Mar 232013
 

If you’re not reading the This Is Why MGTOW blog, you should be.  The author of that blog, Cerberus Alpha, made a good point about Nazbol misandrists.  Here are some snippets from that post (although I recommend you read the whole thing):

I think it’s correct to state that most women are in the Nazbol camp by default, rather than being feminist or traditionalist. To be feminist or traditionalist, you have to be ideological (either political or religious), and attempt to frame everything in terms of how you view the world. Even if they are inconsistent (which they often are), they at least attempt to present their views consistently.

E.g. a feminist thinks that gender is socially constructed, and all inequality flows from this. To a feminist, women being paid less is therefore a major issue (despite it not being true any more, in fact young women are out-earning young men, and when you balance for women taking years out to have children, men more aggressively pursuing advancement, men and women choosing different fields of work, there is no disparity at all). But I digress; let’s humor them for a moment. ‘Unequal pay’ is a major issue because it prevents women from being as independent as they could be if they received the same pay as men.

Fair enough; nothing inconsistent so far. But if you ask your average feminist who should pay the bills, they tend to squirm and remain silent, or try to change the subject. They would like the autonomy that comes from men being providers, but they are aware of the inconsistency between this and their self-declared independence. So eventually, if you can withstand their rage and attempted evasions, you will get them to poutily admit that yes, going Dutch, splitting the bill, is the only way to be consistent with feminism, because the male provider role is directly connected to ‘patriarchy’ (again, we are humoring them; ‘patriarchy’ does not actually exist).

A traditionalist, on the other hand, believes the exact opposite to the feminists: she believes that male and female roles are naturally different, because that’s what God has decided, and/or time has proven that the traditional model of sex roles works. Thus, a traditionalist does not complain about ‘inequality’ – she believes that inequality is necessary and right.

Traditionalists are pretty much hated in the manosphere, for acting as though we still live in pre-feminist days. They tell men to ‘man up,’ and argue that we have a duty to provide for women, to sacrifice, even to die for women. Their views might be hopelessly anachronistic, but there is nothing inconsistent yet; they equally exhort women not to work outside the home, but to be good, traditional housewives. They recognize that the only way for them to be consistent, if they are going to make these demands on men, is to give men the leadership role within the family.

However, Nazbol misandrists have no regard for consistency whatsoever – they think that women should receive equal treatment, equal pay, be considered equal to men, etc. – and that men should still fulfill the provider role!

Trying to be completely consistent with either feminism or traditionalism runs into the same problem for most women.  In some way or another being a truly consistent feminist or traditionalist ends up with a negative impact on a woman.  This is why even a lot of self described feminist women and tradcon women will use twisted logic to get around these things.  (For example, when tradcon women talk about “male leadership”, they will use concepts like “servant-leadership” where male leadership is effectively nothing but being a chauffeur for women.)  Most women, instead, just don’t bother with consistency and choose the path of Nazbol misandry.

Most women, like most men, are not overtly ideological; they do not attempt to view the world through a single, narrow lens, and do not give too much thought to their worldview being consistent.

That’s why I say most women are Nazbol misandrists – they will demand equality when it comes to their paychecks, but then they demand chivalry when the bill comes. It doesn’t even matter that it’s inconsistent; it’s about what feels right to them. And what feels right, obviously, is being the ones who end up with more money. After all, if women are paid the same as men, but men are obliged to shell out more, who ends up richer? … Exactly. Most women, if only unconsciously, are female supremacists. After all, they want to be seen as ‘equal,’ ‘just as strong and capable,’ yet are unwilling to let go of the princess treatment that they feel is their natural right.

We can see this around the house, too. Women complain about men “not doing their share” of household chores. But then you realize they are referring only to certain chores – like cooking, ironing, and vacuuming. They conveniently omit chores like mowing the lawn, cleaning the car, changing the car’s oil, taking out the trash … tell me, have you ever once heard of a woman volunteering to do those chores? Or is it more likely that a woman who complains bitterly about men not doing enough ironing will dump a garbage bag in her husband’s arms and tell him to go take the trash out?

