"How Feminism Destroyed Real Men"

[Rooster_DAR]

I have not read all of the replies, but the article is saying stuff that alphamale and I have been saying for a long time now: women want real men.

 

What is being a real man?

 

It's definitely not hitting women, but at the same time it's definitely not taking any crap from them.

 

When I look back at it now, my ex-fiance, whom I met fresh out of a separation from her ex-husband, was basically a feminist. She was a so-called 'strong woman'. She had to have the last word. She had to dominate her male counterparts - it meant a lot to her to do that. She always talked about how women were oppressed or treated unfairly.

 

By all accounts, her ex-husband was a nice guy and a good father. He didn't mistreat her although she said he did have a temper that increasingly became apparent in the final days of their marriage. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's because he got so frustrated knowing there was no possible way he could win with this chick...nothing was good enough for her, she wasn't "her match" anymore. She even later complained that he was a doormat and that he just agreed with everything she said or did and that she felt like she didn't have "an equal partner". I tried living with her myself, and it took me only six months of living with her to realize this shyte wasn't going to work out. She was uncompromising - the argument would not end until she was proven right. That's the very definition of a feminist, the new breed of modern women we've been working so hard to create over the last few decades. Somehow a woman's right to escape from marriage hell (abuse and complete neglect) evolved into a movement to dominate men (among many woman, though certainly not all). I was too young and inexperienced at the time to understand how to handle someone like this. My reactions poisoned the situation further because I lost control of myself. I wouldn't do that now.

 

Then again, I wouldn't date a woman who felt like she had something to prove to me. I certainly have no problem with a woman having her say and expressing her opinions - that's cool. But a woman who needs to be equal or superior to men, a woman with an over-sized ego, a woman who has to go through life trying to prove that she's equal to men, is a woman I'm definitely not interested in. I can recognize the warning signs early and I just don't even bother with it anymore. Yeah, I'm jaded...but that's not always a bad thing.

 

I could not agree more. Hindsight being 20/20 I too have just come out of a relationship where this was the case. My EX was always talking about how independant she was, and didn't rely on men for anything. She also would make derogatory statements generalizing men and stating that she is her own woman. She wanted everything her way, and after the years went by I was almost persuaded out of love. When we first got together I had to remind her constantly to stop bashing men, she almost said things like men are useless and stupid. I did manage to finally get her to stop saying that, but I don't think she ever really stopped believing that.

 

I think women (even men) who have to keep reminding themselves how independant they are, are big trouble. Just my opinion. Well now she switched branches and is now seeing another "nice guy". I guess she figures go after the nice guys cause she can control and manipulate them, no wonder she was always bitching about real men, she could not tame them.

 

D'oh!

[Pyro]

I guess she figures go after the nice guys cause she can control and manipulate them, no wonder she was always bitching about real men, she could not tame them.

 

The same thing can apply to us guys.

[Rooster_DAR]

No objections here.

[alphamale]

one of my bestest buddies is married to this domineering woman who bosses him around. She's fat & ugly to boot. She doesn't like me cause she can't boss me around.

[BareGoddess]

one of my bestest buddies is married to this domineering woman who bosses him around. She's fat & ugly to boot. She doesn't like me cause she can't boss me around.

 

Are you SURE that's the reason she doesn't like you?

[samsungxoxo]

sometimes physical violence can be justified....a man being put into jail for beating the snot out of his woman is a very recent occurrence.

 

men = violence, agression, war, conflict. these are all masculine traits.

 

Unless you really want a real kick in the balls, or get hit with a bat on your head from behind fine with me, b/c I take no crap. I like violent movies by the way, all full of blood, that's violence.

 

 

 

 

[amerikajin]

agreed!!

 

 

sometimes physical violence can be justified....a man being put into jail for beating the snot out of his woman is a very recent occurrence.

 

men = violence, agression, war, conflict. these are all masculine traits.

 

I think men = violence, aggression, war, conflict...against other men. At least that's the way it should be, and even then, only under certain circumstances. We've come a long way from the caves.

 

I will say that it's a two-way street. I won't hit a woman but a woman would do well not to hit me either. If a woman hits me, she should be prepared to be smacked back or thrown on the floor. I won't go overboard with it, but I'm not a punching bag. And for all of those who are aghast that I'd write such a thing, women do abuse men physically - in fact it's probably one of the most under-reported crimes because a man feels powerless to do anything about it. If he hits her back, he goes to jail; if he leaves or complains, he's often thought of as a wussy even among friends. So many times a man just sits and takes it.

