Feminism Is Fighting a War Against Reality

From the ridiculous, idiotic PC-Left site FSTDT. In this case, the feminist branch of the PC nutcases jumps in.
They posted this comment from Dalrock’s site below. Dalrock is a fundamentalist Protestant Christian Manosphere site. I really do not mind it so much, and it isn’t particularly misogynistic as far as Manosphere sites go.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.
Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.) Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.
Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.
Once you see them realistically for what they are, with their own pros and cons, you can A) decide with open eyes whether you want to risk shackling yourself to one, and B) enjoy their company more in general. I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

The FSTDT feminist lunatics then pile all over this poor guy with the usual feminist bullshit. First of all, they call him a misogynist. While there are some comments in this post that I would not agree with, I do not feel that this post is particularly misogynistic, particularly in terms of the Manosphere. In fact, I think for the Manosphere, this is a pretty pro-woman post. Let’s go over it.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.
Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.)

The FSTDT folks are ripping him to shreds for this one, and he sort of deserves it. They are saying that this shows how religious men hate women, but his views are not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. The view he is espousing here is typical of the Manosphere and unfortunately, it is typical of men in general. How do I know this? I have been talking to men my whole life.
It’s wrong to say that women are broken, or, if they are, that they can be fixed. They aren’t really broken, and yet they also can’t be fixed. They are what they are. From male eyes, women do seem crazy. If you want to call it broken, go ahead, but I would not use those terms. This is simply how they are. They are born this way. This “crazy” behavior is due to their genes, hormones and probably culture too. There is nothing to be done with it, so you have to accept the fact that this is just the way they are, and they cannot change. That’s called acceptance.

Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

This is a major complaint of the Manosphere, that females are attracted to bad boys. Well, of course they are. Have they always been? Probably. Attraction to bad boys is probably in their inborn nature. They have evolved this way for some reason.
And in the past, women were forced away from their bad boy preferences by society, religion, economics, law, convention, and family. All correct. Therefore, a lot of non-bad boy men could easily marry. Now all of the constraints against women going for bad boys are gone, so the Manosphere says we are seeing women going for bad boys in droves (unchecked hypergamy). I assume they are probably correct in this analysis though it’s hard for me to tell on the ground due to my age.
Females have been going for and preferring bad boys my whole life. I am very familiar with this behavior. However, since I got a somewhat bad boy image myself early in life, this ended up being a good thing for me. But it’s not a lie. And at my age, mid-50’s, women are continuing to chase bad boys and give nice guys the bird. Some things never change.
The FSTDT morons, like all feminist fools, say that the “bad boy” thing is a great big myth. Probably if you ask most women, they will insist that that it is a myth. Many of these women will probably be bad boy chasers themselves or will be currently involved with a bad boy.
This is because women have no self-awareness. They don’t even understand themselves, they don’t understand men, and they don’t understand other women. This is because they live in fantasyland and refuse to accept reality. They have also gotten the Denial defense down to a fine art.
Yes, women like bad boys. Solution: become a bad boy! That’s what I have done.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Right. Women are not men. Despite what feminist idiots say, women are incredibly different from men. Sometimes I think we are like people from two different planets. But once you accept that or learn to love that, you can get along with them pretty well. Women can be immensely flighty, moody and emotionally all over the place. All of this behavior is magnified immensely when a women is in love or in a sexual relationship. Sex and love magnify women’s nuttiness to a profound degree.
If you understand this, then it won’t freak you out when the women you are screwing or who is in love with you is acting crazy. She’s acting nuts because she loves you, silly! It also true that women vary in their flightiness and emotionality.
Women are nice to look at and they can be fun to have around when they are being pleasant. Their song can be enchanting indeed. Does it wear on you? Not on me, but what wears on me is the regular if not continuous drama and chaos that ensues during a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman. Daily emotional crises can be pretty hard to deal with for a man who prides himself on emotional control. Yes, women will defend their children nearly to death. Women are indeed easily frightened and of course they are wildly swayed by emotion. This intense emotionality, an essential feature of the female, is alien to most males and is the main reason men call women “crazy.”
They can be very soft, warm and cuddly, correct. They are very useful for certain things and nothing but a huge hindrance when it comes to others, especially when their emo storms are trashing whatever project you are trying to accomplish.
A woman in love absolutely needs constant care and guidance, in particular care. Men ignore this at their own risk. A lot of men simply do not want to give women the proper care and nurturance that they require. If she’s not getting it from you, she might just try to get it elsewhere. It is not in men’s nature to care for or nurture females all the time. Nevertheless, you need to learn how to do this or at least fake it very well. If you don’t, your relationships with women will always have problems.

