- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Given the huge amount of time and words women spend discussing relationships I find it rather surprising how little the majority of women understand about men.
Here is an article titled What Women Need to Know about Men.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
So true. Should be compulsory reading in Feminism 1
Comment by Alastair — Thu 22nd April 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Found this today:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10640164
It is 7 o’clock on a Sunday night and the text comes in. “If we had boyfriends, they’d be hugging us.”
I know this one, I don’t flinch. Back at her:
“If we had boyfriends, they’d be lovely.”
Back at me:
“If we had boyfriends, they’d be making us cups of tea.”
And so it goes:
“If we had boyfriends, we’d be HAPPY.”
“If we had boyfriends everything would be OK.”
Upping the ante:
“If we had boyfriends, they’d be perfect.”
And game, set and match, texter:
“If we had boyfriends, so would we.”
If We Had Boyfriends. A game for two players. As devised by Noelle McCarthy, and her best friend (who shall remain nameless in deference to the possibility of her ever getting a boyfriend in real life any time soon).
CCID: 32669
Not a hard one to play, just a variation on the traditional “If I won Lotto” or “If I had those boots” scenarios of aggrandisement and escape we wage-slaves so enjoy.
Like those other scenarios, the focus is on wish-fulfilment here, but what gives this one an added piquancy is the potential for a full realisation of your own self-pity.
When you play this game right, you not only realise how great it would be to have a boyfriend, but also how hard and depressing it is to not.
As such, it is best played at exactly 7 on a Sunday night. Everyone knows that 7 on a Sunday night has been scientifically proven to be the loneliest time in the week.
It doesn’t matter who you are, how resourceful or successful, or how self-reliant you’ve trained yourself to be. If you aren’t one of the halves that make a whole at 7pm on a Sunday, you’re going to feel it. The icy grip of an existential loneliness that transcends mere boredom or frustration, and goes right to the core of what it is to be alone.
That’s your lot on Sunday evening, unless you’re shacked up, hooked up, snuggling, or cuddling, preferably a conjoined twin.
Maybe it’s worse for females, I don’t know. What I do know is that the spiritual condition of being a single woman watching Cameron Bennett on TV One, on a Sunday night in Auckland, is that of the sock stuck down the back of the washing machine, the one that has been, and will be, there for years.
Comment by John Brett — Fri 23rd April 2010 @ 9:11 am
Asymmetry of Human Sexuality — Teacher’s Guidelines
All relations are based on asymmetry of male and female expectations, a major fact always omitted from school curriculums, making sex education almost useless.
This retards adolescents in their attempts to understand the eye-popping inequality they see around them. All existing school teachings of sexuality are detached form basic zoology, observations and experiments. What do they base their teachings on?
1) The analysis of pair bonding species has to start with this basic fact: Males want copulation. Females want copulation only if it leads to meaningful goods and services. Men who can offer more are more sexually attractive. A young man who can offer nothing will have no sex. Many adolescents are aware that men want to force women to have sex, using all kinds of deceptive means. But, he may loose interest in sex with her after a while. She will go to even greater lengths, via kids, courts, guns and jail, to force him to give money. And she never looses interest in it. Macho men have extra revulsion against women paying, they are proud to be exploited, even if she gives no sex at the end (i.e. chivalry).
2) All men would be satisfied to have a relationship consisting of brief, daily, sexual intercourses, and nothing more. However, no woman would be satisfied with that. A woman expects a comprehensive range of benefits from her man. Since the beginning of monetary economy she has concentrated on money, as opposed to previous need to use him for protection, food and other help. All relationships are based on 3 exploitations of men: sexual, reproductive and financial. She controls 3 most important things in his life: sex, kids and money. (Exploitation of bachelors and gays is indirect, via taxes and hidden costs.)
3) High school texts repeat feminist dogma: sexual exploitation of women by men. This confuses adolescents, because they see the opposite. No boy is so naïve to ask his teacher: “I can profit from sex with girls? Really?” Give me a break, men can’t find even a cost-neutral woman, let alone exploit her. All young girls feel a woman is entitled to men’s money, before, during and after the marriage, and divorce is her early retirement plan.
4) The strongest need all women have is to appear attractive sexual objects. But no woman wants to be a sexual object. This confuses many boys, and sometimes girls, who don’t distinguish these two facts. A teacher has to explain and illustrate this dichotomy, widely accepted by adults as normal female behavior, so they even don’t notice it. Men want to appear capable of provision of goods and services to women, to obtain sex. Many young women are not capable of discerning if particular man is capable and, even more difficult, if he is willing to provide. In women’s jargon, the exploitability of man is verbalized by “does he love me?” For a man “love” also means providing to her.