 

A woman should definitely not be hit unless she initiates the violence herself, and then violence should only be used to the extent that it's necessary to subdue her. I wouldn't call myself a bona fide judoka but I've learned a few moves since I've been here and I think a little judo might be necessary in this situation (both verbal and physical). Hell, she might even get off on being taken to the mat.

[alphamale]

I think men = violence, aggression, war, conflict...against other men. At least that's the way it should be, and even then, only under certain circumstances. We've come a long way from the caves.

Well sometimes you can't just go home after work and turn it off. The men who are most known for domestic battery are in violent professions themselves: cops, military, etc....

[Sup]

I have not read all of the replies, but the article is saying stuff that alphamale and I have been saying for a long time now: women want real men.

 

What is being a real man?

 

It's definitely not hitting women, but at the same time it's definitely not taking any crap from them.

 

When I look back at it now, my ex-fiance, whom I met fresh out of a separation from her ex-husband, was basically a feminist. She was a so-called 'strong woman'. She had to have the last word. She had to dominate her male counterparts - it meant a lot to her to do that. She always talked about how women were oppressed or treated unfairly.

 

By all accounts, her ex-husband was a nice guy and a good father. He didn't mistreat her although she said he did have a temper that increasingly became apparent in the final days of their marriage. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's because he got so frustrated knowing there was no possible way he could win with this chick...nothing was good enough for her, she wasn't "her match" anymore. She even later complained that he was a doormat and that he just agreed with everything she said or did and that she felt like she didn't have "an equal partner". I tried living with her myself, and it took me only six months of living with her to realize this shyte wasn't going to work out. She was uncompromising - the argument would not end until she was proven right. That's the very definition of a feminist, the new breed of modern women we've been working so hard to create over the last few decades. Somehow a woman's right to escape from marriage hell (abuse and complete neglect) evolved into a movement to dominate men (among many woman, though certainly not all). I was too young and inexperienced at the time to understand how to handle someone like this. My reactions poisoned the situation further because I lost control of myself. I wouldn't do that now.

 

Then again, I wouldn't date a woman who felt like she had something to prove to me. I certainly have no problem with a woman having her say and expressing her opinions - that's cool. But a woman who needs to be equal or superior to men, a woman with an over-sized ego, a woman who has to go through life trying to prove that she's equal to men, is a woman I'm definitely not interested in. I can recognize the warning signs early and I just don't even bother with it anymore. Yeah, I'm jaded...but that's not always a bad thing.

 

 

How WOULD you handle someone like this?

[amerikajin]

How WOULD you handle someone like this?

 

Hopefully, I wouldn't end up dating them for long in the first place. I think you have to look for the warning signs and take it from there. As Rooster said, if she's always making a point to talk about how independent she is and feeling a need to stand up for herself when there are no obvious slights, that's a warning sign. No confident woman who is comfortable with her own femininity feels a constant need to remind you, as a man, that you two are equals or that she has rights, or that she can do everything a man can do, or to point out how women are at a constant disadvantage to men in this society. In some situations, these things come up, but your gut will usually tell you if a woman has issues with power - the difference between men who end up with nightmarish women and those who end up happily married to well-adjusted ladies is that the former guys don't listen to their gut. They think, "Ah, it'll work out. I won't let it go too, too far." They keep saying that until they're already living with them and then resenting them on a daily basis for being what they've always been: insecure, rude, obnoxious, masculinized feminists. Don't fall into that trap.

 

The hard part is when you find someone changing on you or challenging you, as it happens so often in relationships. Women always test, but that is something that is common to some degree in most relationships. I think that with a 'tester' you've got to find out right away why someone is testing - usually it's a woman's way of saying there's something missing in our relationship. I think the way you handle it maturely is to call the woman out on her tests - again, recognize it for what it is. Your gut will know, the difference is that some guys ignore it and leave it alone. If a woman's being grouchy and throwing their **** at you, a man has to calmly but firmly call them on it...and a man also always has to be prepared to give himself distance and space to reinforce the message that he does not NEED her so badly that he's willing to put up with crap (same goes for women re: men as well).

 

In the end, this discussion, like so many others, leads us back to mutual respect. Feminism, just like chauvinism, is representative of disrespect. As long as a person is strong enough to stand up for himself, he won't be a victim of feminism. If a man doesn't stand up for himself, he'll get run over like an armadillo in the middle of I-10.

[InsanityImpaired]

That's the very definition of a feminist, the new breed of modern women we've been working so hard to create over the last few decades.