and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Wow, that’s a nasty one, but I see why he says it. I think women can make excellent decisions. In my family, during crises or difficult times that required serious decision-making, my mother was often much better than my father. This is because in any crisis, my father simply panicked, flipped out, started screaming and yelling at everyone and always chose “We will do absolutely nothing” as the correct decision for the difficult situation. In other words, he chose stasis or inertia. That was almost always a terrible decision, and some form of action was usually required. So he would get overruled by my mother
There is another problem here that the lunatic feminist idiots will never admit to. When you have a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman, you might be tempted to let her make a lot of decisions. That might be a terrible idea. If she wants to make decisions, let her go ahead. But if she seems to hesitate or looks lost, go ahead and make the decision yourself. Careful studies have shown that relationships where men make most of the decisions are much more stable than relationships where women make most of the decisions.
Why is this? Women say they want decision-making power, but as usual, they are lying to themselves. They really don’t. They want a strong, powerful man to make up their minds for them. And if the man seems weak and unable to make up her mind for her, she will be forced to make decisions for herself, which she resents. She will see him as too weak to make decisions for the both of him, and his weakness will anger her and cause problems in the relationship. PC idiots will never admit things like this, but it is actually true and you ignore this truth at your own risk.

I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

Exactly. You see, he has come to accept women for what they are. They no longer surprise him or freak him out. He no longer expects them to act like guys with tits. He is no longer baffled or puzzled by what seems to be crazy behavior. He understands women and accepts them for what they are and knows they cannot be changed. And in acceptance lies peace of mind.
It is unfortunate that he describes women’s behavior as weird and not normal, but that is exactly the way any reasonable man sees women’s behavior – it’s nuts. Does that mean women are weird or abnormal? I do not think so, and women’s behavior is very normal for a woman – it is exactly the way we expect a female to act. Are women weird? Well, they seem weird to men, let’s put it that way.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

36 thoughts on “Feminism Is Fighting a War Against Reality”

  1. One area in which women do seem to be quite rational is in optimizing the commodity value of their sexuality. Well, at least if that calculus isn’t overridden by emotionally-driven excessive face-stuffing, as happens with so many women. Men seem to make more of the emotionally-driven mistakes in relationships, and women capitalize on them. Women tend to put material and political advantages at the forefront of their relationship considerations.

  2. That is crazy. Look at this list: http://www.eoht.info/page/IQ%3A+150%2B+|+Smartest+woman+ever If women are just by nature a bunch of psychotic, overly-emotional nutjobs who can’t make a decision and need men to decide things for them, then we shouldn’t see nearly so many women actually achieving great things. Yet we see it a lot, even going back into history when women were far more oppressed.
    And as for your “women like bad boys” theory, well at this moment I just so happen to be talking to a good friend of mine who I’ve known for years on messenger right now. She married a guy who is definitely not a “bad boy,” he’s in college, works, does what his parents want, is a gamer nerd and is very nice. As for her, she’s pretty much one of the LEAST emotional people I know; she’s very practical and never has any emo drama of any sort. Sure there are loads of emo drama women who act crazy, but I’ve met just as many guys who act like that as women.

    1. If you understand Spanish, you will see how this female Youtuber, which seems to be highly cultured and Smart C: critique other women and admits they do many things that men on average don’t do! in fact she says she kind of prefers to hang out with men, because she don’t tolerate some issues with women : P
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRNVOd3cPH8

    2. Women are quite emotional. They are much more emotional than men. It’s a fact.
      Women can make good decisions, but I feel that in a relationship, they prefer for the man to make the decisions, and if he doesn’t, they get mad at him. And science shows that this appears to be true.
      A LOT of women like bad boys. Not all of them though. My Mom doesn’t. She understands why women do though.

    3. There’s a lot of scatter among both genders, but I think a healthily developed male ego – differentiating, boundary aware, and accomplishment focused – does tend to lend more emotional stability than a female ego – inclusive and holistic, with fuzzy boundaries. It is also much more socially acceptable for females to have egocentric responses to situations than for males. The differences are something to be respected, not condemned, by both genders. And it does play into what can be expected from men and women in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and motivational styles. It doesn’t require Dalrock’s point of view to see that. In some contexts, the differences do seem to go the other way, as I stated in my first post.
      Female craziness is an attractive trait for a lot of guys. It can come across as uninhibited and sexy, or providing emotional depth. Not seeing the downside and making excessive accommodations to it are common mistakes. Maybe there’s a crazy girl complex among men just like there’s a bad boy complex among women.

