Man Hate Online

Remember, it's propaganda. It was always propaganda.

My current X stream is full of women complaining about how men are not holding up their end in relationships. Their end apparently means to provide.

And what is the woman’s side of the bargain? It seems for many it is providing sex. Letting the man have sex with them is their end of the bargain. And not even that—they have no obligation to have sex with their husband even within marriage. It still depends on whether they feel like it.

This is a lousy bargain for men. As far as we can tell, women enjoy sex about as much as men do. So why should he pay, and not she, for a mutual pleasure?

Some women will say that women deserve support because they give the man children. But it seems to the untrained eye that children are usually enjoyed more by the mother than the father. She gets more time with them. He has to be off working. You could as easily argue that children are a gift the husband gives to the wife.

You may say children are a chore. I say bollocks. No work is so meaningful or rewarding. And women are born with a strong maternal instinct that makes them desire children and their company. Men’s paternal instinct is less strong.

Some women online say that men should give them money because of the cost of cosmetics—it costs money to make themselves so beautiful for their husband or date. So they have a right to be reimbursed. 

However, making yourself up is not for any one man—it attracts the eyes of men in general. And it shows off to other women. That is more for yourself, then, not for the man across the table. A man is likely to prefer his woman wear less makeup. It suggests she is on the market. In fact, surveys show this—men would prefer women to make up less.

The one thing women never offer as their side of the marital bargain is to do the cooking, cleaning, or housework. No--that would be unreasonable. That should be split half and half, and there is much complaining about men not doing their share.

This actually puts an extra burden on men in any relationship. The problem is, men are usually content with a relaxed, rather messy environment. Women tend to be fussier about their surroundings. So the house is inevitably kept to the woman’s liking, once a woman is present, and the man is expected to do her bidding. An unequal relationship.

The other thing these cyberfeminists never suggest is splitting the bills fifty-fifty. No, men are still supposed to provide. It’s just that women have no responsibilities, only rights.

Given this common sense of privilege among women, relationships with women are no longer a viable option for men. And they hate men on top of it. 

Why Women Can't Find Any Real Men Any More

 Read about it on our SubStack--free. And subscribe!

The Face that Launched a Thousand Divorces

A Beautiful Man Is Hard to Find

 

Women and men are different.

This should not be controversial. It seems to me that anyone finding this controversial is shockingly lacking in empathy.

Since the Sixties and feminism, we have been fighting against this truth. Feminism insisted that any difference was just a role forced on women by society.

Perhaps the rise of the “transgender” movement is at least in part the inevitable rebellion against this claim. Its insistence on “gender” as a core of one’s identity is a direct contradiction to feminism. To feminism, “gender” is not a trait you are born with, but a set of arbitrarily behaviours forced on you. Otherwise feminism makes no sense.

Transgenders insist there is a female or a male soul. Otherwise you could not be “trans.”

Leave aside the other questions raised by transgenderism: whether gender is independent of sex, and whether one can be “born into the wrong body.”

There are three transcendental values: truth, good, and beauty. They are the goals of existence. They bring value to life. We are created in order to seek these three things, and to express these three things.

Of these three, it is obvious that women, not men, are most responsible for beauty. Women are more visually attractive than men; women care about being attractive; men don’t. This is not just to attract men sexually; women definitely also dress and make up for other women, for the sake of abstract beauty. Both men and women would rather look at a woman than a man on a magazine cover.

If you introduce a woman into a home or office or business, she will instantly go about trying to make it more beautiful, more comfortable. You leave men on their own at a workplace, and it will be functional, no more.

Cultures that devalue beauty, like Protestantism, or Islam, will devalue women. Cultures that value beauty, like France, Italy, or Latin America, will value women more highly.

This is why feminism began in the Protestant countries. It was here women were devalued. Although it has since spread to Catholics as well; due to the overwhelming cultural influence of America.

And why does a man marry a woman? The question has come up online recently: MGTOW. Is it worth all the insults, demands, and worries, the risks of ruinous divorce, “just for a vagina”? What else does a woman bring to the relationship?

This, after all, is what feminism has left us with.

But properly, a man marries to bring beauty into his life. To make his house a home. Not just her physical beauty, but her charm, her attitude—for this is her proper role, to be supportive, “inner beauty.” And her ability to decorate the living space. And her ability to cook, which is a form of beauty, appealing to the sense of taste. If she is a good wife, she brings grace and comfort to his life. Along with the joy of children.

This is what a good wife should do. Feminism has devalued it all, and women have come to neglect and distain all of this. Reducing them to no more than second-rate men with vaginas.

And now we must acknowledge that men too have their role in civilization and the human enterprise. As feminism would deny. They are more than bicycles, more than a means to an end.

