Men still don’t have balls and feminists still don’t know what self-reflection is.

Posted: February 4, 2015 in Uncategorized

Erm, Happy New Year, I guess. Damn, it’s been a long time. I didn’t publish anything in January, nothing at all. Boxing Day was the last blog entry I uploaded and, at that time, I had loads of ideas I wanted to write about. Unfortunately, life got in the way and I started a new job early January which has taken up loads of time, more than I thought it would.

The ironic thing is that, around early November last year, I had loads and loads of time but absolutely no desire to write anything (which lead to that rather overly-publicised break I took from the internet) and yet now I have lots of ideas to put down but no bloody time to do it! What a strange turn of events. The enforced break I took from the internet lasted just under a month, it’s been longer than that since my last blog entry, this time a completely unintentional break. So yeah, I got a bit melodramatic towards the back end of last year…sorry about that.

Point being, I had a lovely Christmas break, I’m now pretty settled in my new job and, an optimistic start to the year, I finally have the desire to start writing again. I cleansed myself of a lot of John Salmon’s baggage, re-adjusted my views and where I think I want this blog to go and am now rearing and ready to go again. I’m sure you don’t care about any of that but, for me, not being able to write now burns just as much as it did this time last year.

Anyway, there’s about 4 blog entries I want to focus on, so the next couple of weeks should be pretty much sorted. I’ve had to bump the blog entry I was writing in order to get this one out. Why? Well, as a sign of how long I’ve been writing that article, I e-mailed the link to myself on the 27th of December, so yeah, it’s been a while and I don’t think another week will hurt.

So why has this one been shoved to the front of the queue? Well, because it’s just another article by a woman in a long line of ‘men aren’t doing what we want them to do, it’s not our fault, it’s all their fault’ type shit.

In fact, this is the second such pile of steaming shit by this author. The article I’m looking at today was published in September 2014 (yeah, I’m a few months late, so sue me), whereas her previous article was published a year before that. I took a look at her previous article here:

And it seems like her views haven’t changed much. I commented in the previous blog about her complete inability to look at herself and see what part she, and women in general, play in the ‘pussification’ of men in the dating game. I also looked at feminist entitlement when it comes to men paying on dates with this blog:

And took a swipe at Matt Walsh with his rather short-sighted demonising of men in this blog:

There’s also this article that I favourited but never managed to actually write about (I may rectify that in the near future):

So, point is that, in this culture of ‘male entitlement’ and all things toxic, women, and feminists, seem to be able to post articles saying they don’t need men, they are perfectly capable of existing without them, that being spoken to in a bar is ‘harassment’ (I really wish I’d screencapped the Facebook conversation where that lunacy was uttered), that any uninitiated attention on the street, in supermarkets, in shops, etc are all forms of oppression whilst at the same time shaming men for not doing that kind of stuff anymore.

It’s such a fucked situation. Feminists scream at us that male forms of domination are everywhere, that manspreading and manslamming are pure examples of men’s ingrained and inherent sexist attitudes towards women, that we need to make spaces safe for women, that old-time traditions need to be abolished and yet they then start crying foul when the traditions they like, the traditions that benefit them in some way are lost as well. Newsflash, ladies, we’re getting pretty tired of your shit, especially when there’s absolutely no desire on your part to stop for one moment and think ‘fuck, what if it’s me?’.

I’m going to give Lauren Martin, the author, a modicum of credit, she is at least intelligent enough to put in a ‘not all men’ disclaimer, so I will do likewise and say that, quite clearly, this blog is not aimed at every single last goddamn woman on the planet, just the ones that are full of entitlement bullshit.

This is the second article, that I’ve seen, that Martin has written on this subject. Seems to me like she’s trying to justify the reasons for her being single. Seems like she can’t find a decent man and, instead of looking inward and seeing whether or not it’s something she’s putting out there, she just blames it all on the big, nasty men. To be honest, I have no idea if she’s single or not so that could be a load of old tosh. However, it’s articles like this that reek of ‘why won’t anybody love me’ victimhood.

I’m not going to paragraph by paragraph this one, I’ve done enough of those and, Hell, you all know my opinions by now anyway, I just want to address the main points.