I think you get the point … they want equal help when it comes to their burdens, but they sure don’t want to take on part of yours.

So, now that traditionalism is dead, and given that feminism has only a limited appeal … it seems most women have embraced Nazbol misandry, because despite its inconsistencies, it serves their self-interest better than the other two. Why be consistent when you could “have it all,” and dump all your baggage in the arms of some poor shmuck? Why be content with being only ‘equal,’ when you could be ‘equal’ and ‘special’?

Understanding that most women are not overtly ideological is the key.  Most women don’t feel the need to hold themselves to an abstract ideological standard like feminism or traditionalism.  Like Cerberus Alpha says, it’s all about what “feels right” to women.  Unlike both feminism and traditionalism, Nazbol misandry always delivers what a woman wants whenever she wants it.  Neither feminism not traditionalism can do that for a woman, unless she is already oriented to those ideas.  And even then such a woman will try and get out of anything that negatively impacts her from either feminism or traditionalism with twisted logic and/or being evasive.

  18 Responses to “Most Women Aren’t Overtly Ideological”

  1. Women are very ideological. In every country, the subscribe to the ideas that give them the most power. They are sluts for power and will do or say anything to get more of it — including following feminism.

  2. I don’t believe there is ever a single woman who can resist being ideological …
    when she’s around the man/men she isn’t attracted to.
    Hint: Most women find only the top 10% of men really attractive.
    With every other guy she’s a blithering mass of needs and wants and he must provide.

    Perhaps the better question to ask is:
    How is it possible to accurately screen for a woman who sees you as a top 10% man?

    • That’s just it though – most men don’t screen. Most men live under the myth that women choose them and that if they’re either not getting as much as possible or not “settling down”, they’re losers.

      Most men live under the myth that because they have a penis and because women have a uterus, they’re in a perpetual state of horniness and women are in a perpetual state of chastity. The dirty little secret of course is that women want sex just as much as men do.

      Because of that, most men out there look for conquests and trophies rather than partners – by largely . Now this something men should never be deominsed for- we’re indoctrinated into a system where we’re told as children that we only have value as providers, protectors and shaggers, and the “stunning beauty” is simultaneously the carrot and source of shame dangled in from of us to make us fall into line – right from the age we’re told our first fair tales.

      What usually acts as a wakeup call is when men wind up with a physically beautiful woman, only to discover how hideous a person she is and we’re at best, used and discarded and at worst, the victims of domestic violence.

      Screening is easy to do once you ‘re at the right mindset, however getting there is slightly oxymoronic. What it requires is being able to throw off the shackles of how we have been socially conditioned and going against your instincts. In that process, it’s also crucial to never be afraid to put women t the test or to hesitate to walk away when it doesn’t feel right. Walking away in the early stages can either avoid misery or expose that maybe you made the right choice after all.

      My fiancee is a classic example of this. Initially I felt like things weren’t working when I was staying with her and I was packing up to go back interstate. Her response was if I wanted to do it, she would drive me back the 5 hours it was going to take for me to get me back home. She was deeply upset at the thought of it, yet he response was one of love and selflessness. That was an eye openning moment and one which told me that I was with a very special woman and on the right track.

      Our relationship has also been very counter-cultural. I’ve been a fully time uni student and been recovering from abuse and a vicous assult that should have left me either dead or a vegetable, while she’s happily been the breadwinner in the relationship (it’s been long distance but we’ve seen each other quite regularly and I spend holidays with her).

      Now I know the risks and I go into marriage with her, with my eyes wide open. I have no illusions about the risks I face in terms of family courts, domestic violence, including primary aggressor laws and false allegaions amongst other things. However after 2 and a half years when I popped the question (a little over a year ago now), I knew that even though the risks were there, that with her they were calculated risks and that I can trust her enough to take them with her. In fact her only opposition to my being a MRA is because she hates seeing what I endure sometimes (I think because she feels helpless when I do get badly wounded in some of the battles I fight)

      I don’t know if that helps, but hopefully it gives you some ideas.