5) Women can satisfy men easily because men have a modest biological sexual limit, of a few minutes per day. However, her desire for material goods and services is infinite. He has never enough time and money for her. And this is the starting point of disagreements in all heterosexual relationships. Basic asymmetry. Marriages break down because women are not getting enough expected benefits from men. Teachers have to attempt to explain this to girls, so they scale down their expectations from their relationships to a realistic level and take pity on men. “Love means giving and getting” = “he provides benefits, she gives sex”.
6) Boys have to understand that girls need to believe in a significant amount of goods and services from him, in order to be sexually aroused. Women love only a man who is: exploitable, apologetic and who accepts her rules of master-slave relationship.
She reminds him frequently who is the boss, by whipping him slightly with her hurt emotions, like a coachman who routinely whips his horses to make sure they pull at full force. Besides meaningful, he has to satisfy her meaningless whims too, as the proof of his inferiority. She has never enough attention, love, entertainment, and sacrifices. Her goal is to exhaust all his disposable time and money, so he can’t copulate with another female. A wife gets hysterical if he puts his penis in another vagina, because, being a woman, she knows sex is not free, and this other woman will exploit him too, and then the total amount of goods and services this man provides will be divided by two. She wants to control 100% of his resources. She won’t allow him to give even 1% of his resources to another woman.
7) Feminist dogma about bastardization: “Access denial is not for trivial reasons. The reasons are serious concern about violence or murder.” All adolescents question this logic – millions of fathers, grandparents, cousins etc – so violent! Probably even our President is not allowed to see some kids from his extended family. We can accept that 0.01% of population would hurt a child, not 90%, as vindictive moms claim. The real reason for this abuse of kids is the urge to punish father. Every woman, even the dumbest, knows that eliminating half of kid’s family is going to hurt him more than any other punishment. Many women think it hurts him even better than aborting his baby or killing his kids. Feminists are in the forefront of every opportunity to punish men. If feminists see a suffering woman, but without the attached opportunity to punish men, they leave her alone with her problems, without helping her. They are man-haters first, and women-lovers second, if at all.
8) Young women frequently miscalculate the exploitability of men. They perceive some external signs, like athletic or musical talent, as a sign of dominance, that sex is advisable. A more experienced woman, usually her mother, goes nuts trying to explain there will be no money there. Puppy love = mistake. Serious relationship = she exploits him big time.
9) Women, esp. if married, have the safest lives, according to all murder stats and accident stats. Men, judging from analysis of broken bones millions years old, have always had more dangerous and shorter lives, in all societies. How women control men, to extract from men such protection and comfort? With 4 simple tools: 1- touching emotions, 2- sexual attraction, 3- his children and 4- Indians v. Indians — most violent way of control – before, she used men against men; Now, in our feminist dictatorship, police guns and jail against men she wants to punish.
In spite of suffering abuse from the first date on, men have such strong self-control that no woman is afraid of being hurt by a man. But, now, he is in constant fear of being hurt, because she has monopoly on violence. He is just a phone call away from total ruin.
10) Men can control women only with a credible promise of future goods and services. Providing yesterday and today means nothing, only future counts. If he stops, for whatever reason, and he says: “…but, before I go, I want one more copulation”, she will refuse. Women have a biological, instinctive urge to attract and exploit. Without opportunities to exploit men, women develop a wide range of mental disturbances. And men, the opposite: Every man needs a normal amount of exploitation by a woman for his own mental health.
More in books about our dictatorship “Feminist Gulag”, “Bastardizing America” and “Heterophobia”
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sat 24th April 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Ivan,
Much food for thought.
Thankyou.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 24th April 2010 @ 6:20 pm
“It doesn’t matter who you are, how resourceful or successful, or how self-reliant you’ve trained yourself to be. If you aren’t one of the halves that make a whole at 7pm on a Sunday, you’re going to feel it.”
After 21 years of a bad marriage- which led to 3 yrs of clinical depression, then a bitter, protracted divorce- I found being alone to be WONDERFULL!!
I analysed the Feng-Sue of my situation- in bed, my BACK to where I’d been, facing the sun, a solid concrete wall behind me, two farm gates to get in, and a big dog in between- and thought “Did I get here by accident?”
I found a great Social scene, Saturday nite events, etc. etc. but always loved coming home alone.
This is not my life now- but there are definately worse places to be than being alone!!!