Martin starts off with a lovely list of what exactly the ‘good old days’ were made of:

‘There’s no door-holding, no hand-holding and definitely no free drinks. There’s no taking off hats or courting through invitations. There are no smooth moves, no jackets to dinner. There are no flowers, no tables by candlelight. But, most importantly, there are no dates.’

A lovely list, sure, I don’t disagree with that. It must have been nice to be a woman ‘back then’. When exactly ‘back then’ is I’m not sure, possibly the 50s? The 60s? Earlier than that? Either way, these are all nice enough gestures but, according to feminism, come from a time in which men were seen as better than women, a time when women were seen as housewives and not career-women. It was a time when women had to be protected because they were seen as weaker and inferior. I mean, I’m all for being nice, but harking back to the chivalrous times of old when ‘men were men’ and conveniently ignoring the fact that ‘women were women’ is slightly moronic and revisionist.

This is where feminism’s lack of self-reflection comes in. Where are the hat-doffing men, the jackets to dinner, the candlelight meals? Well, equally, where are the women who would just be quiet, where are the women who would obey their men, where are the women who had dinner on the table ready for when her man got home from work? Yeah, doesn’t quite seem as romantic now, does it?

The point is, while Martin laments these lost traditions she in no way has any concept of what women have stopped doing for men. Have you thought that maybe men don’t go on dates, court women with invitations, arrange candlelit dinners and all that slushy shit because they can just as easily go to a nightclub and fuck an eager and willing woman with nothing but whispers of sweet nothings and a Bacardi Breezer? Whilst Martin lays the blame for the erosion of chivalry at the feet of ‘cowardly’ men, I could easily blame it on the actions of loose whores. See how simple it is to play the blame game?

If you’re a single woman, you probably envisioned your twenties as a roaring social scene full of expensive dinners and lavish nights out. You probably thought you’d have a boyfriend, or at least a few dates a week.

Expensive dinners and lavish nights out? Maybe it’s not the lack of chivalry that’s your problem but your cuntish sense of entitlement. Who deserves to have a roaring social life on somebody else’s penny? The only person who even remotely got away with having a social life based on someone else’s dime is Joey Triibiani and he’s not even fucking real.

Why would a man waste money on an expensive dinner when a Bacardi Breezer is dirt cheap and, if he’s unsuccessful in his modern courtship ritual, he can replace her kebab with a donner kebab (sorry, that’s a crass metaphor to use).

‘After too many nights spent in bars and one too many phone numbers given out, you’ve probably realized the sad truth of the situation. You’re not going on any dates or being courted in any type of manner because, unfortunately, men these days are cowards.’

And here’s the real crux of the argument – men are cowards.

Martin goes on to reel off a list of near-miss-encounters her and her friends have had with men:

‘They’ll make eye contact with you in the bar, but never come over. They’ll get your number, but never call. They’ll offer to buy you a drink, but never pay.

They’ll say a girl is hot, but never hit on her. They’ll text you for a week, but never ask you out. They’ll do absolutely everything but make a move.

I’ve watched men pine over women, talking about them like future wives, yet after staring at them for two hours, let them walk away.

I’ve watched men chase women down for their phone numbers, yet wait a week to text them, acting like it’s something they simply forgot about. I’ve watched men spend an entire night talking to a girl, yet never get up the nerve to ask for her number.’

I’ve seen some of these too, in all honestly I’m guilty of a couple of them myself. So what’s the cause? Why has Martin noticed this trend increasing? Are modern men really cowards?

No, I’ll tell you the reason: it’s women. Women are so fucking picky and choosy that they’ll give a man the eye all night but, when it comes to it, suddenly decides she’s only in it for the fun and doesn’t want to give her number. Therefore, the next time a man eyes up a bitch in a bar he has to decide whether or not it’s worth the effort of going over. See women, stop being picky bitches and all these problems will go away.

For those unenlightened, the above paragraph is in no way serious, it’s just a way of highlighting how utterly redundant Martin’s generalisation is. There’s so much more to the ‘dating game’ than simply men being cowards. All Martin is doing is over-simplifying a complex situation and placing the blame on men.

This is where Martin’s article enters the realms of truly delusional:

Now, the unfortunate paradox for a woman is that she must be the chased and the chaser. She must be the target and the shooter. She must play coy and simultaneously pursue him.

