have been emasculated to the point they don't dare say a word about it.

Here is a simple exercise that you can try at home kids... Those of you using firefox, riddle me this: why does its spellcheck fail to recognize the word misandry and as a result underline it with a red squiggly line as mispelled, but it has no problem recognizing misogyny?

A rather silly, trite example you say? Sure. OK, here are some serious riddles for you.

Why does prostate cancer kill just as many men as breast cancer kills women, yet it receives literally half of the government funding?

Why is it that men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 93% of job related deaths?

Why do males between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide than their female counterparts? For that matter, overall, why do men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women?

Why are young men are charged considerably more for auto insurance than young women, simply because they were born male?

Why is it that a woman who commits the same crime as a man will receive, on average, only a fraction of the sentence? For that matter, overall, why do women receive sentences for serious crimes 48 months shorter than the sentences men receive?

Perhaps most damning of all: why is it that this is the first time many of you will have ever heard any of these statistics?

I'm barely scratching the surface here.... The rabbit hole goes down further than most of you want to believe, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular... it is the culture as a whole. It has just become socially acceptable to treat men as expendable while putting women on a pedastal. That is just as wrong as the old days when women did not have any rights.

I only hope that the Futurist is correct and that this misandry bubble will burst sooner rather than later.

Government funding is a popularity contest. Thirty years ago, breast cancer was a highly stigmatized subject that just wasn't talked about in society, and women were not regularly screened for it. I recall when Anne Jillian came out on public TV and announced she had breast cancer, it was a big thing. Her announcement encouraged other women to come forward and share their stories and it was women who had been affected by this who started raising public awareness.

Not only have men yet to do a similar thing for prostate cancer, but many men refuse to get annual prostate checks. That's not the fault of women.



Most of these deaths occur in fields that few women take jobs in, or are able to take jobs in. For example, mining, construction, dock work, snow crab fishing, and so on. These jobs are generally higher in pay than their less dangerous alternatives. For example, the practical job options for an unskilled woman might include being a clerk at Walmart, a house cleaner, or a factory worker, and she might make no more than $10 an hour doing this. But by the grace of his physical strength, in addition to these jobs, a man might also have the option of being a dock worker, or an oil field worker, and these jobs can pay between $80,000 and $100,000 a year. Few women are actually strong enough to perform those tasks with a relative degree of safety. So men die more because they can and do take more dangerous, yet higher paying jobs.



Because they are less likely to seek counseling for their problems and more likely to choose methods which are least likely to fail, with respect to suicide. When women have problems they generally want to tell everyone in the world. If anything though, I think society has become a lot more open to men expressing emotions such as sadness, and depression than it was in the past.



Because statistical data the auto insurance companies collect indicate that young men are far more likely to be involved in a significant or fatal accident than young women of the same age. In other words, it's as legally justified as charging significantly overweight people higher health insurance premiums.



I don't know but if that's the case, I don't agree with it. I think African Americans are also more likely to receive longer sentences than white Americans, something I also think is a large injustice as well.



You haven't really illustrated anything that is indicative of misandry. Just a bunch of out of context claims which really have nothing to do with women.

"Despite my acute ability to detect and deconstruct leftists,"
> I challenge anyone to read that aloud with a straight face.

I was unprepared for the level of unhinged lunacy that 'feminism' had sunk to, which revealed itself in late 2008 when Sarah Palin emerged onto the national scene. Here was a woman who actually achieved all the aspirations that feminists claim to value : a highly successful career as a Governor and VP candidate, a large number of children, a loving marriage to a supportive yet ruggedly masculine husband, and an attractive appearance despite being in her 40s.
>Yes, because that, after all, is what feminism is all about- making babies, being in a religiously-recognized heterosexual marriage (to a "ruggedly masculine" man, and of your own race, no less! ) and of course, fighting off hideousness well-into your over-the-hill 40's. Oh, and being WHORED out by a major political party that realizes the need for a relatively-young, female figure to distract from it's decidedly-OLD and almost exclusively-male leadership.

Yet, the feminist reaction to her was quite the opposite, as she attracted far more hate from lefto-feminists than the woman-stoning Taliban, or child-raping Roman Polanski ever could. What is a parody so outlandish that even The Onion may not write it is actually true."
>Shocking, but FEMINISTS



























vote for FEMINIST CANDIDATES. That's DIFFERENT from CANDIDATES WITH VAGINAS.

Wanting to ban all abortions even in cases of RAPE AND INCEST while SIMULTANEOUSLY cutting state funding for day care centers for young mothers? Noooot exactly feminist. Or, "ya know", RATIONAL. (Compare with the Violence Against Women Act, exhaustively championed by her VP opponent Biden.)


I guess in the world of someone so paranoid they blog from a bunker ("metastasizing socialism". lulz.) the idea that MEN can be feminists (more so than a woman) is undoubtedly liberal conspiracy.

EDIT: "There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US."

This HAS to be a troll. Like Dick Masterson, who I think is genius.

I made it to the point where the word "fatocalypse" is used. This is a classic case of propaganda disguised as a research essay or scientific treatise. An ideological principle is chosen, and then a set of scientific sounding "facts" and "research" are collected to justify whatever conclusion was chosen at the outset. Obviously, this is a right wing piece about defending traditional marriage and trying to claim that somehow our deviation from this primarily religious principle is causing the downfall of our society.

I could dispute any number of his so-called facts. Polygamy was permitted and even encouraged in many very productive early civilizations. It is practiced in the Bible, in all the early civilizations of Mesopotamia, India, etc. It was really not until the rise of more egalitarian Greek principles that the dynamic began to change in the West. The "incentive to be productive" in the ancient world was survival. There were no labor laws or welfare and the inability to find productive employment could result in slow starvation or a miserable life of barely surviving on the scraps left over (many still live in this condition). I could easily name six alpha male figures. How about Jack McCoy, Special Agent Gibbs, John Cena, Steve Austin, Tony Stark, King Leonidas, Jack Sparrow. There are plenty of other good examples. How about any movie character played by Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, or Keanu Reeves. How about sports stars like LeBron James, Tom Brady, and Tiger Woods (before the fall). All the author is really saying is that Hollywood isn't particularly original in the last decade and hasn't come up with many new characters. I agree. It's much easier to simply pick up on male archetypes that have existed for several decades, centuries, or milennia. If the author wants to find "new" characters, he should probably look at newer mediums like video games, where new characters are popping up.

The sitcom portrayal of men is quite bad, but then so is that of women, who are tagged as domineering, nagging, controlling characters that make all sorts of demands on the man's time and energy. This happens because sitcoms rely on the exaggeration of existing dynamics to get a laugh. The man's stupid, bumbling, farting, drinking, sports watching, lazy tendencies are exaggerated, as are the woman's nagging, controlling, weight obsessing, irrational, emotional, smothering tendencies.

True, which is why I didn't like "Everybody Love Raymond". I didn't like how it was always about him being stupid or inadequate in some way. It got old fast.

Concerning the portrayal of the women.....I think a lot of men on this forum want women like that. I think they want a woman who's proactive enough to approach them, tell them what to do in a relationship, and "take care of things"...or at least they subconsciously think they want this kind of woman because she takes a lot of the work out of the relationship for him, when in reality, she would probably be too much for him.

I never really saw the woman as domineering though, just compensating for the things the men they were married to in these sit coms didn't get done/think of.

I tried to read it but the picture of Harrison Ford was too much of a distraction. Phwoaaarrr!

I've come across this Men of Popular Today vs. Men of Popular Culture Yesterday trope in many different contexts (sometimes hilariously in a where-have-all the-good-men-gone post feminist magazine article). It always comes from cherry picking and it's easy to refute, like you just did. When they want to make a point that today's pop culture man is childish while yesterday's was responsible, they bring out Adam Sandler (today) compared with Cary Grant (yesterday). But the reverse is just as true with Matt Damon (today) and The Three Stooges (yesterday).

One of his admirers took hilarious exception to his list too. This admirer agreed with the overall point but thought that Bill Cosby in the Yesteryear Manly Men list was ill-advised and went against his argument. Why? Because Bill Cosby in The Cosby Show sometimes deferred to his wife on some child rearing decisions. He did not "rule with a firm hand". So his inclusion in the cherry picked list wnt against the author's argument.

This sort of thing makes me feel like going back in time to have a conversation with the Marquis de Sade about hating everyone equally.

Obviously he never saw the episode where Bill back-handed Camille across the room and took his belt to Theo....

This guy is such a misogynist and bigot it is not even remotely funny. Why such a misogynistic person would write under a singularity and futurist title is also disgusting, since NEITHER of those movements espouse such values. He gives himself a very bad name and decreases his own credibility by being such a misogynist. The guy is a bigot pure and simple. This is purely a misogynistic screed.

Seriously I am have an obsession with the singularity right now, but this guy has absolutely no credibility on it. I will stick to Kurzweil AI, Kurzweil is far from a misogynistic nutjob.

Off-topic, I also find the Singularity (and Kurzweil) interesting. The other thing I find fascinating -- the Fermi Paradox. Now combine them. What happens when the result of our singularity meets the result of their singularity?

On-topic, the essay is mostly crap, but there are occasional points he makes that are salient -- It is true that there is some unfairness in divorce laws, paternity/child support laws, etc. There is inequality out there, and things have gone too far in some cases.

For instance -- should a father ever owe child support on a child that isn't his? Why would that ever be justified? Yet there are known cases where a child that a father was told was his, signed the birth certificate, and then was proven by DNA testing not to be his, was still legally his responsibility, and he was penalized for not making payments. How does this make any sense? Yes, someone needs to pay for that child, but not the guy whose kid it isn't!! !

And yeah -- no-fault divorce seems stupid. There should be barriers to getting married easily (after all, it's the most important contract you will ever sign in your life), but since there aren't, is it in the public's interest to make it easy to get divorce for any reason at all? This hurts men, women, children alike -- it can be a very impulsive decision that in the long run, does more harm than good.

Finally -- alimony laws are also pretty dumb. Let's look at an extreme example to see how out-of-whack this can be. For instance, Howard Stern, who earned all of these millions off of his own effort, ends up having to split that massive estate evenly with his ex-wife. What did she do to earn this? Did she clean the huge house they lived in? No, of course not, they had a housekeeper. Oh, well then, surely she cooked. No, they had a cook. Well then, she must have been taking care of the kids the whole time. No, they had child care, day care, after-school programs, and other things to get the kids out of the house. Does she deserve something? Yes. Does she deserve half? Of course not. So there's another flawed set of laws that were well-intended, but in fact are being enforced in a way that is sexist. Equal rights under the law applies EQUALLY -- sexism/racism (e.g. affirmative action), even if it is state-sponsored, is still WRONG and in violation of that precept.

But of course, for every good point he regurgitates (and nothing he says is new or even surprising, since these are all old and well-hashed arguments) gets lost in his paranoia. No, easy divorce and alimony is not a conspiracy for women to be able to cuckold their husbands or sleep around. We all know that men do cheat at least twice as much as women. So there are good reasons for why some of these laws came about (even though the consequences have been skewed), but there isn't some grand feminist plot to strip men of their rights or allow women to screw more guys. Heck, if he knew his radical feminists better, he'd know that a significant amount of them were outright against sex with men ("Sex is rape!"), so they weren't trying to make that happen more frequently. He would have had a better (but still wacky) argument if he had said that they were trying to push women into lesbianism.

Also -- a lot of those feminists he decries so much are either dead now, or have repudiated much of their most extreme views. Everyone is young once, and young people are radical. They don't stay radical as they get older.

Speaking of chauvinism or what have you, here's a relevant video for some entertainment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OxmLOEaJsk[/youtube]

I don't care if you love him or hate him. That man is a legend for making anyone take him seriously.

Oh, you stupid girl. You effectively proved the point of his whole article. He explains in great detail how dumb people just say 'misogynist' when they have no proper arguments, and you are projecting your own man-hate outwards. You behaved exactly as that article predicted you would.

You are just like those bigots who say any legitimate criticism of Obama is 'racism'. You are a disgrace to the female gender.

As a woman, I found that article very fair and informative. It was linked favorably by Dr. Helen, who I have admired for years.

I also like how he points out the feminist hate towards Sarah Palin, which pretty much made me realize that feminists are harmful to women.

I too have an interest in The Singularity, and let me tell you, Ray Kurzweil not only references The Futurist many times, but Ray himself is a Republican. The Singularity is a right-wing concept, not a left-wing one, given that it ties to the free market, libertarian small-government ideas, etc.

Chronos,

It seems that every legitimate injustice against men is something you dismiss as 'choices men made'.

But if women sabotage themselves from the choices the WOMAN herself made, you would gladly blame men.

If women earn just 77% of men, it is because women CHOSE easier, less-stressful jobs.
If women get pregnant out of wedlock. she CHOSE to do so.
If a woman has sex on videotape, she chose to make something that would make it hard for her to get a good job in the future.

And yes, women get much lower sentences for the same crime, as men. In Britain, they are not even ashamed to admit it. Google 'Feminist Gulag' to learn more. After that, I aspect you to fight this unequal treatment, which harms women like me by making women less credible.

You really need to read up on how feminism is harming women (which is my main interest in the topic). Google the following :
Dr. Helen
The Spearhead
A Voice for Men

You might learn a lot by reading those.