skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It's been months since I viewed Terri Trespicio's If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them as well as the accompanying video blog post Feminism Fucked Up My Dating Life, but since I rarely take someone to task, I feel that it's about time. It's not merely for the sake of it, either; readers will know that I am reticent about spotlighting individuals not because of apprehension, but because I think it serves little purpose to engage in petty Internet wars. It obscures the issues, although I have come to admit some times it's important to see what makes certain figures tick---and how it relates to men, women, and more pressing matters.
Apparently, Trespicio did not like Suzanne Venker's article The War On Men, particularly how she felt it went too far for stating it was women's fault that they deign there are no marriageable men or ones suitable for partnership---and contributing to that situation. While she seems to act like she is admitting her own need to "win" when it comes to men and was driven to prove that she didn't need one in her life---and it could have contributed to her problems with men, I find that there's some more going on here that she won't focus on completely.
Venker states in the article:
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
Emphasis mine.
While I'll be the first to say that I have no attention of marriage and children (as my relatives seem to be pretty active in procreating on both sides of my family, if anyone is wondering), I knew pretty much what I wanted with a woman even in my late teens. As the years passed, there are many things about the blatant misandry I endured that has made me fed up, even to the point I truly hate dating, but one thing is clear---Venker is correct that most men want to love women, not fight or compete with them. And as I mentioned to the mighty Zed/Zedpriest himself holds true for modern women---women, on the other hand, don't want to be harmonious with men; they want to compete, bully, and bulldoze us. And even take a sadistic pride in it.
It seems Terri was in august company with such women. My, my . . .
And, of course, if we stand up for ourselves in the face of mistreatment, we are misogynistic assholes. But if we "man up" and take a bit too much, we are push overs and "intimidated." Still, men are reacting and adapting to a culture malaise that has far from ended.
Terri grew up with when an attitude "that men were basically up to no good, from quite a young age." In her words:
I sneered at, and even humiliated men as a teenager, and if a guy liked me, I fairly resented him for it.
From her own admission, there was always an impulse to prove herself against men and "win" in more than one aspect, even if her own life supposedly suffered because of this. Not that she has my sympathy.
After all, women pushed for feminism because---you got it---it benefited them, and only benefited a few select men. Whether men were crushed in the ensuing fallout was not important.
Of course, she credits feminism for largely doing good although it has done incalculable damage to men and the dynamic between men and women (including the white knights, but that's the subject of this post). Feminism has even made things exceedingly difficult for men as myself, who grew up with notions of "egalitarianism" only to find that so many women wanted the license of it and the protection portion of neo-traditionalism if you will, and if men got trampled in the process, well, that was just either their fault or casualties to be expected.
And we discovered there were women who felt there were superior to us just because of their vaginas. Or were given a rationale to hate us, and if we reacted, we were the "sexists" that didn't deserve a woman. Or they would not take pressing male topics seriously. And treat us less than human beings without an once of guilt until they were held accountable . . . if they were held accountable.
Men were bad, irrelevant, no good, boorish . . . of course, the gears of modern technology and even civilization would not have advanced to this point without us (and the ones who have procured that are given little credit), but nevermind that right now.
There's no question about it. Terri equated femininity---or at least what she perceived as pre-feminist behavior of it---as weak. It's an undercurrent in her video when she states "I believe there is a real strength in feminine power, and we're still trying to figure out what that is." Her idea of ingraining masculine code in herself was to win even if it meant rejecting and shaming men. She internalized the darker part of what she viewed men were doing, nevermind the good in us or what we did.
Just like countless women also made a choice to do.
Let me tell Terri right now what isn't going to work---and why. It may just take nearly her entire lifetime to sink in, and I'm not being facetious whatsoever. Not beating men at their own game is only a part of it; in fact, I am having a hard time believing that Terri is "better" than most of the men she comes across; I'm wondering what that is specifically. Yes, I'm quite serious. Especially considering the average woman out there sports the mentality that she, and her sexuality, is of more import and value than men by default.
And also, how is she going to undo all those years of how she mistreated and viewed men? I mean . .. really?
Usually women that have an axe to grind against men and constantly have to prove themselves don't often do this by merit alone. Well-rounded, truly developed women don't constantly have to demonstrate how powerful they are to men by fighting with them incessantly---surprisingly---a few of them realize it is no small feat to get to that point without having some grounding in reality. And realizing that alliances with men are crucial. Unfortunately, this woman is so rare now that one could not blame men for believing they don't even exist anymore.
