“Where Are All The Good Men?” has become a popular meme on the mainstream “infotainment” media over the past few years. You hear the plaint more and more, in books, magazines, newspaper “editorial” pages, and television – especially daytime-afternoon TV, where you get authors and glitterati and psychologists and churchly spokesmen and other such “experts” teaming up with Oprah and Doctor Phil to bat that question around the stage in front of the cameras and the studio audience. Only it’s not so much a question as a “plea,” and certainly not so much a plea as an accusatory demand.
“What happened to all the Good Men? The men who are strong, and kind, and dominant, and submissive; who have nice smiles and nice abs, and nice cars and great paychecks? The men who will give themselves up to making us happy, making us feel like a princess? The men who will man up for us, plight their troths unto us, buy our stuff for us, raise our children with us, and sacrifice themselves day by day in the concrete canyons of Gotham so that we can sit home with a bag of Cheesy-Wacky-Fries-flavored crisps in our lap and watch Oprah and Doctor Phil?”
Somebody is going to accuse me of laying that on a bit thick. And yes, there are some mutually-contradictory demands in that description. But when you read the laundry-list requirements that all too many “desperately seeking” women put on their Plenty Of Fish pages, I don’t believe it’s TOO far off the mark.
Dr. Paul Elam, founder and publisher of A Voice For Men, posted an utterly necessary counter-question on his website recently: What is a good man?
And who gets to define “a good man” – who gets to set the criteria for “goodness” in men?
The second question is actually crucial to the first. Who gets to “own” the answer? Who gets the privilege of defining “goodness” in men? Is it up to the Main Scream Media, or to Oprah and Dr. Phil, or do we men ourselves have a voice in the definition of “goodness in men”?
If we listen to the talk shows, they have taken it for granted that women get to own the definition; women and their White-Knight defenders, like Dr. Phil and William Bennett. And their definition is closely parallel to my “over-the-top” description above. They describe the “Good Man” in terms of two qualities:
Sacrifice and utility.
That’s right.
Sacrifice and utility are held up as the measure of the “good man.”
I want you to play along with me a moment. Tilt up your face; raise your eyebrows while you squint downwards under half-closed eyelids. Wrinkle your nose, sneer a bit, and say this word with heavy emphasis on the first syllable:
“Reeeallly.”
That should give you the flavor of sarcasm I want you to understand, in my response – in the response I believe is proper, when women and their apologists and supporters get to publish their laundry list as the Wikipedia definition for “A Good Man.”
If you will just step aside from the “bullying pulpit” for a moment, open an old-fashioned print dictionary (maybe the one your mother put on the desk in your room, when you were going to school) and look up the word “good,” you’ll find a whole lot of definitions listed that do not have to do with sacrifice and/or utility. Same with “man” – you’ll find “sacrifice” and “utility” are strangely absent from the Funk & Wagnalls definition of that word, too.
Now that we’ve cleared that question of definitions … and hopefully, cleared out the reflexive impulse to include “sacrifice and utility” as the attributes of a “good man” … let’s get back to the top question: “Where are all the good men?”
We’re invisible.
No kidding. You don’t even see us out here.
We are men who are strong, and honorable, and decent and kind. We are men who are courteous, though the past fifty years of misandry have given us less and less reason to retain our courtesy. We are men who work, some of us in the rain and the dark, some of us in the hazardous jobs that Society still needs, some of us in the brain-numbing mental drudgery of the “cube farms” of modern business and technology. Some of us have our own businesses, and we manage without the special subsidies and “cut-out contracts” that Big Daddy Government offers to businesswomen. We earn our livings; we pay our own way, and through our taxes we pay the way for uncounted “disadvantaged” others. We build on the square and on the level; we live up to the trust of our employers, of our communities, of Society.
But you don’t even see us, because your “radar” is tuned for the Bad Boys who excite you. The authentically good men, the trustworthy, the honest, the decent and kind and courteous men who keep the world going, the men who would actually be good husbands and good fathers, are all around you; but you don’t even see us, or at best you might notice our empty suits.
And more and more of us notice that we’re filtered out, rendered invisible, by the wide blue mirrors in your eyes. We have come to recognize, to realize, that we don’t even exist in your awareness. We go on with our honorable, and trustworthy, and productive lives, because that’s what a man does. But more and more, we are turning aside from the notion of “doing it FOR YOU.” We are no longer willing, in fact we are refusing, to define our manhood and our goodness in terms of sacrifice and utility for you.
We’re dropping out of your rigged games. We’re looking out for ourselves, for our own needs and interests, for our own future. And more and more of us are ghosting, slipping off the radar, going our own way.
We are learning to live our lives in fun and fulfilling ways, that don’t center themselves around you. We’re riding by on our motorcycles, in our convertibles (top down and right seat conspicuously empty), on our jet-skis and in our yachts. We’re doing “Manly Things” and enjoying life, and enjoying even more the calm and quiet and peace in our lives that come with your absence.
We’re discovering that we don’t need you to be happy.
The Good Man is here. But we are invisible to you.
As a woman who believes that men and women need each other, and not that one sex is meant to serve the other, I find this post strange. Yes, there are selfish women who use men, just as there are selfish men who use women, but any woman who’s genuinely looking for a good man to marry and have a family with does have to make sure that she doesn’t end up with someone selfish. She’s going to be sacrificing basically her whole existence to have children–every ounce of her physical, emotional, and mental strength. So why is it so outrageous that she wants to be with a man who will carry his load in the relationship? Why is that so offensive? Doesn’t a man have to contribute, too? He can’t have children; that’s a biological impossibility. So he has the role of protector and provider…do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a man willing to play that role in modern society? It’s nearly impossible because so many men hang onto permanent adolescence and prefer to ride their motorcycles and sulk with a “what’s in it for me?” attitude instead of taking on the burden of having a family. It’s really just cowardice.
“She’s going to be sacrificing basically her whole existence to have children–every ounce of her physical, emotional, and mental strength. So why is it so outrageous that she wants to be with a man who will carry his load in the relationship?”
