Oh lord. Before I even start this, I want to make something really clear: this is just a mockery, not a rebuttal. You know the old adage about wrestling a pig? I am not, just not interested in engaging in an open and fair debate on "Resolved: Women are horrible monsters." My monstrous nature precludes it. (Comments on how this failure to honestly engage the serious issues is just typical of a woman can go piss up a rope.)
Anyway if someone has a huge, deep-seated, years-in-the-making problem with women, it's not like I'll find just the right bit of logic to undo it all. Blogging is the fine art of preaching to the choir, and I don't expect this post to transcend that.
That said, let's read The Misandry Bubble!
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
Well, I'm glad women are "otherwise good," but I wonder who exactly makes up this state. It's not men clearly, but the women are otherwise good... oh god, it's feminists. The evilest third gender of all.
And I don't like that "the costs will be borne" bit at all. "This isn't really me hurting you, this is just the wages of your sin."
Take a look at the collage of entertainers below, which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
Yes. Because there are no men on TV today.
A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.
Mkay, how about Jack Bauer and Jack Harkness and Jack Sparrow and Jack O'Neill and Jack McCoy and Jack Skellington and that's just the Jacks.
This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon.
Oh yeah, I want to be a single mother when I grow up! It seems so easy and fun! All the joy of tremendous responsibilities, none of the hassle of adult companionship! That's why when I get pregnant I'm going to ditch the father no matter how much he begs and pleads to give me his love and support!
Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
It's good to start your argument by making up numbers, then deciding that those numbers you just made up won't work and throwing out the bits that don't fit. Also, what is with this misery-loves-company 80% shit? You have to be very isolated to believe that, because any observation of a normal social circle would give you some goddamn perspective.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man.
"Research across ants, termites, and bees shows that people naturally live in huge colonies with a queen!"
Anyway, most women have more than one relationship in their entire lives, and that's terrible. How dare they. SLUTS.
What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.
So do you want to be married or not, dude? In one sentence you're cruelly manipulated into marriage, then cruelly forced out of it. Make up your damn mind!
Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
I thought civilization had a lot more to do with farming replacing hunting-gathering, specialization and trade replacing subsistence, and the creation of permanent settlements, but shows what I know.
The key piece of logic here is that a man supporting a family is somehow more "productive" than a single man and a woman supporting a family, or any other arrangement. My only answer to that starts with "productive of what" and ends with marveling at how single men are just notorious for not participating in the economy.
Oh, and the people who invented marriage umpty-zillion years ago did it not to be sure of the paternity of children, and definitely not because anyone wanted to live in a pair-bond, but because they understood concepts like "we have to make the beta males more economically productive," people definitely thought in those terms then. Just as they think in those terms now, really.
Now we get to "The Four Sirens" that are destroying civilization.
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.
...and that's terrible. Also, wow, "campaigns." Also, do you really want to choose between having very little sex or having nineteen kids?
2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of their behavior onto men and children.
God I wish I were married just so I could get divorced. I fucking love divorce. It's like a chocolate orgasm pizza. Mmmm, shouting and lawyers and loneliness, I'm planning that from the start.
If I were good to my man I'd stay in a miserable, barely-speaking, sleeping-on-the-couch marriage forever, and we'd both be so happy.
(I'm kidding. There's no way this guy would let me get away with sleeping on the couch.)
3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers.
LRN2HISTORYPLZ. Anyway women never stayed home just to wash things all day; there were these little things called "children" that you may have heard of, two points ago you wanted nineteen of them? The amazing labor-saving device that will do their daily care in one hour has not yet been invented.
And "there was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce," besides the surface ridiculousness--DUDE YOU'RE OPPOSING IT RIGHT NOW.
4) Pro-female social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.
Yeah, just to deal with all these false accusations that happen one million times every minute because as previously established the legal system is just so fun, we should make violence and harassment against women legal. That'd fix it.
Also, a woman beating a man isn't illegal or anything.
There seems to be a strange idea in all this talk of The Scourge of False Accusations that it's not enough for a guy to be acquitted or have charges dismissed; for justice to be done, he has to never be accused at all.
And I know this is just like a woman to say, but I can't hear about The Scourge of False Accusations without thinking that the guy who's so concerned is worried because he likes to abuse women, but just a little, not in the bad abuse abuse way, just sometimes he can't deal with all her manipulation and cockteasing, and he'd hate to be falsely accused of abuse when that happens.
These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions.
So having nineteen kids, being trapped in a marriage, being unable to work, and being unable to report abuse are the consequences of my actions? Shit, I must have done something horrible.
Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them.
The typical woman in America today is buying Manolos with alimony checks while banging a hockey player. IT'S SCIENCE.
And here's a good breaking point. Or a terrible one? I can't even tell. It's a breaking point, anyway. Let's break.