No. That is not the definition of a feminist. That is what people like her get called, but that is a different matter. It would probably be more correct to describe her as a psychological man of the olden days, when the wife did not have much to say. Penis envy, revisited.

 

Of course, a relationship in which one resents the thought of equality can never be stable between two equals. That is, if one of the partners does not accept the domineering by the partner, whether he or she is male or female, will only set one up for relationship disaster and unhappiness. However, some men and some women do prefer to be "domineered" (various religions and cultures have come up with various interpretations and justifications for that).

 

Likewise relationships can fail, because the other partner is not domineering enough, or just "too domineering." But even the latter may be a simple excuse for the fact that the partner reminds one of one's duties and responsibilities.

 

I am actually surprised to see how many people put up with the genderbashing.

[norajane]

Feminism, just like chauvinism, is representative of disrespect. As long as a person is strong enough to stand up for himself, he won't be a victim of feminism. If a man doesn't stand up for himself, he'll get run over like an armadillo in the middle of I-10.

 

PLEASE STOP MISUSING THE TERMS FEMINISM AND FEMINIST!

 

A feminist is defined as a supporter of feminism. Feminism is a social movement to promote equality of the sexes!

 

Feminism is not a social movement to promote superiority of women at the expense of men. Men do not become less equal when women gain equality. It is not a zero-sum game!

 

Or did you mean that you have met some women who are just as, or more competitive, than men and you formed a bad impression of what you are calling feminists?

 

Would you loathe your ex-fiance's behavior just as much if it came from one of your male friends? If he always had to win an argument, and always had to come out on top? If so, then acknowledge that you loathe the character trait that can be found in both men and women, and it has nothing to do with feminism.

[amerikajin]

Of course, a relationship in which one resents the thought of equality can never be stable between two equals. That is, if one of the partners does not accept the domineering by the partner, whether he or she is male or female, will only set one up for relationship disaster and unhappiness. However, some men and some women do prefer to be "domineered" (various religions and cultures have come up with various interpretations and justifications for that).

 

Women and men have distinctive roles in relationships. In the sum of the parts, they have equal responsibilities and each is entitled to dignity without exception. But a woman who wants to compete with a man in the male arena is not going to be attractive to me -- I mean, feminism has gone too far. We now have women who want to - and actually believe they can be - professional football players in the National Football League. That's just absurd and most reasonably educated and intelligent people, regardless of gender, can understand that. And even if, in theory, a woman were to play professional football in the NFL I can't think of any straight man that I know of who would be interested in such a 'lady'. Genders do have their roles in nature, and they have those defined roles for a reason.

 

The question is, how far below that level of nonsense does the line between equality of the sexes and feminism lie? I suppose that's something that each person, man and woman, has to decide for himself or herself in an individualistic society such as ours. I support the right of women to be career-oriented mainly because each woman has a right to be an individual and pursue her own passions and desires as any person does in our society. As well, I believe it's also important that women have some involvement in the job market if for no other reason than because they cannot and should not leave themselves at the mercy of men who neglect their own responsibilities in the role of being a man. But a woman who is as competitive as men, who tries to compete with men is going to be seen as someone who is stepping outside her role as a woman, and that is not going to be something a lot of masculine men are going to find sexy. Most women would presumably snicker privately or at the very least not take a man seriously if he were to do womanly things - why do most men almost never apply for jobs as 'executive assistants' or 'secretaries'???? Because men are supposed to be dominant, assertive, the ones in control. Most women would snub a guy who felt liberated enough to take ballet dancing or figure skating. Why? Because it's not manly. As I said, individuals are free to pursue whatever interests them - I wouldn't stand in the way of that. But you cannot force people to consider metro-sexuality or feminism sexy, try, try as you may.

 

Likewise relationships can fail, because the other partner is not domineering enough, or just "too domineering." But even the latter may be a simple excuse for the fact that the partner reminds one of one's duties and responsibilities.

 

Women will stay with a man who is occasionally too domineering as long as he doesn't prove to be a controlling psychopath. My brother is a classic alphamale and he's been married for 21 years, and he's exactly the kind of person that a man needs to be: dominant, but not psycho. Trust me, the moment he changes and becomes mister sensitive guy with all of his flower petals and feelings...he'll get thrown out the door.

[alphamale]

Feminism is not a social movement to promote superiority of women at the expense of men.

Sure it is! Who's going to give up ground? It won't be small prosimians such as Lemurs.

 

Men do not become less equal when women gain equality.

Sure they do because the resources are a fixed quantity.