Because they aren’t his children. Often literally – plenty of cuckolded guys out there, plenty of bastards. But more importantly legally. Most marriages end in divorce. Most times, the mother gets custody. Why expect someone to ruin their lives over kids that you are not allowed to even speak to except in a barred room with a government official hovering over you?
Selfish? Women have kids because they *want* to bear a baby. They want the glowy high that those pregnancy hormones give. They don’t do it for the sake of the kid, for society, for their families. They do it for themselves.
Cowardice? Eat a dick.
Well said, Paul!
(Most) women don’t have babies because of a logical choice or altruism. They have babies because of a biological imperative. Part of that biological drive is to USE a (sucker/beta) man to raise her (alpha cock spawned) children.
I would argue that a (average) man’s biological imperative pushes him to bond with a woman. Women’s biological drive only seeks to USE men.
Seriously! What does a man get from a woman? That’s right, the only answer is sex (especially with the way Paul has already mentioned our laws are). What does a woman get from a man? Everything AND sex. So, what’s in it for men (if the sex, being as it should be as valuable from a man as it is from a woman, is given by both)? Nothing. With laws so disgustingly against men and favoring women, it is more than just not worth it to pair with a woman, it is out right foolish.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily men speak with authority on what women want. No, most women do not want children because they want a high from hormones. What an absurd thing to say.
“Because they aren’t his children…”
Well, I’m talking about a different situation. I don’t know what you’re going on about. Try to stay on topic. We’re talking about why women should have high expectations from men they plan to spend their lives with, not how often children are born outside of marriage. I agree that’s a problem, but you brought it up out of the blue without addressing my point.
You don’t get it.
Those non-selfish women are so small a minority as to be statistically insignificant.
The same thing can be said of men. So for non-selfish people the options are to try a little harder to find someone who’s not selfish, or to opt out and have a pity-party. Your pick.
Io, it seems you forgot something that is essential to your post
you forgot your argument
yea, you brought your shaming language, I see that, but I don’t see where you bring facts or logic. then again, since this wasn’t a post meant to call out anyone except for the obviously faulty women who are ruining society with their inability to look past their instinctual behavior… maybe something struck a nerve with you?
Oh and I should just add that concerning the invisible aspect of it–if these men who are hiding are so great, then why are they hiding? It is not a woman’s job to look in all the dark corners to find these “good men.” If they have what is takes, they need to show their faces.
Ah, thank you for showing up, Io. I’ve been “waiting on the thunder.”
I agree with this: Neither sex is “meant to serve the other.” And I agree wholeheartedly that both man and woman need to “carry their load,” in a relationship, in a marriage, in a family. But I also see men, many men, who are kicked out of the home and the family by their wives, beggared by the court costs, and left with no role in their children’s lives save for “walking wallet.” Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t shame them, too.
Your second question, having to do with “the invisible aspect” of “these men” – well, that’s explained in the text, too; but I would have to guess that the explanation “slipped in under your radar.” The men I’m talking about are not hiding; women aren’t seeing them because they are simply beneath women’s notice. You don’t see them because the “High Alpha Filter” on your mate-radar is tuning them out. And I’d guess you want to shame them for that, too.
Let’s see: Selfishness, cowardice, permanent adolescence, hiding, sulking. Did you mean “outrageous” and “offensive” as shame-labels, as well?
Shame a man enough and he will give up. Or find something fulfilling that doesn’t come with shame.
Shut up you feminist bitch.
You really are obtuse aren’t you? You haven’t understood a single word he said and are simply using this as a platform to spout your own twisted philosophy.
Men aren’t hiding, they are invisible to you. He made that clear and explained how but you seem to be so self absorbed in your own little fantasy world that it has flown straight over your head.
shut up bitch
It looks to me like you’re doing plenty of shaming yourself, referring to women being princesses and wanting to sit on the sofa all day, then divorce a man and take his money. And you said that about ALL women. My points about men who are cowards and permanent adolescents only referred to a specific type of man who behaves a specific way. If you don’t fall into that category, there’s no reason for you to take offense. Not the mention the fact that your reasoning is a bit circular. I called a man who runs away a coward. You called that shaming and said it’s reason why men run away. Chicken and egg?
You don’t know what kind of men I like so please don’t make comments aimed at me about “Alpha filters.” The kind of man I think of when I hear “Alpha” is a womanizing manwhore and the kind of man I would stay completely away from.
You also ignored my comments about why women need to be careful about what kind of men they choose. Doesn’t get a mention, does it? I agree that divorce is tragic. The disintegration of the family in general is tragic, and hurts men, women, and children equally–not just men. I don’t see a good reason for men to play the victim, especially since what you refer to in your comment only applies to last hundred years or so. I think most people will agree that historically women have been much more vulnerable in marriage and relationships on account of being physically weaker and financially dependant. Yes, men have suffered because of divorce laws. Have they suffered more than women since the beginning of time? Nope.
However, I realize that you’re probably going to see everything I say relative only to what you already seem to believe about women, so I will offer this instead…since it’s written by a man, you might listen to him: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/05/alt-text-nice-guys-guide/
“Yes, men have suffered because of divorce laws. Have they suffered more than women since the beginning of time? Nope. ”
Actually, a big YEP! Men have, do, and it looks as though, always will suffer more than women.
Here’s one example: When it’s wartime, men are expected to die. Women have a choice. Women have also, in the past, shamed men for not wanting to forfeit their lives for a war they didn’t want.
In the U.S. women simply have to turn 18 to be able to vote. Men, on the other hand, have to sign up for the draft (i.e. sign away right over their own life) to be able to vote.
When women (and children) suffer, people listen and even care. When men suffer, not so much. You’re an example of this. The fact that you think women have suffered more throughout history shows your ignorance, bias, and lack of care for men.
In “The Manipulated Man”, Esther Villar, a woman, provides answers to your questions:
What is man?
“A man is a human being who works. By working, he supports himself, his wife, and his wife’s children. A woman, on the other hand, is a human being who does not work – or at least only temporarily. Most of her life she supports neither herself nor her children, let alone her husband.” pg 6
What is woman?