Women are the guardians of beauty; men are the guardians of truth. Men are born with an internal compass that points towards the North Star. Women will believe anything; men will want proof. This is why Jesus, who obviously knew what he was doing, chose only male apostles. We should not second-guess God. And this is why St. Paul said women should be silent in church. It is not their role to lead and teach, any more than it is the role of a man to wear makeup and give fetching smiles. Either has gone off the rails.

Not incidentally, we have made a grave mistake by giving the teaching profession over almost entirely to women. This is not their role. Notice that, in the New Testament, Jesus’s genealogy is traced back to David through Joseph—even though Jospeh is not his biological father. This is because the role of the father, of he man, is to guide and educate, to pass on truths. In this sense, Joseph and his genealogy are fully relevant.

If we value truth, but not beauty, as in Protestant (and now secular) Northern Europe, this will look like a misogynist view. If we value beauty as well as truth, it will not. It is both received and revealed wisdom. It is common sense.

And what of the third transcendental value, the good? Indeed, this is the central of the three: “and the greatest of these is love.” We were created to choose the good, of our free will.

Men and women seem to have an equal role here; but being good means different things for each. Goodness means justice, on the one hand; mercy on the other. In America, to say someone is good, you say “he is honest.” In China, you say “he is kind.” And these are different things.

Good women are kind and merciful. Good men are honest and just.

We need both. We need both men and women in our culture, and in our individual lives. And we have lost this.

What Men Want

Wow! Nice books!

One of the common complaints women, especially feminists, have about men is that they do not like intelligent women: “men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses,” Dorothy Parker once observed. Men, they say, are only interested in looks.

Another common complaint is that men these days are only interested in East Asian women.

These two observations are incompatible. Thanks to over two thousand years of Confucianism, which values intellect and education far more than Europe does, the average IQ among Far Easterners is higher than than that among Europeans (aka Caucasians). If European men are seeking East Asian women, they are showing a preference for smarter women.

The probable problem here is that European/Caucasian women are raised to believe they are much smarter than they really are. They are praised for everything from girlhood. They are used to being told they are wonderful, not least by men seeking their sexual favours, and so many of them come to believe that they are the intellectual equal or superior of any man.

Statistically, this is necessarily almost never so.

This can make such women, if they are not intelligent in reality, excruciatingly unpleasant for any very smart man to have to deal with for any great length of time. Unfortunately, the dumber they are, the more likely they are to believe this is the reality.

What the men crave is not a dumber woman, but a woman who is genuinely smart.

This is more or less necessarily so, if you believe in Darwin's idea of natural selection. An intelligent woman means intelligent offspring, and so a better shot at passing on the genes. THis, of course, is why a well-bred Victorian woman strove to appear "accomplished."

A woman of sufficient intelligence would realize that.

How Could This Not Have Been Obvious to Everyone All Along?

It is not a good idea to marry a "career woman."

Most Marriages Break Up in Disputes over Household Chores?

This study says “Most marriages break down over mundane household chores.” “Seven in ten marriages fall apart because couples fail to reach an agreement on decisions relating to the home.”

This is a good, though only partial, measure of the harm feminism has done to marriage, and to uncountable individual lives. For these disputes would simply not arise, or if they did would be easily resolved, so long as roles within marriage were clearly defined going in. Proper job descriptions make all the difference.

Feminism has systematically burned all the job descriptions. That was the first thing it did.

Study Shows Couples Who Share Chores More Likely to Divorce

"The Triumph of Women's Rights" - 1869

This ought to be plain and simple common sense: good fences make good bedfellows.

Just as clear lines of authority and job descriptions are essential for a company to run smoothly, the division of labour is essential for an economy to run smoothly, and a separation of powers is essential for a government to run well, so having clear and distinct spheres of authority, aka “sex roles,” is essential for a marriage.

I mean, obviously: if both are responsible for everything, everything becomes a subject of potential disagreement, irritation, conflict. Neither has any private space or opportunity to be themselves. It also becomes possible for one member of the relationship to completely subjugate the other, if so inclined—or to try to.

"Man as He Expects to Be" - 1869

It’s a perfect plan for breaking up a marriage.

Yet the elimination of traditional sex roles has always been the essential idea behind feminism. And then the divorce rate skyrocketed, and everyone took great pains not to blame it on feminism. At last, fifty years later, some study has, to its reputed surprise, rediscovered what we all knew all along. There is a reason for traditional sex roles.

And it is not the man, note, who is going to divorce because the woman works outside the home or because he has to wash the dishes. In these circumstances, it is far more often the woman who initiates the divorce.

Feminism, on balance, has done more harm to more people than either Fascism or Communism ever did.