Anyone notice the problem here? Yet again, women are left to do all the work. We’re left playing both sides of the game because they’ve simply forgotten how to play.

Yet again, women are left to do all the work? Was it not Martin herself who, at the top of this very article, states that the chivalrous ways of old, the courtship ritual, was dead? So, at what point did women have to do all the work in the first place? For someone who’s lamenting the loss of traditions that allow her to dine out on free meals numerous times a week, it’s slightly hypocritical for her to now lament the fact that women have to do all the work.

There’s also absolutely no appreciation of the way women have contributed to this erosion of favourable courtship; they’re simply the poor, innocent victims in all of this. Once again, feminism has managed to take a situation that applies to both genders and completely twists it so that women are the victims and have played no part whatsoever in the situation.

So what are the scientific reasons Martin puts forward? Well:

‘They’re scared of you’

Scared is a strong word. Of course, Martin claims that men are scared of empowered, strong women. That’s not the case. Men are scared of fucked up, entitled women who haven’t been told their psychotic, controlling behaviour is bad. And yes, men are scared, and they have every goddamn right to be. Let’s not get into the realm of hyperbole, but there are lots of facets of relationships these days where men often come out second best. False rape accusations, controlling behaviour, domestic violence, being arrested for being the victim, being laughed at when mutilated, being told they deserve their beatings because they weren’t the perfect boyfriend.

Yes, women go through horrendous shit sometimes, but there are any number of outreach services and protocols that are designed to help them. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying every relationship will go through the things I listed above, but they are real problems men face and, unsurprisingly, they are real problems that feminism refuses to address. When Australian police recently put a Facebook status out saying that men account for a large number of domestic violence victims, it took a matter of days before a woman (possibly a feminist, possibly not) wrote an article condemning them for their cheek. She argued that, because most violence towards men was by other men (which is a dubious claim at best) and because the stats were ‘not sourced’, women should still be the main focus. Similar ‘unsourced’ statistics posted when dealing with female victims underwent no such scrutiny.

Relationships are hard to navigate, they’re even harder when you’re made to feel like you don’t have anywhere to turn when you’re made to feel like shit. But then, that would mean men admitting they’re vulnerable, and Martin just doesn’t like the idea of that, does she?!

‘They’ll never admit it, but you scare the hell out of them. After years of social conditioning, we’ve been duped into thinking that men are the strong ones; that they are the leaders, the protectors and the fighters; that they are the ones that see what they want and go after it.’

Martin made a similar claim in her previous blog. She lamented the loss of the ‘man who went after what he wants’. Well, not much has changed. Actually, that’s a lie, a lot has changed. Mainly, though, I can think of two videos. The ’10 hours walking through New York’ one, which lumped together a wide range of interactions from men towards one woman walking through New York and attributed it to ‘harassment’, and the ‘drunk woman asks for help’ vid, which showed 4 or 5 men ‘helping’ a drunk women (in reality a woman pretending to be drunk) by offering to take her to their place (presumably to fuck her rigid). Despite concerns over the legitimacy of both of these vids (the drunk girl vid was proven to be a hoax and the 10 hours girl was extremely cherry picked) feminists took them in stride and used them to further their poisonous demonisation of men.

‘Well, TV lied to you. Men aren’t these masculine displays of strength and perseverance. They aren’t these persistent characters created by Nicholas Sparks and John Green. They aren’t going to catch your eye and spend all night convincing you why you should be with them. They aren’t Noah Calhouns. They aren’t Augustus Waters.’

Ah yes, let’s blame it all on TV. ‘Men aren’t these masculine displays of strength and perseverance’…isn’t that kind of what feminism wants? I mean, by all means be strong and stuff but feminists constantly harp on about wanting men to feel vulnerable and be comfortable showing emotion and sensitivity, so why is it now such a bad thing when they let their vulnerability show? Why don’t they spend all night convincing you that you should be with them? Well, take a look at your movement, Martin, and see what feminists think of determined men. Also, who the fuck are Noah Calhoun and Augustus Waters?!

‘Men are shy, timid and scared sh*tless of any woman with half a brain.’