“A woman, as we have already said, is, in contrast to a man, a human being who does not work. One might leave it at that, for there isn’t much more to say about her, were the basic concept of `human being’ not so general and inexact in embracing both `man’ and `woman.’ ” pg 9
“By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given intervals.” pg 9
Why ‘good men’ are invisible?
“Yes, only women exist in a woman’s world.” pg 12
The old version of the book is online at http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the_manipulated_man.pdf
You can buy the current version online at Amazon.com
Let’s start, Io, with the difference between “ALL”, which you said, and “all too many,” which is what I said. “All too many” is an amplification of “many,” but it too is a specific subset of women. I congratulate you if you aren’t part of that subset.
Would you agree that a man who does get shamed might have other reasons than “cowardice” to turn aside from the shame-slingers? Is that circular logic?
I also congratulate you for staying completely away from womanizing man-whores. I stay away from hypergamous shaming sluts. I am not calling you one.
I didn’t comment on “why women need to be careful,” because that goes without saying. Men need to be careful, too; it goes both ways. I am not going to address “historical suffering,” any which way.
True, I’m going to see what I see, relative to my beliefs, just as you do – just as we all do. That’s what beliefs do – they filter our perceptions, both outwardly and inwardly. Speaking of beliefs, have you spotted why I’m saying The Invisible Man is invisible? Might it have something to do with your beliefs … and expectations?
@lo LOOOLLLLL!!!!! rationalization hamster overdrive much?
“”””My points about men who are cowards and permanent adolescents only referred to a specific type of man who behaves a specific way.”””””
First off, you don’t get to define what a man Is, let’s get that straight up front. I also observe how women behave according to law, so save your whining for another day.
“””I called a man who runs away a coward.””””
Runs away from what? fat used up women. Are you serious?
“”””Yes, men have suffered because of divorce laws. Have they suffered more than women since the beginning of time? Nope. “””””
And how would you know, how old are you?
Obviously, analyzing is not your forte.
I’m 28. How old are you? How many times have you been divorced?
what is it about when someone talks about the plight of men in relationships some stupid bitch has to have verbal throw up on it???
Of course your comment was rhetorical but, you and the rest of us know, it’s because women don’t want to lose their vested interest – the USE of men for their own interest with no care for what a man gets out of it; just as this article lays out.
We are no longer willing, in fact we are refusing, to define our manhood and our goodness in terms of sacrifice and utility for you.
Very, very good stuff!
“I don’t see a good reason for men to play the victim, especially since what you refer to in your comment only applies to last hundred years or so. I think most people will agree that historically women have been much more vulnerable in marriage and relationships on account of being physically weaker and financially dependant. Yes, men have suffered because of divorce laws. Have they suffered more than women since the beginning of time? Nope.”
I agree. Women have had a hard life down through the ages. So have men. But now, a man can be thrown out of his own house on the whim of his wife/partner and never see his children again. Don’t pretend it doesn’t happen, nor that it’s rare – it happens more than 50% of the time.
Whilst these statistics are playing out, I opt out. And so are many, many men. Legions in fact. This is why you are seeing so many men “stuck in adolescence” – it’s not because they don’t want a family. It’s because the risk is way, way too high.
When a woman gets married, what is the risk that she’ll be abused? Men are physically stronger than women and have not hesitated to use that power over them. And yet, women are still getting married, even though in my opinion getting beat up is worse than getting kicked out of your house. And most women won’t divorce a man unless there’s a good reason for it–like, oh yeah, he treated her horribly.,
And yet women still get married, which makes us less cowardly than men.
And men who opt of marriage do it for a lot of reasons besides divorce. Let’s not be naive.
“And men who opt of marriage do it for a lot of reasons besides divorce. Let’s not be naive.”
AAAAA – MENNN to that! 😀
Wow, waaaaay off. Most domestic violence is initiated by women. (Especially if we want to count emotional abuse). Also, lesbian relationships have the highest percentage of domestic violence and gay men have the lowest.
The victim abuse (when female) also has options and protections, the victim of divorce theft and fraud has little to none.
Most women don’t have to worry about physical abuse, and men not only hesitate but, are usually not the instigators nor have desire to use their superior physical ability over women. It’s usually as a matter of self-defense in response to the abuse dished out by women with the excuse, “I’m just a woman. He’s bigger than me, he can take it. Take it like a man.”
There’s nothing brave about getting to marriage as woman, it’s a get-rich-quick scheme sponsored by the family court INDUSTRY.
Wukong, gay male relationships have the highest rate of domestic violence, not the lowest. You need to do a bit of research.
An Australian government study showed conclusively that men are more likely to end up admitted to hospital due to domestic violence than women. But did they try to do anything about it? No. Women always are seen as the victims and men are left to suffer.
Watch the TV and take notice of how many times they show a woman hitting a man in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the roles were reversed. If a woman strikes a man it is funny or empowering, if a man even tries to defend himself he is a monster. I challenge you – take notice.
I own my own house. Marriage for me would be gambling over $200k on the slight chance that I will win something I don’t even want. I am much older than you and have realised that I have spent most of my life jumping through hoops to satisfy a woman’s emotional bs.
You’re right, divorce isn’t the only reason I won’t get married again but it is certainly a large proportion of it. The rest is that modern women have NOTHING to offer.
Why women are more keen on “commitment” is that they aren’t actually committing anything. If they break their commitment, not only have they nothing to lose they are actually rewarded and rewarded richly.
Women may need men like a fish needs a bicycle but men need women like a bank needs a robbery. We have seen the plantation for what it is and we’ve walked off it. It has nothing to offer but stress, drama and slavery to an untouchable, irrational tyrant.
That’s where all the good men have gone, we are the smart ones that see you bitches for what you are. We have seen what modern marriage truly is – a mechanism for transferring wealth from men to women and we want no part in it. You fought to be able to work so go do it. Make your own bloody money, you’ll not be getting your talons into mine you bloodsucking tyrant.
“Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples (1,5). ”
Source: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
Your research could use some work.
“. . . many men hang onto permanent adolescence and prefer to ride their motorcycles and sulk with a “what’s in it for me?” attitude instead of taking on the burden of having a family. It’s really just cowardice.”
1. Becoming a husband or a father is not compulsory.
2. “What’s in it for me?” is a very sound and very reasonable question. Everyone should ask it before taking any big step in life.