The ersatz "strong, independent" ball-busting woman who claims to be such often has her power by proxy. Or making sure that HR gets a man to behave to the point where his very job is on the line if he doesn't have the approval of a "superior" that doesn't like him because he physically reminds her of her ex, and she wants to get back at him through that employee. Or it's done with such a know-it-all, towering arrogance that it's a turn off to does around her, and this includes men that might even be open to a relationship.
No, men like me are not threatened. We are simply done with all the bullshit. And we are wondering if we are being sold a bill of goods again . . . that this time we're aren't buying. And this will continue until things really change for us, or society falls through its ass.
Let me ask you, Terri, if you are reading this---if you were a man, would you blindly support a society that actively takes from you and barely gives back---or worse---punishes you for simply doing masculine things and still demands you to "act like a man?" And more over, expect you to actually enjoy being used up without protest?
I don't think so. I have two words for this: Fuck that.
The fact of the matter is that there is a war on men that has been waging for a quite some time, and regardless of what shallow features Terri presents on her blog does nothing to diminish that notion. She may have poured a little incendiary fluid to the already destructive inferno that was already raging before her, but the damage has been done. There are men that have gotten to the phase in their lives where offering an olive branch is a laughable prospect. It is only to get burned by this proverbial fire again, and have hordes of feminists, white knights, politicians, and their cohorts continue to give men a raw deal without addressing our concerns . . . and continue to tell men it's all our fault.
Dr. Helen Smith was certainly on to something when she mentioned about going Galt, including that men's real concerns were not being heeded so much that even some men had resorted to the extreme of suicide out of hopeless and complete desperation; when society stops listening to men, men start doing their own thing despite the incredible tide of anti-male hate against them. It's reactive for some men, adaptive for quite a few, and even proactive/positive for others to do so.
Men have been telling you people what we really need. And you people still refuse to listen, and it's going to be pretty bad karma.
Again, I'm going to address Terri Trespicio here; that's the way men are, Terri---in times that are dire or bleak, even we eventually have to find a way for ourselves. You can sit there smug in your own bubble contemplating dating, hook up culture, recipes, and whatever strikes your fancy. As much as you loathed men in the past and pretended to be better than the bulk of us, we are busting our asses in a world that would soon discard us if we were not there for utility purposes. And many of us are painfully aware of that fact, and we don't like it. Not one bit.
And Terri, you were part of the problem.
Yes, you were. And I don't think you'll be helping any of us any time soon.
Was Venker's article so upsetting to you? Perhaps it did hit a nerve, but you don't want to completely accept the charge that there are less and less marriageable men because you . . . with so many other women like you . . . aided in conditions that made it so? Or that men see what you are in spite of the strong image and decide to look elsewhere for real love?
Whether or not you are along for the ride and decide to join us instead of clobbering us may be even considered useless to those who have ghosted. Eventually, you---and many, many women that are sharing the same sentiment, have worn out the welcome. And if men do decide to engage women, they are resorting to others that may not be as hostile and even appreciate what they do and are as human beings; foreign women, minority women, FWBs, truly feminine women, and what have you. And others have decided to opt out . . . and they are not coming back.
That should completely terrify you, but you will place a tough-girl facade on with the pretense that you can live without men.
Be careful what you wish for.
From a MGTOW forum recently:
Obbop;
I believe females tend to be more materialistic and greedy... feathering their own nest before considering others.
Perhaps
a thought about the recent post mentioning yet another MALE fire
fighter that died helping others and my comment about the lack of
females volunteering to assist their community and others at a risk to
themselves.
I will be hard to convince that females have more empathy for others than males do.
Men
are far more prone to engage in self-sacrifice than women do as a given
rule, and that's on practically every level. If there's a story about a
woman saving someone that is unknown to her at the risk of her very life, I'd like to hear it. I'm sure it has happened but I'm at a loss of reading about a news event like that lately.
As
a contrast, men have done this in Western culture throughout time, and
not just for their own wives/offspring. Hell, there are women who claim
that they will fight to the death for their children, but considering
how many mistreat their own kids, I have to give pause. Of course, you
can't tell them that they are shitty mothers or that they are still
extremely selfish; watch the fury come close to the surface if you dare
question it.
As far as lending money, even on my own experiences
(when I did date) there were very few women that felt like they should
contribute, or just were flat broke at the end of the month. I'd see
women that would complain how an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband would ride
on their coattails, and when they had got to me there was a chip on
their shoulder. Suddenly, they wanted a man to pay up, simply put. The
Gods only know how many women I went through like that---I figured if
they were not lying about how allegedly generous they were with a
partner (and they probably were lying on some aspect), and would shunt all the resentment on me, I'd dump them.
And women philanthropists? That's got to be an oxymoron. Seriously.