Comment by John Brett — Sat 24th April 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Please explain:
Whose ideas are these? Yours? Feminist Teachers? a mixture?
Comment by John Brett — Sat 24th April 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Copious amounts of food for thought Ivan….A feast in fact
As John mentions, is this your writing, ideas etc?
Comment by Whafe — Sat 24th April 2010 @ 8:16 pm
Ivan,
you offer a lengthy and interesting posting with much to consider to which I reply in italics.
1) The analysis of pair bonding species has to start with this basic fact: Males want copulation. Females want copulation only if it leads to meaningful goods and services.
Well, that’s the basic biology, but we’re cultural as well as biological creatures too. So I have to say – Not necessarily. My last partner would agree to sex which felt very good every day. However she wasn’t anywhere near stimulating enough intellelectually nor supportive of issues I had to confront as a man within misandric NZ, so I broke up the relationship. Sex is important, but isn’t the be all and end all to me.
Men who can offer more are more sexually attractive.
A young man who can offer nothing will have no sex.
Many adolescents are aware that men want to force women to have sex, using all kinds of deceptive means.
Not so in modern hook-up culture. And there’s the vice versa scenario with women who are desperate to get pregnant and live off the state.
But, he may loose interest in sex with her after a while. She will go to even greater lengths, via kids, courts, guns and jail, to force him to give money. And she never looses interest in it. Macho men have extra revulsion against women paying, they are proud to be exploited, even if she gives no sex at the end (i.e. chivalry).
2) All men would be satisfied to have a relationship consisting of brief, daily, sexual intercourses, and nothing more.
No way brother! That’s not a relationship. That’s just using a vagina instead of your hand and a bit of lube.
I need to connect intellectually, emotionally AND sexually. Then I’m in a relationship!
However, no woman would be satisfied with that. A woman expects a comprehensive range of benefits from her man.
Since the beginning of monetary economy she has concentrated on money, as opposed to previous need to use him for protection, food and other help. All relationships are based on 3 exploitations of men: sexual, reproductive and financial. She controls 3 most important things in his life: sex, kids and money. (Exploitation of bachelors and gays is indirect, via taxes and hidden costs.)
If what you’re talking about here is more than hook-up sex then I agree. However I’m like an increasing number of men I know, only interested in pairing with a woman who’s supportive of men’s rights in the three areas you mention. And by supportive I don’t just mean says nice supportive comments to me to assuage my anguish. She actually gets off her entitled arse and takes action to support men’s rights instead of just blowing luke warm air about it.
3) High school texts repeat feminist dogma: sexual exploitation of women by men. This confuses adolescents, because they see the opposite. No boy is so naïve to ask his teacher: “I can profit from sex with girls? Really?” Give me a break, men can’t find even a cost-neutral woman, let alone exploit her. All young girls feel a woman is entitled to men’s money, before, during and after the marriage, and divorce is her early retirement plan.
This seems true of the vast majority of women I meet hence their willful ignorance about men’s right issues.
4) The strongest need all women have is to appear attractive sexual objects. But no woman wants to be a sexual object. This confuses many boys, and sometimes girls, who don’t distinguish these two facts. A teacher has to explain and illustrate this dichotomy, widely accepted by adults as normal female behavior, so they even don’t notice it. Men want to appear capable of provision of goods and services to women, to obtain sex. Many young women are not capable of discerning if particular man is capable and, even more difficult, if he is willing to provide. In women’s jargon, the exploitability of man is verbalized by “does he love me?” For a man “love” also means providing to her.
On the contrary I see many women who apparently want to be perceived as sex objects IN ORDER to exact a price for the sale of their sexuality and reproductive capacity to the highest bidder. However I agree generally with your definition of ‘love’ in women’s jargon.
5) Women can satisfy men easily because men have a modest biological sexual limit, of a few minutes per day. However, her desire for material goods and services is infinite. He has never enough time and money for her. And this is the starting point of disagreements in all heterosexual relationships. Basic asymmetry. Marriages break down because women are not getting enough expected benefits from men. Teachers have to attempt to explain this to girls, so they scale down their expectations from their relationships to a realistic level and take pity on men. “Love means giving and getting” = “he provides benefits, she gives sex”.
In principal I agree with this. That’s why I teach boys and men by example to empower themselves by amassing their own resources, overcome sexual impulsivity and only invest in relationships with women who are actively supportive of men’s rights and prepared to go dutch in the process.
6) Boys have to understand that girls need to believe in a significant amount of goods and services from him, in order to be sexually aroused. Women love only a man who is: exploitable, apologetic and who accepts her rules of master-slave relationship.