      1. I don’t know. I prefer to be around women most of the time. When I was younger, I like to hang around girls too, but I am too old for that now. When women are stable and relaxed and there is not a lot of emo weather going on, they can really be a blast. I don’t even mind a lot of drama and chaos, which you do get a lot of if you spend a lot of time around women. I’m sort of a bad boy and I like to live dangerously, so hanging around with stormy-weathered females pretty much falls into the category of living dangerously. That sort of thing can be exciting. Think of female emotional weather as the equivalent as a trip to an exotic country or a journey to the wild untracked jungle. Those expeditions can be dangerous too, but they can also be very exciting.
        A male-female transsexual wrote a book. He had been a very unemotional man and then he began taking female hormones. His emotions started going absolutely wild. He turned into an emotional rollercoaster overnight.
        Obviously, women can’t help this sort of thing. It’s biological.

        1. When feminists talk about gender being the result of environment and socialisation, they completely miss this simple point about hormones.
          When men take testosterone, they become more competitive, aggressive and horny. When they take estrogen they get a high voice, grow boobs and become more emotional.
          When women take testosterone, they get hair on their face, get clitoral hypertrophy and so on.
          Clearly, hormones act in a powerful way on our bodies and also our brains, affecting emotions. What better evidence than people taking them and starting to noticeably change and become more masculine or feminine for no other reason than they took them?

        2. You inject the sex hormones of the opposite sex into your body, you will actually start turning into the opposite sex as much as possible. Isn’t that crazy?

  3. I do think women and men are different and it is due to genes and hormones. But why emphasize perceived negative traits? I think women are probably more empathetic and compassionate on average, judging by the women and men in my family. Men can be like that but women seems to be even more so. They are even more tender and nurturing.
    If we are talking about the differences between men and women, which exist, I don’t think the analysis should have a negative slant towards women. It should be about how we are different but complimentary. Our strengths are complimentary, we need each other, we make up for each other’s weaknesses. Ying and yang, balance. You can either write about this from a place of hating or resenting women or from a place of liking and loving them. I prefer the latter.

      1. or that desire of women and hatred of them usually go together. But there is a connection in the bitterness and resentment generated for some men out of frustrated desire.

        1. shit i have some stupid auto correct.
          ‘from a place of desire and hatred or a place of wisdom and acceptance’,
          ‘not that’

      2. Well this is what I mean. The sad thing is that what misogynists say about women is often TRUE. But what racists say about other races is often TRUE also. What homophobes say about gays is often TRUE. But truth shouldn’t be a defense against hatred.
        Once you realize that women really can’t do anything about all of these things we are complaining about because they are inherent in the nature of WOMAN itself as entity and essence, then comes peace and acceptance and realize that this is just the way they are, and a lot of your anger towards them goes away.

    1. I do not have anything against men bitching about women or complaining about them. I also think it is perfectly normal for women to discuss the downside of men. That’s just normal for them.
      The way I see it is 50% of women is a great side and 50% of a down side. Misogynists only talk about the 50% downside. That’s all they think about. Now I love women so I would rather focus on the 50% upside and blow off the rest, but it doesn’t mean that guys who talk about that down side are wrong.

      1. Fair point. I’m not denying a down side to women (and men) from the point of view of the other. Which isn’t to say everything those guys say is right.

    2. The female tendencies towards empathy and egocentrism are two sides of the same coin, rooted in the relatively porous boundaries of the female ego. The former is a moral positive and the latter is a moral negative. The latter is forgivable IF it is balanced by the former. Female narcissists (and there are a lot of them) are heavy on egocentrism and light on empathy.

  4. Beatrix, I went to the site and read it. This is my critique:
    “Bergner recounts, over and over again, the waning lust of women who find themselves with nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men – perfect genetic specimens for offspring – but they don’t want to fuck these men.
    There is no lust. No desire. If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not. They’re at the bottom.”
    It depends what you mean by good genes. This could just be some beta male fantasy of what good genes are or a modern rational idea of what good genes would be in modern society. Was being gentle and nice really survival enhancing for a man throughout our evolution? Maybe women desire mentally and physically strong men who could protect them and their children and gain prosperity and social status and even dominate other men. Maybe throughout most of human evolution, they were the survival enhancing genes.
    My contention is that women do try to capture good genes but our idea of good genes- a nice, accommodating man (sometimes referred to in the north fo England as a wet lettuce)- isn’t really good genes in a survival sense, at least throughout most of human evolution.
    Note: the strong man can also have a heart, love his children, be nice to his girlfriend; he doesn’t have to be a psychopath but he should be strong and masculine.
    thanks

    1. and that is not to even mention good looking, which those nice accommodating guys that provoke no lust may not be.
      They emphasize that men are attracted to women with very specific body ratios that show reproductive fitness etc but then imagine women will or should be attracted to some nice guy despite the fact he may not have physical signs of fitness and strength himself. And this is apparently evidence that women are not in it for good genes but because of their narcissism.