3. Call it cowardly if you like. I call it sensible. The “burden of having a family”, as you rightly describe it, is a wholly unnecessary and avoidable burden. I prefer to be unburdened.
4. To say nothing of the huge financial risk to a man in marrying today.
Then why does this article whine about women NOT marrying men and considering marriageable men invisible? Do these men want to get married or not? Which is it?
Io, I would love to get married to a loving wife whom would be faithful and loyal to me. I would love to live in a nice suburban house, and have a few kids.
Unfortunately, the sad reality is that in order to have that life I will have to accept all of the following things:
1) A halving (or more) of my take-home pay if I’m the sole-provider. If I’m the PRIMARY provider, then I still have to accept a reduction in pay.
2) One or more of the children may not be mine.
3) At any point in time, FOR ANY REASON, Wife may leave me, take my kids, and at the bare minimum half of everything I entered in to the relationship with.
4) Stay together for the kids if Wife turns out to be abusive in any way, because as stated above, an abusive Wife is more likely to end up with the children than I am- especially if it turns out they’re not my children.
It would not only be fiscally irresponsible of me to enter in to such a contract as marriage. It would also be irresponsible of me to introduce one or more children in to an environment in which their emotional and physical well-being may be put at risk by the presence of their mother. If being “immature” and a “coward” is choosing in favor of financial stability and the well-being of my potential progeny, then I’m the most yellow-bellied teenage-minded motherfucker you’ve ever seen.
You really are obtuse. Why would we want to marry women that are only interested in us when it comes time to steal our money off us? The fact that most men are invisible is a comment on the motives of women and those motives are as ugly as sin. Why would we want to marry something that ugly when the only outcome is that we have everything taken off us – even our children?
Get a clue bitch.
Heh, lol regarding Io’s comment. It is wholly predictable both in tone and content.
It amazes me how little actual argumentation skills most women seem to have. If you strip them of their default shaming language strategy (which, my dear cupcake Io is less and less effective) you see them clearly, intellectually naked (and also bankrupt). They gibber, they flounder, they let their rationalization hamster go into overdrive…and then they lose.
Because logic, common sense and rationality is women’s Achilles Heal….just like sexuality is men’s.
Can you point out where I’ve been irrational and illogical and give examples? This just looks like empty ranting.
Oh and Beijaflor…a truly outstanding article. Cudos to you, sir.
That would be “kudos.”
Ah, something unquestionably “rational” and “logical”.
It is, indeed, “kudos” with a “K”.
Thank you, Io, for clearing this up.
There’s nothing rational about spelling. I’m starting to think that word gets thrown around here a lot without any of you having a very good grasp of its meaning. Spelling is completely arbitrary. There’s no logical reason why the word would be spelled with a “K” rather than a “C.” It’s just convention.
Sort of like the “C” word. Completely understandable in application. I’m with you on this one.
“There’s nothing rational about spelling.”
Not sure if stupid or just trolling…
Io, I think it’s been said by many here that the old model (which some people call ‘Marriage 1.0’) was not great for both sexes.
For women – in Marriage 1.0, they got married in their teens/early 20’s, had kids and was financially dependent on their husband, whom they may or may not love.
For men – in Marriage 1.0, they got married and the burden of being the sole wage slave to provide for his wife and children, whom they may or may not have wanted (let’s just say birth control wasn’t as used back then).
So then Feminism happened. It not only liberated women, but men as well. Feminism gave both sexes the gift of choice. So how did Feminism change thanks?
For women – they could choose to work and become financially independent, or not. They could choose to have a family, or not. They could choose to divorce a husband they do not love, or not.
For men – for the first time in human history, men could choose to not be a wage slave. As many articles about Millennial women being stressed out from being in the workplace have discovered, going to work isn’t the bowl of cherries that women thought it was. In fact, it sucks. Yet all throughout history, men had no choice but to work and provide for a family that he may or may not have wanted.
As said, Feminism gave the gift of choice, and it goes both ways. Just as for women, it gave them the freedom to choose to become independent from the chains of Marriage 1.0, it also gave men the very same thing, the freedom to choose not to be come a wage slave to a family.
So given this is the case, for women to shame men for enjoying the freedom that women themselves are also enjoying is hypocritical. Feminism gave choice to both sexes. If women can exercise this choice, so can men.
Of course men have the option to chose to not get married. That has always been true, and many men have done it. Nobody is under any obligation to get married. However, for a man to chose to stay unmarried and then blame women for rejecting him…which is what is going on this article…is a bit inconsistent. If you chose not to get married then own it. Don’t be throw a pity party about it.
Feminism really has nothing to do with it.
Io, this isn’t about blame, it’s a declaration of independence. And it certainly isn’t a “pity party,”no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.
I’m having entirely too much fun here to bother with pity, or blame.
Io: “However, for a man to chose to stay unmarried and then blame women for rejecting him…”
Could you specify which man has said or done that? It’s certainly not me so it sounds like a straw man argument.
And what are your thoughts on women who want to be married but then overlook decent solid regular guys who good jobs who aren’t alpha thugs and whine that there are no good men out there? (Which was the original point of BeijaFlor’s post).
Kestral, did you read the article? “And more and more of us notice that we’re filtered out, rendered invisible, by the wide blue mirrors in your eyes. We have come to recognize, to realize, that we don’t even exist in your awareness. We go on with our honorable, and trustworthy, and productive lives, because that’s what a man does. But more and more, we are turning aside from the notion of “doing it FOR YOU.””
We’re filtered out…we’re mad about this…so we’ve decided we don’t need you. That was the whole thesis of the post. Am I wrong?
Your assessment was different. You are a feminist who thinks, like many feminists do, that traditional marriage benefits neither men nor women and should be gotten rid of.
I don’t know what an “alpha thug” is. Maybe the women who turned down those “decent, solid guys” didn’t find them attractive. Maybe there was just no chemistry. It’s funny that when men reject women it’s always for a perfectly good and obvious reason and no one complains, but if a woman dares to turn down a man it’s like the end of Western Civilization. I’ve know decent, solid men who I knew I wouldn’t marry because I simply realized that we wouldn’t make each other happy. Isn’t it better not to marry someone in that situation?