She reminds him frequently who is the boss, by whipping him slightly with her hurt emotions, like a coachman who routinely whips his horses to make sure they pull at full force. Besides meaningful, he has to satisfy her meaningless whims too, as the proof of his inferiority. She has never enough attention, love, entertainment, and sacrifices. Her goal is to exhaust all his disposable time and money, so he can’t copulate with another female. A wife gets hysterical if he puts his penis in another vagina, because, being a woman, she knows sex is not free, and this other woman will exploit him too, and then the total amount of goods and services this man provides will be divided by two. She wants to control 100% of his resources. She won’t allow him to give even 1% of his resources to another woman.
I tend to agree with this. This is a potent challenge to women and in my mind the second half of the sexual revolution yet to come. Whereby females learn to stop exploiting males and males learn to resist being exploited.
But also it’s a very human trait. No-one likes to put energy into a relationship only to be jilted, women nor men.
7) Feminist dogma about bastardization: “Access denial is not for trivial reasons. The reasons are serious concern about violence or murder.” All adolescents question this logic — millions of fathers, grandparents, cousins etc — so violent! Probably even our President is not allowed to see some kids from his extended family. We can accept that 0.01% of population would hurt a child, not 90%, as vindictive moms claim. The real reason for this abuse of kids is the urge to punish father. Every woman, even the dumbest, knows that eliminating half of kid’s family is going to hurt him more than any other punishment. Many women think it hurts him even better than aborting his baby or killing his kids. Feminists are in the forefront of every opportunity to punish men. If feminists see a suffering woman, but without the attached opportunity to punish men, they leave her alone with her problems, without helping her. They are man-haters first, and women-lovers second, if at all.
Yes, I tend to agree with this.
I see modern day feminists as psychologically damaged people, suffering under a delusory paradigm which is inherantly misandric to the core. I therefore try to achieve a balancing act between hating what they stand for and having compassion for them as damaged folks foolishly creating their own anguish through believing what has become glaringly unbelievable to me – the women good, man bad model
8) Young women frequently miscalculate the exploitability of men. They perceive some external signs, like athletic or musical talent, as a sign of dominance, that sex is advisable. A more experienced woman, usually her mother, goes nuts trying to explain there will be no money there. Puppy love = mistake. Serious relationship = she exploits him big time.
Yes, this frequently happens.
9) Women, esp. if married, have the safest lives, according to all murder stats and accident stats. Men, judging from analysis of broken bones millions years old, have always had more dangerous and shorter lives, in all societies. How women control men, to extract from men such protection and comfort? With 4 simple tools: 1- touching emotions, 2- sexual attraction, 3- his children and 4- Indians v. Indians — most violent way of control — before, she used men against men; Now, in our feminist dictatorship, police guns and jail against men she wants to punish.
Yes. The vast majority of women need to outgrow this way of thinking and realise that a growing number of men such as myself are only going their own way (Google search men going their own way MGTOW for short if you haven’t heard the term before) like myself who want nothing to do with any westernised modern ‘liberated’ feminist woman for our own safety, sanity and wellbeing.
In spite of suffering abuse from the first date on, men have such strong self-control that no woman is afraid of being hurt by a man. But, now, he is in constant fear of being hurt, because she has monopoly on violence. He is just a phone call away from total ruin.
This is generally true in my view.
Within feminist cultures I certainly fear women’s capacity to wreck my life with a false accusation and exploit me through institutionalised misandry put in place by feminsts/chivalrists. Hence for the time being and possibly for the remainder of my life I’m definitely MGTOW.
I’ve promised myself that only when I see today’s willfully ignorant women en masse taking concerted action to give men long overdue rights in 4 areas :
1. Relationships (scrapping unilateral no fault divorce, ending ex-parte protection orders, demanding the family court installs a public gallery for scrutiny as in District courts AND keep publically accessible records of ALL hearings, rigidly enforcing pre-nuptual agreements
2. Reproduction – giving men an equal voice enshrined under law.
2. Education – giving males a safe environment to study in which suits their learning style.
3. Health – giving men equal access to resources for both research and treatment.
Only when these preconditions have been satisfied will it be safe enough to re-engage in a relationship.
I’m not holding my breath on this!
It’s a very big supremacist pedestal many, many women have to climb down from!
10) Men can control women only with a credible promise of future goods and services. Providing yesterday and today means nothing, only future counts. If he stops, for whatever reason, and he says: “…but, before I go, I want one more copulation”, she will refuse. Women have a biological, instinctive urge to attract and exploit. Without opportunities to exploit men, women develop a wide range of mental disturbances. And men, the opposite: Every man needs a normal amount of exploitation by a woman for his own mental health.