    2. You can discern the same old pattern of frustration and misogyny. Author resents the fact many women are not all that attracted to boring, gentle, very nice and accommodating (rather than confident and decisive?), average looking guys…so they are therefore narcissistic bitches that don’t care about good genes.
      Wouldn’t those beta male types adore them and desire them plenty anyway? I they just wanted narcissistic reinforcement, why not go for those?

      1. hence:
        “If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not.”
        If desire was about narcissistic reinforcement, wouldn’t these guys be high on their list? They adore an desire beautiful women plenty.
        Those average to bad looking, intelligent (as if more forceful men can’t be intelligent too), very nice and accommodating (rather than confident and decisive?) may actually not be the most desire worthy men from the point of view of survival and reproductive fitness.

      2. Finally, I wrote:
        By the way, I’m not denying that narcissism is an element of female sexuality (it even is for males to some extent)…wanting to be desired and adored…clearly are things that appeal in a big way to women (confession: I want to be desired and appreciated too). But clearly narcissism isn’t the single driving force of female sexuality as this claims. Clearly, women are attracted to a particular type of body and personality for fitness reasons, just like men are.

    3. “Bergner recounts, over and over again, the waning lust of women who find themselves with nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men – perfect genetic specimens for offspring – but they don’t want to fuck these men.
      There is no lust. No desire. If desire was about capturing good genes, these men would be at the top of their To Do list, but they’re not. They’re at the bottom.”
      How come they don’t want these guys anymore? What’s the reason? Beatrix? Anyone?

      1. Or…why did they used to? “society, religion, economics, law, convention, and family.” ?
        And of course, its an exaggeration to say they don’t at all now. A lot of those guys have wives and girlfriends, especially if they really are ‘accomplished’.

  5. Women are WAY more nurturing than men, and of course they are much better with the young. But they are also much more sympathetic towards everyone, men, their fellow women, anyone who is suffering in any way. They are extremely giving and loving creatures. Males just don’t do that very well. Women require a lot of TLC in relationships and it’s not exactly in men to give that out and this is the source of a tremendous amount of trouble in male – female relationships.

    1. When my sisters sees a crippled or disabled person walking past, she says that it breaks her heart and she means it, she feels it. I’m like there’s another disabled person walking past, pay no attention, don’t feel anything towards them.

        1. Those kinds of feelings are spontaneous and can’t really be forced. You can’t help it if you don’t feel it. There’s no point beating yourself up about it.
          As long as your intentions are good and your behaviour is good, you’re not morally responsible for something you can’t help. Its just the way it is.
          I would like to be a more compassionate person too..maybe the wish will lead to me being more compassionate in a future life…that’s what I tell myself. But in the meantime, I’m not going to beat myself up about what I can’t control. I think I’m a pretty good guy…I try to be. n I love my mum and my dog at least!
          There’s probably an element of ocd in either of us even worrying about this or what it says about you.

        2. Plus I think my sister is probably compassionate even for a woman. I don’t think every woman is experiencing sorrow and heart break from seeing a disabled guy.

        3. That’s ok, it’s not really what most of them want anyway. They’d rather have respect and dignity.

    2. I do think many men are obviously loving and nurturing towards their children though. I don’t mean nurturing in a feminine way but providing for them and trying to teach them and make them develop good qualities. Its obvious lots of guys really love their children too.
      Women just take sensitivity to their children (and dogs) to another level.
      Apart from the sociopathic ones which you do get here and there.

  6. Not on board with Judgybitch’s thesis about Parental Investment Theory being degrading towards males, or that it is contradicted by the sexual behavior of women. Given that female reproductive capacity has been the fundamental resource throughout most of human history, societies have directed a huge chunk of their resources and efforts towards protecting it. From the female point of view, acting on her own behalf wasn’t really differentiated from acting on behalf of the social good. From the male point of view, his social value was strictly a result of his works. So the male imperative to act on behalf of the community at large, with a portion of his work value directed towards protecting the reproductive resource, is entirely consistent with Parental Investment Theory.
    There is one interesting point about the differences between the ways men and women approach the status game. Association between males of different status levels is necessary for society to function, so it modulates the status competition among males. That imperative has historically been not nearly so strong among females, so there remains less modulation of status competition among females.
    The “nice, accommodating, intelligent, accomplished men” getting the shitty end of the stick from women may be seen as exploitable and unsexy if they’re too heavy on the “nice, accommodating” part. Robert raised the point that women have more respect for men who take the lead in partnership decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.