Obbop;
Perhaps
a few individual females possess traits conducive to societal
improvement but I believe most will be too busy squawking on their cell
phones or staring at the sales rack in the mall to concern themselves
with much more than meeting their own wants, desires and hedonistic
lusts.
If more men dare wake up and realize how
Ameriskanks are egocentric and selfish to the core---and what they truly
think about men---you just might see more incidents like Costa
Concordia accident manifest, and women forced to help themselves no
matter what. Hell, if you even glance over personal ads out of boredom
some time, you can see them getting more angry out of desperation for
men to pick up the pieces of their broken lives and bad choices.
(Note: We were in a discussion about an article that can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/why-men-need-women.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB&_r=0)
Sorry if I have not been updating as of late---I have been extremely busy with work and my downtime consists of getting to the gym when I can and going to submission fighting practice. No matter. I let even a few weighty ones through just for discussion's sake. Note my big two rules are no promoting violence for violence's sake, or feminists using this a playground for slagging men when they feel like it. I don't believe in laundry list of points to bring up, but rather than dwell on the subject I figured I would like everyone know I'm still very much around and itching to write more. Until then, I will post a couple of recent items from other MGTOW and go from there. SR
stonerwithaboner had snatched a quote from Feminist Critics that he liked, so I'll repeat it here with some commentary:
The problem is that the Nice Guy is the target of a
modern witch hunt. The Nice Guy is considered a target, a wounded man
because he dares speak out about his loneliness. Women don’t like that,
and men who are too obsessed with sexual competition, see him as a
target. All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but
rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally
distressed men, and men following their animal competitive instinct.
Before we can address the attack on nice guys, first we need to know
what it is based on. It is not based on what women say it is. It is
based on the feeding frenzy instinct, the desire for women to cull men
from the herd to reduce unwanted attention, and for men it is to reduce
competition.
I think this pretty valid thinking.
Personally, I'm pretty much done with the nice guy/bad boy terms, but Jacalope is on to something here. A man that values his sense of self and being on more than one level, and has been marginalized wrongly is often stigmatized---or even demonized---for openly lamenting his condition as unfair. Men who are viewed and treated as suspect or not as prized as other men by women are often seen as weak or undesirable despite their attributes. He's someone either to exploit or pass up. The frustrating truth is that this actually compounds the problem; regardless of what people believe, there is a hegemony, a hierarchy of sorts in the dating and mating world, and women who want strict choices who they favor, and they alongside with men who don't want rivals are keen to dump on anyone not considered suitable no matter how good the man really is at heart.
If women clearly perceived the NG as a full-fledged human being, it would mean they would have to act accordingly---his pleasure and pain, joy and suffering, dreams and nightmares, and happiness and sorrow would be something not to dismiss, and reducing him to second class citizen status or lower would be difficult. Since so many Ameriskanks want to be the ones desired and sit in the driver's seat---even passive aggressively---having to deal with a man normally considered not as up to par as an equal would be a struggle for them. It would mean that their personal power would be on a level playing field with those same men. And it would not be so easy to explain why they throw themselves at "alphas" and yet demand a NG to kow tow to ludicrous demands and moods while still remaining the one with the hands on the proverbial reins.
Deep down, it seems that Ameriskanks have little respect, understanding, real passion, or sympathy towards men they want as front men, walking ATMs, workhorses, and whipping boys. The "All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but
rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally
distressed men . . . " is one the main motivations beyond the febrile rants about "nice guys." Simply put, it's a glib and smug excuse to treat men like shit sans accountability. But don't you dare criticize women for their feelings, wants, expectations, or react to them as a spoiled, would-be princess without a throne and a broken crown. You're just a misogynist if you have the gall.
Symantec has tagged certain MGTOW/MRA sites, and I wish to spread the word about it. I do openly state that this company will never get my business and I will continue to let others know why. I believe this is defamation and do want to inform as much as possible about it. I also will let anyone MGTOW/MRA oriented who wishes to contact me about this issue, they can write me at WithoutAMaster@msn.com at any time. Please keep in touch. SR
From The Rights of Man site:
Thursday, 14 March 2013
NOW OFFICIAL - O2 AND SYMANTEC BELIEVE HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX ABUSE IS HATEFUL
By now most people are aware of the issue of men's rights website being wrongly blocked by Symantec and various mobile phone companies due to them somehow being flagged as "hate sites". I've done further investigations and can exclusively reveal the official response from these companies on this matter. There tends to be a bit of confusion about this issue and so firstly I'll attempt to explain what's going on and tackle some misconceptions.
Which sites are blocked?
I initially identified 48 sites blocked by Symantec/O2 and flagged as "hate sites". The list then grew to 58 as even more were identified. It's fair to say that a majority of key sites critical of feminism and supportive of men's rights are blocked. You can see the full list here.