In my experience, women will go through many disappointments to find a person they actually want to be with. “You have to kiss a lot of frogs,” etc., is something that curiously only gets said to women. Men, on the other hand, can’t handle rejection, and stop trying after getting turned down once or twice. Getting turned down is part of dating. Grow up and deal with it; all of us have to.
What you call “frogs” are the “alpha thugs”.
When you say a woman has to “kiss a lot of frogs”, you’re saying “ride the cock carousel”, which means, ignoring the princes.
And you’re right, when men reject women, they can give concrete, specific reasons, ie. she cheated on me, she wouldn’t have sex with me, I’m sick of the drama, she’s too demanding.
Whereas with women, their reason basically amounts to, “I just feeeeeeeeeeeel like it” aka “He no longer gives me gina tingles and I have the new cock urge”.
You’re disgusting. If you get passed over by women it’s because you’re rude, disrespectful, and have a filthy mind.
Lighten up, Cupcake.
Actually, we men don’t have to deal with it any more.
Thanks to internet porn, easily available on-line prostitutes, and plenty of gullible and desperate women out there, we really don’t need American women anymore. Waaaaay too much drama. So dudes are dropping out, enjoying life, learning Game and getting laid. Meanwhile women their age are frustrated by the “lack of good men” (after supporting a feminism that systematically destroyed masculinity for the last fifty years), are counting their last few eggs, and can’t imagine WHY men are passing them by like last year’s model (which is exactly why they’re getting passed by).
So we stay at home and play HALO, or we go to Amsterdam or Vegas for a long weekend, or we spend our evenings in gentlemanly pursuits like marksmanship, sherry, or pornography. But we aren’t dating you, we aren’t spending our money on you, and we damn sure aren’t going to risk an EPL just so you can have a fancy dress and a big party. We’re done with you. You had two generations to make your case, and all you did is piss us off. You didn’t want to see us, you didn’t want to date us, and you didn’t want to give us the slightest amount of respect. So screw you. I mean, don’t screw you. American women, with rare and stunning exceptions, are just not worth the risk.
Latina girls, on the other hand, are reputed to be very easy-to-please . . .
There’s really no need for name calling and emotionality here. It’s simple — punish a behavior and you get less of it; reward (subsidize) a behavior and you get more of it.
Current western marriage and child custody laws overwhelmingly reward women at the expense of men. Men don’t want to get married because the potential for punishment associated with divorce far outweighs any perceived reward associated with marriage. Just the opposite is true for women.
The statistics bear this out. Although many women say they want to be married, the fact is that women initiate almost 70% of divorces. Let that figure sink in for a minute. It should be startling. Now consider that a significant percentage of the much smaller number of divorces that men actually do initiate are in response to infidelity/sexual abandonment etc. on the part of their wives.
Current matrimonial law heavily subsidizes divorce for women at the expense of men. Thus, the apparent chasm between the sexes regarding opinions about marriage is really just a realistic and rational response to the laws.
Not “cowardice” just common sense.
Women wanted these laws and they got them. If they don’t like the unintended consequences, that’s a pity (I guess) but it’s certainly not the fault of men.
Can you back up some of your data? For all I know you’re making it up off the top of your head. Actual facts would be great, as in, proof that this supposed small number of men initiating divorces is in response to infidelity. Sources, please?
Start here: http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rotating.pdf
Much supporting data available on the first page of a Google search.
In general, I’m not surprised the men here can’t find good women who will marry them and be loyal. The kind of good and decent man that women want to spend their lives with does not exist here. It’s probably better for society of none of you reproduce.
i found a “good woman who would marry me and be loyal”.
she then became NOT a good woman and became NOT loyal after our wedding vows when I did not get into med school.
I’m sorry to hear that. I really am.
Well, you’re a lovely little flower now, aren’t you? I don’t understand your motivation. Why are you wasting your time shaming the– as you would suggest– genetically defective reprobates here? Shouldn’t you, instead, be spending the evening with your “good and decent” Prince Charming? Hmm?
Bothers you, does it? And it’s not evening here, deary.
Yes, yes, it absolutely does. But you don’t, per se. My problem is with the pervasive feminst attitudes of “entitlement” and “privilege” reflected in your posts. On a macro, societal scale, they are incredibly toxic to men. If men are no longer interested in coupling with you, or with modern women in general, why is that THEIR problem? Look a little closer to home, cupcake. And stop shaming. It’s not attractive.
Who are you calling cupcake, pumpkin?
I’m not a feminist. You must be one of those men who see feminism everywhere without understanding what it is. What have I been arguing for here except traditional marriage and morals? Where does feminism come into play in that scenario? Oh yeah, it doesn’t. Oops.
Why don’t you say what you think instead of throwing out generalities and non-comments? What do you think is a good solution to this problem? Then we could get somewhere. And I haven’t had any shortage of men who were interested in me, thanks! I don’t recall making a complaint to that effect. Can you point out where I did?
My interest in being here is that the effects of promiscuity on society hurt everyone. The hurt that you see here, in these complaints by men, can ultimately be traced back to society’s lack of respect for marriage and what it really means.
I am not interested in your moralizing. The sex lives of other people is not your concern.
Traditionalists are feminists: there is no difference. Both camps are all about male service to females. Man as beast of burden, enslaved to you.
The solution is simple. MGTOW.
Okay, keep trying to live in a world where women exist to serve you, sweet pea.
You, predictably, fail to understand me. Women can do whatever they wish, as long as they do not harm men or otherwise impinge on men’s rights and dignity as human beings. Misandry must end. Otherwise, I simply don’t give a damn. Enjoy your life.
I asked you to state your position and you didn’t, so please don’t have a pity party because I “failed to understand you.” If you want to be understood, speak up.
Io is arguing for traditional marriage? What a joke. Traditional marriage is dead and feminism killed it. What has been established in its place is a system designed to oppress and disenfranchise men.
One of feminism’s stated goals was the destruction of the family because they considered it the cornerstone of the patriarchy. Well they achieved that goal. Your issue shouldn’t be with us, it should be with the feminazis that turned marriage into a concentration camp for men.