 

It is not a zero-sum game!

Yes it is.

[BenThereDunThat]

Feminism vs. Feminist

 

Feminism, as in, being female, female-like traits

 

FeminIST, as in, being pro-woman, equal rights, etc.

[BARBGURL]

The article is dead on balls accurate.

I am an educated, multi-faceted, super-sexual woman. I take care of myself both physically, mentally, and emotionally ( to the best of my ability ) Why? To be as attractive as I can to men. Simply put, I want to attract the best possible specimen.

When I am with a man, the last thing I want to do is dominate. I could very well, but why would I want to. Deep down I want my man to be in charge. I want him to fix my car, decide where we are going for dinner, and ravage me in the bedroom. I can't admit that. Why? Because my girlfriends will see it as weakness.

 

Do men see that as a weakness? If a man sees a woman who appears to be completely independent and then finds out that she will welcome a dominant male, is that a turn off?

 

To be clear, I don't need this man. I can take care of myself. I like this man and I want this man.

[BareGoddess]

And you should HAVE that man!

 

(Wiping tears of joy off my face...)

[alphamale]

Feminism, as in, being female, female-like traits

No, Feminism is a group of Feminists who have gathered in the same general location.

 

When I am with a man, the last thing I want to do is dominate. I could very well, but why would I want to. Deep down I want my man to be in charge. I want him to fix my car, decide where we are going for dinner, and ravage me in the bedroom. I can't admit that. Why? Because my girlfriends will see it as weakness.

thank you sister!! at least there are a few real and honest women left.

[BARBGURL]

No, Feminism is a group of Feminists who have gathered in the same general location.

 

 

thank you sister!! at least there are a few real and honest women left.

 

 

Your avatar is awesome!!! " Ohhh AL..."

[BabyPhoenix]

I take care of myself both physically, mentally, and emotionally ( to the best of my ability ) Why? To be as attractive as I can to men. Simply put, I want to attract the best possible specimen.

 

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever read. Live your life for a man or in the pursuit of a man. And not for yourself. Truly pathetic.

[BARBGURL]

That is the most pathetic thing I have ever read. Live your life for a man or in the pursuit of a man. And not for yourself. Truly pathetic.

 

 

I don't live my life for "a man". However, I am willing to be honest about certain biological drives. I am surrounded daily by people who spew bull and try to convince themselves and others of so much crap. I just felt like being truthful. Some simply may not be able to understand or deal with certain realities. That's fine, they'll get there someday.

[BabyPhoenix]

Women and men have distinctive roles in relationships. In the sum of the parts, they have equal responsibilities and each is entitled to dignity without exception. But a woman who wants to compete with a man in the male arena is not going to be attractive to me -- I mean, feminism has gone too far. We now have women who want to - and actually believe they can be - professional football players in the National Football League. That's just absurd and most reasonably educated and intelligent people, regardless of gender, can understand that. And even if, in theory, a woman were to play professional football in the NFL I can't think of any straight man that I know of who would be interested in such a 'lady'. Genders do have their roles in nature, and they have those defined roles for a reason. .

 

I find this a very archaic viewpoint. Women and men historically have distinctive relationships because of the history of various societies, not because women wanted it to be that way. Women were subjugated. Women were property, and not of their own accord. I think that your viewpoint sounds like someone who feels threatened that women no longer need men, which I suppose in essence, they don’t in the traditional gender role sense. Women no longer need men for monetary support, or even to have a child (with the exception of the sperm donation).

 

I don’t think that there is anything theoretically wrong with women playing professional sports originally designed for men. I won’t go in depth here regarding the physical limitations of women, and the inequity of their strength compared to men, but if they compete equally with men, and entered the sport with the bar set just as high and they are an asset to the team, I don’t see any reason for their exclusion. Historically, similar arguments were used for barring blacks and other non-whites from sports. Today, we regard this is blatantly discriminatory. So is your viewpoint with regards to women.

 

In regards to dating, I certainly don’t think the women who participate in those sports have any less chance of it. They merely have less chance of dating men who have conservative mind-sets like your own, which is certainly a blessing. And there are plenty of men who do view women as equals and would find such an athlete attractive because of her will to compete in such a difficult arena.

 

I support the right of women to be career-oriented mainly because each woman has a right to be an individual and pursue her own passions and desires as any person does in our society. As well, I believe it's also important that women have some involvement in the job market if for no other reason than because they cannot and should not leave themselves at the mercy of men who neglect their own responsibilities in the role of being a man. But a woman who is as competitive as men, who tries to compete with men is going to be seen as someone who is stepping outside her role as a woman, and that is not going to be something a lot of masculine men are going to find sexy. .