      • The prevailing question to Our relationship has also been very counter-cultural. is coming up…
        Is she Asian and are you Caucasian?

        • Nope both caucasian as strange as that will sound to many in the manosphere reading this. Caucasian women who are “safe marriage risks” are out there. They’re quite rare, but they are out there.

        • Impressive, and DOES SHE HAVE A SISTER … is the next question that turns up in my mind …

        • Heh, unfortunately not- just a younger brother I’m afraid.

  3. The fallacy here is that traditionalism and feminism have been isolated, when in fact that are at their core, based entirely on the paradigm of female-infantalisation and male disposabiltiy. That paradigm has remained cconstant in society. What has changed however is that science and technology, have increased the scope of just what is “safe” under a paternalist mindset. It is far from a coincidence that women have moved further into the workforce as jobs have become safer and that it is men by far and large, who are still treated disposably whenever society requires it.

    People need to stop thinking of feminism as being the opposite to traditionalism but rather the scope which traditionalist gender paradigms have given women as various aspects of society have become far less dangerous for women.

  4. This is correct. They jump from one paradigm to the other depending on whatever is most advantageous to them at the time, often bending the rules of logic and consistency like a pretzel.

    • On the contrary, the facade might change, but if you examine the paradigm of female infantalisation, you’ll find that what you’re actually seeing is their whims changing and being provided for. Under the paradigm of female infantalisation, men must arbitrarily provide for not only a woman’s physical needs, but her emotional needs.

      Certainly the premise of a woman’s argument’s may change when dealing with a feminist or a female traditionalist. However the underlying paradigm remains constant.

      • Male victims are told “suck it up and be a man”.
        Female victims are told “if others can’t be sympathetic to you, there’s something wrong with them”.
        It’s no wonder why there are many female narcissists, there is good reason to believe women want the men(they don’t like) to pay for their own previous bad choices.

        • It will continue to be that way until we as a society truly understand what male and female privilege are in society and what a sweet poison they truly are.

          So how do I define privilege – privilege is the set of superficial “freedoms” assigned to men and women to create the illusion that the dehumanising sexual objectification men and women are subjected to under the paradigm of male-disposability and female-infantalisation, is both positive and actually designed to cause self-actualisation and authentic personal growth.

          However such an approach would require actually engaging in a definition debate with feminists (rather than simply debunking their arguments as fallacy) and that’s something the MRM has largely failed at doing.

  5. which explains why even feminists acknowledge that feminism is a dirty word and will sometimes refuse to call themselves feminists, but do nothing to combat misandrist laws that favor them at the expense of men.

    • That’s an oversimplification. Certainly that’s an issue, but you’re mkissing the bigger issue driving it. What do tradtionalist attitudes towards masculinity say about male victims of any kind – including of legal injustice? Quite simply put it either dismisses male victim-hood or treats it as a perpetual impossiblity. When feminists respond in a similar way, they’re merely manipulating the traditionalist “status quo” like the rest of feminism in its entirety.

      It is precisely for this reason that whenever someone claims that all of men’s problems will go away by simply undoing the misandry of feminism, I will call them out on it every single time. Feminism is nothing more than a parasite leeching off of traditionalism – the real enemy of men. Until we collectively start significantly attacking that enemy as well and making it clear that it is impossible to be both a staunch traditionalist and a supporter of mens rights, then the pre-existing misandy which feminism plays on will continue to be perpetuated by society.

  6. Thanks for the plug; I really appreciate it!

    I have a very important post today, relevant to everyone in the MRM and the manosphere:

    http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/kristina-hansen-attacking-mrm-unity.html

  7. What doesn’t that Traditionalist snake Keyster get called out more often?
    The dude completely supports male disposability. Fuck him.

  8. […] they had the choice, would choose part time employment.  This makes sense when you consider that most women are nazbol misandrist by default.  The mommy wars are about women working full time vs. being mothers full time, but most women […]

Leave a Reply to Andrew Richards Cancel reply

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: