The Misandry Bubble

[Rowan]

I read a very interesting article here

I decided that its worth discussing and is pertains to topics that are not only relevant to us, but even personal with some members here. It speaks about marriage, divorce, social/economic status and how they define men in view of women, the idea that perhaps venusian arts is necassary to hold a relationship together, the basic behavioural instics of men and women, the way this will impact society in the years to come and the history of the sexes as described using factual information and references to articles. I would love everyone to read the article and its references from start to finish because I think its absolutley brilliant, but it will take you some time. It is not something that you could glance over in 5 minutes or so. I have decided to copy and paste the parts that are most relevant (summarizing as much as possible) in here, along with my thoughts on the corresponding paragraphs. Allow me to start with the summarization of the article as depicted on the article itself.

Summary: The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

Now before you start thinking this is just some chauvinistic rant, I think you had better continue reading.

The Myth of Female Oppression : All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is. Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes? Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment. As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights than men were given in even 0.1% of historical instances, falls flat. This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.

All of that is pretty self explanatory. I agree with it, I dont know any women who are opressed so as far as my knowledge extends, I therefor have no reason to believe women are not treated fairly. Now moving on, the next topic will explain how Men were portrayed in the past as opposed to how they are portrayed now, mostly in film and television.


Take a look at this collage.

http://futurist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d...a507970c-320wi

All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging. Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas. This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

A lot of us see this kind of thing everyday but dont really pay it much mind. The majority of people in this world get raised by their televisions, especially in modern times. They learn from watching dramas, they get entertainment and joy from sitcoms, we learn much from people we see and that include people on the screen. Im sure we've all learnt something from final fantasy at one time or another, wether its to do with comradery or morals. Things that appeal to our emotions have a massive impact on our lives and the kind of people we grow into. When we see men being viewed as evil cheating murderous cliche's, its just not as bad as women being portrayed as 1950's housewives. Although Im sure that realistically you cannot compare attaching a housewive to a female as attaching immorality, dimwittedness to a man, that's an incredibly unfair comparison. But this is how men are portrayed in television in modern times.

Moving onto to primal nature of women according to the futurist ( I dont tend to agree with all of this, I will elaborate.)

Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of. As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society. To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'. All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The whole idea of "Alpha" and "Beta" men to me is more-so found within communities and appeals only to those who value social status. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who couldn't give a crap about popularity, even those who would be turned off by the thought of the popular person. The popular person in question is the Alpha male. We have all seen this behavior in schools. There is the one guy who always has his buddies(betas) hanging off of him at recess and lunch times and certain girls always seem to want to be around him. This kind of behavior warrants us to believe that these people are conforming to the 'primal' behaviors of nature. The women will adhere to the attractiveness of the Alpha due to him having respect from his beta's and other women. Not all women think this way, some women are repulsed because deep down they realise what is happening and want to seperate themselves from the 'pack' if you will. Some womens interests have nothing to do with the social status of a male. Having said that, this is why I firmly believe that marriages and relationships based on social status will ultimately end, because eventually when the real world hits you on the head and you fail in your responsiblities, that initial attraction to your power will become nothing more than an empty feeling and she will leave you for someone of more power (wealth), this is how women who value social status behave. The article doesnt elaborate on if its all women or some women, but I think that it is incredibly important for the integrity of the article to mention that this would only be a portion of women and a behavior, not a 'nature' per se.

Please take note of the rest of the article which mentions marriage and the pressures put on males in order to commit.

The next piece will descrive 'the four sirens' Which will explain to you the power women have over men.

four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Here they are.
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.

2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.

3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce (in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.

Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.

4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.

This doesnt really need any elaboration.
If you find this misleading, please make not of it in your responses. Summing up here, these 4 things combined give women an advantageous position over man. Just re-enforcing that women are not opressed, but are in fact are OP. Like void in dota. That third siren is comparable to a 9 second chronosphere, know what im saying?

moving on.

Marriage 2.0 is a very long read, so I emplore you to visit the article as I am only going to be taking small parts from now on.

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society. For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :

a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis.


Now I've said this once (or twice) before, but read the link I posted in the begining and read the article in full if you havn't already done so. I will not post anymore because I generally want people to read it more so than post here with my own summarized version of whats being said. But I think that based on whats being mentioned in the article, that it would rile up some good discussion as it pertains to topics that can be somewhat sensative and relevant to the most of us here. I know we have feminists here and people who've been married or are married and those who are interested in human behavior as well as traditionalists.

So... what are your thoughts?


EDIT: In my view, relationships shouldn't be a power struggle. If you dont have mutual respect for one another then it will ultimatly become a power struggle and the relationship is doomed to failure. Although I agree thats important to adapt some sort of image/role for yourself that identifies you as powerful, especially in the eyes of your partner. This could be a muscular/fit physique, extensive knowledge (lets not be a smarty pants), a person who often helps others/ a good role model. These kinds of images will always assure you the respect of not just your partner, but other people also. This is to do with venusian arts, conveying a strong identity.

[Order]

I'm going to say that I honestly read most of that.
I got the general idea and I will admit that masculinity is definately surpressed in the workplace and even in the school system. There is certainly pressure to become a spineless wimp.
The thing that stops a man from giving up his morals has never changed, whether it is popular culture, the workplace, a foreign captor or a crowd of protestors asking him to do so.
Some men lack the determination and will to uphold their own morals. Most, I guess.

Now, all this dual standard, unfairness, "stop pointing your finger at men" stuff.
I've realized that as a white male, I will always be scrutinized for any hint or misconception which can be twisted into some form of racism, sexism or oppression.
And trust me, I've been accused of all of it.
It's because history is full of stories about white males oppressing, abusing and generally being evil.
It is taught in school in such a way as to suggest that the only people who ever did any wrong were white males.

So, is there any legitimacy to it?
If overgeneralization were not a logical fallicy, then yes. Most people are douchebags, therefore, it is likely that most males are douchebags.
But it is still an overgeneralization.

Comes with the territory.
I accept the benefits as well as the drawbacks of my physical apprearance, gender and lineage. No accusations of wrong-doing have ever convinced me to change my moral standards. My choice of words, how I phrase things must change when speaking to different people, but not my integrity.

Besides, playing the victim of society card is never going to get you anywhere.
The best you can do is never become one of those spineless yes-men who is absolutely terrified of women, their supervisor and the outdoors.


Oh and about marrige 2.0...
What the f**king f**k?
Not only is that completely rediculous and easily abused (I noticed several legal loopholes to screw someone with immidiately, like the 5+ partners thing, how do you prove that?)....
It is completely unnessicary.

You ever heard of a prenuptual agreement?
It's a contract for terms and conditions of devorce.
You can put whatever you agree on in it.

Your post had some decent points, even if it was a little out of line with the "victim of society" tone.
But the end there...
Seriously, what the s**t?

You're a goddamned man, nobody controls you without first overpowering you. If you are so afraid of women taking advantage of you, women are not the problem.


Man up.