 

Your statements are hypocrisy times tenfold. You essentially say that it is ok for women to be career minded, but not career minded enough to be competitive to compete with men. Please. Your insecurities are showing here. I am just glad the men I know are not as backward in their thinking as you. And I seriously doubt that any of the “career-minded” women who work themselves up to the tops of their profession actually care whether they are “sexy” to men at all, especially men like yourself.

 

 

 

Most women would presumably snicker privately or at the very least not take a man seriously if he were to do womanly things - why do most men almost never apply for jobs as 'executive assistants' or 'secretaries'???? Because men are supposed to be dominant, assertive, the ones in control. Most women would snub a guy who felt liberated enough to take ballet dancing or figure skating. Why? Because it's not manly. As I said, individuals are free to pursue whatever interests them - I wouldn't stand in the way of that.

 

What you are describing is reverse sexism, and it is as evil and unconscionable as sexism against women. I would see nothing wrong with a man pursuing any of these things, nor would I find him less sexy. And, if you will notice, the reverse sexism is becoming less and less prevalent, because if you look at trends in traditionally female dominated fields like teaching (highschool or primary school) or nursing, more and more men are entering these fields. One reason may be that the reverse sexism is lessening and men feel that they can excel in these fields as well as women.

[Woggle]

I acknowledge that there are women who call themselves feminists and are interested in nothing more than equality. These type of women I can deal with because that is what I want as well but that word has been run into the ground by women who want to grab men by the balls and squeeze tham as hard as they can making them burst and causing us maximum amounts of pain. They have contempt for the male gender and view treating us with any respect and kindness as a sign of weakness and submission. Men should not even bother to associate with these types unless they have to. A truly strong person does not have to bring down others in order to bring themselves up so these women who have to trash men in order to feel powerful are really weak inside. If you look at most of them they are always angry, always stressed and they seem to wear a permanent scowl. I also agree that any women who feels the need to shout how indendent she is and how useless men are is bad news. My two hands would make better partners than these types.

[alphamale]

I find this a very archaic viewpoint. Women and men historically have distinctive relationships because of the history of various societies, not because women wanted it to be that way. Women were subjugated. Women were property, and not of their own accord.

This was more due to biology and genetics than anything else.

 

Women no longer need men for monetary support, or even to have a child (with the exception of the sperm donation).

Women are still not independent. Men will always have the upper hand when it comes to physical strength and aggression. When women get too much power and independence then they will be physically bombed into submisson by men worldwide....not unlike what the US did to Iraq.

 

Your statements are hypocrisy times tenfold. You essentially say that it is ok for women to be career minded, but not career minded enough to be competitive to compete with men. Please. Your insecurities are showing here.

Women are taking jobs away from men and that isn't right.

 

And, if you will notice, the reverse sexism is becoming less and less prevalent, because if you look at trends in traditionally female dominated fields like teaching (highschool or primary school) or nursing, more and more men are entering these fields. One reason may be that the reverse sexism is lessening and men feel that they can excel in these fields as well as women.

Actually, no, men are not breaking the doors down to get into nursing and teaching. They will always be a small minority in female dominated fields.

 

My two hands would make better partners than these types.

Even one hand would be better....

[Woggle]

[quote=Women are still not independent. Men will always have the upper hand when it comes to physical strength and aggression. When women get too much power and independence then they will be physically bombed into submisson by men worldwide....not unlike what the US did to Iraq.

 

 

Women are taking jobs away from men and that isn't right.

 

 

Actually, no, men are not breaking the doors down to get into nursing and teaching. They will always be a small minority in female dominated fields.

 

 

Even one hand would be better....

 

I don't want to beat anybody into submission. I don't feel that men should have more power than women but feminists are not interested in equality. I just won't let a woman drag me around by the balls but that does not mean I want to drag her around on a leash. Also just because a woman can have a fatherless kid does not mean she should. The feminist view on fatherhood is a big reason why I loathe them so much.

 

Women have as much right to those jobs as men do. I don't feel women should get any special treatment but the job should go to the most qualified

 

Men who go into professions where they will have to deal with children are treated like child molestors. I know a woman who hires a male babysitter and people call her crazy for doing it. Also men who take on a more feminine role are often times looked down upon by women. I think men would be more comfortable adjusting to these new roles if women did not lose repsect for us when we do.

 

If I lost my hands I would use some pliers rather than deal with these type of women.