I agree with the former statement, but not the latter.
I think women within feminist cultures have been given way too much power vis a vis men who are clearly now second class citizens there. But I don’t think men need any amount of exploitation. That notion strikes me as very peculiar.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 1:50 am
Sorry, Ivan.
this part should have been italicized too –
I tend to agree with this. This is a potent challenge to women and in my mind the second half of the sexual revolution yet to come. Whereby females learn to stop exploiting males and males learn to resist being exploited.
But also it’s a very human trait. No-one likes to put energy into a relationship only to be jilted, women nor men.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 1:55 am
Thanks for that analysis Ivan. Valid in large measure and important for all men to be aware of, though of course it highlights only one side of the complexity of human psychology.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 8:40 am
Normal young women do not want to be labelled feminists for the simple reason that it is an oppressive totalitarian hate movement that has not only viciously exploited men’s sense of fair play and equality but has also completely shredded the contract between the sexes. Young women now realise they will be the primary victims now that men have wised up. In particular:
1. There has never in history been as privileged a class of humanity as the modern Western woman. Yet feminists still claim victimhood status.
2. The social contract of marriage that formed the bedrock of civilisation has been destroyed so that Marriage 2.0 offer ZERO incentive to the man. Thus men are rejecting marriage. Women realise that 90% of their eggs are gone by the time they are 30 and their sexual market value is close to zero. The intense fear of dying alone in a house full of cats is making women reject ideological choices that bring this on, of which calling yourself a feminist is a sure bet to spinsterhood.
3. The “equality” feminists want is equality with the top 1% of the male population and they want it for all women. They do not seek equality in workplace deaths, suicide rates, incarceration, judicial sentencing, alimony payments, child custody, work hours, mental illness or lifespans. Such transparent hypocrisy makes even the younger women squirm.
4. The middle-aged generation of haggard feminists are an angry, bitter, fearful bunch of harpies. Young women, who are still able to attract men, do not wish to be associated with such losers.
The misandry bubble is about to pop. Young women are sensing the world they are about to inherit and they don’t want it. As men decide to withdraw their centuries of support to women, the following awaits:
1. Erosion of the tax base and consequent slashing of all the worthless jobs women predominate in: public sector paper shuffling, marketing, HR, non-profits etc
2. A marriage strike and refusal of men to become the pack-mule that keeps women in a lifestyle they like. Consequently women have to work for a living.
3. Removal of men’s public protection of women they don’t know. Far less intervention to prevent rape, assault and other public violence against women.
4. Soft polgyamy / harem building for the alpha males who attract women. Beautiful women who could normally secure 100% commitment from a high value man must now accept a part-share with other women.
Imagine working for 40 years to pay your bills, living alone, after already passing the “Wile E. Coyote” moment at 35 when your sexual worth becomes zero and nobody wants anything to do with you and actually resent you for the damage your sex wrought upon the world.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 10:13 pm
This from a young man blogging –
“Management guru Steven Covey has a concept he calls the “Emotional Bank Account” — which gets filled up with promises made and kept, respect shown, and respect earned by honorable actions. At the cultural level, women have emptied out the EBA, then maxed out their credit lines, then cashed in their lifetime annuities of marriage for the short term value of child support, and are now, finally, bankrupt. Your Emotional Credit Line is closed, and it is now 100% pay-as-you go with a lot of men.
So, yes, we know you have been hurt by feminism. But, no, we don’t care because too many years of absolute solipsism and naricissim by women has extorted all the caring we had in us. ”
My comment – OUCH! and the sins of the daughters shall be visited upon the daughters”
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 11:22 pm
Whoops,Sorry folks,
My last post should read –
My comment – OUCH! “The sins of the mothers shall be visited upon the daughters”
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th April 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Well said Skeptic.
I was thinking that a good economic analysis was needed, and you have provided it.
Well done
Comment by John Brett — Mon 26th April 2010 @ 9:10 am
Thank-you John Brett
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 26th April 2010 @ 11:46 am
To such women who reject feminism for the reasons here I say, ‘Tough’. Let them FIGHT feminism, hold women to account, make restitution and provide compensation to the several generatons of men that their mothers have villified and exploited. Let the sins of the mothers be visited upon the daughters.
Comment by amfortas — Mon 26th April 2010 @ 1:14 pm
A message to all NZ women
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 28th April 2010 @ 11:52 pm