And here we get to the real agenda. Again, feminism constantly tells us that masculinity, especially ‘hyper-masculinity’ is ‘toxic’ and needs to be altered, feminism tells us that men being vulnerable and being comfortable enough to show their vulnerable side is what they desire, yet here we have a feminist saying that, actually, being shy and timid isn’t a desirable trait at all. She then goes on to spout the ‘men are afraid of strong women’ quote, as if that explains every single instance in which a ‘strong’ woman doesn’t get asked out on a date. No questions along the lines of ‘men can’t be arsed with our self-entitled princess bullshit’. Nope, it’s all men’s fault simply because it’s never women’s fault.

‘It’s said that the male ego is as fragile as a woman’s heart and unfortunately for women, men won’t take the chance of letting it shatter. While women willingly put themselves out there, men stand back, scared of the tiniest bruise on their overinflated self-image. So yet again, women must be the strong ones. We must put ourselves out there and risk rejection. Because if we don’t do it, bars will soon be exactly like those middle school dances: boys on one side, girls on the other.’

Ah, some more shaming. How enlightened. Again, men showing vulnerability and a desire to protect their own feelings isn’t something Martin wants to celebrate. In fact, she just thinks it’s the worst thing ever, damn those men for not wanting to get their hearts broken, those selfish pieces of shit. God forbid a man doesn’t want to take some damage to his ego, especially when, to Martin, it’s something he needs to continue putting first as he’s so obviously not allowed to show any vulnerability.

Women willingly put themselves out there? That’s a funny thing to hear from a feminist who says she hates the fact she doesn’t get to go on free dates anymore. It must be so hard sitting at home eating food you’ve actually had to buy yourself. Damn those selfish men for not wanting to share their money with free-loading cunts, damn them to Hell.

Women must be the strong ones. Cool, it’s about time, welcome to equality sweetheart. Interestingly enough, most of my female friends who have asked somebody out themselves have been absolutely terrified of doing it. Now, I’m not saying that every women feels that but it’s incredibly difficult to put yourself at the mercy of someone else, especially someone you don’t know. Once women do it themselves I think they begin to understand exactly what men have been doing since the dawn of time.

It’s funny that Martin sees it as a negative when stating that women must now be strong, especially considering it doesn’t take much effort to sit there and wait for men to approach you and even more especially considering that being strong is what feminism is all about! It’s also funny that it’s a bad thing that women must risk rejection, considering this has been the plight of men for God knows how many years. We get used to it at a young age. Welcome to equality, sweetheart.

Martin laments the fact that women must ‘do it all’ – be the whore and the virgin, etc, etc while completely ignoring the fact she seems to be demanding the same of men – strong and outgoing yet sensitive and vulnerable. Funny how she’s only sees women as victims in this game.

I’m not going to dissect the rest of the article in the same way as above. Simply put, Martin, as a feminist, wants totally equality between the genders until it means losing something that benefits her as a woman. It’s a typical feminist line of thinking, not only do they have no qualms about being massive hypocrites it’s somehow not her fault when it comes to the dissolution of the qualities of life she enjoys.

She says stuff like But for the select few who didn’t teach them how to properly court a woman, well, shame on you’ when talking about mothers who raised these ‘weak men’. So, not only is she shaming men for not learning how to ‘court’ women, she’s shaming the women who didn’t raise their sons according to that pathetic feminist ethos. How enlightened.

She further shames these mothers by saying stuff like ‘Shame on you for giving them the idea that women must go to them’. Yes, shame on you poor excuses for mothers who taught your sons that they don’t need to be walking wallets for women to sponge off. Shame on you for teaching your sons that they don’t need women in their life to feel valued. Shame on you for actually realising that a truly equal society must deconstruct all facets of sexism, even the ‘benevolent’ ones that benefit women. I mean, to me, it seems like these mothers are the quintessential feminists; teaching their sons that, actually, women are just as capable, strong and outgoing as men and more than able to approach someone they like in a bar.

She finishes that paragraph on mothers with his corker: ‘Shame on you for making them believe all they had to do was stand at a bar and wait for a girl to appear on their arm.’ You mean, like mothers have been teaching their daughters for decades?