What exactly does this mean for the sites concerned?
The "hate site" classification means a number of users are denied any access, particularly people accessing the internet in some restaurants, workplaces and via mobile phone networks such as Telefonica/O2. In total Symantec claims 250 million users of the filter worldwide, so it could easily mean a 10% reduction in traffic for mens' rights sites.
How long has this being going on?
It is uncertain as to exactly how long this has been an issue. I became aware of the problem in May 2012 though it appears to have been going on in some cases for at least two years. It must have been happening for a considerable length of time as some of the blocked sites no longer exist.
Hold on, I thought avoiceformen.com had been unblocked and Symantec had backed down?
Sadly this is not the case and such a suggestion is based on a false report in the media. Avoiceformen.com was never unblocked at any stage.
I find this all a bit hard to believe, how can I check a site's classification for myself?
There are currently two ways to check whether or not a site has been branded as a "hate site". Users have previously checked a site's status by enabling Norton's DNS service, but a much easier method is O2's url checker.
Other mens' rights activists and even member of the media have had difficulty getting any sort of meaningful response from Symantec so I've taken a different approach and been in touch with O2/Telefonica management. I asked them to classify the blocked websites more appropriately and to stop censoring such content. Eventually I was put in contact with O2's head of complaints, Antony Gibson, and he confirmed that O2 use the same filter service from Symantec, called Rulespace, thus explaining why the two block lists of the two companies are identical.
Mr Gibson liaised with Symantec and informed me they had reviewed the list and decided to reclassify just 2 out of the 47 sites I presented them with. This therefore means the "hate" classification/block officially stands for the bulk of this content (including avoiceformen.com) and is no accident. Mr Gibson explained that O2/Symantec regarded the sites to be at the "low end" of the spectrum in terms of hate and further explained that they were blocked and classed as "hate sites" due to reasons such as showing "aggression" and/or use of the term "anti-feminism"!
Mr Gibson did express some concern about people seeing men's rights sites listed as hate sites and smeared in this way, but O2's solution to our concerns is that they will disable their url checker so no one can see the reason why a site has been blocked. In other words O2 is fairly happy for the issue of human rights for men to be classed as hateful, their only concern is people finding out that they're taking this stance. So, now we have no just a case of censorship and defamation, but a cover up too!
To compound matters yet further, many of these sites classified as hateful really are incredibly innocuous and deal with very important issues, many don't even use the term "anti-feminist" either nor contain "aggression". Such a term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless, and proves absolutely how the filter is arbitrary and a nonsense and completely open to abuse. More importantly, if O2/Symantec have an issue with the term "anti-feminist", then they are quite blatantly taking an extreme political stance in favour of an ideology. Afterall, there's barely any more "aggressive" way of supporting feminist doctrine than to censor and defame anyone who dares critique or correct it.
I think this issue really sums up how important the men's' movement is today, not to mention the scale of the challenge facing us. We see countless feminist activists all over the media campaigning against free speech and equality and seeking privileges for women such as subsidised insurance premiums. Feminists make endless sexist comments telling men not to rape and even the host of the world's leading feminist radio programme openly laughs at male victims of domestic abuse. Whilst all this has been going on, and despite spending countless hours on the matter, I've failed with a simple request for companies to stop denying help to male victims of rape and domestic violence. In fact I can't even get these sick companies to remove their "hate site" smear from their classification of these vitally important resources. Perhaps I haven't yet been "aggressive" enough?
Here's a selection of sites O2/Symantec's insist on keeping in their "hate site" category:
http://dvmen.org - A site in Colorado helping male victims of domestic violence.http://toysoldier.wordpress.com - A blog highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse.http://www.ncfm.org -Website of the longest running men's human rights organisation in the US (founded in 1977).http://www.fathersforlife.org - A site seeking for fathers to have a greater role in their children's lives.http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html - A webpage scientifically debunking the most common feminist myths.http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.co.uk - blog by a fahter who doesnt' get to see his son.
For those who are curious, apparently the only two non-"hateful" men's sites out of the 47 are: Hisside.com and dadi.org and both are now unblocked.
by John Kimble
The following may or may not be the email addresses of the O2 board members:
Matthew.Kay@o2.com, Pilar.López@o2.com, Ronan.Dunne@o2.com, Trevor.Healy@o2.com, Kate Jarvis@o2.com, Simon.Linares@o2.com, Richard.Poston@o2.com, René.Schuster@o2.com, Stephen.Shurrock@o2.com, David.Arculus@o2.com, Peter.Erskine@o2.com, Cath.Keers@o2.com, Eduardo.Zaplana@o2.com