LOL! My wife of 20 years might debate that. If she can hear you over the sound of our three brilliant kids.
This is the thing, Cupcake: it isn’t US who aren’t reproducing. It’s you, and your spiritual sisters. Our sperm is good until we’re 70, and we only get more desirable as we get older and richer. If we want kids, it’s easy enough to knock someone up. You and your 30-something girlfriends, on the other hand, have about half a dozen eggs left and you can’t find a fracking DATE, much less a husband.
In a generation, all of the dudes here will have either reproduced or not, based on our choice. Whereas the well-educated single female professionals who are at the peak of their careers and just realized that they need an actual SPERM to have a child, will utterly fail to find a sucker to knock them up, much less assist them with the raising of the child.
Women control sex. Men control relationships.
Ain’t life in the Feminist Utopia grand?
Io, when did anyone mention wanting to find a ‘good woman’? We’re all quite content with no women in our lives.
As far as reproducing goes, the idea that the mere accusation from a woman would ban me from being with my offspring is a pain I do not want to endure hence I choose not to reproduce.
Please read Kestral’s comment. He hit the nail on the head.
Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that I did read Kestral’s comment, since I responded to it.
I also think it’s pretty obvious that Kestral is feminist, and since you agreed with him wholeheartedly, you must be one to. He sees pre-feminist marriage as something negative, and post-feminist relationships (or the lack thereof) as something positive. I do not. Do you?
The idea that you’re so frightened of some imaginary thing that hasn’t actually happened to you that you chose to live your life alone is not common sense. That’s paranoia. I could refuse to leave my house because I might get run over by a car and die, but I don’t.
Again, however you chose to live your life is up to you, but it’s hard not to point out that avoiding all responsibility and selflessness out of an overwhelming, unfounded fear is choosing to live like a child forever.
Again, just like every bloody female out there, you seem to equate the fact I don’t want to be married, have kids, etc, means I am somehow avoiding responsibility, am selfish, and want to be a child forever,
I am an engineer and work hard at my job. People I work with depend on the work I do.
You make that classical assertion that because I don’t want to risk everything (and I mean everything) by being married and having kids that I am somehow forever going to be an adolescent?!?!
I have worked the game out and shaming language doesn’t work on me (and I hasten to add many others commenting here too).
And seriously, shaming us by saying ” It’s probably better for society (that) none of you reproduce” is going to somehow make us understand your point of view is ludicrous!
Men are going their own way because they are sick of the misandric matrix they live in. It’s not more complicated than that.
So if a woman doesn’t want to get married, she’s a career-conscious independent woman who just hasn’t met the right Prince Charming yet.
But if a man doesn’t want to get married, he’s selfish and avoiding all responsibility.
Has it ever occurred to you that the men you accuse of avoiding responsibility just don’t like what you have to offer? That they’d rather eschew reproduction all together than risk untold emotional and financial hardship because his wife saw EPL and decided that she wasn’t happy for no good goddamn reason?
Yes, women in the West have screwed up that badly. Tend to your own house before you try to tear down ours.
The Hamster is strong in this one.
“Io, this isn’t about blame, it’s a declaration of independence. And it certainly isn’t a “pity party,”no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.
I’m having entirely too much fun here to bother with pity, or blame.”
The choice to live a solitary life is open to everyone who hasn’t made prior unbreakable commitments. There’s nothing wrong with it, and if you’re happy, then that’s great. Your article doesn’t sound very happy, though.
The problem is that most men don’t live a solitary life of celibacy. They do what they want and use women as objects to to satisfy their physical, basically taking what they want and giving nothing in return. And that is NOT okay.
That’s a general observation about modern life. I have no idea what your circumstances are, obviously.
This is the problem. They’re both getting sex. Women can’t have this though, there must be payment for their sex. Somehow their sex is more valuable than a man’s.
(Sex can be interchanged with affection, in this case)
It’s not more valuable. Sex outside of marriage and traditional family structure is more damaging to women, so women naturally should be more protective of themselves, although many have completely forgotten how to do this. I suppose I should say more obviously damaging to women, because it’s plenty damaging to men as well, not to mention degrading.
And no, sex cannot be interchanged with affection. When you have a society where sex is cheap and available, everything goes wrong, and affection becomes a rare commodity. You can’t have affection without respect, and you can’t have respect where people are using each other primarily for sex. The fact that you think both sex and affection can be somehow bartered as something more or less valuable shows what a poor grasp you have of the nature of human relationships or the value of a person.
More damaging to women?! How so? And why is it that the amount of partners the average female (starting as a teenager) has is exponentially higher than the average males? If it’s so risky for them, shouldn’t there be higher percentages of chastity among them? Also, since their numbers far outweight those of males, it can’t be blamed on men, because most men have nothing to do with it. Thus, the blame is on women if there’s a worry about the consequences of their sexual escapades.
You completely missed my point about affection. It was specifically in reference to my statement, not comparing affection and sex as a whole.
To spell it out, it’s often said that women want attention or affection. Well, as pointed out in my statement, there’s (their affection/attention) is also seen as more valuable. This is showcased in expectations women have from men before they give of either of these yet, expect it without solicitation from men.
You need to start backing up your claims. Until then, it just looks like you’re making stuff up, and we can’t have a rational conversation. Women have more sexual partners than men? How does that even work mathematically? Can you show any data to support this?
Women are more emotionally damaged by promiscuity, not to mention at risk for pregnancy, rape, and cervical cancer. To name just a few things.
Studies on women’s sexual behavior is very inaccurate. According to the following study, if women believe they are hooked to a lie detector test while being surveyed, they will report nearly twice as many sexual partners:
“…women who thought their answers might be read reported an average of 2.6 sexual partners. But those who thought they were monitored by a lie detector reported an average of 4.4 sexual partners. Women who were not attached to the lie detector, but who had privacy during testing, gave answers in the middle – an average of 3.4 sexual partners.”
Source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sexsurv.htm
There’s also been studies that have shown that roughly 40% men’s genes have been passed on through history and close to 100% of women. Who’s having more sex or has more access to it?
Amen brother
And I’d like to add that we are tired of you slags whoring it up and then expecting one of us to step in and pay your bills and raise your womb turds.
There’s no reason for us to pay for what plenty of others got for free.
Not happening.
Who the hell said anything about celibacy? It’s a poon paradise out there once you take the Red Pill and learn Game.
But you object to that. When men have sex, it’s “using women as objects to satisfy their physical [needs]” . . . but your objection is actually the fact that they are “taking what they want and giving nothing in return. And that is NOT okay.” So what you’re really saying is that men have sex to satisfy themselves, and women have sex to GET SOMETHING IN RETURN.
Why should we want to marry you, again? I’m guessing your Hooker Math is probably unfavorable.
Io,
Listen here sweet cheeks, you keep asking for all this data to back up these claims, why don’t you do a little research yourself. Try reading some valid information that hasn’t been touched by the feminist lies, then get back to us.
Perhaps you’re a little on the chunky side? 🙂
I weigh 95 lbs, honey buns. But hey, if you have nothing valid to offer, why not say something predictable like telling a woman she’s fat? Then she can get upset and you can claim that she’s being emotional!
Maybe you’re actually the fat one, sugar pie.
he may be fat but you’re a worthless C*U*N*T!!!!! He can lose weight. there’s no hope for your dumb ass
Now, Gentlemen, there’s no place for angry abuse. That’s a feminist tactic. Calm, reasoned debate is where our strength lies. The use of just enough ridicule to gently coax them back into reasonable tones and respectful debate.
In point of fact, she hasn’t really pointed out anything we didn’t know yet, and she has no clear solution other than to be shaming and abusive herself, but if we don’t instruct her then she’s just going to be this way when some poor unsuspecting Beta happens across her, and we don’t want that, do we?
“The choice to live a solitary life is open to everyone who hasn’t made prior unbreakable commitments.”
“prior unbreakable commitments”
Unbreakable. Now that’s a pretty absolute word. It would not admit divorce, for instance. Perhaps you would be so kind as direct us to other forums where you harangue women not to divorce? Thank you in advance.
Incidentally, men generally find women irresistible for about 10-15 years, starting at around age 15. After that, their intellect starts to outweigh nature’s basic programming. After about 40, they cease to find women attractive at all – you will of course find a few exceptions proving the rule, but most of them are still cruising on momentum achieved during their more impressionable youths.
Basically, if we haven’t been trapped by 40, we never will be.
I am against divorce, thanks for asking.
I noticed she did not direct us to other forums where she harangues women not to divorce.
She ignores all the other points you made that suggests men don’t get much out of the deal and responds with “I am against divorce”.
Major league cop out, like talking to a deaf person.
Sorry to offend any deaf men, I should say like performing music for a tone deaf person. Bad analogy.
Hey Io go stick a c0ck in your mouth and shut up you dumb bitch!
Let me try…….
Listen my Dear,
I’ve been with lots of you. Many. Even married a few.
The problem is that you use sex to get men to have anything to do with you. It’s biology. There used to be guys who did all the things you are looking for. We didn’t ask for much. We got less than that from you. None of you can keep your legs shut. AWALT.
If I could find a woman that had to fulfill the promises she made, without government interference and all the issues/ drama, I might consider it. Nahhhh…..I wouldn’t.
I don’t have any problems having a few women willing to get together for sex on a regular basis (so good luck shaming me with “can’t get laid”).
NO LTR. NO MARRIAGE. NO KIDS.
http://www.mgtowforums.com
You’re an idiot with a madonna-whore complex. If you’ve used women as you say you have no right to complain. You lost that when you decided to stop being a man and start being a man-whore.
I don’t “use sex” for anything. There’s really no point in trying to have a conversation with men who are more interested in responding to the voices in their heads than in what I have to say. You’re a sad little group and I won’t be back to make your dull little lives exciting again.
So yeah, have fun talking amongst your selves at the geek table. *kicks dirt from shoes*
I don’t have the heart to give you the thumbs down as you sulk and run away.
There was no complaint. I’m happy with things just the way they are.
Man whore? User of Women? Why yes, yes I am. Oh, wait…….it’s OK for women, but a man cannot? Oh the irony, it burns.
Io why don’t you just go ahead and join the porn industry? The only thing you’re good for is being a cum recepticle
It’s not okay for women, either. Where did I say it was? It’s never okay to use another human being for your own selfish needs.
I am nothing if not consistent. Can you say the same?
Actually, Cupcake, you kinda did:
“The problem is that most men don’t live a solitary life of celibacy. They do what they want and use women as objects to to satisfy their physical, basically taking what they want and giving nothing in return. And that is NOT okay.”
You’re basically advocating that women use sex to get stuff from men. And that if they don’t get stuff, then there is a problem with that. Sounds like someone using another human being for their own selfish needs, no?
No one can really be that dense.
How is it wrong to use another human for your own needs if they are doing the same thing? Seems an equal trade to me. Don’t you like equality?
We are all more than OK with it, my women and I. What’s your hangup?
Maybe I should date you for months, without so much as a handjob, while you whine, nag and pass your expiration date. No thanks. Sex on the first date or GTFO. I don’t have the time for lie detector tests (which most sociopaths can pass), job interviews and background checks. If a man and woman aren’t sexually compatible, why waste time? I’ve got important man business to do.
Tell you what. Send me a picture and phone number. I’ll let you know if you made the cut.
Lol
My picture is on my blog, genius. And no thanks, potbelly.
no wonder men are going their own way……you’re about as appealing as a sh!t sandwich!!!!!
LMAO. I thought you were leaving us to wallow in our own self pity (or whatever other shaming thing you said.
Potbelly? Project much?
Guess again.
I don’t get much time to go around reading mad drivel from fems on their blogs, so I missed your photo shopped senior picture.
Given your self righteous indignation, and lack of ability to see that you are stuck in a situation because of your own bad attitude, I don’t think we’d be a good match for sex.
Maybe you can find a prostitute who will give you discount. There’s always hope, right?
Hey! Make sure you don’t waste your time arguing with goofballs from the “Men Going Their Own Way” forum. They’re a bunch of lonely, angry men who failed at being members of society and now sit at home wishing the world would just disappear. You can see for yourself here: http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/
Ignoring them is probably best. Cheers!
And we ALL have small penises! Don’t forget that.
Just wanted to note – “Bob” has a web-link on his name, “mgtow.com”, that leads to:
“secure.domainnamesinternational.net/store/order/mgtow.com”
The domain is up for sale – anyone interested?
When there is a line of beautiful women willing to share themselves with me, for only the cost of me satisfying them, why would I need to frequent prostitutes?
Same goes with used up fem bloggers. I have several standing offers that are better than that.
Ios has a blog.
I suggest we begin commenting on this entry;
http://charmingdisarray.blogspot.com/2012/01/something-about-sinking-ship.html
I have already begun….
Wowzers… I bet Io wonders why men aren’t lining up to marry her.
There’s no point in arguing Io.
The bottom line is no man wants any part of the marriage/divorce industry once his eyes are opened.
And more eyes are opened every day by blogs such as this.
Nice job.
“so many men hang onto permanent adolescence and prefer to ride their motorcycles and sulk with a “what’s in it for me?” attitude instead of taking on the burden of having a family.”
So here is the current scorecard:
Women have a “what’s in it for me?” attitude and they’re being “strong” and “independent” and “looking out for themselves”.
Men do it and they’re in “permanent adolescence” and “selfish” and “need to man up”.
I’ll take “hypocritical bitch” for 200 Alex…..
Oh,and I checked Ios blog.Especially this post here:
http://charmingdisarray.blogspot.com/2012/01/something-about-sinking-ship.html
A gentleman named Ian Ironwood just nailed it in one of his replies.
Absolutely nailed it
I can’t believe she was bold enough to post that Zombie ressurected pic.
“the geek table?” LMAO. You have to be kidding with this.
I didn’t want to believe it but it’s true — take away ad hominem and shaming and there’s just nothing there. Nothing.
Could you imagine trying to talk to a person like this over dinner …. Every day for the next 30 years of your life? [shuddering]
Me either. For the life of me, I can’t understand why more men aren’t interested in marriage. Ahahahaha
It really is a piece of work isn’t it.
It asks for proof of claims they are provided then it ignores when it is proven wrong. You could set your watch by it.
I have watched this whole flame-war with the highest of hilarity. From the Olympian seat of Webmaster, it looks a lot like the tomato-fight festival (“La Tomatina“) they hold every year in Buñol, Spain. And funniest of all? Our self-styled “Vengeful Goddess of Righteous Wrath” doesn’t seem to realize that her classic white robes are just dripping with tomato juice.
Welcome aboard, Scatmaster!
PS – just took a brief gander at Io’s website, link above. Her righteous wrath just drips from that post, too. And now she’s got a couple of women jumping in her … tomatoes.
I made the mistake of jumping into her thread. Not my best decision.
I understand, Bellita – and I honor you for it.
Sometimes I’ve been the knight-in-shining-armor; more often lately, I’ve been the revolting peasant (ref: Marx Brothers, Duck Soup). And sometimes I’m the troll.
I liked what you said over there. Appropriate – and deserved.
There are trolls and then there are (archetypal) Fools . . .
I felt a little like the latter when I was in Io’s thread–particularly when I said that many of the Western men she is calling “cowards” for not going after marriage are actually looking for wives in other countries. It tickles my sense of mischief to leave comments like this, but I get tired of it quickly when it seems that nothing I say will get through to the other person. That’s why I’m not going back to her thread.
“Not going back to her thread” is a move in the direction of good karma.
As for “nothing I say will get through” – that is what tickled me most about that flame-war. She is so utterly wrapped up in her self, her viewpoint, her “Holy Rightness,” that she couldn’t even see what was actually written on the screen! All she could see was the reflection of HER.
I entertained the notion of posting her blog-address on a major MGTOW web-site; it would have gotten her a lot of traffic, but none of it of the nature she’d appreciate. I decided agin’ it, finally, out of regard for karma.
Whenever somebody starts an argument with “As a [insert oppressed group here]”, you can immediately be skeptical of their argument.
I agree with “The Invisible Man” so much I’m likely to burst! My only concern is that it might make intentionally single men sound selfish.
I believe ‘Good Men’ are generous and dedicated and self-sacrificing, but those qualities can now be directed towards helping far better causes than keeping some spoiled princess supplied with an endless array of expensive crap. The bad boys are welcome to all the chicks they can handle. Thus, natural justice prevails.
Generous. Dedicated. Self-sacrificing. All very noble and altruistic.
All very much other-determined, too.
Runs straight back to “Utility” and “Sacrifice,” doesn’t it?
This isn’t the “Good Men’s Project,” Deano. That’s elsewhere.
This is about Free Men. This is about men taking ownership for their own lives and going their own way. It’s “about the women” only to the extent that we’re willing to unmask the shallow, selfish, “entitled,” grasping, shame-slinging … oh, surely you get the point.
Okay, that needed to be said. But now it needs some amplification, and maybe some contradiction.
I definitely do not dismiss the virtues and values of generosity, of dedication, of service to something greater than yourself. And if you were to observe my life, instead of just that bit of spleen, you would see my own generosity, my own dedication, and my own self-sacrifice to those I love. You’d see it in the way I supported my Mom, from my adulthood to her death, at the sacrifice of my own chances to raise a family myself. You’d see it in the work I’ve done for my community. You’d see it in my choice to continue living in the expensive beehive of the Washington, DC area, rather than sail away, and that frankly for the sake of my Mom’s aged sister who (threw us out of the house I’m now clearing out and fixing up and selling to pay her way in Assisted Living.)
But that’s all self-determined. It’s my choice. I don’t do it because “I’m expected to do it,” or because I’m shamed into it, or because I’m defined this way as a “Good Man.”
Men – it’s YOUR RIGHT to look after yourselves!
(Link: “All this goodness is pissing me off,” A Voice For Men, 23 Jan 2012.)
Big Applause from me to how you handled this whole “discussion” (is talking to a deaf person still called a discussion? I don’t know) and your blog posts Beija! Keep the articles coming!
Greets
PCR