This whole article reeks of entitled bullshit. She implies throughout that women are the victims, constant victims, that women are smarter than men, that women are somehow able to see this shift in ‘the dating game’, that women are somehow made to feel left out by not being approached in bars. Not once does she even consider that women have played their part in what appears to be this breakdown between the sexes.

Not once does she consider that, as men are constantly told to change their attitude towards women, women are not given the same advice, not shamed in the same way. Recent polls have shown that women like benevolent sexism. I’m not surprised, wouldn’t you like to live in a world where everything you don’t like is sorted out, or at least attempted to be sorted out, while everything you like you get to keep, and a simple cry of ‘sexism’ puts paid to any real opposition.

Point is, this is the result of equality. As men are re-shaping the way they interact after years of being ‘told off’ for the way they were doing things, women have not kept up. Women haven’t kept up because they haven’t been told to keep up. It’s no surprise that they don’t like the way things are going because, ultimately, the average woman on the street doesn’t give a fuck about feminism.

Men’s behaviour is constantly being re-shaped by feminist narratives. Don’t sit with your legs too far apart, don’t walk into women on the street, don’t talk to women at bars, don’t you dare think about kissing a drunk girl, even if you’re drunk yourself.

Then, when men have finally thrown their arms up amid cries of ‘enough’ the average woman on the street, the one who’s brain isn’t a pile of stunted mush and who doesn’t see the mass problems feminism has ‘solved’ for them, suddenly realises that not only have men stopped being ‘chivalrous’ but that the ones who do desire to fulfill that caretaker role have been thoroughly shamed out of it.

She ends her article with stats on marriage. They’re declining, but we already knew that because we keep up to date with feminist whinge-merchants. Of course, Martin sees this as a bad thing, despite marriage being a ‘patriarchal structure’ that is rooted in the exchanging of women as material possessions. Surely feminists should be glad people are marrying less and less as it heralds the dissolution of one of the oldest forms of oppression that has ever existed. But not, Martin sees it as simply another example of the cowardice of modern men.

This is the way it goes. Men drop out of the dating game because they simply cannot win. If they show perseverance and determination it’s harassment, if they show vulnerability and weakness it’s undesirable. It wouldn’t be so bad if this kind of tosh wasn’t coming from the feminist movement, a movement that prides itself on its ability to change the world and make it better for women. Well, it isn’t making it better for anyone, all it does is drive a wedge between the sexes.

This is the kind of feminism that drives people away from the movement. This is the kind of feminism that proves feminists only care about men when they are doing exactly what feminists want. Ok, that’s slightly unfair, it’s not every feminist, but then it’s feminists like Lauren Martin who are constantly given the platform to unleash this shit on us. It’s feminists like Lauren Martin who are making it incredibly hard to believe NAFALT is a valid excuse. Feminism tells us they care about equality, but then take gender-neutral issues and make them gender-specific – mansplaining, manspreading, manslamming, etc. Yes, I’m well aware that there are feminists out there who genuinely want equality, but where are they? You only have to look at the comment section to see that women are also fed up of this bullshit, but those women are not given the platform that Lauren Martin is given.

Yes, not all women want to hark back to the chivalrous days of old, not all women will shame men for showing vulnerability when it comes to protecting their ego, but their voices, their experiences, their protestations are drowned in the sea of misandry that mainstream feminism promotes. Not all women, not all women. I can’t get across how much I don’t want to demonise women. Martin does give us a throwaway ‘NAMALT’ at the start of her piece, but I don’t believe it.

Genuinely, I don’t hate women, I hate narcissistic, self-entitled, whining little princess who don’t have the common fucking sense to look in a mirror and see where their problems begin. Sure, men can be absolute dicks when it comes to women, but to actually publish an article that blames men and actively tries to paint every single goddamn woman as some poor little victim not only insults men but insults the women who Martin claims to speak for but actually doesn’t.

Lauren Martin has written two articles, two, in the space of 12 months (ish) about how men are to blame for the dissolution of beneficial sexism. If feminism, particularly the mainstream, journalistic feminists, cared about men, why was she allowed to publish a second article so long after the first with no problems?

Men have their problems, but they are not the only problem. Until feminists grow the balls to admit that they, too, are part of the problem then their cries will only get worse and more damaging to the relations between the sexes. But then, you already knew that and I’m pretty sure they do, too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s