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.
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.